Law and Order: Should college be required for police recruits?

The small amount of the opening paragraph in the WSJ article I could read without subscribing, suggests an age old debate that college makes better police officers.

It's not about making better cops, but rather narrowing the field down of qualified candidates to be accepted for the academy.

Kind of like not just anyone can decide to get a job as a doctor, or lawyer, without a degree in those fields.

An alternative to making a college degree mandatory, if you did not want it, would be to offer extra points on the Civil Service Exam.

You could give 5 extra points for a 4 year degree and 2.5 for a two year degree, as an example

I think a college requirement would get in the way of the affirmative action laws.
Got to be careful folks this is the day and age where qualifications take a back seat to gender and nationality.

Howard. Studies may point in that direction, but I don't think that college makes anyone any nicer. you still get a 'pig in a poke'. Oops, sorry about the pig remark. Didn't mean it that way.

to paraphrase an old song, "No one knows what goes on behind blue 'drawers'.

:)

Sometimes, Howard, sometimes. As for, "I do believe actual education, a better understanding of the world around you", I'm guessing that you've not watched very many "WATTERS WORLD's". Oh, today's colleges might make for happy-go-lucky types, but they AREN'T NECESSARILY better understanding of the world. Not all, for sure, but I believe too many of them should've saved their tuition money, as it didn't appear to make them any brighter.

Three negatives, not too bad.. people do hate it when you tell it like it is..
I've worked downtown Buffalo at the inner harbor with people and companies that have no idea of what they are doing, there is No way they could run a business with out the laws that state there must be minority( gender & nationality) owned companies. They are not there due to talent, they are there because of legislation that says so. We call them freeloaders and believe it or not they are making some good money but once again it's not because of what they do, it's because of who they are...

"there is No way they could run a business with out the laws that state there must be minority( gender & nationality) owned companies."

It's a good thing there is no such law that states there MUST be minority owned companies.

Now you're up to 4 negs.

Raymond, you didn't know I was talking about the inner harbor project? Kind of funny how you can be technical and ignore the message.
Allow me to try again for you.... the inner harbor project has to have minority owned companies and minority employees because it is the law. some of the people who are hired are hired because of who they are, not for what they are. because of tax breaks and taxpayer funding, this is a law.

David is right. There are a number of State contracts that mandate a certain percentage of the work be done by minority contractors.

It seems to me that white, heterosexual males are victims of reverse discrimination
in our politically correct soceity. It should be, may the best man win...whoops, I meant
may the best human win.

There is no such thing as reverse discrimination. The reverse of discrimination is acceptance.

I agree with you Dave...Might also add political affiliation..Working for that state has alot to do with how you are registered to vote..Like Frank said how about just hiring the best ..

Kyle, it is a common term, most people understand what it means.

David, I am well aware of what you were talking about, and am familiar with the IHP.

John gave you my response in that there are contractual mandates, not legislated laws, that require a percentage of minority involvement in work to be performed.

Big difference between contractual terms and legislated laws.

I believe somewhere in Article 15-A of Executive Law mandates a percentage of State contracts be given to minorities and women.

Common misuse of a word doesn't make it correct. Not trying to be difficult Frank but if you go to a discussion that BOTH sides of the argument are present. The other side will make the same point and use it to invalidate your argument. It's clearer to label it black on white racism.

Kyle, you're stretching the point and trying to be the grammar police. It is a common and well understood term. And the term is not really the point, is it?

Minority hiring goals applied to public contracts (federal or state) are not blanket laws. The Supreme Court in its ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano ended racial quotas in 2003. The minority hiring goals that have been cited here are germane to the funding sources. If the project is funded by grants aimed at increasing minority employment or bolstering businesses owned by minorities, then contractors et al must abide by the contractual stipulations on minorities to be eligible to receive funding or qualify as a contractor being compensated with funds derived from the grant. http://www.cohnreznick.com/construction-minority-participation-goals-co…

Kyle,I wasn't looking for an argument, just expressing an opinion, and racism has absolutely nothing to do with my comment. Your comprehension level is puzzling at best.

As is your comprehension Frank...... reverse racism does not exsist. And you obviously don't understand your own comment if you say you weren't talking about racism. Even by your intended use of reverse racism, you were talking about racism.

Now that you have said that you weren't talking about racism, could it be that you meant reverse discrimination? because that is a word and in the dictionary.

John it's not stretching the point at all.... If you have a discussion in a multi racial group, see how fast they point out that the reverse of racism is tolerance. While the reverse of discrimination... would be the unequal treatment of a majority group be it racial, sex, or religion, by the minority. The very definition of reverse discrimination in the dictionary.

Racism is Racism be it black on white, red on yellow or yellow on black and so on. That's the real fact here,

How about irregardless, or flustered....they are common use words and we know what they meant, but they are not words and are in no dictionary. Same as axed (used in place of asked) Bling, supposably or participator.

It as annoying as people whom define the Jewish people as a race incorrectly. It's a religion, not a race.

Just because people understand, and believe it to be a word, it ain't. Oh wait theres another one but yet, it is NOW in the dictionary so is recognized as a word.

Kyle, the point is not about a long winded definition of the term.

The term is in common usage and well understood by about everyone but you.. We have enough grammar police here already and you are making a petty point on a subject that is real.

Kyle, once again you try to put your words in anothers post.Discrimination and racism are two seperate issues. Handicap is not a race, gay is not a race, female is not a race. Are ya catching on yet, or should we go back to "see Spot run".

Kyle, your post # 14 and # 23 say it all. In # 14 you say, "There is no such thing as reverse discrimination".Then you say in # 23," While the reverse of discrimination...
would be the unequal treatment of a majority group be it racial, sex, or religion,by the
minority. The very definition of reverse discrimination in the dictionary".
Which is it Kyle ?

Maybe this will help with your comprehension issues.
Legislation has been written that affords minorities advantages it doesn't afford white
heterosexual males. Thats my point , no racism, just the law as it was written. This law has/had a negative impact on white hetrosexual males, there is no debate, and there is nothing to suggest any reverse racism, or racism of any form for that matter.
That should clear up the term "reverse discrimination" as it was used in my post.
Read slow and careful Kyle, and try not to interject your own words into mine.

My apologies Frank..... I walk to work and I "thought" I read reverse racism. I see now from my rapidfire posts that you wrote reverse discrimination. Which was what I argued for. My bad, I guess I need to stop multitasking and doing my research while responding, at least during these cold snaps.

<<<<Backs away from keyboard, takes a deep breath and counts to 10.

Kyle, I was thinking the same thing about the rr, my bad for not pointing it out as well.
Thank you for manning up, it says something about you Kyle.