George Wallace makes mention of knowing a lot of twits with degrees.
I think that that was me.
an educated idiot was an idiot before being educated,
Of course. While an education will not make him less of an idiot, it won't make him more of one, either.
Maybe more dangerous, but that's another different thing.
there is a good chance that he was less of an idiot after being educated.
No, there is a much better chance (as close to 100% as one could get) that he would only be an idiot that knew a little more.
Someone who is naturally intelligent will probably be even more intelligent after being educated.
No, they will be just as intelligent as they were before, but they will know more.
Knowledge and intelligence are not the same thing, as has been pointed out.
Intelligence can be measured, to a certain degree at least. That is what an IQ score is for. IQ does not change with education.
Hamiltongs said it best when he said that you cannot compare the intelligence of a formally educated person to one that isn't (sorry I am paraphrasing here).
Certainly you can. That is what IQ tests are designed to do.
Aptitude tests, such as the CFAT, are designed to assess aptitude, not trained skill or induced knowledge.
Computers can be compared on the basis of their processor speeds and memory. That's the machine equivalent of intelligence. The programmes installed, and information stored, on the computer is the machine equivalent of education. See the difference?
You can only compare the intelligence of an individual before and after being educated.
That would be a complete waste of time, because the difference would be zero. That individual's processor and memory have not been altered. He/she has only had a few programmes and files uploaded. His/her IQ remains unchanged, only their knowledge has been improved. Give the same exam - a test of knowledge - to an uneducated man and one educated in whatever subjects were covered in that education, and a difference will obviously be noticed.
Arguing the intelligence of a university grad compared to a high school grad is a moot point.
Of course it is, because comparing education and intelligence is
comparing apples to oranges.
I shall not be asking you to purchase fruit on my behalf.
There has been a lot of contention of what 'intelligence' really means. That being educated is not intelligence. Which is true,
But that is not what you have been saying. If one can add education to intelligence (or idiocy) and get increased intelligence (or reduced idiocy), as you have in effect said, then they must be the same, nein?
but education has an affect on intelligence.
No, it doesn't. It only affects knowledge and, depending upon the nature of the education, skill. Neither of those are "intelligence".
One is an inherent characteristic, or design and manufacturing characteristic in the case of a computer, and the other is the knowledge and skill, or files and programmes.
If anyone here thinks that they would be just as intelligent as they are now without the benefit of being taught by parents as a child, or without an elementary or high school education, please say so now.
I believe that I have said that already, in this post and my previous one, several times, but I am perfectly willing to say it again.
An intelligent person will absorb information and learn skills with or without formal education/training. Obviously, they will do so through trial and error and observing others and reading books on their own initiative, but they will do it. And they will do so better than a stupid person no matter how long that stupid person sits in a classroom.
Here is the kicker for me, despite what I said above, despite applying as a DEO myself, I am more of the persuasion that Officers should come from the ranks, at least as far as the combat arms are concerned. If anyone with a degree should get an advantage when becoming an Officer, it should be the NCM with a degree. For those applying straight to the Officer Corps without prior military experience, I would think having to do a couple years as an NCM would be an excellent idea. I think that would be a fair compromise between those wanting to join to Regular Officer Corps from university and NCMs wanting to become Officers.
That was said, of course, with no military experience whatsoever, at any rank level.
Some of the best officers that I've known have spent time in the ranks. Some of the best officers that I have known have spent absolutely no time in the ranks. Spending time in the ranks does not necessarily make any particular person any better at doing a somewhat similar yet different job at a higher level. It should give that person a much better understanding of their subordinates' lives, but a few even manage to forget that with varying degrees of instantaneity. There is no need or benefit to institutionalize that.
The jury is out on the topic of leadership for me. Very few educations prepare you to be a leader. Knowing how something works in theory doesn't really prepare you for practical application. Experience as a subordinate does not translate into leadership ability either. Some of the worst managers are ones promoted from the ranks. Just because you are good at your job, doesn't mean you will be able to lead people in doing that job.
You just shot your earlier all-officers-from-the-ranks argument full of holes.