 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/29/10 12:22, Darren New wrote:
> 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.
No - that was New Haven. This is New York. Different cases altogether.
--
One flea to another: "Is there life on other dogs?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> No - that was New Haven. This is New York. Different cases altogether.
OK, thanks! I retract whatever I said based on that misconception. :-)
--
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] hotmail com> wrote:
> > Education can have some effect on IQ tests (because education can eg.
> > 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.
> No they haven't. May I remind you of the private school debate here some
> time ago. Remember who started that thread?
Are you saying that in the US all firemen studied in private schools and
that's why they got the job?
Besides, at least here what is taught at schools is dictated by law.
You *can't* have a school which skips teaching something, be it private
or not. I don't know how it is in the US.
> > 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.
It has been suggested that black people score more poorly in the fireman
aptitude test because of a poorer education. And why would black people
have a poorer education in the US? Is it because black people are not
taught the same things as white people?
> Are you aware that this could be interpreted as a racist remark?
Of course anything that is not 100% politically correct can be
interpreted as "a racist remark". So?
> 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.
Really? And what would be the alternative explanation for the claimed
poorer education? I can think of three possible explanations:
1) Black people in the US are not taught at school to the same extent as
white people. I have hard time believing this to be the case, especially
since, AFAIK, most black people go to the exact same schools as white
people do.
2) For whatever reason (maybe culture?) the average black person is not
interested in educating himself.
3) Black people are unable to learn as efficiently as white people.
#1 doesn't work, unless you can show me some actual proof that black people
are indeed being discriminated at schools in the US and not being educated.
#3 would be the racist point of view, by definition (ie. there's something
about being black that makes the person dumb).
The only non-racist rational alternative is #2.
Making generalizations about a *culture* is not racism. Racism is an
ideology based on the notion that some races of people are genetically
superior to others.
> I know you find that hard. You have said similar things many times. Yet,
> Tatsachen" you might get what I meant
Actually I have no idea what that means. Is it German? (Not that this
invalidates your point.)
> > especially if both have gone to the same schools.
> well, they didn't (on average), that is precisely the point.
You mean that blacks are not taught the same things in the US as whites?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> somebody wrote:
> > 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.
> ...and *this* is why the world is utterly broken.
Btw, why couldn't it work in the other direction as well?
For example, the majority of NBA players are black. Isn't this discrimination
against white people?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/29/10 15:31, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Will everyone know that a deck of cards has 52 of them?
>
> 54.
52, if you're doing a mathematics test.<G>
--
One flea to another: "Is there life on other dogs?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.
I think your comparison is not very relevant. You are basically comparing
the cultural backgrounds of person who have grown in a western civilization
to that of a bushman who has grown in the jungle.
I mean that it's not very relevant in the specific context of this thread,
where the question is why black people in the US are failing the fireman
test more often than white people. I don't think the implication is that
the black people were raised in a jungle.
IQ tests always assume certain basic knowledge. They have to. You can't
make an IQ test which works the same for Einstein and a fish. Even those
tests which try to be as culture-agnostic as possible still make some
assumptions (such as that you can recognize the shape of a circle, for
instance; or heck, that you can *see*).
I can well imagine that an aptitude test in the US could make some
assumptions that cannot be made about foreigners, such as for example
the applicant knowing who the first president of the US was, or the
name of the 50th state. Depending on the job, such cultural knowledge
might be necessary (not those two things precisely, but similar things
which most US citizens should know).
> > 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.
As I have been saying, the solution to that problem isn't dumbing down
aptitude tests. That's one of the worst possible solutions.
Anyways, it would be interesting to know what is it that it's being taught
at the "rich" schools that is not being taught at the "poor" schools, which
make the "rich" people more apt to become firemen.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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!
I think "discrimination" in this context implies intent. In other words,
that the test would have been specifically designed to favor some people
over others.
You can't talk about discrimination if the different passing rates are
not caused purposefully.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/29/10 15:48, Warp wrote:
> Besides, at least here what is taught at schools is dictated by law.
> You *can't* have a school which skips teaching something, be it private
> or not. I don't know how it is in the US.
From my understanding, that doesn't hold here. May vary from state to
state. But even if some states mandate some curriculum (including for
private schools), it's fairly minimal.
> It has been suggested that black people score more poorly in the fireman
> aptitude test because of a poorer education. And why would black people
> have a poorer education in the US? Is it because black people are not
> taught the same things as white people?
Quite possibly, yes. Especially if they're poorer. It's fairly well
known that a _public_ school in a rich neighborhood gets a lot more
funding per student than a public school in a poor one. So fewer
resources, and often, worse teachers. Also, the richer school may have
many more programs to educate their students beyond what is considered
"normal".
> Really? And what would be the alternative explanation for the claimed
> poorer education? I can think of three possible explanations:
>
> 1) Black people in the US are not taught at school to the same extent as
> white people. I have hard time believing this to be the case, especially
> since, AFAIK, most black people go to the exact same schools as white
> people do.
If they're poorer, and there's a high level of segregation (both true
in the last city I lived in), then yes, it is the case. This isn't rare
in the US. And no, in many places, they don't go to the same schools.
The city I last lived in actually had to pass some temporary laws to
ensure that there was a healthy mix in schools by moving students around.
I don't know about Finland, but over here you don't have that much
choice what public school you go to. Hence that temporary law to allow
students to go to other schools.
> 2) For whatever reason (maybe culture?) the average black person is not
> interested in educating himself.
Quite possible, as well. However, the question still remains as to
whether he is qualified to be a fireman, and the question still is
whether the test was relevant to firefighting.
> 3) Black people are unable to learn as efficiently as white people.
Of course, one problem with your rhetoric in all 3 points (and perhaps
in other people's messages), is the usage of the phrases "black" and
"white".
This isn't about black or white people in the US, but about them in one
particular locale in the US. It's a big country.
> #1 doesn't work, unless you can show me some actual proof that black people
> are indeed being discriminated at schools in the US and not being educated.
>
> #3 would be the racist point of view, by definition (ie. there's something
> about being black that makes the person dumb).
>
> The only non-racist rational alternative is #2.
You're brash to assume you have all the possibilities pegged down.
Andrel made a valid point about TV shows. And yes, in parts of the US,
I'm sure you'll find a fairly big discrepancy on the TV shows black
people watch vs white people.
Perhaps the same can be said about sports, music, etc. You've ignored
the possibility of a cultural bias in the exam.
> You mean that blacks are not taught the same things in the US as whites?
If they're not in the same neighborhood, than often, no.
--
One flea to another: "Is there life on other dogs?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/29/10 15:28, Darren New wrote:
> their parents don't know as much, don't speak gramatically, can't answer
I'm sure they speak grammatically. Perhaps just not English grammar. ;-)
> 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.
26 is not a big number. And IIRC, for that case, they didn't rule that
the test per se was discriminatory, did they?
--
One flea to another: "Is there life on other dogs?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
