Educate the LayPeople

[Fraulein Hilda]

Educate me. Why take the test?

 

[Nik]

Of course you would. In a thread where conservatives are arguing with liberals and you happen to know the liberals are right, you can't just come out and say that. You have to attack the liberals while doing so. "Well, you are right...but right in the wrong way, so shame on you!"

And the title of the thread was obviously facetious.

Because the thread isn't filled with comments from lay people? Seems accurate to me.

I disagree. I know the "answer." It's another matter whether I agree or disagree with "the answer." I'm a lawyer, I can advocate for either side whether I believe in it or not.

They did teach you that at your law school right?

while yer at it would you ask "counsel" what was "obviously facetious" about the title? damn,, laypeople just cannot catch a break!

If someone actually wanted to be educated about an issue, they wouldn't start out with a bunch of assertions about said issue. You, obviously, aren't looking to be educated.

 

[Nik]

Educate me. Why take the test?

What test are you talking about?

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Educate us. What is the point of a test?

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Regarding the Fireman's test in Conn. What was it about the test that made it disparate??

I sure it must have involved.. firefighting and rescue procedures,, and policy.. and possibly some management questions. So what was it about this test that was illegal.. as in a black man could not pass it but a white man could.. I don't get it..

Ricci v. Destefano.

This test. Why take it? Why administer it?

 

[Nik]

Regarding the Fireman's test in Conn. What was it about the test that made it disparate??

I sure it must have involved.. firefighting and rescue procedures,, and policy.. and possibly some management questions. So what was it about this test that was illegal.. as in a black man could not pass it but a white man could.. I don't get it..

Ricci v. Destefano.

This test. Why take it? Why administer it?

The point is to figure out who is qualified.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Regarding the Fireman's test in Conn. What was it about the test that made it disparate??

I sure it must have involved.. firefighting and rescue procedures,, and policy.. and possibly some management questions. So what was it about this test that was illegal.. as in a black man could not pass it but a white man could.. I don't get it..

Ricci v. Destefano.

This test. Why take it? Why administer it?

The point is to figure out who is qualified.

Not if the results will be set aside you won't.

 

[Diuretic]

If you read this link you might have a clue.

Supreme Court Hears Firefighter Promotion Case : NPR

On the one hand you seem to be against forcing employers to hire certain groups yet here you are seemingly wanting to force the employer's hand.

okay, I'm reading and it says




After five days of hearings, the board decided the exam was flawed.



that's what I'm trying to find out.. How was the exam flawed???

I'm still reading along here but one of the ways any assessment can be flawed is to lack validity - that is it doesn't test what it's alleged to test. I'll keep reading.

 

[WillowTree]

Regarding the Fireman's test in Conn. What was it about the test that made it disparate??

I sure it must have involved.. firefighting and rescue procedures,, and policy.. and possibly some management questions. So what was it about this test that was illegal.. as in a black man could not pass it but a white man could.. I don't get it..

Ricci v. Destefano.

This test. Why take it? Why administer it?

The point is to figure out who is qualified.

The ones who took the trouble to pass it are qualified.. I still have no apparent explanation as to why the others did not do well,, lots of double speak,, but no real answers..

 

[Nik]

This test. Why take it? Why administer it?

The point is to figure out who is qualified.

Not if the results will be set aside you won't.

They didn't know they were going to set the results aside when they first administered it.

 

[Diuretic]

Actually results do make a test illegal. This is because there is a presumption that blacks aren't systematically more stupid/less qualified than whites. Do you have some issue with this presumption?

the make up of the test may make it illegal, the results can't.

The results can be enough to prove that the make up was illegal.

One of the ways it can be examined is to check consistency across various populations who took the test before. I'm not a statistician (how funny that is you'll never really know) but I do know something called a Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficient can be used to have a look at that.

Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficient

 

[WillowTree]

This test. Why take it? Why administer it?

The point is to figure out who is qualified.

Not if the results will be set aside you won't.

see? it really makes no sense whatsoever that a black man can pass the same bar or board,, and not pass a firefighter test,, and when he does "it's racist" no sense whatsoever.. none

 

[Tech_Esq]

Of course you would. In a thread where conservatives are arguing with liberals and you happen to know the liberals are right, you can't just come out and say that. You have to attack the liberals while doing so. "Well, you are right...but right in the wrong way, so shame on you!"

And the title of the thread was obviously facetious.

Because the thread isn't filled with comments from lay people? Seems accurate to me.

The thread is filled with assertions from lay people. Not exactly people looking to get educated.

I disagree. I know the "answer." It's another matter whether I agree or disagree with "the answer." I'm a lawyer, I can advocate for either side whether I believe in it or not.

They did teach you that at your law school right?

Way to miss the point. When you attempted to rebuke me, we were merely looking at the truth of the issue. What Title VII does and says. Not whether its justified in what it does.

