"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...
In article , tuin man
wrote:

(snip)
Sometimes a job is won on account of the academic excellence of a
candidate,
who is nonetheless the worst possible choice for the positions offered.

Perhaps one day it will not seem like such a heresy to question why it is
so, that post-graduates are automatically deemed to be more deserving of
position and success.

In bygone days, presumption to the rights of status, e.g. money, were
mostly
inherited, similarly current criteria requires an existing combination of
favourable age, nationality, accent, colour, creed, gender, and
appearance,
along with an acknowledgement from our academia dominant educational
system
to the effect that the candidate has been decreed to be a model example
of
the finished product from said academia's manufacturing line.
(snip)

Meritocracy should simply mean that the best achieve success and
position.

Sorry Simon, but my interpretation of meritocracy is that it does means what
you say above. Not, should mean, could mean, might mean, nor any other kind
of maybe's.

Alas it tends to get hampered by market forces and politics.

E.g., an incompetent accountant can charge more per hour than a wonderful
gardener. I call it the Going Rate effect.

Or, a man can buy a run down house with intention to let and sets about
providing a product at a price to reflect his efforts and investment. This
might entail making it more than barely inhabitable. He might spruce up the
decor. Sort out the damp, the leaks and lack of insulation. Clear the
rubbish. Re-design to within personal expectations of living standards.
Remove broken fittings and replace along with a splash of new tiles,
wallpaper, paint, polished floor, or carpet and so on.

He puts this home-to-let product on the market and makes some money.

Another bloke down the road obtains a similar and equally run down property
just two doors down and decides to get exactly the same money, but by merely
putting the overpriced slum on the letting market, without any further
investment. And get the money he will because of demand. Furthermore any
attempts by any form of government to interfere will be met with his
accusations of market interference and nanny state slurs.

So, as you can see, market forces and politics can interfere with
meritocracy.

There's make money and there's get money. Not the same thing

It doesn't mean that they should also attain status or
respect.

In terms of beeb garden presenter, it is only human nature that having
achieved recognition, mostly perhaps simply because they are seen to be on
telly, that the success and position you mention translates back from the
audience as status and respect.



Incidentally, in your sentence, Meritocracy should simply mean that the
best achieve success and position. ,

You do not define how "the best" is to be measured.

Nor do you define success and position.

The best qualified estate agent or PR men in the country
should be the most successful in their field -


No, no, no,

The best estate agent or PR....Not merely the "best qualified", (nor male)
especially when you do not define either "best" or "qualified" and where
such qualification is probably limited to the awards gained solely from
academic aptitude, though might equally refer to some sort of national
government licence.

As I've outlined in a previous thread, the imbalance of rewards, tailor made
and hence forth protected for educational degrees are such, that anyone with
such an aptitude who does not bother to achieve such credentials, must need
his, or her head examined.

It is just such a ridicules imbalance of rewards I am addressing.

Bare in mind, in many instances, the sole main product of some peoples
careers is just that; their career and just as they all often climb to
positions of power because of that, many who adopt a more vocational
approach loose out. Not only do they loose out, but so does their vocational
output as it falls fouled of attaining position to protect him/her from
falling prey to the career careerist.

The same sort of loss is incurred by narrow-minded selection in favour of
purely academic aptitudes.

It therefore follows that the academia shelf is not the only place from
where garden telly presenters should be selected. Oh, this is not my
application. I wont even be around much longer (uk) in any case.

Again, what ever you mean by "the best" estate agent. is open to
interpretation. Might it be "the best" at getting money, irrespective of
integrity, or might it be for providing the best product in question? The
Best from whose point of view? Customers? Smirk.

Academic qualification does not automatically evoke a whole host of other
qualities. Aptitude in one thing, but academia, in this instance, does not
mean aptitude in getting the job done, let alone done well.

Qualities such as; Imaginativeness, honesty, altruism, sacrifice,
practicality, sociability, team-spiritedness, generosity, long-term view
abilities, responsibility, integrity, communication skills, being able to
'think' or even personal hygiene, to mention but a small number, are not
automatically inherent in a masters degree, let alone an 'ordinary' one.

Actually, I wonder what will the next one up the ladder be; The Omnipotent
Degree?



but it won't guarantee
that people don't walk away from them at a cocktail party.


True, though almost guarantees escape from much worse in terms of standards
of living.


If you have encountered people who shun you because you're a gardener,
more fool them. Whenever I meet a professional - or trade - gardener, I
always have a pile of questions to ask.

