4 ms·

what do you mean by "thanks to state support"? please clarify, thanks.

by rdr 17y ago

johnnybgoode 17y ago
The state confers special privileges on degree holders that are denied to everyone else. It also regulates, funds, and grants degrees itself. Examples include credential requirements for many different occupations, licensing laws, and job eligibility. Of course, there are also the more "unofficial" effects of these policies. Credentialism is widespread in society thanks in no small part to the massive, state-funded school system.
- philwelch 17y ago
  That doesn't make it a title of nobility, especially since the government also grants things like military commissions, presidential medals of freedom, and appointments to high positions all the time, all of which are more similar to titles of nobility than university degrees. Either you're speaking metaphorically or you're pushing some crank theory, I can't tell which.
  - johnnybgoode 17y ago
    Instead of trying to define by example, let's use an actual definition: "A title of nobility grants special legal privileges to an individual at the expense of the rest of the people." If you have a different definition, that's fine, of course. Then we're just down to semantics, and I guess you could say I'm speaking metaphorically. But I hope you're not just excluding certain titles because they don't fit the preconceived idea of a title of nobility in most people's minds.
    - philwelch 17y ago
      Did you just make up that definition or do you have a citation? Because that definition isn't particularly useful: for instance, any elected or appointed office would then qualify as a "title of nobility"--a police officer has the legal privilege to execute warrants, detain people, and carry arms at the expense of the rest of the people (who must subsidize his training, equipment, operating expenses, and salary). That's not the constitutional definition by any means. Inventing a deliberately weak definition and declaring victory isn't an especially effective or honest debating tactic.
      - deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
      - johnnybgoode 17y ago
        You don't have to accuse me of lying or being dishonest. I admit the majority is on your side, but I'm more interested in accuracy than how useful something is for you. I'm not the first person to use such a definition. Here is one from over a century ago, from an opinion in a court case from Alabama: "To "confer a title of nobility" is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed to be attached than to the otherwise empty title or order. Horst v. Moses, 48 Ala. 129, 142." Again, if you have a different definition, fine. But don't accuse me of being dishonest when it's quite clear mine is at least as valid.
        philwelch 17y ago
        The words may be the same, but the meaning is significantly different, and I have little interest in whatever sophistry you intend to pursue in order to support your crankish opinion that university degrees are unconstitutional. Incidentally, "nominate to an order of persons" is probably the operative text there, and is something that you probably neglected to include in your earlier definition. I do not think that Alabama court of a century ago, or indeed the drafters of the Constitution, intended university degrees to count as a title of nobility. Especially since many of them founded universities themselves.
        johnnybgoode 17y ago
        I never even mentioned the Constitution, so that's not my argument. You probably assumed I was talking about the Constitution when I said titles of nobility were supposed to have been abolished. In fact, I was referring to the idea that our society is supposed to be an egalitarian one (in a legal sense). As for the rest of your post, it no longer seems relevant.
        17y ago
- anamax 17y ago
  > Examples include [degree] credential requirements for many different occupations, licensing laws, and job eligibility. Many? I can come up with law, medicine, professional engineer, architect, and CPA. What else do you have in mind?
  - stonemetal 17y ago
    Teachers have degree requirements for licensing. I am sure there are others.
    - anamax 17y ago
      How about some more? Adding "teacher" to my list leaves us closer to "few" than "many". Note that the vast majority of engineers aren't licensed....
      - stonemetal 17y ago