And feel free to argue things you don't believe in. If you are an attorney you are (hopefully) getting paid to do so, and its called representation. If you just do it randomly, its called being schizophrenic. Feel free to act on your mental illness if you so desire, but don't relate it to being an attorney.

Talk about missing a point. Just because people aren't on your side doesn't mean they are out to get you. Although, as you have seen on several threads now, you can provoke them into it. Folks on this thread needed to understand the patently stupid way Title VII operates and the gloss put on it by courts. They didn't need patronizing responses that you gave them. There's always plenty of time for those once people get up to speed.

And Nik, this is all just mental masturbation anyway. It doesn't accomplish shit. But, thanks for giving me permission to masturbate how I like.

 

[Diuretic]

okay, I'm reading and it says




After five days of hearings, the board decided the exam was flawed.



that's what I'm trying to find out.. How was the exam flawed???

Keep reading. You'll figure it out.

Well maybe YOU should enlighten the rest of us, because I don't see the inherent flaw in the test either. It states that there were 60 multiple choice
written questions as well as an oral exam. Do you really think that minorities are so incapable of understanding the written word that they should have to be tested using table models? Oh come on. That's insane. I happen to have a much higher opinion of minorities than that.

There's some interesting research about the use of memory in various forms of multiple choice (or more properly "objective items") in testing. Depending on how the objective item itself is structured it can provide a greater prompt. For example, if a question offers choices rather than simply a straight out question without a choice (prompt) then memory is more efficient in retrieval. Common sense I know but it's important for objective item construction.

As for oral exams, without knowing how this was used it's hard to give a considered response. If someone is standing in front of a selection board and is answering questions fired at him or her then that doesn't prove much because it hasn't got much linkage with the job as it's done. I'd be happier with an in-basket exercise or a simulation.

 

[Diuretic]

Well maybe YOU should enlighten the rest of us, because I don't see the inherent flaw in the test either. It states that there were 60 multiple choice
written questions as well as an oral exam. Do you really think that minorities are so incapable of understanding the written word that they should have to be tested using table models? Oh come on. That's insane. I happen to have a much higher opinion of minorities than that.

See if this helps:

Prima facie case The plaintiff must prove, generally through statistical comparisons, that the challenged practice or selection device has a substantial adverse impact on a protected group. See 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i). The defendant can criticize the statistical analysis or offer different statistics.

Tech.. I do understand the premise of the statute. What I find flawed is the assumption that if minorities don't pass the test, then the test itself must be flawed. Who is to say that the minorities didn't choose to not prepare for the test, knowing that their failure would result in an easier exam? While I doubt that to be the case, it's just as likely as the fact that minorities that live and are educated in the same society as white people are all somehow suddenly unable to comprehend the written word and must have "table models" in order to show their knowledge.

From the NPR report - Critics of the New Haven test say relying too much on multiple-choice tests and structured oral exams can produce officers who are "book smart" but "street dumb."

 

[Diuretic]

Here's another good article on it, with perhaps an explanation that Willow can understand.

That raised the question of whether a fill-in-the-bubble exam was really the best way to evaluate whether someone was suited to a leadership position in the fire department. In fact, the company that made the test admitted that some of the items were "irrelevant" in New Haven. One question, for example, asked the test-takers whether fire equipment should be parked "uptown, downtown or underground when arriving at a fire." The question was based on information relevant to New York City firefighters, and was on the exam even though the city of New Haven has no "uptown" or "downtown."

............

Not valid, just on that alone. It sounds like a boilerplate approach to testing. That's inexcusable. They need to get someone who knows firefighting, knows firefighting in New Haven and knows how to construct valid and reliable tests to do the next one and the one after that.

 

[Diuretic]

would it be more fair to have just tests that are essay questions???

Depends on what you're trying to assess.

 

[WillowTree]

I still can't get an adequate explanation as to why the assumption is automatic that the test was flawed vs.. the people who failed did not study? that's why black lawyers pass the bar and why black physicians pass the boards,, they prepare and they study,, and they do it,, right along with the white guy! do they not?

 

[Diuretic]

Regarding the Fireman's test in Conn. What was it about the test that made it disparate??

I sure it must have involved.. firefighting and rescue procedures,, and policy.. and possibly some management questions. So what was it about this test that was illegal.. as in a black man could not pass it but a white man could.. I don't get it..

Ricci v. Destefano.

This test. Why take it? Why administer it?

The point is to figure out who is qualified.

Not really, sorry to quibble but it's to find out who is competent and to what degree they're competent.

 

[Diuretic]

This test. Why take it? Why administer it?

The point is to figure out who is qualified.

Not if the results will be set aside you won't.

And the same effect flows from an invalid and unreliable assessment process.