3 ms·

The thing is that I don't care if a politician has a background in STEM subjects - in fact, if they have a STEM background, I prefer they also have a political

The thing is that I don't care if a politician has a background in STEM subjects - in fact, if they have a STEM background, I prefer they also have a political science background or something that has to do with public policy. It doesn't need to be a formal degree if the person has a long history of political experience. This is for state level or higher. Local elections I doubt it matters so much. I do, however, fully expect elected officials to take those in the STEM fields seriously and listen to their advice like they would listen to any expert. I do want the elected officals to appoint STEM folks to the appropriate departments. I want someone well-versed in science to head the EPA and the like. Similarly, I want someone with teaching experience (and confidence in bettering public education) to head education. And so on.

twoodfin 10y ago
And you'd like a banker running the SEC, of course?
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  With that position, I'd prefer co-chairs. For one, I'd prefer an economist with an intimate knowledge of banking, actually, who is paid a decent wage in hopes to better deflect corruption. For the other, a consumer rights specialist. Alternatively, a banker is acceptable, as is someone well versed in the ins and outs of banking - but of course, there is the little issue of bankers not exactly being trusted because of ... well, history.
  - trentmb 10y ago
    Perhaps a triumverate, the economist, consumer rights advocate, and a banker?
    - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
      That would work as well. Banking is an odd place, very ripe for corruption, self-gain, and one-sided vision. What is good for one side isn't necessarily good for the other. The main point is to balance some of these things and not wreck the economy in the process. There are some folks that are capable of balancing this stuff on their own, but there is no promise that these same individuals will go into public service - in fact, they might be more useful in other sectors. Just seems easier to have some balance by design.
- princeb 10y ago
  yes. experience and deep familiarity with the industry a person is regulating is extremely important. finance or not.
eatbitseveryday 10y ago
> I want someone well-versed in science to head the EPA and the like. Similarly, I want someone with teaching experience (and confidence in bettering public education) to head education. And so on. Canada's Cabinet [1] is diverse and the positions are individuals representative of those fields. Quoting from the article: > The defence minister, Harjit Sajjan, a decorated lieutenant-colonel in the Canadian armed forces, was the first Sikh Canadian to command an army regiment > appointing two Aboriginal politicians to cabinet, along with indigenous affairs minister, Carolyn Bennett > The veterans affairs minister, Kent Hehr, has also overcome adversity to get to his current role. A one-time hockey player, he was struck in the neck by a bullet in a drive-by shooting, and rendered paraplegic in his early 20s. He went on to become a lawyer and an advocate for the disabled before jumping into provincial, and now federal politics. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/05/canada-diverse-cabinet-includes-astronaut-badass-colonel https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/05/canada-diverse...
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  I have respect for Trudeau, in part because of this.
- dingaling 10y ago
  > Canada's Cabinet [1] is diverse and the positions are individuals representative of those fields. I don't know if that's necessarily a good thing. Secretaries of State are supposed to be advisers to the {elected|appointed|self-selected} leader of the Government. If they already have some personal 'skin in the game' then that may influence the advice they give, rather than listening to their experts and selecting the options that are best for the country. For example a Lt Col certainly knows how a regiment of 5000 men works, but why should that qualify him to advise a Prime Minister on, say, the strategic implications of nuclear deterrence? He's going to have to go and ask the experts first. In that example it might actually be better to appoint him to a totally different department, so one still benefits from his management skills but he in turn has to start from a blank slate without preconceptions.

twoodfin 10y ago

And you'd like a banker running the SEC, of course?

Broken_Hippo 10y ago
With that position, I'd prefer co-chairs. For one, I'd prefer an economist with an intimate knowledge of banking, actually, who is paid a decent wage in hopes to better deflect corruption. For the other, a consumer rights specialist. Alternatively, a banker is acceptable, as is someone well versed in the ins and outs of banking - but of course, there is the little issue of bankers not exactly being trusted because of ... well, history.
- trentmb 10y ago
  Perhaps a triumverate, the economist, consumer rights advocate, and a banker?
  - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
    That would work as well. Banking is an odd place, very ripe for corruption, self-gain, and one-sided vision. What is good for one side isn't necessarily good for the other. The main point is to balance some of these things and not wreck the economy in the process. There are some folks that are capable of balancing this stuff on their own, but there is no promise that these same individuals will go into public service - in fact, they might be more useful in other sectors. Just seems easier to have some balance by design.
princeb 10y ago
yes. experience and deep familiarity with the industry a person is regulating is extremely important. finance or not.

eatbitseveryday 10y ago

> I want someone well-versed in science to head the EPA and the like. Similarly, I want someone with teaching experience (and confidence in bettering public education) to head education. And so on. Canada's Cabinet [1] is diverse and the positions are individuals representative of those fields. Quoting from the article: > The defence minister, Harjit Sajjan, a decorated lieutenant-colonel in the Canadian armed forces, was the first Sikh Canadian to command an army regiment > appointing two Aboriginal politicians to cabinet, along with indigenous affairs minister, Carolyn Bennett > The veterans affairs minister, Kent Hehr, has also overcome adversity to get to his current role. A one-time hockey player, he was struck in the neck by a bullet in a drive-by shooting, and rendered paraplegic in his early 20s. He went on to become a lawyer and an advocate for the disabled before jumping into provincial, and now federal politics. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/05/canada-diverse-cabinet-includes-astronaut-badass-colonel https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/05/canada-diverse...

Broken_Hippo 10y ago
I have respect for Trudeau, in part because of this.
dingaling 10y ago
> Canada's Cabinet [1] is diverse and the positions are individuals representative of those fields. I don't know if that's necessarily a good thing. Secretaries of State are supposed to be advisers to the {elected|appointed|self-selected} leader of the Government. If they already have some personal 'skin in the game' then that may influence the advice they give, rather than listening to their experts and selecting the options that are best for the country. For example a Lt Col certainly knows how a regiment of 5000 men works, but why should that qualify him to advise a Prime Minister on, say, the strategic implications of nuclear deterrence? He's going to have to go and ask the experts first. In that example it might actually be better to appoint him to a totally different department, so one still benefits from his management skills but he in turn has to start from a blank slate without preconceptions.