Legally? No.
But is this something that voters have just come to expect? Is it fair for voters to "ding" Scott Walker for not having a college degree?
I only bring up Walker as an example because it seems like voters have a muddled list of criteria used to determine if someone is "qualified" or not, none of which is in the Constitution.
So should things like this matter?
- Governor or Congressional experience?
- Went to the "name" schools?
- Physically Attractive?
- "have a beer with"-ability?
- Military/foreign policy experience?
Are these "qualifications" shutting out otherwise solid candidates?
I don't care where they went but I want my POTUS to have a 4 year degree. The exposure to varying ideas, peoples, and thought processes is priceless for a job that leads a dynamic country/world.
I've always believed that a President should have combat experience so that he'll know what it is like to have been in harm's way when he commits our troops to battle.
Being a governor does serve as the minor league for development of many administrative, political and PR skills.
I'd rather have someone with an MBA than a law degree. A practicing MD shows that they could get through the rigors of an internship and residency.
I think attractiveness matters but only in the sense of apparent robustness and good health. Being articulate helps quite a bit. As Joe Biden said: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."
As an aside, I've always believed that that Obama's choice to not have facial hair was a very smart move.
Is releasing your college transcripts a requirement for POTUS?
I want someone with executive experience. Someone with whom the buck has stopped and is experienced in making hard decisions.
Preferably somebody who's pumped his/her own gas in the previous decade.
(03-21-2014 12:38 PM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]I want someone with executive experience. Someone with whom the buck has stopped and is experienced in making hard decisions.
That didnt answer the op's main question.
(03-21-2014 12:34 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote: [ -> ]As an aside, I've always believed that that Obama's choice to not have facial hair was a very smart move.
Now that you mention it, I completely agree.
(03-21-2014 12:39 PM)JDTulane Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2014 12:38 PM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]I want someone with executive experience. Someone with whom the buck has stopped and is experienced in making hard decisions.
That didnt answer the op's main question.
So, let's get down to the bare bones.
To be president you have to be a natural born US citizen over the age of 35.
So, who you got?
(03-21-2014 12:24 PM)JDTulane Wrote: [ -> ]I don't care where they went but I want my POTUS to have a 4 year degree. The exposure to varying ideas, peoples, and thought processes is priceless for a job that leads a dynamic country/world.
Means nothing to me in general. Seemed to work out ok for Washington...and quite a few others.
I've seen and known many college grads that are book smart but don't have a smitgen of common sense. Common sense isn't something that is taught in schools and actually is something that can't be taught. Here, in this website I see a bunch of kids thinking that they are the wisest of the wise but are really so foolish as witnessed by their posts. They're like teenagers that think that they're smarter than their parents but actually DO NOT have the life experiences that are necessary in life.
I also think the age requirement should be upped as there's not many kids at age 35 that have the life experiences to lead a country. Maybe it was ok in the days of our forefathers because they only lived to their 50s but not now that people live to their 70s and 80s.
Should someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs be considered? Considering they are both college dropouts - you wouldn't think they should be disqualified, would you?
I generally think that in the end, a person's qualifications for POTUS should include many things, of which education is just one. I mean, I've known some professors that I wouldn't want as dog catcher, yet they are obviously highly educated.
(03-21-2014 12:18 PM)Hitch Wrote: [ -> ]Legally? No.
But is this something that voters have just come to expect? Is it fair for voters to "ding" Scott Walker for not having a college degree?
I only bring up Walker as an example because it seems like voters have a muddled list of criteria used to determine if someone is "qualified" or not, none of which is in the Constitution.
So should things like this matter?
- Governor or Congressional experience?
- Went to the "name" schools?
- Physically Attractive?
- "have a beer with"-ability?
- Military/foreign policy experience?
Are these "qualifications" shutting out otherwise solid candidates?
In practicality, yes, it's a baseline requirement today... and if anything, we're getting increasingly snobby about *where* you went to college as President (much less not having a degree at all). Every President since George H.W. Bush has had a degree from either Harvard or Yale specifically. 3 out of the last 4 Presidential elections would have guaranteed a Harvard grad as President and 5 out of the last 7 Presidential elections would have guaranteed either a Harvard or Yale grad as President regardless of who won. It's an expectation that you have a top tier educational pedigree as President, particularly in a world where you need a college degree just to get an administrative assistant job in a lot of places.
The only possible exception is a tech billionaire that was a college "dropout" getting into the political game at some point, but note that such "dropouts" like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg still attended places like Harvard and had the brains and pedigree to do anything that they wanted. It wasn't like these guys don't have degrees because they had bad grades or couldn't get into Ivy League schools - they're perceived by the general public to be certified geniuses in their own right, so they don't get docked for the lack of a degree in the way that the average non-grad would.
(03-21-2014 12:24 PM)JDTulane Wrote: [ -> ]exposure to varying ideas, peoples, and thought processes is priceless for a job that leads a dynamic country/world.
I agree with that. The question is, can a 46-year-old person acquire that kind of exposure without a 4-year-degree? I think they can.
(03-21-2014 01:00 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]In practicality, yes, it's a baseline requirement today.
Too bad, because it's not helpful. Just another myth.
(03-21-2014 01:00 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]In practicality, yes, it's a baseline requirement today... and if anything, we're getting increasingly snobby about *where* you went to college as President (much less not having a degree at all). Every President since George H.W. Bush has had a degree from either Harvard or Yale specifically. 3 out of the last 4 Presidential elections would have guaranteed a Harvard grad as President and 5 out of the last 7 Presidential elections would have guaranteed either a Harvard or Yale grad as President regardless of who won.
Sad but true.
I like the principal of voting for a good candidate without a degree byt the reality is none of us would actually do it. If the opposing candidate for our person didnt have a degree I'm sure we'd all grab the pitchforks.
(03-21-2014 01:15 PM)JDTulane Wrote: [ -> ]I like the principal of voting for a good candidate without a degree but the reality is none of us would actually do it.
I think that's where the majority of the country is. And if the Harvard/Yale rule holds up, the pool gets really small, really quickly.
(03-21-2014 01:15 PM)JDTulane Wrote: [ -> ]I like the principal of voting for a good candidate without a degree byt the reality is none of us would actually do it. If the opposing candidate for our person didnt have a degree I'm sure we'd all grab the pitchforks.
Principle? I wouldn't vote for any principals, or teachers.
Anyway, I wouldn't grab that pitchfork. I'm the one who defended Palin's lack of pedigree.
That's why it's so irritating when petty MAC fans (like tommy claims to be) call me elitist. It's the leftists who are elitist.
I think it needs to be somebody who has actually accomplished something in the real world, not just held political office.
I think a proven track record of success and honesty is probably the most important thing a POTUS should have. Anyone making unrealistic promises should be shied away from, especially someone who promises to have the most transparent administration in history and yet everything about his life is sealed. To me that's telling. And because just about any limpdick can get onto a presidential primary (see Jesse Jackson) that means we should also have educated voters.
I don't really care if a president has a degree because real world experience is more important than a degree in Women's Studies. Governors are probably the best qualified, members of Congress, probably not.