People didn't need to go to college because nobody cared. Employers were able to look at qualities of the actual person, not some outside attribute bolted onto the side. What changed was Griggs vs. Duke, which outlawed effectively all filtering mechanisms except a college degree, forcing the hand of employers.

That still didn't mean the workers had to comply, though. What do you think would happen, with respect to employment, if nobody attained a college degree? Not much. "Welp, no more college graduates. I guess we'd better shut our business down." would be said by nobody. Hiring would carry on as usual (aside from the lines possibly being longer, there being no legal mechanism to cull applicants early). But colleges certainly took the opportunity to present that idea and the people bought it hook, line, and sinker.

▲

amanaplanacanal 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

That's not true though. We keep hearing about coding tests given to applicants in high tech, and those are still legal. The decision said that the test had to be reasonably related to the job, not that they couldn't be used.

	▲	9rx 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		> We keep hearing about coding tests given to applicants in high tech, and those are still legal. I was referring to pre-engagement. Those coding tests are generally only given after an applicant has shown enough potential to give them the time of day. Whereas employers with tens of thousands of resumes on their desk look for a way, as to not overwhelm the process, to throw most of them out before opening lines of communication with the person. That was "No degree, garbage it goes". But yes, now that everyone and their brother has a degree, this doesn't work so well nowadays, which is why employers are quickly moving back to not caring about degrees — as you observed with said coding tests trying to stand in as a replacement. But there was that time in even more recent history... I also said "effectively". There are technically other ways, yes, but they aren't all that practical at scale which is why a degree was settled on as the de facto solution, at least during the time it was effective.

▲

gosub100 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

A 1970 court case doesn't explain why my childhood friends' parents could afford to own 3 bedroom houses and have 1-2 kids while working at chain restaurants, distribution centers, and hospitality. This was in the 1990s. People cannot have this life now with the same jobs. Even with college degrees, it's barely attainable. People are doing the same amount of work but what would have been their wages are being diverted to the rich. To the point that they can barely afford to survive.

▲

9rx 6 days ago | parent [-]

That is explained by housing also becoming more valuable. It wasn't that long ago that owning a house was considered a necessary evil at best, not the path to riches as it is recognized as today. Historically, you were lucky if you got your money back out of a house when you decided to sell it. Nowadays, if one doesn't get a double digit percentage return on investment they are crying like it is the end of the world. That shift in mindset allows homeowners to charge more when they sell their home[1]. That is not a product of inflation.

[1] Which also further perpetuates the idea of housing being an investment with said homeowner realizing a tidy return in that ability to charge more, which sees even more people wanting in on the action so that they too can make a fortune; lather, rinse, repeat.

▲

gosub100 6 days ago | parent [-]

Yes, it became "more valuable" to corporations that want to extract wealth from them instead of living inside them. Another way for the wealthy to extract wealth from the poor.

	▲	vel0city 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		Its not just corporations wanting to extract this wealth. Go to a city council meeting and see the people arguing against increasing density and housing availability. Its not corpo suits, its crowds of old boomers. Its not like only corporations can be selfish. Home ownership rate today is pretty much the same today as it was in the 1970s, its slightly higher.