On 01/30/10 10:23, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>   So if the perceived problem with the test was indeed related to literacy,
>>> I think my objection stands.
> 
>> I don't think so.
> 
>   So they don't teach them how to read and write properly in the poor
> schools either?

	It's not binary. They teach, but not properly.


-- 
I am reading a very interesting book about anti-gravity. I just can't
put it down.

Post a reply to this message

On 30-1-2010 19:44, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 01/30/10 10:23, Warp wrote:
>> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>>   So if the perceived problem with the test was indeed related to literacy,
>>>> I think my objection stands.
>>> I don't think so.
>>   So they don't teach them how to read and write properly in the poor
>> schools either?
> 
> 	It's not binary. They teach, but not properly.

I would say that they try, but not get optimal results.
For all the factors that have been named and probably a few more.

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4b645f58$1@news.povray.org...
> Warp wrote:

> >   So if the perceived problem with the test was indeed related to
literacy,
> > I think my objection stands.

> It's hard to say.  It's pretty easy to be literate and still a slow
reader.
> But yes, the idea that you can't read well and thus the test was unfair
> seemed rather odd. I mean, it's a written test, you know? What do you
expect?

May I remind you that we are talking about the twitter generation? Anything
over two dozen words causes overdue strain on our fragile brains

Post a reply to this message

"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4b645169$1@news.povray.org...

> Yes, the objection may have been post-facto, but it wasn't an invalid
> objection. Had the test discriminated, and the FD made a valid case that
> the test is relevant to the job, then the status quo would have resumed.

92% of all interview questions are not relevant to the job (just like 89% of
all statistics that are made up). Why can a private employer ask an IT
applicant why manhole covers are round but city of government cannot test to
check if applicants can read and understand a simple passage?

Post a reply to this message

On 01/30/10 19:36, somebody wrote:
> 92% of all interview questions are not relevant to the job (just like 89% of
> all statistics that are made up). Why can a private employer ask an IT
> applicant why manhole covers are round but city of government cannot test to
> check if applicants can read and understand a simple passage?

	Because it's a lot easier to make the case for asking about manhole
covers for the kinds of jobs they are asked for.

-- 
When you die, you lose a very important part of your life.
                -- Brooke Shields

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Will everyone know that a deck of cards has 52 of them?
> 
> 54.

No, 40.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraja_(playing_cards)

See it's a cultural thing?

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> No, 40.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraja_(playing_cards)

  Quite logical that it jumps from 7 to 10?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> No, 40.
> 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraja_(playing_cards)
> 
>   Quite logical that it jumps from 7 to 10?

Looks like it's based more firmly on the tarot decks, which has major and 
minor arcana that might explain such.

-- 
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:
> I can see it either way. On one level, it could have been a "harmless
> accident" (who's supposed to guess that something like reading
> comprehension would become such a big issue?). On the other hand, I can
> also see it as "We know these guys suck at reading comprehension. Let's
> make it a big part of the test, and set the time constraints in a manner
> such that they're much more likely to fail."

But saying "black people suck at reading comprehension, so we should dumb 
the test down by asking for less reading" would also be discrimination.

Post a reply to this message

On 02/07/10 19:47, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> I can see it either way. On one level, it could have been a "harmless
>> accident" (who's supposed to guess that something like reading
>> comprehension would become such a big issue?). On the other hand, I can
>> also see it as "We know these guys suck at reading comprehension. Let's
>> make it a big part of the test, and set the time constraints in a manner
>> such that they're much more likely to fail."
> 
> But saying "black people suck at reading comprehension, so we should dumb 
> the test down by asking for less reading" would also be discrimination.

	Except that the test wasn't dumbed down in any relevant manner.

-- 
As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices: "Take it, or leave
it."

Post a reply to this message