Simon

Ah now. that just being intelligent (-; and I do not need to know about your
own educational rank to realise it. Such intellect is yet another factor not
guaranteed by a degree judging by the calibre (and I use that term loosely)
of those networking geniuses involved. And guess what, viewers tend to
notice little things like intelligence. That is, when not too busy with
presenters fashion sense, age, gender, size, etc. Or maybe it's the viewers
who must also be screened to ensure only graduates can see the
programme?????

Indeed, what good is a telly garden presenters qualification against your
criteria, which seems to be that they should have just such standards, but
then you fail to realise just such standards have being achieved? Remember
Charlie's?



Patrick

"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...
In article , tuin man
wrote:

(snip)
Sometimes a job is won on account of the academic excellence of a
candidate,
who is nonetheless the worst possible choice for the positions offered.

Perhaps one day it will not seem like such a heresy to question why it is
so, that post-graduates are automatically deemed to be more deserving of
position and success.

In bygone days, presumption to the rights of status, e.g. money, were
mostly
inherited, similarly current criteria requires an existing combination of
favourable age, nationality, accent, colour, creed, gender, and
appearance,
along with an acknowledgement from our academia dominant educational
system
to the effect that the candidate has been decreed to be a model example
of
the finished product from said academia's manufacturing line.
(snip)

Meritocracy should simply mean that the best achieve success and
position.

Sorry Simon, but my interpretation of meritocracy is that it does means what
you say above. Not, should mean, could mean, might mean, nor any other kind
of maybe's.

Alas it tends to get hampered by market forces and politics.

E.g., an incompetent accountant can charge more per hour than a wonderful
gardener. I call it the Going Rate effect.

Or, a man can buy a run down house with intention to let and sets about
providing a product at a price to reflect his efforts and investment. This
might entail making it more than barely inhabitable. He might spruce up the
decor. Sort out the damp, the leaks and lack of insulation. Clear the
rubbish. Re-design to within personal expectations of living standards.
Remove broken fittings and replace along with a splash of new tiles,
wallpaper, paint, polished floor, or carpet and so on.

He puts this home-to-let product on the market and makes some money.

Another bloke down the road obtains a similar and equally run down property
just two doors down and decides to get exactly the same money, but by merely
putting the overpriced slum on the letting market, without any further
investment. And get the money he will because of demand. Furthermore any
attempts by any form of government to interfere will be met with his
accusations of market interference and nanny state slurs.

So, as you can see, market forces and politics can interfere with
meritocracy.

There's make money and there's get money. Not the same thing

It doesn't mean that they should also attain status or
respect.

In terms of beeb garden presenter, it is only human nature that having
achieved recognition, mostly perhaps simply because they are seen to be on
telly, that the success and position you mention translates back from the
audience as status and respect.



Incidentally, in your sentence, Meritocracy should simply mean that the
best achieve success and position. ,

You do not define how "the best" is to be measured.

Nor do you define success and position.

The best qualified estate agent or PR men in the country
should be the most successful in their field -


No, no, no,

The best estate agent or PR....Not merely the "best qualified", (nor male)
especially when you do not define either "best" or "qualified" and where
such qualification is probably limited to the awards gained solely from
academic aptitude, though might equally refer to some sort of national
government licence.

As I've outlined in a previous thread, the imbalance of rewards, tailor made
and hence forth protected for educational degrees are such, that anyone with
such an aptitude who does not bother to achieve such credentials, must need
his, or her head examined.

It is just such a ridicules imbalance of rewards I am addressing.

Bare in mind, in many instances, the sole main product of some peoples
careers is just that; their career and just as they all often climb to
positions of power because of that, many who adopt a more vocational
approach loose out. Not only do they loose out, but so does their vocational
output as it falls fouled of attaining position to protect him/her from
falling prey to the career careerist.

The same sort of loss is incurred by narrow-minded selection in favour of
purely academic aptitudes.

It therefore follows that the academia shelf is not the only place from
where garden telly presenters should be selected. Oh, this is not my
application. I wont even be around much longer (uk) in any case.

Again, what ever you mean by "the best" estate agent. is open to
interpretation. Might it be "the best" at getting money, irrespective of
integrity, or might it be for providing the best product in question? The
Best from whose point of view? Customers? Smirk.

Academic qualification does not automatically evoke a whole host of other
qualities. Aptitude in one thing, but academia, in this instance, does not
mean aptitude in getting the job done, let alone done well.

