This is their tactic more than out-and-out lying, they take advantage of your lack of experience with the rules, regulations and verbiage. And they are your only guide through the red-tape, so you follow.
Similarly they told me the job I wanted (computer programming) was not available because it was full since so many people wanted it and recommended electronics on attack helicopters as it was at least technical. (So I did it.) What they didn't say was that new classes open every week, so while the one he showed me was full, the next one wasn't. (Had I balked I believe a class would have had a "sudden opening".) Or that while there were technically electronics it was really just black box replacement and the real work was on the weapons themselves and involved little to no relevant electronic experience.
Again... not out-and-out lies, but certainly to the military's benefit more than your own.
In that case it sounds like the recruiter barely knew what went into O-level avionics so he or she guessed and said it was electronics-heavy. You now know that it's the I-level or Depot level techs that actually do troubleshooting with multimeter/oscilloscope, but only because you were involved in the Avionics field.
To be fair the 10 month training for 68-J did include classes on circuits, resistors, etc... not that we ever used it.
I totally agree that the negotiation required to get a specific MOS is well above the ability of most 20-year-olds. That sucks about the recruiter lying about the school being full.
I would prefer military recruitment to focus on the highest integrity rather than the most recruits. I don't have much of a position about this particular tactic, but I do see these two issues as morally linked and I am interested in others' perspective and analysis of the matter.
That will be secondary to fulfilling requirements to recruit an extra few thousand servicemembers to fulfill a military objective, e.g. The Surge in Iraq. Congress and the Executive will demand results if the military isn't keeping up with recruitment.
I see military service potentially fulfilling all of a person's ideals/goals, but this is primarily based off of that person's willingness to work hard, exploit opportunities, and luck. I could have mixed up the importance of those qualities, maybe luck is the most important.
The occupational field is usually specified in the contract, but often recruiters fail to mention that most Marine recruits end up with the less glamorous job within that field. Many new Marines with the Legal/Administration guarantee end up being Administrative (HR) clerks instead of a legal clerks (a much less common MOS).
Also, my mother (who never has been very good at reading paperwork she is signing) was told she was signing a permission form for my brother to take a test, when actuality she was signing a form giving him permission to enlist. He was 17, but only a few months from turning 18. He would have just joined anyway in a few months if my mom hadn't signed the form, but she was pretty upset that she was lied to about what it was.
Still hardly a statistically strong sample, but it is like 100% so unless we both have Major Sampling Bias... and I never met an officer named "bias".