Does the amount or type of education influence ethical behavior?

"Does the amount or type of education influence ethical behavior?"

Yes. University law schools, medical schools and graduate programs
generally screen applicants for admission on basic behavioral issues
such as a criminal record, history of substance abuse, personal
references etc. Should unacceptable behaviors show up while earning a
degree, counseling and/or expulsion can follow. Various forms of
cheating are not acceptable. Most programs are so competetive that
this tends to screen out people predisposed to unacceptable behaviors.
No guarantee that once in practic or teaching, unethical behaviors
don't arise.

A college degree requires much more effort, intellect and cost than a
high school degree. That screens for intelligence and ambition.
Someone seeking to pursue a degree in teaching, clinical psychology or
divinity, generally goes through a process of observation, self
evaluation and scrutiny before graduating.

It has been my experience that education does not have a positive
influence on ethical behavior in most people. If it did, one would
expect the CEOs of large corporations to be more ethical than the
janitors of those corporations, and I do not perceive this to be the
case.

The type of education can have an influence, although in most cases,
students'  choice of type of education (field of study) is probably
guided by their prior ethical orientation.
It is also very significant that courses in ethics have been
introduced in many business schools as a response to criticism about
unethical practices by managers. Do they have an influence?  Two (or
is it three?) senior politicians in Washington  are presently in
trouble for unethical behavior.
There have been instances of highly educated scientists breeching
professional ethical standards.  And on a lower level, plagerism via
internet is apparently rampant and absolutely unethical, and all the
homework questions here are a form  of unethical behavior.
My feeling is that a sense of ethics must be instilled much earlier in life.

CEO's of large corporations, and for that matter the bankers and CPA's
who assist in fraud, have a motive, $$, in what they have done. The
Enron's and World.com's are possibly contrasted to people like Bill
Gates and Warren Buffet. Those involved in fraud will be prosecuted
for those crimes.

The % of MD's or lawyers sanctioned by the state or association for
unethical practices is relatively low compared to the total number.

Professors certainly cheat on published work as well as anything that
might earn them tenure, dept. chairmanships etc. Contrasting to that,
universities can and do dismiss tenured faculty caught violating
policies. The most tempting situations are those that involve extreme
pressure such as the dissertation committee, earning tenure or an
administrative position. Do you really think that the majority of
academics are cheats? Then why are colleges and universities bursting
with students, with competion for admission and costs only increasing?

Any profession that offers sizeable incomes, prestige and of course
sex will attract the most cunning, opportunistic and risk oriented
people.

Any field where background checks are required or customary and
personal recommendations are at a premium will filter out most of the
worst offenders.

Does education alter a psychopathic personality ?

(Psychopaths don't kill - they just have flexible ethics)

Genetically, we are identical to the cavemen of 20 or even 50 thousand
years ago- and cavemen cared only about their own survival, and close
family.

Education and culture have tried, with limited success, to instill a
wider degree of ethics and conscientious behavior in people.

So, overall, yes, education helps, its certainly better than nothing-
but, still, in a way we are all just fancy, dressed up, cell phone
using, SUV driving cavemen.

<quote>
Genetically, we are identical to the cavemen of 20 or even 50 thousand
years ago
</quote>

I do not agree, how many shortsighted cavemen were there in 10,000 BC ?

Look at dogs, they have been selectively bred, I doubt you would find
a Jack Russell or a miniature Poodle in a neolithic domicile.

Humans have mutated, through 'selection' we have developed a lot of
peculiar traits, just as we have 'selected' traits in domestic and
farm animals.

Given that physical mutation has taken place, it is rather unlikely
that mental mutation has /not/ taken place.

Sure, we are conditioned by society, but that does not preclude a spot
of Darwinian selection.

Yes, you're right, dogs have changed TREMOUNDOUSLY from their wolf
ancestors in the relatively brief 5 or 10 thousand years since we
began domesticating them.

However, my point was, you could take a baby from the stone age, raise
him in modern society, and never see any difference between him and
anybody else.

PS: all mutations are physical, involving changes in DNA; there are no
mental mutations (perhaps you were thinking along the lines of
cultural evolution).

@Tempworker

Are you sure that no mutations are mental ?
I'm not.

We breed dogs for temperament as well as physical characteristics ...

Psychological eugenics is a touchy area when it comes to humans, but
it is definitely applied to non-human species.

While I'll certainly agree that 'nurture' is very important, I would
be wary of suggesting that 'nature' does not come into things.