        going back to the original statement of "Examples include credential requirements for many different occupations, licensing laws, and job eligibility." Licensing laws cover plumbers, electricians, massage therapists,barbers, air conditioning contractors, auctioneers, boxing (judges, promoter, referees, boxers themselves, managers), cosmetologist(and their schools), tow truck drivers, moving companies, temp agencies, elevator contractors and inspectors.
        anamax 17y ago
        >> going back to the original statement of "Examples include credential requirements for many different occupations, licensing laws, and job eligibility." Yes, let's. One of the claims was that there were credential requirements for many different occupations. (Licensing for other things is a separate claim.) I've listed a couple of examples and we're nowhere near many. I'm perfectly willing to agree that state imposed licensing is widespread, but that's a separate claim. I note that licensing is largely independent of public supported schools.
- joeyo 17y ago
  This is an interesting argument. Do you have an alternative method in mind for aiding people to figure out who might be qualified to perform certain types of skilled labor? For example, imagine that universities can no longer confer the noble title of medical doctor. How shall I determine who to select to remove my gallbladder?
  - johnnybgoode 17y ago
    Yes, and I'm sure others will, too. For example, perhaps, after the barriers have been removed, a new school has popped up which has a better way of training doctors. They are allowed to teach in ways that were not allowed before. Doctors from this school go on to perform exceptionally well and have a proven track record. You hear about them from satisfied patients and ratings organizations (like Consumer Reports). Their medical procedures are insured by a company that also highly recommends them. You select one of them. Or, perhaps you prefer some sort of alternative medicine. Using whatever criteria you choose, you are allowed to have a procedure done regardless of whether or not your doctor has a title. After all, the majority is wrong sometimes.
    - joeyo 17y ago
      It seems that all that this does is shift the effective grant of title of nobility from the university to Consumer Reports or to the insurance company or to Yelp-for-doctors.
      - johnnybgoode 17y ago
        No, there are some very significant differences. First, there isn't any reason there would only be one ratings organization, one insurance company, and one Yelp-for-doctors. You would be able to reject or accept the rating of any person or organization, and so would everyone else. Second (but related to the first difference), the main problem with a title of nobility is that it grants legal privileges, thereby erecting legal barriers for others. That doesn't happen in this scenario.
        17y ago
rdr 17y ago
all of these name-brand colleges are private, so if the state has a role in all of this, it's quite indirect, right? of course the government has a role in accredidation, grants, laws, etc., but it's hard to imagine eliminating those ... sorry, i don't want to get into a debate on libertarianism ;)
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  Well, they are private in name only. They are massively funded by the state, both directly and indirectly through exclusive student funding grants. The degrees they grant have the same special status as those granted by "public" schools, and they are regulated the same way. I don't think this is an exclusively libertarian issue. Your original question could be generalized to include all titles of nobility, and that seems relevant because one of the purposes of such titles is to make titleholders feel superior, thereby making others feel inferior. In other words, you don't have to be a libertarian to oppose titles of nobility.
  - wglb 17y ago
    Except for hillsdale college in Michigan which makes a point of taking zero government dollars for anything, including scholarships. Not huge, but truly private. http://www.hillsdale.edu/support/default.asp http://www.hillsdale.edu/support/default.asp
    - johnnybgoode 17y ago
      That's laudable, but it looks like the college still has state-approved accreditation, so what I said still applies.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  I took 'brand name' to mean any college with an excellent reputation in its field, not just the private Ivy League colleges. A degree in physics from UC Berkeley (semi-public) is nothing to sneeze at, for example.

