All of the above can and does add bias, not just education or lack of. The juror pool comes from all walks of life and to claim a person educated in a particular field makes them "over-qualified" to perform their civic responsibility is prejudicial and absurd. Of course specific bias' come up when attorneys are selecting jurors for a specific trial, but the initial pool is a cross section the voting American public.
This wasn't the intent of this thread 
I was just curious what others experiences were.
It's pretty simple, IMO.
Someone overqualified may not be able to properly fulfill the civic responsibility. You're sort of ignoring what 'peer' means. The law pretty much says "a jury of your peers" not "People from all walks of life". It doesn't mean certain people are better than others, simply that everyone isn't a peer. Bill Gates isn't a peer of mine, LOL!
They stopped doctors and lawyers from being impaneled because it was believed an unfair advantage existed over other members when it comes to interpreting evidence and legal process. Excusing certain people was probably considered class discrimination so changes were made. No idea if the change has made any difference.
Most of the people I know who did jury duty found it semi-interesting but had made their minds up well in advance of closing arguments. I'll have to do it eventually and hope it's something cool like murder or pimpin'.
