Reverse Discrimination Case

[jillio]

again - it's impossible to create tests with no racial bias.

Supreme Court to Hear New Haven Race Case

No, Jiro, it is not impossible. And just because those who designed the test strived for race neutrality doesn't mean that they achieved it. Obviously, they didn't, or we would not see the skews we are seeing when the scores are compared by race. If the test had been race neutral, then according to the mathematical laws of probability, the scores would have fallen on a normal curve. These scores were skewed. Why were they skewed?

The last statement in the article that you bolded is extremely racist, as it implies that the reason all of the minority firefighters fell into the lowest end of the scores is simply because minorities do not study well.

 

[jillio]

One difference between Jillio and me in this case: She has faith that a cultural bias-free test can be created whereas I do not. Oh well!

One thing that I've noticed that no one pointed out.... the fire dept DID try for a cultural bias-free test by hiring a consultant to generate the test. Is it really their fault that the test didn't do what they hoped for? They, unfortunately, got themselves into a Catch 22 by "trying to do the right thing".

Yes, it is their fault that the test didn't do what it was intended to do. That is the foundation of validity of a testing instrument. That it do what it is intended to do.

 

[Jiro]

No, Jiro, it is not impossible. And just because those who designed the test strived for race neutrality doesn't mean that they achieved it. Obviously, they didn't, or we would not see the skews we are seeing when the scores are compared by race. If the test had been race neutral, then according to the mathematical laws of probability, the scores would have fallen on a normal curve. These scores were skewed. Why were they skewed?

here's a problem.

IO Solutions, Inc. is one of a few dozen firms which specializes in this kind of politically correct test design, and they are very good at it. According to court filings, IO Solutions did everything right in designing the New Haven fire department's promotional exams to be completely race-neutral, i.e., to not have a disparate impact upon selected, preferred skin colors.

Forgive me for believing their words over yours as IO Solutions, Inc. has experience, qualification, resource, and reputation.... something that you do not have.

 

[Daredevel7]

and also sexism! do you think your engineering program/exams are perhaps.... gender-biased?

better sue sue sue!

People DO tell me that I think like a man, so maybe that's why I do well.... ooooooooooooo.

(PS, I DO realize that the statement "think like a man" is sexist itself, which is amusing to me! So sue me.)

 

[jillio]

and also sexism! do you think your engineering program/exams are perhaps.... gender-biased?

better sue sue sue!

So you are saying creating favor for one group and disfavor for another through invalid instruments is acceptable? Let me give you a few asessments I know are biased against the deaf population and then use those results to decide whether you are employable or not.

 

[Jiro]

The last statement in the article that you bolded is extremely racist, as it implies that the reason all of the minority firefighters fell into the lowest end of the scores is simply because minorities do not study well.

I guess I see it differently. I suppose that it is YOUR interpretation that it is "extremely racist" to you whereas.... in my interpretation as the minority, I agree with his POV that it's time to end this nonsense where everybody's gotta be spoon-fed and cuddled just because the test was little too hard.

 

[jillio]

here's a problem.



Forgive me for believing their words over yours as IO Solutions, Inc. has experience, qualification, resource, and reputation.... something that you do not have.

And the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology has even more credibility in this area, and they found cause for concern over bias. You don't know what the education and qualifications of the particular people designing this test were. The test was never normed. The fact that they did not norm the test for the intended population prior to administration creates questions regarding their procedures.

All your quote says is that IQ Solutions is claiming to have done everything possible to insure race neutrality. What do you expect them to say..."We purposely created a test with racial bias." ? Get real. Of course they are going to tell the courts that they "believe" they did everything possible. Just because they made an effort does not mean that the effort succeeded. They did not norm the test prior to adminsitration, and therefore, they did not do "everything possible" to insure the validity of the test.

 

[Jiro]

So you are saying creating favor for one group and disfavor for another through invalid instruments is acceptable?

That's a cute distortion of my post but a very blatant one.