what do you mean by "thanks to state support"? please clarify, thanks.

by rdr 17y ago

what do you mean by "thanks to state support"? please clarify, thanks.

The state confers special privileges on degree holders that are denied to everyone else. It also regulates, funds, and grants degrees itself. Examples include credential requirements for many different occupations, licensing laws, and job eligibility. Of course, there are also the more "unofficial" effects of these policies. Credentialism is widespread in society thanks in no small part to the massive, state-funded school system.

philwelch 17y ago
That doesn't make it a title of nobility, especially since the government also grants things like military commissions, presidential medals of freedom, and appointments to high positions all the time, all of which are more similar to titles of nobility than university degrees. Either you're speaking metaphorically or you're pushing some crank theory, I can't tell which.
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  Instead of trying to define by example, let's use an actual definition: "A title of nobility grants special legal privileges to an individual at the expense of the rest of the people." If you have a different definition, that's fine, of course. Then we're just down to semantics, and I guess you could say I'm speaking metaphorically. But I hope you're not just excluding certain titles because they don't fit the preconceived idea of a title of nobility in most people's minds.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    Did you just make up that definition or do you have a citation? Because that definition isn't particularly useful: for instance, any elected or appointed office would then qualify as a "title of nobility"--a police officer has the legal privilege to execute warrants, detain people, and carry arms at the expense of the rest of the people (who must subsidize his training, equipment, operating expenses, and salary). That's not the constitutional definition by any means. Inventing a deliberately weak definition and declaring victory isn't an especially effective or honest debating tactic.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    - johnnybgoode 17y ago
      You don't have to accuse me of lying or being dishonest. I admit the majority is on your side, but I'm more interested in accuracy than how useful something is for you. I'm not the first person to use such a definition. Here is one from over a century ago, from an opinion in a court case from Alabama: "To "confer a title of nobility" is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed to be attached than to the otherwise empty title or order. Horst v. Moses, 48 Ala. 129, 142." Again, if you have a different definition, fine. But don't accuse me of being dishonest when it's quite clear mine is at least as valid.
      - philwelch 17y ago
        The words may be the same, but the meaning is significantly different, and I have little interest in whatever sophistry you intend to pursue in order to support your crankish opinion that university degrees are unconstitutional. Incidentally, "nominate to an order of persons" is probably the operative text there, and is something that you probably neglected to include in your earlier definition. I do not think that Alabama court of a century ago, or indeed the drafters of the Constitution, intended university degrees to count as a title of nobility. Especially since many of them founded universities themselves.
        johnnybgoode 17y ago
        I never even mentioned the Constitution, so that's not my argument. You probably assumed I was talking about the Constitution when I said titles of nobility were supposed to have been abolished. In fact, I was referring to the idea that our society is supposed to be an egalitarian one (in a legal sense). As for the rest of your post, it no longer seems relevant.
        17y ago
anamax 17y ago
> Examples include [degree] credential requirements for many different occupations, licensing laws, and job eligibility. Many? I can come up with law, medicine, professional engineer, architect, and CPA. What else do you have in mind?
- stonemetal 17y ago
  Teachers have degree requirements for licensing. I am sure there are others.
  - anamax 17y ago
    How about some more? Adding "teacher" to my list leaves us closer to "few" than "many". Note that the vast majority of engineers aren't licensed....
    - stonemetal 17y ago
      going back to the original statement of "Examples include credential requirements for many different occupations, licensing laws, and job eligibility." Licensing laws cover plumbers, electricians, massage therapists,barbers, air conditioning contractors, auctioneers, boxing (judges, promoter, referees, boxers themselves, managers), cosmetologist(and their schools), tow truck drivers, moving companies, temp agencies, elevator contractors and inspectors.
      - anamax 17y ago
        >> going back to the original statement of "Examples include credential requirements for many different occupations, licensing laws, and job eligibility." Yes, let's. One of the claims was that there were credential requirements for many different occupations. (Licensing for other things is a separate claim.) I've listed a couple of examples and we're nowhere near many. I'm perfectly willing to agree that state imposed licensing is widespread, but that's a separate claim. I note that licensing is largely independent of public supported schools.
joeyo 17y ago
This is an interesting argument. Do you have an alternative method in mind for aiding people to figure out who might be qualified to perform certain types of skilled labor? For example, imagine that universities can no longer confer the noble title of medical doctor. How shall I determine who to select to remove my gallbladder?
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  Yes, and I'm sure others will, too. For example, perhaps, after the barriers have been removed, a new school has popped up which has a better way of training doctors. They are allowed to teach in ways that were not allowed before. Doctors from this school go on to perform exceptionally well and have a proven track record. You hear about them from satisfied patients and ratings organizations (like Consumer Reports). Their medical procedures are insured by a company that also highly recommends them. You select one of them. Or, perhaps you prefer some sort of alternative medicine. Using whatever criteria you choose, you are allowed to have a procedure done regardless of whether or not your doctor has a title. After all, the majority is wrong sometimes.
  - joeyo 17y ago
    It seems that all that this does is shift the effective grant of title of nobility from the university to Consumer Reports or to the insurance company or to Yelp-for-doctors.
    - johnnybgoode 17y ago
      No, there are some very significant differences. First, there isn't any reason there would only be one ratings organization, one insurance company, and one Yelp-for-doctors. You would be able to reject or accept the rating of any person or organization, and so would everyone else. Second (but related to the first difference), the main problem with a title of nobility is that it grants legal privileges, thereby erecting legal barriers for others. That doesn't happen in this scenario.
      - 17y ago

rdr 17y ago

all of these name-brand colleges are private, so if the state has a role in all of this, it's quite indirect, right? of course the government has a role in accredidation, grants, laws, etc., but it's hard to imagine eliminating those ... sorry, i don't want to get into a debate on libertarianism ;)

johnnybgoode 17y ago
Well, they are private in name only. They are massively funded by the state, both directly and indirectly through exclusive student funding grants. The degrees they grant have the same special status as those granted by "public" schools, and they are regulated the same way. I don't think this is an exclusively libertarian issue. Your original question could be generalized to include all titles of nobility, and that seems relevant because one of the purposes of such titles is to make titleholders feel superior, thereby making others feel inferior. In other words, you don't have to be a libertarian to oppose titles of nobility.
- wglb 17y ago
  Except for hillsdale college in Michigan which makes a point of taking zero government dollars for anything, including scholarships. Not huge, but truly private. http://www.hillsdale.edu/support/default.asp http://www.hillsdale.edu/support/default.asp
  - johnnybgoode 17y ago
    That's laudable, but it looks like the college still has state-approved accreditation, so what I said still applies.
anigbrowl 17y ago
I took 'brand name' to mean any college with an excellent reputation in its field, not just the private Ivy League colleges. A degree in physics from UC Berkeley (semi-public) is nothing to sneeze at, for example.