It would be easier and cheaper for employers to able to use their own selection criteria, such as general aptitude tests, but those are racist.
You're darn tootin' it is (/s.) Well, at least the courts say it is. That's one of the reasons that there is such an emphasis on "higher education."
You see, this whole thing started with a Supreme Court decision (Griggs v. Duke Power) in 1971. The court held that Mr. Griggs, an employee of the company, was being discriminated against (he was black, but you know that) by the administration of paper tests by Duke Power.
As a consequence, firms could not do that. So, they went for the next best thing: they required that certain new employees hold a college degree, which supposedly meant they had a certain degree of intelligence (not always true!).
When I graduated in 1966, the percentage of the U.S. population aged 25 and higher, was around 6 percent. Today, it's nudging 30 percent. Interesting, isn't it?
You're darn tootin' it is (/s.) Well, at least the courts say it is. That's one of the reasons that there is such an emphasis on "higher education."
You see, this whole thing started with a Supreme Court decision (Griggs v. Duke Power) in 1971. The court held that Mr. Griggs, an employee of the company, was being discriminated against (he was black, but you know that) by the administration of paper tests by Duke Power.
As a consequence, firms could not do that. So, they went for the next best thing: they required that certain new employees hold a college degree, which supposedly (not always true!) meant they had a certain degree of intelligence (not always true!).
When I graduated in 1966, the percentage of the U.S. population aged 25 and higher, was around 6 percent. Today, it's nudging 30 percent. Interesting, isn't it?