Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ubvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!pesnta!amd!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
From: tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: AA/Quota's, etc, why I don't like them...
Message-ID: <243@ubvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Jul-85 02:07:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: ubvax.243
Posted: Wed Jul 10 02:07:59 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 12:54:45 EDT
References: <3890@alice.UUCP> <234@ubvax.UUCP> <726@ihlpg.UUCP>
Organization: Ungermann-Bass, Inc., Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 53

In article <726@ihlpg.UUCP>, tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL) writes:
> > That report led to AA precisely because its results suggested that
> > the effect of education on career achievements, after taking out
> > factors the most important of which was Father's occupation, was
> > practically NIL.  No effect, no program.
> > 
> > Projections based on collected data indicate that improving education
> > will not affect racial differences in life career paths AT ALL.  Chris
> > Jencks' book, "Who Gets Ahead", refines and fixes these statements some
> > more, taking into account new data, but the predictions remain the same:
> > improving education will have no effect on the US's racially unequal
> > distribution of careers.  Noting the strong effects of father's
> > occupations through all this research, overwhelming any school effects,
> > Jencks says that the way to redistribute careers is to redistribute
> > careers.  Makes sense.  If father's occupation is most of what matters,
> > then changing father's occupation will help the children.
> > 
> > 
> > Tony Wuersch
> > {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
> > 
> So, education has no effect on career achievements.  We sure could save 
> a lot of money if we just closed all the schools.-)  We could hold a
> lottery to see who gets what job.  What could be more unbiased than that!
> Seriously, I would be curious if anyone on the net besides Mr. Wuersch
> believes this drivel.
> -- 
> Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan

I think what I said was that improving education (i.e. giving everyone
a better education) would not change who gets the good careers and
who gets the bad ones.  This is because better parental background
reflects itself as more educational success which translates into
better careers.

Education, in effect, legitimates prior advantages in the
job market -- mostly because inherited environmental advantages tend
to tell people (and others) how far they think they (and others) can go in
the educational system, hence what careers they (and others) imagine they
(and others) could possibly pursue.  It's the incredible convergence
on an aggregate level between what people expect are the rules of
life and what others expect are the rules of life that lead more
social scientists today to write in terms of social myths.

Holding a lottery for jobs would violate too many social myths to
expect that anyone who won such a lottery could do their job without
disruption (getting lynched, perhaps).

Tony Wuersch
{amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw

"And if you don't believe all the things I say
 I'm certified prime by the USDA!"