Qualities such as; Imaginativeness, honesty, altruism, sacrifice,
practicality, sociability, team-spiritedness, generosity, long-term view
abilities, responsibility, integrity, communication skills, being able to
'think' or even personal hygiene, to mention but a small number, are not
automatically inherent in a masters degree, let alone an 'ordinary' one.

Actually, I wonder what will the next one up the ladder be; The Omnipotent
Degree?



but it won't guarantee
that people don't walk away from them at a cocktail party.


True, though almost guarantees escape from much worse in terms of standards
of living.


If you have encountered people who shun you because you're a gardener,
more fool them. Whenever I meet a professional - or trade - gardener, I
always have a pile of questions to ask.

Simon

Ah now. that just being intelligent (-; and I do not need to know about your
own educational rank to realise it. Such intellect is yet another factor not
guaranteed by a degree judging by the calibre (and I use that term loosely)
of those networking geniuses involved. And guess what, viewers tend to
notice little things like intelligence. That is, when not too busy with
presenters fashion sense, age, gender, size, etc. Or maybe it's the viewers
who must also be screened to ensure only graduates can see the
programme?????

Indeed, what good is a telly garden presenters qualification against your
criteria, which seems to be that they should have just such standards, but
then you fail to realise just such standards have being achieved? Remember
Charlie's?



Patrick

"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...
In article , tuin man
wrote:

(snip)
Sometimes a job is won on account of the academic excellence of a
candidate,
who is nonetheless the worst possible choice for the positions offered.

Perhaps one day it will not seem like such a heresy to question why it is
so, that post-graduates are automatically deemed to be more deserving of
position and success.

In bygone days, presumption to the rights of status, e.g. money, were
mostly
inherited, similarly current criteria requires an existing combination of
favourable age, nationality, accent, colour, creed, gender, and
appearance,
along with an acknowledgement from our academia dominant educational
system
to the effect that the candidate has been decreed to be a model example
of
the finished product from said academia's manufacturing line.
(snip)

Meritocracy should simply mean that the best achieve success and
position.

Sorry Simon, but my interpretation of meritocracy is that it does means what
you say above. Not, should mean, could mean, might mean, nor any other kind
of maybe's.

Alas it tends to get hampered by market forces and politics.

E.g., an incompetent accountant can charge more per hour than a wonderful
gardener. I call it the Going Rate effect.

Or, a man can buy a run down house with intention to let and sets about
providing a product at a price to reflect his efforts and investment. This
might entail making it more than barely inhabitable. He might spruce up the
decor. Sort out the damp, the leaks and lack of insulation. Clear the
rubbish. Re-design to within personal expectations of living standards.
Remove broken fittings and replace along with a splash of new tiles,
wallpaper, paint, polished floor, or carpet and so on.

He puts this home-to-let product on the market and makes some money.

Another bloke down the road obtains a similar and equally run down property
just two doors down and decides to get exactly the same money, but by merely
putting the overpriced slum on the letting market, without any further
investment. And get the money he will because of demand. Furthermore any
attempts by any form of government to interfere will be met with his
accusations of market interference and nanny state slurs.

So, as you can see, market forces and politics can interfere with
meritocracy.

There's make money and there's get money. Not the same thing

It doesn't mean that they should also attain status or
respect.

In terms of beeb garden presenter, it is only human nature that having
achieved recognition, mostly perhaps simply because they are seen to be on
telly, that the success and position you mention translates back from the
audience as status and respect.



Incidentally, in your sentence, Meritocracy should simply mean that the
best achieve success and position. ,

You do not define how "the best" is to be measured.

Nor do you define success and position.

The best qualified estate agent or PR men in the country
should be the most successful in their field -


No, no, no,

The best estate agent or PR....Not merely the "best qualified", (nor male)
especially when you do not define either "best" or "qualified" and where
such qualification is probably limited to the awards gained solely from
academic aptitude, though might equally refer to some sort of national
government licence.

As I've outlined in a previous thread, the imbalance of rewards, tailor made
and hence forth protected for educational degrees are such, that anyone with
such an aptitude who does not bother to achieve such credentials, must need
his, or her head examined.

It is just such a ridicules imbalance of rewards I am addressing.

Bare in mind, in many instances, the sole main product of some peoples
careers is just that; their career and just as they all often climb to
positions of power because of that, many who adopt a more vocational
approach loose out. Not only do they loose out, but so does their vocational
output as it falls fouled of attaining position to protect him/her from
falling prey to the career careerist.

