 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-1-2010 21:38, somebody wrote:
> "Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote in message
> news:4b6334fe$1@news.povray.org...
>
>
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
> somewhat educated is such a repugnant idea, the obvious solution is of
> course to dumb down job requirements while sweeping the root cause of the
> problem, which would take actual work and money to fix, under the rug. It's
> always better to have semi illiterate constituents who you make to believe
> that you are doing them a favour than literate ones who don't need favours
> from you to stand on their own feet.
I do hope that the fact that education plaid a role is based on some
facts and not on the assumption that because the plaintiffs are black
the issue must therefore be one of education.
If there is no factual base for your claim all subsequent conclusions
are void.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
>> If some group of people doesn't *want* to get educated, that's a
>> different
>> problem. It's *their* problem, not the problem in IQ or aptitude tests.
>
> I can't see where this one comes from. Are you aware that this could be
> interpreted as a racist remark? I am sure you don't mean to, but
> suddenly starting to talk about "people that don't *want* to get
> educated" in a discussion on how race influences test results is not a
> smart move IMHO.
Ties back into the comment I made about people insisting they're not
racist, they don't like people with a particular attribute that has
nothing to do with race--but consistently ascribe that particular
negative trait more to a specific racial group than any other.
"I don't hate blacks/hispanics, I hate people who are poorly-educated
(and the only reason to be poorly-educated is that you don't *want* to
learn). It's not racist--nevermind that blacks/hispanics are
traditionally disadvantaged and not given as much education as whites
even in the same classrooms. Learning is entirely up to the individual,
so all students in a given class will learn exactly the same if their
desire to learn is the same."
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-1-2010 23:14, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> It's puzzling indeed. I'm trying to think how you could create an exam
>>> which would be disadvantageous to black people, and I can't think of anything.
>
>> There are certain tests you can give that would discriminate. Perhaps blacks
>> are more poor or worse educated, so if you asked about proper grammar or
>> financial questions, you could discriminate.
>
> Even if that's so (ie. black people in the US having in average a poorer
> education), I don't see how it's discriminating against blacks per se.
> If anything, it would be "discrimination" against uneducated people (if
> such a thing is feasible). Any person, regardless of skin tone, would score
> poorly in such a test. How is this discrimination against black people?
The main question is always: are we testing the right things. In general
employers are asking more cultural background than is needed for the
job. Simply because they want the best person, not the one just right
for the job. In doing so they discriminate against people from less
wealthy backgrounds and thereby de facto against black people.
> If the problem is that black people are in average more uneducated, the
> proper solution to that problem is not to dumb down admission tests (which
> in itself ought to have rather negative consequences related to job
> performance and perhaps in some cases even safety), but to educate them.
Keep in mind that education of minorities is not a priority for many
white politicians. They tend to support laws that unintentionally hurts
minority education more than that of their own children. All with the
best intentions of course. (note that this is based on a generalization
of what I understand from people and US conservatives in particular. I
don't live there and I don't have explicit examples).
> (If black people, for whatever reason, do not *want* to get educated, well
> that's hardly a problem with the fire department, is it?)
I covered that elsewhere, I think.
> In fact, if the reason for the justice system to demand dumbing down the
> tests so that black people can score better is because they are uneducated,
> I see an irony here: By trying to be "politically correct" and offer "equal
> opportunity", the justice system is actually openly admitting that black
> people are uneducated compared to white people. What kind of message is
> this sending to the population?
>
>> I remember reading about this - they had to drop the test a couple of years
>> because none of the blacks who applied for the promotion that the test
>> enabled actually passed the test.
>
> How is that the fire department's fault or problem? If they are applying
> the exact same test equally and fairly to all applicants, that's the very
> definition of non-discrimination.
No it isn't.
> Discrimination is when some people get preferential treatment over others.
for reasons that are irrelevant to the matter.
>> Note that in this country, the simple fact that blacks don't pass the test
>> makes it very difficult to legally claim the test isn't "discriminatory" in
>> the sense that this article means it. Folks claiming that don't have to
>> prove there's something biased on the test. You have to prove there's some
>> other reason that skin color corresponds to success rate.
>
> Hate to sound like an antimulticulturalist again,
To me you just sound like someone from a protected background with
relative little experience in the real world. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/29/10 15:10, andrel wrote:
>> Even if that's so (ie. black people in the US having in average a
>> poorer
>> education), I don't see how it's discriminating against blacks per se.
>> If anything, it would be "discrimination" against uneducated people (if
>> such a thing is feasible). Any person, regardless of skin tone, would
>> score
>> poorly in such a test. How is this discrimination against black people?
>
> The main question is always: are we testing the right things. In general
> employers are asking more cultural background than is needed for the
> job. Simply because they want the best person, not the one just right
Bingo. Or possible bingo.
I knew when I posted the link people were going to jump to rampant
speculation, and come to conclusions (or close enough) that mirror their
views of the world.
I don't know what was on the test, and no one here seems to. So why are
people coming up with all these conclusions?
Yes, some tests, on occasion _have_ been found to be "discriminatory".
This happens on occasion with things like the SAT exam (a common exam to
get admission into university in the US). It consists of a "verbal" and
a "quantitative" section. The verbal section involves reading
comprehension, and it's easy to believe that questions can be asked that
are biased towards/against a portion of the country (sometimes the bias
corresponds to race, but sometimes other factors).
