4 ms·

> The 1971 Supreme Court decision remains largely unknown, but no ruling of the past forty-five years (except for Roe v. Wade) has done more harm to the America

> The 1971 Supreme Court decision remains largely unknown, but no ruling of the past forty-five years (except for Roe v. Wade) has done more harm to the American way of life. Rolls eyes so hard they nearly come out of skull Yeah, it probably had some effect, but I'd say there are a lot of reasons, probably starting with the GI Bill. Why settle for a high school grad when there's a glut of veteran-college-grads suddenly on the market, all looking for jobs? Plus it gives you an excuse for excluding most women, who are suddenly in the job market in much greater numbers, from higher-paying jobs... oh, and would you look at that, black veterans are having trouble actually getting the benefits they're owed, so aren't going to college at as high a rate as white veterans! How convenient that is. Clearly, there are a bunch of reasons this would have been appealing to employers well before 1971, and once the ball's rolling, it's easy to see how this new situation becomes self-perpetuating (good jobs now require degrees, since there are plenty of degree-holders around -> kids aspire to college at much higher rates -> repeat)

polski-g 3y ago
> Why settle for a high school grad when there's a glut of veteran-college-grads suddenly on the market You didn't need to "settle" for anything prior to this decision. You could simply screen for candidates based on innate cognitive ability. Going to college or not does not change that attribute.
- yamtaddle 3y ago
  Why have we seen a similar rise in crendialism in countries without similar rulings or laws? Where's the demand for Griggs-compliant intelligence testing? Such a thing is permitted! Where is it? This may be a small—very small—part of the puzzle, but I don't see a compelling case that we can point to it and say, "yep, that's what did it!" I don't even see enough to make it look like that's a valuable direction to further examine. The evidence is scant, and behavior we see doesn't look like it ought to if that were the main cause. > You could simply screen for candidates based on innate cognitive ability. You could apply racist or sexist requirements laundered through "testing". The whole reason the case was brought was that that was actually happening.
  - polski-g 3y ago
    > Where's the demand for Griggs-compliant intelligence testing? Such a thing is permitted! Where is it? Right here: https://wonderlic.com/ https://wonderlic.com/ > Why have we seen a similar rise in crendialism in countries without similar rulings or laws? Because if you are an active participant in a market, you want to make it very hard for anyone else to enter it so that your own wages are not subject to market supply forces. So you lobby the government to restrict supply in any way possible (licensing, job requirements, training requirements). Its the same reason people are housing YIMBYs until about 30minutes after they close on their house and become NIMBYs.
    - yamtaddle 3y ago
      > Right here: https://wonderlic.com/ https://wonderlic.com/ Cool. So... this and similar things are in wide use, in preference of degree requirements, since it's largely Griggs-related concerns driving the rise in degree requirements, and employers would prefer to just use tests like this? If not, well, guess that's not a major driver of the phenomenon.

polski-g 3y ago

> Why settle for a high school grad when there's a glut of veteran-college-grads suddenly on the market You didn't need to "settle" for anything prior to this decision. You could simply screen for candidates based on innate cognitive ability. Going to college or not does not change that attribute.

yamtaddle 3y ago
Why have we seen a similar rise in crendialism in countries without similar rulings or laws? Where's the demand for Griggs-compliant intelligence testing? Such a thing is permitted! Where is it? This may be a small—very small—part of the puzzle, but I don't see a compelling case that we can point to it and say, "yep, that's what did it!" I don't even see enough to make it look like that's a valuable direction to further examine. The evidence is scant, and behavior we see doesn't look like it ought to if that were the main cause. > You could simply screen for candidates based on innate cognitive ability. You could apply racist or sexist requirements laundered through "testing". The whole reason the case was brought was that that was actually happening.
- polski-g 3y ago
  > Where's the demand for Griggs-compliant intelligence testing? Such a thing is permitted! Where is it? Right here: https://wonderlic.com/ https://wonderlic.com/ > Why have we seen a similar rise in crendialism in countries without similar rulings or laws? Because if you are an active participant in a market, you want to make it very hard for anyone else to enter it so that your own wages are not subject to market supply forces. So you lobby the government to restrict supply in any way possible (licensing, job requirements, training requirements). Its the same reason people are housing YIMBYs until about 30minutes after they close on their house and become NIMBYs.
  - yamtaddle 3y ago
    > Right here: https://wonderlic.com/ https://wonderlic.com/ Cool. So... this and similar things are in wide use, in preference of degree requirements, since it's largely Griggs-related concerns driving the rise in degree requirements, and employers would prefer to just use tests like this? If not, well, guess that's not a major driver of the phenomenon.