The true value of a degree from a lower tier school?!

Is this also possibly a function of subject matter?

Adults typically return to school to study in career-focused fields. If you are getting the degree in a field in which you already have practical experience, the degree may be more of a credentialing experience than a learning experience.

Someone who studies philosophy, history, literature, etc. at the undergraduate level likely would have a more dramatic "learning" experience. I would imagine that someone studying physics, chemistry, engineering, etc. would also have a more robust "learning" experience.

An experienced businessperson might not learn all that much in a standard BA in Business, though, because he or she has already experienced most of the material directly.

 

That was pretty much my experience; I had been to the police academy and had several years experience on the street, so most of the introductory CJ courses were old hat. In the case of general education courses, while it was interesting to take Intro to Philosophy, it doesn't help me much when I'm trying to get a belligerent drunk into handcuffs.

 

My school could be seen as a career school (Engineering Technology). I learned a lot in my undergrad studies and without that degree I would not have even been considered for the job that I got. My degree was the start of my career and without it I'd still be welding end plates onto box beams.

 

You've touched on the difference between training and education. Training, which we received in the police academy, most certainly helps get a belligerent drunk into handcuffs. Education isn't about the technical aspects -- the 'how-to' -- of law enforcement. This fact doesn't minimize the importance of higher education. The federal government has long required four-year degrees for their criminal investigators (special agents) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) advocates for college education for law enforcement officers every few years.

Police Chief magazine printed the following list of reasons departments often require college degrees:
•Better behavioral and performance characteristics
•Fewer on-the-job injuries and assaults
•Fewer disciplinary actions from crashes and force allegations
•Less use of sick time
•Greater acceptance of minorities
•Decrease in dogmatism, authoritarianism, rigidity, and conservatism
•Fewer citizen complaints
•Promotion of higher aspirations
•Enhancement of minority recruitment
•To enhance the status of the profession

In the article, Dr. Mayo claims that "Numerous studies since 1970 have concluded that higher education for police officers helps maintain integrity and discipline." (Source: College Education and Policing, by Louis Mayo, Ph.D., The Police Chief, vol. 73, no. 8, August 2006.) Another article worth reading can be found at: Police Chief Magazine - View Article

 

You could use it everyday. As you put the drunk in cuffs ask, "If my nightclub hit your head and no one was around, would it make a noise?"

 

Remove government subsidies and the system will correct itself.

 

I can see a lot of people in these forums already have work experience and thus this degree is probably filling a personal desire or some arcane rule of needing a degree to get promoted.

Still you can fulfill both at your local community college and buy yourself a camaro while your at it.

And I can't think of any Fortune 500, or even Fortune 1000 company who wouldn't hire a undergrand from top tier.

I do work with some people who graduated from a city school of the state system, and really their thought process is completely screwed up. They don't think nor innovate, they just follow instructions and thats about it. I think top tier schools encourage how to think outside the box, or thats just my experience with my degree.

Party Hard work hard baby!

 

Just maybe there should not be a difference between training and education! Education and training (learning) should be the process of acquiring the tools to continue learning, whether that knowledge is general or specific.

"Modern education is a contradiction. It’s like a three-year-old kid with a computer in his hand who can multiply 10.6 per cent interest of $11,653, but doesn’t know if a dime is larger or smaller than a nickel" —Erma Bombeck
:laugh2:

 

I'll agree with most of those points, but I don't see how LOD (line of duty) injuries are remotely related to education. I've been out injured about 8 times in 24 years, and besides the freak injuries that just happened (torn Achille's tendon), the injuries that were suspect-generated (attacks) happened out of the blue, with no or very little warning. I can't imagine how having a college degree would have helped in the least in any of those situations.

Don't get me wrong....I'm a huge proponent of higher education for police officers, but I don't think it's the panacea that some police chiefs think it is. If I were in charge of such things, I would require an Associate's degree (or 60 credits) from a school with recognized accreditation, or an honorable discharge from the armed forces in order to be a police officer. That's a far cry from the current MA standards of a GED, a driver's license, and a decent exam score.

Okay, you claim to be a graduate of a top-tier school that you won't identify, and you have a clear anti-DL bias.

We get it.

Do you have anything else to add to this forum, or are you just going to keep repeating yourself and patting yourself on the back?

 

I agree, Bruce. I think people confuse correlation with causation. It's likely that there's some other, completely unrelated reason why this group of police officers are injured less often; a reason that is only tangentially related to them possessing a college degree. For example, it's possible that police officers with college degrees are older when they join the force and are, therefore, less impulsive (hypothetically). A good research project would be to identify these confounding variables and find a better causal factor than possession of an undergraduate degree.

