Does a degree at university determine a person's IQ and knowledge? I have seen and experienced that some degree holders are passive intellectuals and their performance is poor in any given job.

They received their degrees because they passed exams and assignments but actual knowledge is quite different.

In any job interview and selection, you should consider documentary evidence, academic results, IQ and EQ tests, and those who have vision and insight.

David Manning may have no degree but if he can perform better than any other police commissioner let him complete his term.

A classical example is Henry Tokam, former police commissioner, who had no degree but was one of the best commissioners in PNG with integrity and professionalism.

When I returned to Australia from PNG I rapidly discovered that progress into the upper ranks of the South Australian Public Service was almost always contingent upon possessing a post-secondary or tertiary qualification of some sort.

The lack of a degree level qualification condemned a person to remain in the lower to middle clerical ranks almost irrespective of personal diligence or achievement.

Appointment to the executive ranks was and is virtually impossible without having an appropriate degree level qualification.

The presumption was and is that tertiary study teaches you how to read complex and difficult material, conduct research, analyse data, then organise your thoughts to write coherently to defend or articulate a theory or argument..

Of course, the extent to which a given student develops these skills depends upon many factors and, in my experience at least, people can graduate from a university having demonstrated only quite modest achievements in these areas.

So the main argument for preferring or requiring tertiary qualifications for candidates for executive positions in the public service really boils down to such qualifications being an indicator of a reasonable degree of intelligence and the capacity to apply it to achieve a certain level of competence in a range of intellectual tasks.

However, in most respects, it is a person's track record that is much more important than his or her formal qualifications.

Using my own case as an example, my initial appointment as Chief Executive of a hospital hinged largely upon my work history within the department of health, not my degree in history and politics.

My subsequent appointments to even more senior roles had nothing at all to do with my achievements as an under graduate and everything to do with demonstrated competence and experience in managing large and complex organisations.

Also, to be frank, a reputation for strict political neutrality, scrupulous honesty and a highly developed work ethic counted for a great deal too.

This is especially true today, where Minister's can and do express their views about who should occupy senior executive roles within their departments. Whether this is a good thing is an open question, but it remains the case nonetheless.

In the case of David Manning's appointment as Police Commissioner, I think that there is a valid argument that a demonstrated track record of achievement, combined with a deserved reputation as an honest, diligent, politically neutral officer, are much more important factors than any particular tertiary level qualification.

While possession of a relevant tertiary qualification should remain an important desirable factor for any senior executive appointment, it should always be remembered that the mere possession of an under graduate or higher degree is unlikely to be indicative of any inherent ability to do a difficult, complex and demanding job.