Likewise the quantitative guys try to be careful. Think probability:
Will everyone know that a deck of cards has 52 of them?
I'm willing to accept that the test was discriminatory - I just want to
know how. My complaint isn't about the ruling, but the journalism
(something everyone who responded seemed to miss).
At the same time, I will confess that I don't think it's beyond some
court to say it was discriminatory just based on the test results
(unfortunately because of the way some laws have been passed). But I'll
give the benefit of the doubt.
--
One flea to another: "Is there life on other dogs?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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? Or was it a mirror on your
wall?
--
One flea to another: "Is there life on other dogs?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I don't think that's true. Maybe it was true 50 years ago, but nowadays
> IQ tests are specifically designed to be detached of all cultural backgrounds.
One example I remember was something like "You've lost your ball in a
circular field. How can you more efficiently look for it." If you grew up
in a rain forest, with neither balls nor fields, this is a difficult
question to consider.
The IQ tests I had in grade school (maybe 35-40 years ago) definitely had
culture components. Pictures from a cartoon that had to be put in the right
order, involving leaving the house, seeing it's raining, going back for the
umbrella, missing the train because of that, etc. Granted, this wasn't
*supposed* to be applicable to cultures outside where I went to grade
school; I'm pretty sure that even disadvantaged black children knew what
umbrellas were, for example.
> all people have had the exact same education for quite many decades.
Not here. People from poor neighborhoods with crappy schools and overworked
teachers get worse education than those from rich neighborhoods with
expensive lab equipment and books and plenty of teachers per pupil.
Of course, the question is how many generations do you go before you decide
that any residual results of discrimination are no longer significant?
Obviously, the children of newly freed slaves are going to be at a
disadvantage compared to the children of previous rich slaveholders - their
parents don't know as much, don't speak gramatically, can't answer questions
about science, etc. The children of uneducated parents are going to be less
educated than the children of educated parents.
Honestly, it hasn't been that long since blacks here got legally equal rights.
> I have hard time thinking of a question in a fireman test which a white
> citizen of the US is able to answer due to his culture but a black citizen
> of the US isn't, especially if both have gone to the same schools.
Yeah. Actually, I think this was a test for promotion to some
leadership/management position. It wasn't a test about fighting fires, but
about running a fire fighting company. So I imagine there could be
something on it. It's just hard to believe there's anything on it that
would make *all* 26 black applicants fail the test.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/29/10 14:23, Warp wrote:
> train a person to think geometrically), but AFAIK in the US and especially
> Europe all people have had the exact same education for quite many decades.
Heck no. There's no well defined standard for education here in the US.
It varies from state to state, and varies quite a bit even within a
state. If you go to one school, your performance may be considered OK.
The same performance in another school may be considered close to failure.
> If some group of people doesn't *want* to get educated, that's a different
> problem. It's *their* problem, not the problem in IQ or aptitude tests.
Why are we discussing hypotheticals?
> I have hard time thinking of a question in a fireman test which a white
> citizen of the US is able to answer due to his culture but a black citizen
> of the US isn't, especially if both have gone to the same schools.
1. That you (or I) can't think of something is not indicative of much.
Don't give yourself too much credit.
2. What gave you the idea that the test was about firefighting? That's
the whole point of my saying "Bad Journalism". The articles that I
looked at didn't give a clue as to what's on the test.
--
One flea to another: "Is there life on other dogs?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/29/10 11:46, Warp wrote:
>> It fails to explain how exactly the test discriminated. I looked at
>> some other articles, and none gives any detail whatsoever.
>
> It's puzzling indeed. I'm trying to think how you could create an exam
> which would be disadvantageous to black people, and I can't think of anything.
> How could one possibly make a test disadvantageous to people with a certain
> skin tone? I just can't fathom it.
Arguments about racism are often more about culture. Sometimes that
translates to race. The US is not that uniform (even within a city).
--
One flea to another: "Is there life on other dogs?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Will everyone know that a deck of cards has 52 of them?
54.
> I'm willing to accept that the test was discriminatory - I just want to
> know how. My complaint isn't about the ruling, but the journalism
> (something everyone who responded seemed to miss).
I caught it. We were discussing whether the reason the test's discriminatory
nature wasn't disclosed is because nobody can figure out why it's
discriminatory.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > If the problem is that black people are in average more uneducated, the
> > proper solution to that problem is not to dumb down admission tests (which
> > in itself ought to have rather negative consequences related to job
> > performance and perhaps in some cases even safety), but to educate them.
> Keep in mind that education of minorities is not a priority for many
> white politicians. They tend to support laws that unintentionally hurts
> minority education more than that of their own children. All with the
> best intentions of course. (note that this is based on a generalization
> of what I understand from people and US conservatives in particular. I
> don't live there and I don't have explicit examples).
The right solution is still not dumbing down admission tests, but to fix
the problems in education.
Dumbing down admission tests can only have a negative effect, especially
in such a critical occupation such as a fireman. A person who is not
qualified for the job can end up hurting himself, his co-workers and
even the people who he ought to save and protect.
Safety, especially when we are talking about people's lives, must always
go first, by a long, long shot. Political correctness comes as a far behind
second.
> > Discrimination is when some people get preferential treatment over others.
> for reasons that are irrelevant to the matter.
I consider skin color to be a rather irrelevant thing when talking about
fireman aptitude tests. Dumbing down tests because of skin color *is*
preferential treatment.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
