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, 
if I made a remark containing the phrase "Umso schlimmer für die 
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

On 29-1-2010 21:38, somebody wrote:
> "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.

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

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] 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?

  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, 
> if I made a remark containing the phrase "Umso schlimmer für die 
> 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

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] ieeeorg> 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, 
>> if I made a remark containing the phrase "Umso schlimmer für die 
>> 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 
which point Hegel was said to have answered "Umso schlimmer für die
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

On 01/29/10 20:46, somebody wrote:
> 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.

	Yes, but according to the ruling, the key aspect here wasn't the mere
"discrimination", but the fact that the test didn't test whether they
were qualified to do the job. The court allowed the FD to make the case
that the test format was relevant to the job, and the FD didn't make the
case enough to please the court.

	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.

-- 
When I was young, they told me anyone could become president. Now I'm
beginning to believe it.

Post a reply to this message

On 01/29/10 21:04, Tim Attwood wrote:
> IMO, firemen should be able to read.

	That's a sweeping statement. No one said they couldn't 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

	Yes, in a sense that's what they ruled. It's racist if that unnecessary
skill cluster showed a discrimination.

	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."

-- 
When I was young, they told me anyone could become president. Now I'm
beginning to believe it.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>    since, AFAIK, most black people go to the exact same schools as white
>    people do.

I don't think this is necessarily the case. Children here go to close 
schools. Schools are funded by property tax.  Children of poor parents go to 
schools with less money to pay teachers and books than children of wealthy 
parents. Minority parents tend to be more poor, in part because they're less 
educated.  So it's sort of a vicious circle that needs to be broken. If you 
just say "teach everyone the same", it doesn't happen, because the money 
isn't there.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> A lot of questions about hockey?

I saw a funny black comedian talking about that, going on about sports and 
how there are no black people playing hockey.  "The only thing in the whole 
game that's black is the puck!"  And then he goes on to mention Tiger Woods 
playing golf.

Very droll.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >    since, AFAIK, most black people go to the exact same schools as white
> >    people do.

> I don't think this is necessarily the case. Children here go to close 
> schools. Schools are funded by property tax.  Children of poor parents go to 
> schools with less money to pay teachers and books than children of wealthy 
> parents. Minority parents tend to be more poor, in part because they're less 
> educated.  So it's sort of a vicious circle that needs to be broken. If you 
> just say "teach everyone the same", it doesn't happen, because the money 
> isn't there.

  Ok, maybe that's so. However, as it turns out, the perceived problem in
the fireman test was related to literacy. One would think that literacy is
such an ubiquitous subject matter in all schools, that at least *that* would
be the same for everybody (after all, it's hard to teach anything to anyone
who can't read and write properly), and if someone doesn't learn how to read
and write properly, the problem is not in the schooling system.

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

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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?

-- 
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 30-1-2010 17:29, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>    since, AFAIK, most black people go to the exact same schools as white
>>>    people do.
> 
>> I don't think this is necessarily the case. Children here go to close 
>> schools. Schools are funded by property tax.  Children of poor parents go to 
>> schools with less money to pay teachers and books than children of wealthy 
>> parents. Minority parents tend to be more poor, in part because they're less 
>> educated.  So it's sort of a vicious circle that needs to be broken. If you 
>> just say "teach everyone the same", it doesn't happen, because the money 
>> isn't there.
> 
>   Ok, maybe that's so. However, as it turns out, the perceived problem in
> the fireman test was related to literacy. One would think that literacy is
> such an ubiquitous subject matter in all schools, that at least *that* would
> be the same for everybody (after all, it's hard to teach anything to anyone
> who can't read and write properly), and if someone doesn't learn how to read
> and write properly, the problem is not in the schooling system.

Why don't you go find a job as a teacher in a primary school in a poor 
neighborhood? You seem to be better qualified than the current teachers.

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

I don't think so.

Post a reply to this message

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?

  What do they teach there, then?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 01/30/10 08:33, Darren New wrote:
> unfair seemed rather odd. I mean, it's a written test, you know? What do
> you expect?

	And the argument was that it shouldn't be one. The link Tim posted said
that one of the ways they made it better was to include diagrams, etc.

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

Post a reply to this message

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