 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/29/10 11:20, Neeum Zawan 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.
Some more info:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2010/01/federal-judge-rules-new-york-city.php
This site links to the actual ruling. I read only the first few pages,
but it seems that the argument was:
1. The test involves written comprehension, which black people in NYC
suck at (I'm dropping political correctness for the rest of this message).
2. It was alleged, and the court apparently agreed, that this wasn't by
accident, but done intentionally by the fire department.
3. The court allowed the city to make the case that the questions (or
perhaps the _format_ of the test) was relevant to being a good
firefighter. The court did not feel the city made the case.
(There may have been subtleties on what constituted a passing mark).
Hence, the court found unnecessary/intentional discrimination occurring.
The argument put forth by the plaintiffs was that being particularly
good at written comprehension to the level needed to pass the test was
not particularly important to being a good firefighter, and the court
agreed.
If someone wants to read it more thoroughly and correct me, please do so.
You can find sample problems here:
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20406299&BRD=2731&PAG=461&dept_id=574907&rfi=onmousedown=return
(They definitely are related to firefighting).
Also, although I don't know if this was used in court and was part of
the decision, a side argument was that for other departments (police
department, etc), the blacks in NYC have little trouble satisfying the
requirements for those departments, so they were hinting that something
fishy was up with the FD.
--
One flea to another: "Is there life on other dogs?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 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.
Yes. I was just describing an example I read of how something that might
*seem* to be a purely mathematical and culture-free question might actually
assume some culture after all.
> or heck, that you can *see*).
I wouldn't call blindness a cultural problem. ;-)
> name of the 50th state.
Heck, I was in Alaska, in a restaurant with Alaska paraphenalia plastered
all over the walls, including a newspaper page with the headline "Alaska
admitted to the Union!" and I asked the waitress whether Alaska was #49 or
#50, and she didn't know. :-)
> As I have been saying, the solution to that problem isn't dumbing down
> aptitude tests. That's one of the worst possible solutions.
I agree with most of what you say, yes. Making it easier for losers to
accomplish should be done by making losers into winners, not by rewarding
loserness.
--
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:
> 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. ;-)
Now, yes. As slaves (which was my example)? No, probably not. Slaves weren't
allowed to use their own languages or have their own culture either.
> 26 is not a big number. And IIRC, for that case, they didn't rule that
> the test per se was discriminatory, did they?
As you said, it was a different test, so I don't know. I think I remember
reading that they decided to promote nobody, and the people who passed the
test were understandably PO'ed.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> You can't talk about discrimination if the different passing rates are
> not caused purposefully.
If there were questions that unfairly penalized one sub-culture over another
for no good reason, and it was brought to the attention of those in charge,
and they didn't correct it, then that too could be discrimination. That's
what the article is saying happened.
I don't think anyone wrote the test intentionally trying to keep minorities
out of the job. (You never know, tho.)
--
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" <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote in message
news:4b636eb7$1@news.povray.org...
> 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?
You don't need a crystal ball if you are willing to learn from recent
history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v._DeStefano
and exercise a little bit of reason: As others have noted, it's very
difficult to concoct a test that differentiates skin colour, and *not* level
of education.
I remember reading about this specific case earlier and the objection to the
test was post-facto, that is, it did not result in acceptable quotas for
minorities. It was claimed that the test included too much reading and
comprehension type material, which was unfair to blacks (which ironically is
itself a racist statement). I don't have references handy and cannot be
bothered to look them up for you, do your own homework.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 1. The test involves written comprehension, which black people in NYC
> suck at (I'm dropping political correctness for the rest of this message).
>
> 2. It was alleged, and the court apparently agreed, that this wasn't by
> accident, but done intentionally by the fire department.
>
> 3. The court allowed the city to make the case that the questions (or
> perhaps the _format_ of the test) was relevant to being a good
> firefighter. The court did not feel the city made the case.
The exam consists of 85 multiple-choice questions.
Some of the questions had long explanations which put
people who can't read well at a disadvantage.
IMO, firemen should be able to read.
