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.

-- 
CONgress (n) - Opposite of PROgress

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> 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.

  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.

  (I'm assuming that all applicants are given the exact same test, as the
article doesn't seem to imply anything else. Thus I cannot even imagine
how the suitability of the exact same test could depend on skin tone.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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.

I can't imagine any test that would discriminate against blacks and have 
something to do with fire fighting, tho.

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.

It seems to me if the test is actually a valid test of necessary skills and 
you can't pass the test, you shouldn't be risking your life and mine in a 
job like that, even if the test has a correspondence between skin color and 
pass rate.

>   (I'm assuming that all applicants are given the exact same test, as the
> article doesn't seem to imply anything else. 

Yes.  It just happens that blacks don't pass the test as easily as whites. 
It would be fascinating to see the test.  I can't imagine a set of questions 
that would so reliably discriminate without being obvious about it.  Usually 
these cases come when 23% of the applicants are minority but only 21% of 
those passing the test are minority, but from what I've read, the rates are 
way out of line.

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.

-- 
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] ieeeorg> 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.

Post a reply to this message

On 29-1-2010 20:46, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> 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.
> 
>   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.

It is not the skin tome, it is the cultural background. (almost) all IQ 
test favour white Europeans, because they refer in subtle ways to things 
that appear to be common knowledge by the people who design these tests. 
They also put an emphasis on things that we as Europeans (or is 
Caucasian the term mostly used in the US?) find important. Sometimes 
that is valid and sometimes it is not.

If a test uses a phrase that became well known because of being used in 
a 60's sitcom, people with a social background that included a TV in the 
60's will have an advantage. Use one from a 90's black sitcom and 
another group is a at an advantage.

One of the things that my sister mentions in her book on cultural 
background in the job market is that it appeared that a disproportionate 
number of Dutch citizens from a non-Dutch background failed the written 
test for nurse. The reason turned out to be that in the questions a lot 
of expression were used that were derived from our famous 17th century 
bible translation. Even if the tested persons were familiar with the 
bible, they too often did not know our particular translations. One 
could argue that that would indeed imply that they would not be able to 
communicate effectively with the rest of the staff and the patients. One 
could also argue that these expression seldom turn up in spoken 
communications, especially if the one you are talking to is easily 
identified as probably not a 5th generation pure bread Dutch. Also note 
that the reciprocal problem is never mentioned. The persons that made 
the test might not be able to communicate effectively with a subgroup of 
patients.

Creating a good set of questions is a skill. Most that are used today 
fail to meet the principle that they only test the relevant skills. The 
test that I gave today to my students is an example of such a biased 
test. I know it is, I can identify (some of) the questions that are 
contaminated by cultural bias. I know many people would not even notice, 
but I did and I didn't find a way to solve it.
So, I know that even a test on digital technology can have a cultural 
bias. Therefore it wouldn't surprise me if a test for fireman would 
also. You would have to see the actual test to see if that bias is 
justified or not.

Does this answer your question?

Post a reply to this message

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?

  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.
(If black people, for whatever reason, do not *want* to get educated, well
that's hardly a problem with the fire department, is it?)

  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.

  Discrimination is when some people get preferential treatment over others.

> 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, but it really doesn't
surprise me in the modern world that when a protected minority scores poorly,
the fault cannot be said to be in that minority, but in the test instead
(completely regardless of how the test is performed). If the protected
minority scores poorly, the test *must* be discriminatory in some way,
there's no other explanation.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> 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 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.

  By demanding the test to be dumbed down, the justice system is actually
openly admitting (probably without realizing it) that some groups of people
are poorly educated. What they won't admit is that it's the actual problem.
The problem must be in the test itself, of course.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> It is not the skin tome, it is the cultural background. (almost) all IQ 
> test favour white Europeans, because they refer in subtle ways to things 
> that appear to be common knowledge by the people who design these tests. 
> They also put an emphasis on things that we as Europeans (or is 
> Caucasian the term mostly used in the US?) find important. Sometimes 
> that is valid and sometimes it is not.

  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.

  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.

  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.

> So, I know that even a test on digital technology can have a cultural 
> bias. Therefore it wouldn't surprise me if a test for fireman would 
> also. You would have to see the actual test to see if that bias is 
> justified or not.

  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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 29-1-2010 23:23, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> It is not the skin tome, it is the cultural background. (almost) all IQ 
>> test favour white Europeans, because they refer in subtle ways to things 
>> that appear to be common knowledge by the people who design these tests. 
>> They also put an emphasis on things that we as Europeans (or is 
>> Caucasian the term mostly used in the US?) find important. Sometimes 
>> that is valid and sometimes it is not.
> 
>   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.

They are more aware of the problem, that does not mean it is solved, 
besides they are still using old ones too. Ask my sister ;)

>   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?

>   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.

>> So, I know that even a test on digital technology can have a cultural 
>> bias. Therefore it wouldn't surprise me if a test for fireman would 
>> also. You would have to see the actual test to see if that bias is 
>> justified or not.
> 
>   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,

I know you find that hard. You have said similar things many times. Yet, 

Tatsachen" you might get what I meant, but the majority here will 
probably not. In fact on average more white people would get it than 
black. Yet it has nothing to do with color. The same mechanism works in 
almost all tests, albeit often more subtle.


> especially if both have gone to the same schools.

well, they didn't (on average), that is precisely the point.

Post a reply to this message