3 ms·

> A law degree is great thing for a leader to have, but not sufficient A law degree has an opportunity cost. That's a bunch of years you didn't spend learning

> A law degree is great thing for a leader to have, but not sufficient A law degree has an opportunity cost. That's a bunch of years you didn't spend learning something else. Is that the best thing you could have spent that time learning? Bear in mind that a huge proportion of our politicians have law degrees. If we had as few people with law degrees as have backgrounds in statistics or economics or engineering then sure, we'd want more -- but we are in no immediate danger of that.

state_less 10y ago
Lawyers value and spend more time training themselves on breaking apart flimsy arguments and constructing good ones. Yes I do think this skill is worth the opportunity cost. And one of the skills to be learned early, so subsequent knowledge can be placed on solid footing. As an aside, given I had to learn what little I know of argumentation on my own, I wonder if this is a coincidence or something intentionally kept out of the minds of the populace to disempower? Anyway, I'd be in favor of a higher proportion of STEM reps. Beware, I think you'd find STEM folks who would/do ignore facts that don't support their pet conclusion. Integrity is critical in these roles in any case. I wish people were a better judge of character.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Is that the best thing you could have spent that time learning? If you are going to be writing laws and evaluating the practical impact of proposed laws written by others? Yes, learning law is pretty much the most relevant thing you can learn. Political science, public policy, public administration, economics, finance (both public and private), international relations, history, and game theory in any context are also quite broadly useful. (And while most of those are fields you could get a degree in, they have substantial overlap.) Most STEM subjects are pretty far from being broadly useful; each would be relevant to a small minority of the work of any legislator (and even where it was relevant, multiple of the previously mentioned fields would also be relevant.)

state_less 10y ago

Lawyers value and spend more time training themselves on breaking apart flimsy arguments and constructing good ones. Yes I do think this skill is worth the opportunity cost. And one of the skills to be learned early, so subsequent knowledge can be placed on solid footing. As an aside, given I had to learn what little I know of argumentation on my own, I wonder if this is a coincidence or something intentionally kept out of the minds of the populace to disempower? Anyway, I'd be in favor of a higher proportion of STEM reps. Beware, I think you'd find STEM folks who would/do ignore facts that don't support their pet conclusion. Integrity is critical in these roles in any case. I wish people were a better judge of character.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Is that the best thing you could have spent that time learning? If you are going to be writing laws and evaluating the practical impact of proposed laws written by others? Yes, learning law is pretty much the most relevant thing you can learn. Political science, public policy, public administration, economics, finance (both public and private), international relations, history, and game theory in any context are also quite broadly useful. (And while most of those are fields you could get a degree in, they have substantial overlap.) Most STEM subjects are pretty far from being broadly useful; each would be relevant to a small minority of the work of any legislator (and even where it was relevant, multiple of the previously mentioned fields would also be relevant.)