[Tax Government]

The university system is in the business of creating "life estates" -- the granting of honorific titles such as B.A., Ph.D., etc. that last for the lifetime of the recipient. The Federal government is expressly prohibited in the Constitution from creating life estates and other kinds of noble award. The university system has inserted itself illegitimately into the economy, not only creating life estates but, with financial and other kinds of Federal government assistance, in making them a requirement for most higher-paying employment.

It is high time to assert the citizens' right to employment irrespective of educational status, and to put an end to discrimination against those who do not have academic degrees.

[dennisw]

Good take!

[Paleo Conservative]

The university system is in the business of creating "life estates" -- the granting of honorific titles such as B.A., Ph.D., etc. that last for the lifetime of the recipient. The Federal government is expressly prohibited in the Constitution from creating life estates and other kinds of noble award.

You should read about the "original thirteenth" amendment.

Google search on "original 13th amendment"

[Verginius Rufus]

The Constitution states that "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States..." It doesn't mention "life estates" (I don't know what those are, but would have guessed they had to do with landholding arrangements in England).

A B.A. or Ph.D. by itself doesn't provide the holder with any income. A person of a given intelligence with a Ph.D. often earns less than a person with the same IQ who doesn't have a Ph.D. If you're going to bar a university from requiring its faculty members from holding academic degrees, why not also forbid them from requiring their faculty to have high school diplomas?

Ward Churchill, by the way, got to be a tenured professor at Colorado without a Ph.D.

[lostlakehiker]

First of all, universities are not part of the federal government. Second point: it is not the degree which employers want, it is the knowledge and skills behind the degree. You cannot get a job as a plumber without some sort of proof of skill at plumbing. Why should you expect to get a job as a doctor, say, without some sort of proof of knowledge of medicine? It is perfectly legal and proper for employers to pick and choose who they hire on the basis of who knows how to do the job. If that be discrimination, it's a good kind of discrimination.

[scott7278]

That's odd -- I'm sure most FReepers earned the B.A. degree they might have (it certainly wasn't "granted" to me like some knighthood). Same goes with the Master's degree I'm pursuing and eventually the Ph.D.

The free-market system expects a worker to be qualified for a position in which he or she is seeking. Your definition of "qualified" might not consider a degree a factor, but the workforce usually does. So if someone wants the job bad enough, they can EARN IT -- after all, they know beforehand what's required of them.

If they're not willing to get the degree like everyone else, they still have an opportunity to be noticed without the need of some law. There are all kind of success stories of people making it without degrees, but it wasn't because it was given to them, either. They had to work for it.

But they can't complain when they aren't hired for lack of a degree. There should be no "right to employment" without being qualified.