The Chronicle’s analysis of the college backgrounds of the 50 states’ lawmakers reveals that a large majority hold college degrees, and many hold advanced degrees. But there are exceptions: In some states, like Arkansas and Montana, 20 to 25 percent of lawmakers did not attend college and do not hold degrees. In a handful of cases, lawmakers on education committees do not hold college degrees.
How important is it for state lawmakers to hold college degrees? Does a college education matter, and, if so, how? Does educational attainment affect policy making? The Chronicle asked several experts to weigh in.
David A. Longanecker, president of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education: I am a true believer in the value of higher education, both to the individual receiving it and the society benefiting from it. My sisters and I were the first people in our family to finish college—and it made a huge difference in our lives, opening doors and opening our minds. I know that my own college education made me a better person and a better citizen.
But I don’t believe it’s necessary for state legislators to hold a college degree. Some of the finest and most intelligent people I know never earned one. My father didn’t finish high school, but he was an exceptional intellectual, a compassionate patriot, a dedicated citizen—and he would’ve made a fine state legislator. Like my dad, 60 percent of American adults have no college education. To bar them from elected office would be to drain an awful lot of human talent from our public life.
I am heartened, however, that most state legislators do have a college education. Despite the anti-intellectual rhetoric prevalent in much public discourse these days, more education enhances the public good. The college experience, at its best, doesn’t just instill knowledge: It creates an appetite for it. And the more knowledge a state legislator can bring to bear on the complex issues of the day, the better. College also builds a greater sense of civic engagement, a curiosity about the world, and the ability to engage in intellectual inquiry—to ask the right questions and seek real answers—all of which improves its graduates over time, and is just the stuff good legislators are made of.
So, no, a college education is not necessary for a person to become a good state legislator. But it sure helps.
Peverill Squire, a professor of political science at the University of Missouri at Columbia: People underestimate the difficulty of being a legislator. In every state, lawmakers are confronted by complex policy problems that defy simple solutions.
The institutions in which they serve are, however, a varied lot. A few pay members reasonably well, about what an average associate professor makes. Many pay salaries associated with part-time work, leaving them well below the wages of a typical full-time lecturer. Some pay only token sums. (In the most egregious case, compensation in New Hampshire is $100 a year.) State legislatures also vary on session length and staff support. A few meet year-round, as Congress does; most are in session only from January to May; some meet for as few as 30 days. A handful of legislatures enjoy plentiful professional staff, many provide limited assistance, and in some, lawmakers are essentially on their own.
Thus most state legislators operate in institutions that offer them unimpressive incentives for service, afford them limited time to develop and debate policy, and provide them minimal assistance. Consequently, most lawmakers must rely heavily on their own devices to make good public policy. To do so competently, they must be able to critically analyze large quantities of conflicting information that special interests and others provide. The great value of a college education is an improved ability to assess such competing claims. Sharpened analytical skills also provide a greater ability to think independently.
Certainly there are no guarantees that college graduates make better lawmakers. They are, however, better equipped, on average, for the tasks they face. But the unfortunate reality we face today is that college graduates are more likely to be attracted to serve in the high-paying, longer-meeting, and better-staffed legislatures—which means that legislatures that attract less-well-prepared lawmakers are those that actually make greater analytical demands of them.
Jack Scott, chancellor of the California Community Colleges: How much education should a state lawmaker have? It might be difficult to get an objective answer from someone like myself, who is a former college president and has a Ph.D. Yet I am firmly committed to the democratic ideal of equality and understand that a college education should not be a prerequisite to hold public office. Many factors can contribute to success in a public office other than one’s education.
My university studies and my work as an educator (17 years as a college president) prepared me very well for life in the California Legislature. The experience gave me an excellent understanding of educational issues, and it was particularly helpful as I chaired the Senate Education Committee and the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee on Education.
I strongly believe in the value of higher education for all people. It contributes strongly to self-knowledge, job preparation, and improved citizenship. My graduate studies in American history were invaluable in my legislative role as I studied issues, made speeches, and prepared legislation. I was a frequent source of information on educational issues for my colleagues.
Is a college education preferable for a state lawmaker? Yes. Is it essential? No. But I would encourage more educators to seek public office, and I believe better legislation on education would result.
William A. Sederburg, commissioner of the Utah System of Higher Education: Those of us who work in public higher education wonder why state legislators don’t make postsecondary education a higher priority when deciding state budgets. With that question in mind, not long ago I invited several legislators to join a television program I hosted on our educational station.
During their interviews, it was clear that while their understanding of how higher education operates varied greatly, overall they understood and supported the logic for a strong higher-education system and how critical it is to the state’s economic growth and essential for personal success. On a personal level, their children attended college, and they loved their own college experiences. I pushed for negative comments but only got a few, about faculty tenure, irrelevant degrees, and inefficiencies.
My conclusion is that higher education has won the academic argument with policy makers. However, we haven’t been able to convert the academic argument into political action. The big question is, Why not? One Utah legislator answered that he simply doesn’t hear from constituents about supporting higher education, because they’re more concerned with roads, unemployment, and taxes.
We are losing for three reasons. First, the public sees higher education as a private, not a public good. Second, our depressed economy has put a premium on jobs and economic security. Third, political ideology reigns supreme, and pragmatic support of the educational “establishment” has been devalued.
The chasm between the academic argument and political action will shrink only if we can mobilize legislators with college degrees to support our enterprise. Political support for higher education should come easily, as most legislators have degrees. Yet higher education is not getting vigorous advocacy from its graduates. Perhaps a college degree has only helped those legislators understand their basic role: representing the interests, values, and beliefs of their constituents.
Higher education must let elected officials know that it’s in their interest to support colleges. We also have to sell the public on the value of what we do by reconnecting with constituents. And, finally, we must have a serious conversation about what has prevented more-vigorous advocacy. Only then can we close the gap between the academic argument and legislative action.
