Scott Walker doesn't have a college degree.

[Mordecai]

http://swampland.time.com/2013/11/19/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-a-2016-contender-but-not-a-college-graduate/?iid=sl-article-mostpop1

Is this a negative, irrelevant, or a positive?

Irrelevant. He's 46 years old, there are other things that should be looked at first before a college degree (like being a state governor). He dropped out to work for IBM and the American Red Cross, so it's not like he flunked out. Not voting for him just because he doesn't have a college degree is a pretty weak excuse.

Lol at people saying this makes him "less qualified". I guess Romney should have been President instead of Obama, because Romney had three degrees and Obama only had two?

[Mordecai]

Lol at people saying this makes him "less qualified". I guess Romney should have been President instead of Obama, because Romney had three degrees and Obama only had two?

The idea isn't that the more degrees you have, the more qualified you are. It is about setting a minimum standard that qualifies you to run for president. Some believe that in most cases, they should at least have a college degree (like many private sector jobs do).

Yeah but the logical extension of that idea is more degrees = more qualified. If, as some people in this thread have posited, the bachelor's degree is the baseline, wouldn't you then want to be looking for people with postgraduate education (above the baseline) as opposed to just a bachelor's?

IMO, unless they have shown in their career to be an exceptionally bright person (whether through the private sector or a long/effective career in government), then I'd have a hard time voting for a candidate without a degree. I don't want "Average Joe" running the most powerful country in the entire world, I want them to be intelligent and capable and at least on paper, a college degree is one way that indicates that more than a lack of one.

If a person with no college degree won the Republican (or Democratic) Party nomination for President, then that would practically ensure they were exceptional. Otherwise, they wouldn't have won the nomination.

[Mordecai]

No, because that would be moving the baseline up. Post graduate education is definitely a plus in my opinion, because it solidifies the academic credentials they have. But that would be part of a larger resume that would include experience as well (which, for a lot of people, will in a way be dependent on their college degree, since many professional jobs require one)

Not really, no. The bachelor's degree is the baseline for consideration and then when you look at the two candidates, you look above the baseline.

Education is just a part of the resume, but it is still an important part regardless and shouldn't be dismissed just because some people dislike "elitism."

Education isn't synonymous with a college degree. You can have not gone to college and still be educated. Like through life experience, a career in the private sector and/or a career in government. Learning doesn't end when you leave college.

No, it wouldn't. Campaigning/getting votes does not reflect your ability to be a good President, and it certainly doesn't indicate that you are an exceptionally intelligent or capable individual. A lot of elections have personal charisma/likability and style playing a huge role in the success of the candidate, not necessarily substance.

Yes it would. If they are able to beat every candidate in their party primaries and then beat the other guy in the general election without a college degree that's pretty exceptional. It would also basically guarantee that they were in your words "an exceptionally bright person" to be in that position, unless you seriously think some "Average Joe" could actually win the party nomination and the general election (lol).

That's like saying if you give a starving homeless guy a sandwich that means you also want to feed people sandwiches until they are morbidly obese.  Look up the law of diminishing return and marginal utility.  This is why people need to go to school.

Lol no. If a bachelor's degree is indeed the accepted "baseline" for any sort of meaningful job then postgraduate education would be preferred right? That's not a huge leap from starving to obese.

[Mordecai]

No, because as I have said (but you didn't acknowledge clearly), there are other things to look at other than education, like experiences in their career.

So then why couldn't you do that first instead of looking back several decades to see whether or not they graduated from college?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, you exclusively relegated education to having attended college, which I'm saying is inaccurate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said that though. I said that the primaries would filter out the duds and ensure "Average Joe" wouldn't get anywhere near the nominations for the two major parties. You also forget the role that the media plays in picking up gaffes.