The same sort of loss is incurred by narrow-minded selection in favour of
purely academic aptitudes.

It therefore follows that the academia shelf is not the only place from
where garden telly presenters should be selected. Oh, this is not my
application. I wont even be around much longer (uk) in any case.

Again, what ever you mean by "the best" estate agent. is open to
interpretation. Might it be "the best" at getting money, irrespective of
integrity, or might it be for providing the best product in question? The
Best from whose point of view? Customers? Smirk.

Academic qualification does not automatically evoke a whole host of other
qualities. Aptitude in one thing, but academia, in this instance, does not
mean aptitude in getting the job done, let alone done well.

Qualities such as; Imaginativeness, honesty, altruism, sacrifice,
practicality, sociability, team-spiritedness, generosity, long-term view
abilities, responsibility, integrity, communication skills, being able to
'think' or even personal hygiene, to mention but a small number, are not
automatically inherent in a masters degree, let alone an 'ordinary' one.

Actually, I wonder what will the next one up the ladder be; The Omnipotent
Degree?



but it won't guarantee
that people don't walk away from them at a cocktail party.


True, though almost guarantees escape from much worse in terms of standards
of living.


If you have encountered people who shun you because you're a gardener,
more fool them. Whenever I meet a professional - or trade - gardener, I
always have a pile of questions to ask.

Simon

Ah now. that just being intelligent (-; and I do not need to know about your
own educational rank to realise it. Such intellect is yet another factor not
guaranteed by a degree judging by the calibre (and I use that term loosely)
of those networking geniuses involved. And guess what, viewers tend to
notice little things like intelligence. That is, when not too busy with
presenters fashion sense, age, gender, size, etc. Or maybe it's the viewers
who must also be screened to ensure only graduates can see the
programme?????

Indeed, what good is a telly garden presenters qualification against your
criteria, which seems to be that they should have just such standards, but
then you fail to realise just such standards have being achieved? Remember
Charlie's?



Patrick

"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...
In article , tuin man
wrote:

(snip)
Sometimes a job is won on account of the academic excellence of a
candidate,
who is nonetheless the worst possible choice for the positions offered.

Perhaps one day it will not seem like such a heresy to question why it is
so, that post-graduates are automatically deemed to be more deserving of
position and success.

In bygone days, presumption to the rights of status, e.g. money, were
mostly
inherited, similarly current criteria requires an existing combination of
favourable age, nationality, accent, colour, creed, gender, and
appearance,
along with an acknowledgement from our academia dominant educational
system
to the effect that the candidate has been decreed to be a model example
of
the finished product from said academia's manufacturing line.
(snip)

Meritocracy should simply mean that the best achieve success and
position.

Sorry Simon, but my interpretation of meritocracy is that it does means what
you say above. Not, should mean, could mean, might mean, nor any other kind
of maybe's.

Alas it tends to get hampered by market forces and politics.

E.g., an incompetent accountant can charge more per hour than a wonderful
gardener. I call it the Going Rate effect.

Or, a man can buy a run down house with intention to let and sets about
providing a product at a price to reflect his efforts and investment. This
might entail making it more than barely inhabitable. He might spruce up the
decor. Sort out the damp, the leaks and lack of insulation. Clear the
rubbish. Re-design to within personal expectations of living standards.
Remove broken fittings and replace along with a splash of new tiles,
wallpaper, paint, polished floor, or carpet and so on.

He puts this home-to-let product on the market and makes some money.

Another bloke down the road obtains a similar and equally run down property
just two doors down and decides to get exactly the same money, but by merely
putting the overpriced slum on the letting market, without any further
investment. And get the money he will because of demand. Furthermore any
attempts by any form of government to interfere will be met with his
accusations of market interference and nanny state slurs.

So, as you can see, market forces and politics can interfere with
meritocracy.

There's make money and there's get money. Not the same thing

It doesn't mean that they should also attain status or
respect.

In terms of beeb garden presenter, it is only human nature that having
achieved recognition, mostly perhaps simply because they are seen to be on
telly, that the success and position you mention translates back from the
audience as status and respect.



Incidentally, in your sentence, Meritocracy should simply mean that the
best achieve success and position. ,

You do not define how "the best" is to be measured.

Nor do you define success and position.