The courts seem to think that testing for any "skill cluster" that isn't
strictly part of the job (as defined by the courts) is racist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/nyregion/24firefighters.html?ref=nyregion
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 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?
Yes. This is clearly and obviously discrimination against white people.
In fact, you know what? Most NBA players are very tall. Obviously
discrimination against short people.
In fact, most NBA players are very thin. Obvious discrimination against
fat people!
And hey, most NBA players are extremely fit. This discrimination against
unfit people is totally unfair!!
It's not discrimination if people without the necessary skills can't get
in. It's only discrimination if people who *do* have the necessary
skills can't get in just because of their skin colour / other arbitrary
irrelevant factor. People need to wake up and realise this.
This stuff is getting stupid. Where my mum works, there's this one black
guy who's bone idle, lazy, incompetant, and has harassed female staff on
more than one occasion. But every time somebody tries to fire him, it's
"oh, this is racially motivated! This is unfair! I'm calling the
police!" And the company backs down, and he gets to keep his job. WTF?
This is of course inverse discrimination; if a white guy did this, he'd
be gone in 5 seconds flat...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-1-2010 0:31, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> 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.
Well I think it was obvious from the subject line that that was your
point. I didn't react to it because it was handled as if the history was
common knowledge. I do remember something in the news about the earlier
ruling and I don't even live there. I felt that a discussion about
whether the journalist did their work and provided enough information
would deteriorate into a discussion on what is common knowledge for whom
and what the intended audience was for that article. (In a round about
way it did.) As a foreigner, i.e. someone not living in NY (the header
says "N.Y./Region"), I felt that I had nothing to say on that matter.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4b636f15$1@news.povray.org...
> 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.
A lot of questions about hockey?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-1-2010 0:48, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> 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?
Is this your famous sense of humour again?
> 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.
I don't know about finland, but here we have "good" and "bad" schools
eventhough they have the same requirement. Apart from the fact that some
are better funded and can therefore provide better education, there is
also the fact that when a school has a lot of people from less well off
background it is much harder to teach there. You loose much more time in
getting everybody's attention.
>>> 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?
That was answered many times before. If you still don't get it, I might
reiterate below.
>> 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?
It is not about political correctness. That might have been a valid
argument if your remark was relevant, now you are simply broadening the
discussion to include more racial prejudice.
>> 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.
Correct, indeed probably the main reason.
> 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.
That is not true unfortunately. Many areas are either predominantly
white or predominantly black or predominantly hispanic etc. Hence they
don't go the the same schools. Primary school is always in the
neighbourhood. If you don't get a good start you chances of making up
are slim. Education is a non-linear process.
> 2) For whatever reason (maybe culture?) the average black person is not
> interested in educating himself.
partly true
> 3) Black people are unable to learn as efficiently as white people.
They are for reasons outside of them not for genetic.
> #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.
See my last remark below and all the other explanations in my and other
peoples posts on this subject.
> #3 would be the racist point of view, by definition (ie. there's something
> about being black that makes the person dumb).
Ah, so you meant genetic.
> The only non-racist rational alternative is #2.
That is what you think. In fact it is not non-racial (because there is a
big correlation between race and social environment. At least in the
US). Also it is not the main explanation. #1 is.
> 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.)
Yes it is German. It refers to the story that Hegel had a theory on
something and someone pointed out that it was at odds with the facts. At
Tatsachen". Which translates roughly as "so much worse for the facts".
To get that you need to know enough German to recognize the story and
you need to have been in an environment where someone was educated
enough in German philosophy that he or she was able and willing to tell
that story to you. In short you need to be white. A black guy with a PhD
in biomedical engineering is less likely to know this then me. Not
because of race, but because he did not live in the same environment as
I did.
>>> 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?
>
Yes, sigh. They don't go to the same schools. They grow up in different
neighbourhoods. Being born in a black neighbourhood will make sure that
you don't get the same amount of attention from the teachers, that your
fellow schoolkids will make it hard to study, that you watch different
programs on TV, that you will have a different pattern in spending your
free time, etc. etc.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
