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!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!tonyw From: tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Newsflash! [Subsidized Education Message-ID: <302@ubvax.UUCP> Date: Sat, 17-Aug-85 17:50:24 EDT Article-I.D.: ubvax.302 Posted: Sat Aug 17 17:50:24 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 21-Aug-85 05:59:07 EDT References: <290@ubvax.UUCP> <28200048@inmet.UUCP> Reply-To: tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) Organization: Ungermann-Bass, Inc., Santa Clara, Ca. Lines: 81 In article <28200048@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes > >>(Tony Wuersch) >>Education does one massive thing that its lack or its privatization >>could not: it sets up people with credentials before they get their >>first job. Hence it permits a match between many different levels >>of jobs and many different levels of credentials. > > [... some comments about ETS which have nothing to do with jobs. ] > >>Hence it makes >>filling a job a manageable task for most jobs, by helping to ensure >>that the number of "qualified" applicants for a job match the number >>of jobs more or less. >>It also makes filling a job a less risky >>procedure, since applicants have accumulated a record which can >>be compared with other records even before the first job. > >A peculiar stance, given that the colleges and private high >schools depend on private achievement tests..... > Again here, private achievement tests have nothing to do with jobs. They react to the failure of high school or elementary schools to generate decent credentials -- a failure of the American system of local rule over high school and elementary education which systems following national educational standards don't share. The solution here is stricter national standards, not looser ones. And personnel departments don't look at ETS results, anyway. > >>Of course, the value of a credentialing system depends on the level >>of publicity, the level of enforcement, and the level of agreement >>on the value of particular credentials. Hence, since the best >>guarantor of publicity, enforcement, and agreement between credentials >>is a public regulatory authority, > >Support please. > I assume you agree with the first sentence. As far as the second goes, I think of a credentialing scheme like a security setup. The most secure setups are where an outside, central agency takes charge of security and makes sure that all sub-central security arrangements are consistent, so that the system as a whole is secure against hostile entry. And where everyone knows the rules. The same rules which maintain secure environments are the rules which maintain consistent credentialing systems. The only central agency in a state which has coercive powers over people within the state is the state. So it has a role if a social goal is that educational credentials should be secure and consistent. >>and because people outside the >>educational system disturb the system of credentials, > >Support for the implication that the impact that outsiders have >is "distortion" and not "adjustment to reality", please. > The debate over affirmative action. Anyone who gets benefited by affirmative action is assumed to be distorting the system because they didn't obtain the necessary credentials, or their credentials were watered down and inflated compared to similar credentials held by others. These people are outsiders because they break the rules relating credentials to jobs. Now, if you believe that affirmative action is adjustment to reality, then I have no argument with you. >>the place >>for education is in the public sphere, and education should be >>subsidized and regulated by a public authority. > >Given a false premise, it's possible to prove anything. Please back >yours up. I'm guessing here as to what you think is the false premise. Maybe you could tell me in some reply or future article. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw