How about that education creates possibilities to lessen the effets of social inequality - just as the welfare state does. And, as the 1950s and 60s seem to show, educating people people who come from the lower tiers of the social hierarchy increases the chances that said education will result in a new platform on which to challenge the dominant culture.
> there's no way to correct class inequality under capitalism is there?
Well no but there is a range between complete communism and pure capitalism: a robust welfare state seems to have helped a good number of people become better off with health, nutrition, education, housing, etc. In other words, being working class doesn't have to be as bad as all that, even if chances for social mobility are about the same. And, as I said above, the more these everyday concerns are bracketed, the more likely people are to demand even more - and a broader distribution.
> you can maybe impact individual life chances, but actual _class)
> inequality remains intact. As the Luxembourg studies point out,
> someone moves up the class ladder, someone else falls down.
In recent years the problem seems to be that no one is really climbing that ladder. You need access to elevator and, if the Twitter feed is any indication, you have to be a pretty despicable human being to ride in it.
> the standard analysis in sociology of education years ago, back in the
> mid 90s, was that what people saw as "class mobility" was actually
> just structural shifts in the economy where it temporarily appears
> that class inequality is actually affected, but the long view shows
> that it stays intact. One example of this is a blip people saw happen
> in the 70s, where two year college degrees really seemed to make an
> impact. This is because there was a plethora of jobs opening up with
> computing for which talent was limited. Salaries were high as a
> result. That "bump" was flattened. Similarly, we can talk about
> temporary "rises" in income that seem to correlate with advances in
> educational attainment but which are rolled back as capital fights
> back to flatten wages.
>
> Computer programming is another example. College profs, another.
>
I see what you're saying and I'm sure this is mostly true - making the broader economic situation far more important to actual mobility. But I guess I'd sum up the points above (as a sort of shorthand, not so thought through listserve statement of philosophy) by saying that I think overturning that system altogether requires some form of education beforehand if its not to turn into a simple "burn shit and take over" exercise (which seems to be what the Tea Party has begun, much to the chagrin of its handlers). And, on the other hand, the system of education could provide those interested in partaking in it some opportunities for self improvement that aren't always possible in the autodidactic fantasies of the already well-heeled.
It's a good point, though. I just need to think more about it.
Sean