 

I think the fundamental mistake that some police chiefs make is that the majority of assaults on police are generated in some part by the police officer assaulted. I don't think that reflects the reality of the amphetamine dominated street violence. I also think that it is very difficult for a police officer to enter higher education when your eyes are dropping out of your head with tiredness due to nightwork. I did it, but looking back, I really was tired for years. I just had a point to prove I guess.

In my jurisdiction, police in headquarters with regular hours have the best shot at it and this may skew the stats on police assaults if the research methodology is poor. They do have higher education and they are police, but they are not on the street. They don't get the conflictual situations (although some management can be daunting).

Higher education has altered my perspective on the macro issues, such as planning and problem solving crime issues, but the response to the micro is pretty well defined by procedure and the law that is taught in training. It has, however, been an immense value to me in understanding issues that affect my life but have nothing to do with policing. It has personally enriched me. This was worth the journey by itself.

 

I read a study that showed that police officers who wear leather patrol jackets (as we do) get assaulted less than those who wear a traditional jacket.....pretty interesting.

 

I think that political agendas drive the 'use of force' and 'assault police' issues. We were told at the height of feminism that the assaults occurred because of aggression exhibited by male police officers and the employment of female officers in the field would lower the assault rates. It didn't and, in fact, the use of pepper spray went up. I suspect that this may have been a ploy to increase the ratio of female officers. Now all this nonsense has passed and the gender of the officer never enters the conversation, as it shouldn't.

The shootings of mental patients by police went up and it was then blamed on poor officer communication. Effectively,an attempt was made to blame or to infer blame on the officer involved in the shooting to deflect discussions away from the issues that set up the scenario of a knife wielding individual trying to end another's life. Of course, this blaming did nothing for the mental wellbeing of the officer, nor did it support any improvement for the mental health consumer.

It has now been exposed that the mental institutions were downsizing their facility care and not providing sufficient support to their patients, particularly the violent ones. Medicos were prescribing psychotropic drugs to patients known also to be taking illicit drugs (amphetamines) and, as far as I know, this is still happening. I don't think that any medical research has ever been conducted on the effect of the simultaneous use of both substances even to date. Fortunately, most mental health consumers are placid, as the mental health system here is a tragedy. The health system was moving its responsibilities in this area to the criminal justice sector and then criticizing its performance. Great deflection!!!

One thing I have found with higher education in policing is that "dodgy" research on policing has dropped off with more police researching criminal justice issues and empowered police criticism of poor research. Higher education has worked in that regard.

 

Coincidentally, since pepper spray was introduced, injury rates resulting from officers being assaulted went way down; when faced with a combative suspect, I spray first, ask questions later. I'm getting too old to roll around with these fools anymore, and use my "liquid karate" quite freely when appropriate.

 

Liquid Karate? This is awesome, never heard it called that before. LOL. It's a wonderful thing.

 

I am all for no body contact, taser or pepper spray. In my limited military involvement, I thought artillery had the right idea. They used to say that they converted what would otherwise be an ugly brawl into a noble conflict (as infantry, we always labelled them, undeservedly, as "dropshorts"). In the policing scenario, I think arriving at the lockup with a repentant prisoner and you not being bruised or having dishevelled uniform lends more dignity to the justice process.

It also reduces trips to the dentist, chiropractor, and the use of medical aids associated with body contact sports. Torn uniforms are also problematic.

 

The best part is that for whatever reasons, it works the best against very large individuals. I had a guy who dwarfed me (I'm 6-3 220lbs) square-off when I told him he had to leave an outdoor nightclub, screaming "You're not big enough to take me". I said "You're right", and blasted him with OC spray right in his eyes/face.

Seconds later, he was on his knees crying like a little girl, with the snot ropes out of his nose touching the ground.

 

A tactical miscalculation on his part, obviously not a graduate who has actually learnt anything. I bet next time he simply leaves. Although I have not surveyed it, I have found people, who have been sprayed or tasered, are generally more compliant at the next transgression against the law. Non- lethal, non-contact options facilitate more civilized communications.

On another tack, is it true in the states that you need to tick the box for a degree to make Lieutenant (Inspector here)? It is a bit more subtle here. Nobody is saying that you have to have one or do they even acknowledge in the interview process that you do have one, but I have noticed that those without are either sidelined or sent off to a staff college to do some advanced course. The main purpose of the staff college is for networking with other senior staff from different agencies which I guess is very similar to the tier 1 argument. Surprising number go to the FBI for training as well.