The best qualified estate agent or PR men in the country
should be the most successful in their field -


No, no, no,

The best estate agent or PR....Not merely the "best qualified", (nor male)
especially when you do not define either "best" or "qualified" and where
such qualification is probably limited to the awards gained solely from
academic aptitude, though might equally refer to some sort of national
government licence.

As I've outlined in a previous thread, the imbalance of rewards, tailor made
and hence forth protected for educational degrees are such, that anyone with
such an aptitude who does not bother to achieve such credentials, must need
his, or her head examined.

It is just such a ridicules imbalance of rewards I am addressing.

Bare in mind, in many instances, the sole main product of some peoples
careers is just that; their career and just as they all often climb to
positions of power because of that, many who adopt a more vocational
approach loose out. Not only do they loose out, but so does their vocational
output as it falls fouled of attaining position to protect him/her from
falling prey to the career careerist.

The same sort of loss is incurred by narrow-minded selection in favour of
purely academic aptitudes.

It therefore follows that the academia shelf is not the only place from
where garden telly presenters should be selected. Oh, this is not my
application. I wont even be around much longer (uk) in any case.

Again, what ever you mean by "the best" estate agent. is open to
interpretation. Might it be "the best" at getting money, irrespective of
integrity, or might it be for providing the best product in question? The
Best from whose point of view? Customers? Smirk.

Academic qualification does not automatically evoke a whole host of other
qualities. Aptitude in one thing, but academia, in this instance, does not
mean aptitude in getting the job done, let alone done well.

Qualities such as; Imaginativeness, honesty, altruism, sacrifice,
practicality, sociability, team-spiritedness, generosity, long-term view
abilities, responsibility, integrity, communication skills, being able to
'think' or even personal hygiene, to mention but a small number, are not
automatically inherent in a masters degree, let alone an 'ordinary' one.

Actually, I wonder what will the next one up the ladder be; The Omnipotent
Degree?



but it won't guarantee
that people don't walk away from them at a cocktail party.


True, though almost guarantees escape from much worse in terms of standards
of living.


If you have encountered people who shun you because you're a gardener,
more fool them. Whenever I meet a professional - or trade - gardener, I
always have a pile of questions to ask.

Simon

Ah now. that just being intelligent (-; and I do not need to know about your
own educational rank to realise it. Such intellect is yet another factor not
guaranteed by a degree judging by the calibre (and I use that term loosely)
of those networking geniuses involved. And guess what, viewers tend to
notice little things like intelligence. That is, when not too busy with
presenters fashion sense, age, gender, size, etc. Or maybe it's the viewers
who must also be screened to ensure only graduates can see the
programme?????

Indeed, what good is a telly garden presenters qualification against your
criteria, which seems to be that they should have just such standards, but
then you fail to realise just such standards have being achieved? Remember
Charlie's?



Patrick

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 10:11:01 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 3/6/04 9:19, in article , "Stan The Man"
wrote:

In article , Sacha
wrote:

On 2/6/04 23:55, in article , "Stan The Man"
wrote:

snip

In related areas, if someone is fixing my gas boiler, my teeth, my new
extension, my domestic wiring, my blood pressure, etc, I'm going to
find someone who, first and foremost, is properly qualified to do the
job. If they are also experienced, so much the better.

Simon

That is because all the things you cite above could involve you in danger.
I don't think there are many attacker foxgloves out there. ;-)

No foxglove attacks maybe, but there is plenty of danger elsewhere in
the garden. The DTI's data is never current but according to
http://www.dti.gov.uk/homesafetynetwork/gs_stats.htm there are over
450,000 accidents requiring hospital treatment every year in the
garden, including 46 fatalities. See also ROSPA's data at
http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/safety.htm#hass.

This may not be a huge number relatively but is large enough absolutely
to warrant broadcasters indemnifying themselves as much as possible by
employing qualified (and experienced) gardeners, imho. (It's also more
than the number of accidents involving gas boiler
servicing/installation, dental work, etc).

Simon
If you use those criteria, nobody should be allowed into their own garden
with an RHS diploma and given that most plants have at least some toxic
properties, we should all give up gardening completely.
And I really do fail to see that lack of an RHS diploma makes either the
individual or a broadcaster more inclined towards accidents in the garden.
In fact, Cheltenham seems to be ahead of you - I haven't read it yet but Ray
says he's seen something that indicates that the council has decided not to
do any public planting because their workers might hurt themselves using
gardening tools such as rakes, spades, trowels etc.

Judging by our local authority, the next step will be to get rid of
all workers and replace them with administrators.