shawn sent the following on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:12:58 -0400:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:19:11 -0500, Jim G.
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >shawn sent the following on Mon, 29 Oct 2012 20:38:26 -0400:
> >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:32:58 -0400, "Obveeus" <
Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In any case, I'd like for candidates to be required to release their
> >> >> transcripts. I'm their employer,
> >> >
> >> >Agreed...and complete work history and church memberships and club
> >> >memberships and criminal history records and many years worth of tax returns
> >> >given the nature of the job.
> >>
> >> I think giving a number of years (2 is certainly not enough) of tax
> >> returns would be useful once we get down to the actual race between
> >> the parties nominee and out of the silly circus that makes up the race
> >> for nomination by the political parties.
> >
> >IMO, and on the tax front, all anyone needs to know is that the person
> >is in good standing with the IRS. How much money someone has made in the
> >past is not indicative of how well s/he will do as president, but
> >whether that person actually has a degree (and what his/her grades were)
> >will always be important to me for a position of this type.
>
> No, but it is something that the press can use to investigate the past
> of the nominees. (This applies to everyone including any
> Libertarian/Green/Tea Party nominees.)
But if a candidate is in good standing with the IRS, then what is there
to investigate about that person in terms of his taxes? I'm obviously
missing something here.
> I don't know that I'm worried
> about the grades twenty years after graduation but knowing that a
> person graduated would be nice to know.
Right. Especially if they claim more than is true.
> Of course we ALWAYS know
> whether a person has graduated from college because they will have
> used that in their past campaigns.
Yeah, but you'd be surprised how often hearsay becomes "proof." A lot of
people exaggerate or outright lie about their past accomplishments, and
it's not as if the academic background checks are always all that
thorough for a low-level municipal candidate of one type or another. And
while you'd think that the person wouldn't push his or her luck on that
front, you'd be surprised. Heck, there was an ND football coach who
lasted all of several days for just that sort of problem; he listed an
academic achievement that he just didn't have, and it slipped past
everyone prior to ND doing its due diligence (if a bit late with said
diligence).
> >> >> after all, and since I require those
> >> >> transcripts when it comes to other people in my own modest corner of the
> >> >> professional world, I fail to see why such a thing is not required for
> >> >> the person who wants to be the most powerful individual on the planet.
> >> >
> >> >The problem is, it only seems to be half the voters that think any
> >> >particular bit of info should be required to be released...and the half
> >> >depends largely on which side they intend to vote for.
> >> >
> >> I think it's a waste of time as by the time someone is running for
> >> President they have long past their time in high school/college.
For better or worse, it's considered *eternally* relevant in the rest of
the professional world if you're changing jobs, so I don't know why it
should be less so for the person seeking to be the most powerful person
on the planet.
> >People in the private sector are routinely limited in their job options
> >if they don't have that diploma, even if they have decades of solid work
> >experience. I really don't think that the standards should be *lower*
> >for the most powerful person on the planet.
>
> But many companies don't care whether you have a diploma or not IFF
> you can do the job. Especially if you are better at it than many
> others with a degree.
That's simply not true. It *should* be, IMO, but it's not. Many, many
companies will instantly put your résumé in the garbage pile if they
have a degree requirement and you don't have that degree. And many will
require you to bring transcripts to the interview, in fact. No
transcripts, no interview.
> A degree is a sign that you can fulfill certain
> requirements and may have gained certain knowledge that a person may
> not have gained otherwise. That doesn't mean someone that hasn't
> gained a degree can't complete a complex task or gained the same sort
> of knowledge. It's just much harder to do that without attending
> college. Though with the costs going up every year it may become more
> of an issue going forward as we are reaching a point where lower
> income individuals may find it impossible to attend college of any
> kind, let alone the better regarded schools.
Again, for better or worse, it's how it's done. That degree (or lack
thereof) is one of the first filters for *any* professional position.