Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 01/29/10 12:38, somebody wrote:
>>
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/nyregion/14fire.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1264791670-GxVD+sfKjvw04Ji/zop/fQ
>>
>>> It fails to explain how exactly the test discriminated. I looked at
>>> some other articles, and none gives any detail whatsoever.
>> The test "discriminated" because African-Americans (and possibly Hispanics)
>> scored lower than their White peers. And since requiring applicants to be
> 
> 	Thanks for letting us know. Can you tell me where I can purchase the
> crystal ball that told you that information? 

Well, it's pretty much the definition of "discrimination", in the technical 
sense. :-) It apparently did a bang-up job of discriminating between whites 
and non-whites, with a very low false-positive rate.

It's "discriminatory" in quotes because the discrimination was based on 
"race" (or more properly ethnicity) and the minorities came out behind.

How did a simple written test that apparently does not look discriminatory 
to those in charge of administering the test do such a good job of 
discriminating between ethnicities? That's a very good question!

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message