What are the statistics for police officers with AS degrees vs Bachelors Degrees?

I am in my first year of community college... and I am stuck... I definatley want to become a police offcier upon graduation, but I am trying to decide which degree to get. While most departments only require a hs diploma, I wonder if a bachelors will be wasted. I see so many of my friends going for bachelors degrees. I am also worried that I will not be able to move up in the ranks if I only have an associates.

What are the statistics for police officers with AS degrees vs Bachelors Degrees?
A bachelor's degree will do nothing but give you options. As you already know, most departments do not require a 4 year degree. Most departments now will not hire a chief unless he/she possesses a Master's Degree or higher. Just 10 years ago, that was not the case. But as society in general becomes more educated, it bleeds over into every job. Whether you get a 4 year degree or not the most important skill you are going to need as a cop is the ability to apply the knowledge you have. Personally, i have a 4 year degree and am finishing my master's degree, while on the job. More education will never hurt you, so my recommendation would be to continue towards your bachelor's degree. If you want to apply after you meet the minimum requriements in your area, feel free to apply, but keep working towards your degree.
Reply:Jefferson vs. Hamilton: Confrontations That Shaped a Nation


Noble E. Cunningham, Jr.


The rhetoric of the War of Independence emphasized that the establishment and maintenance of a new republic depended upon a politics of virtue, in which citizens would banish thoughts of personal interest when addressing public issues. A corollary to this conception suggested that the spirit of faction was a sign of political corruption; partisanship in politics signaled the efforts of one group to gain power over and reduce the liberty of others. Consequently, Revolutionary leaders tended to assume that the creation of political parties in the new American state would endanger the republican experiment. When political parties began to crystallize during the administration of President George Washington, Federalists and Republicans alike often were quick to assume that their opposite numbers were aiming to subvert the hard-won liberties of the new United States. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson were key players in the formation of the nation’s first party system, and each helped to establish early precedents in the nation’s political and economic life. Both Jefferson and Hamilton had risked their lives in the struggle against the British Crown, but the divergence of their views after the war suggests that perhaps they had been fighting different battles all along. In Jefferson vs. Hamilton: Confrontations That Shaped a Nation, Noble E. Cunningham Jr. integrates documentary evidence and historical narrative to aid students’ understanding of the antagonistic political attitudes that emerged from what had seemed a common cause.





Though survey texts highlight the differences between the two men while Hamilton served as secretary of the treasury, and Jefferson as secretary of state, students should be encouraged to examine Cunningham’s documents for earlier signs of latent antagonism. For example, Hamilton and Jefferson both supported ratification of the federal Constitution, though each thought the final document needed improvement. How do their respective statements on the Constitution reveal different concerns? In a letter to James Madison, Jefferson notes that, unlike many of his contemporaries, he was not overly disturbed by the outbreak of Shays’s Rebellion in Massachusetts. How does Jefferson characterize his attitude toward this uprising, and how does his view compare with Hamilton’s assertion, aired at the Constitutional Convention, that "the people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right"? How do these differences of opinion also help to shape Hamilton’s and Jefferson’s perceptions of the French Revolution? Based upon these and other documents contained in Cunningham’s volume, can students construct a rough definition of Hamilton’s and Jefferson’s attitudes toward democracy itself? (And can students explain why Jefferson, a well-born slaveholder, was an advocate of democracy, while the self-made Hamilton felt that popular democracy might well lead to anarchy?) Do their attitudes seem more the result of direct observation or of contrasting views of human nature?





Students might also consider how conceptions of liberty underlay each statesman’s attitude toward economics. What are the bases of Jefferson’s opposition to Hamilton’s plans for funding the national debt and creating a national bank? Do Hamilton’s writings on these schemes effectively answer Jefferson’s doubts, or do the two figures appear to be talking past each other? An analysis of the correspondence each carried on with President Washington shows that both mixed points of argument with ad hominem attacks; how does this type of appeal illuminate the contemporary fear of political factionalism? How do the disagreements between Hamilton and Jefferson foretell political divisions that would come to fruition after both had died? Students should note references to sectional tensions between North and South, for example, or to the relative importance of agriculture and manufacturing for American national development. In either case, can students explain why such issues are framed in terms of liberty as well as economics? Did republican thought even allow for distinctions between liberty and economics?





In examining the differences between Hamilton’s and Jefferson’s conceptions of the public good, students will likely notice that many of their points of conflict have never been wholly resolved. Allowing for historical developments that have reshaped the particulars, can students identify instances in which these general conflicts have recurred throughout American history and into the present? How prescient was Hamilton in detailing the benefits of American industrialization in his Report on Manufacturers, and to what extent did Jefferson’s misgivings about industrialization and urbanization prove well founded? Can students relate the different positions each figure took regarding politics and the press in the 1770s to present-day equivalents, in which appeals to First Amendment rights often clash with criticisms of the media’s influence in the political process? Hamilton was an advocate of expanding the powers of the federal state. Do students think he would have approved of the growth of federal power during the twentieth century? By attempting to answer these questions, students may recognize that the political differences articulated by Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton have remained remarkably durable over time. Though both would have preferred to quell the spirit of faction that resulted in political party formation, their contrary arguments help to explain—and perhaps to justify—why party systems quickly came to dominate American political life.





Sorry I know this is not the awnser your looking 4 but I need points so I can ask questions





Plz rate me zero stars





I have a record