>Nagel concluded that democracies rarely or never elect the best leaders. Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of government is merely that they "effectively prevent lower-than-average candidates from becoming leaders."
No. Democracy is the best form of government discovered so far because it allows voters to remove incompetent leaders and bad policies without violence.
However competent a king or dictator is, most of his competence will be directed towards remaining in power through military force, rather than addressing his country's real problems. He cannot be removed without risking civil war, which is the worst kind.
However incompetent a prime minister or president turns out to be, and however dull voters are, incompetence is easier to recognise than competence.
Besides, one doesn't necessarily need to personally recognise it: one can be persuaded by other people. It's easier to reach agreement about things that aren't working.
>It seems to me something is seriously wrong. I have [...] 15 credit hours toward a doctorate
This statement is suggestive of where the problem lies. A doctoral thesis is supposed to be an original piece of work. The idea of assigning credit hours towards it is meaningless. We don't honour creative people for the number of hours they put in but for the works they leave behind.
I don't think that statement is suggestive of any problems. Most doctoral programs have course requirements that have to be met along with the original research requirement (the dissertation). He probably means he's taken some of the courses that are at the beginning of his doctoral program.
Along those lines, how many times were you given a paper to write that 'must be at least 10,000 words' or 'presentation must have a minimum of 8 slides'? Discard the fact that you can communicate and support your idea(s) in 5000 words or 3 slides.
Modern education systems in North America focus on the wrong things.
There is a huge difference between the two assignments. If you are communicating and supporting your ideas in half the words or slides, then you are not going into enough depth, or you've chosen a topic of lesser complexity. There is a good pedagogical reason that length is mandated. If you are "just filling out paper," to meet the word requirement, you've misunderstood the assignment, and possibly cheated yourself.
I strongly agree. The learning process takes as long as it takes. What might take one person an hour, could take another person a week. But when it comes to education funding in general, the easy way out is to set a easy to quantify metric and use that as the yardstick
And on top of that even more questionable what this having 15 credit hours towards a doctorate are supposed to tell us? That he wasn't good enough to finish it?
And more specifically what it is supposed to tell us with regards to children's education? So, let's assume he is a highly trained expert in 1 or 2 fields and then the doctorate is like putting a needle-like focus on one (comparatively) tiny area of those fields and going in deep all the way. This, again, has nothing to do with children's education... it's like complaining that a brain surgeon cannot even pass basic school-level French grammar.
All this is flying too close to the "why do kids have to learn all this crap like math, art, music, history?? all they wanna do is become rich managers and bankers or CEOs anyway!" argument.
It's probably a J.D.,Psy.D.,Pharma.D. or some other "professional doctorate" abombination.
I blame the US for this hideous dilution of the title, and qualification of Doctor. While being a young curmudgeon I will also condemn the practice of M.D.s being called Doctor.
No. Democracy is the best form of government discovered so far because it allows voters to remove incompetent leaders and bad policies without violence.
However competent a king or dictator is, most of his competence will be directed towards remaining in power through military force, rather than addressing his country's real problems. He cannot be removed without risking civil war, which is the worst kind.
However incompetent a prime minister or president turns out to be, and however dull voters are, incompetence is easier to recognise than competence.
Besides, one doesn't necessarily need to personally recognise it: one can be persuaded by other people. It's easier to reach agreement about things that aren't working.