Let me give you a few asessments I know are biased against the deaf population and then use those results to decide whether you are employable or not.

ok sure. just FYI - see my post #255 regarding my "employable" status. I took tests just like everybody else. I went to college just like everybody else. I got the jobs just like everybody else.

 

[jillio]

I guess I see it differently. I suppose that it is YOUR interpretation that it is "extremely racist" to you whereas.... in my interpretation as the minority, I agree with his POV that it's time to end this nonsense where everybody's gotta be spoon-fed and cuddled just because the test was little too hard.

It is not a question of the difficulty of the test. Did you refuse to accept the curve your professors gave you? If not, then you are basically saying, "I am entitled not to be judged based on an invalid instrument, but everyone else should be."

 

[jillio]

That's a cute distortion of my post but a very blatant one.


ok sure. just FYI - see my post #255 regarding my "employable" status. I took tests just like everybody else. I went to college just like everybody else. I got the jobs just like everybody else.

No a blatant distortion at all. You were being sarcastic about suing in the case of known gender bias. If you believe that there is no foundation for a lawsuit, then you are saying that known bias is acceptable as long as it doesn't affect you.

And I guarantee you, when your scores on certain assessments, such as IQ tests, were interpreted, those scores were converted to scores that allowed interpretation of what the scores actually meant. You have already admitted that you received certain grades that were curved.

And how many of the jobs you got were decided solely on your test scores? Even college admission is not decided solely on test scores. However, that was the only criterion being used in the case we are discussing.

 

[Jiro]

And the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology has even more credibility in this area, and they found cause for concern over bias. You don't know what the education and qualifications of the particular people designing this test were. The test was never normed. The fact that they did not norm the test for the intended population prior to administration creates questions regarding their procedures.

and you do?

All your quote says is that IQ Solutions is claiming to have done everything possible to insure race neutrality. What do you expect them to say..."We purposely created a test with racial bias." ? Get real. Of course they are going to tell the courts that they "believe" they did everything possible. Just because they made an effort does not mean that the effort succeeded. They did not norm the test prior to adminsitration, and therefore, they did not do "everything possible" to insure the validity of the test.

I will get back to you on that

p.s. please do try to double-check your post before you click on submit. You're doing this quite frequently (on nearly every of your posts) to do last-minute edits.

 

[Jiro]

It is not a question of the difficulty of the test. Did you refuse to accept the curve your professors gave you? If not, then you are basically saying, "I am entitled not to be judged based on an invalid instrument, but everyone else should be."

yep. Quite a handful of my professors do not curve the grades. why? because their exams are straightforward. Simple - study, read, pay attention. It is expected to have a mix of dumbass, genius, average, and all kinds.

 

[jillio]

and you do?


I will get back to you on that

p.s. please do try to double-check your post before you click on submit. You're doing this quite frequently (on nearly every of your posts) to do last-minute edits.

What's the matter? Can't keep up?

But let's look at it this way:

You are required to take a test in order to be employed in the IT job that you now have. On that test is a subset that tests writing skills; specifically, ability to use English grammar. Also on the test is a subset that asks specific questions regarding knowledge of computer applications. The subset on computer applications is weighted to 20% and the subset checking grammar usage is weighted to 80%. Therefore, this particular test actually gives more weight (e.g. importance) to your ability to correctly use English grammar than it does to your knowledge of computer applications. Would you agree that this test is a valid assessment of your ability to do a job that is more concerned with computer application than with writing skills?

 

[jillio]

yep. Quite a handful of my professors do not curve the grades. why? because their exams are straightforward. Simple - study, read, pay attention. It is expected to have a mix of dumbass, genius, average, and all kinds.

Has nothing to do with being straightforward. Has to be with the validity of the exam actually assessing what they are testing for.

So, if a professor uses a curve because the majority of the students have received below the average grade, it is because the exam has not been "straightforward" enough?

 

[naisho]

My bad. I was using the scores for the Captain's exam. Sorry about that.
When calculating the SD for the raw scores, you do not use N-1. You simply use N. Maybe this will make it more clear. When we are looking at scores for the purpose for which we are looking at them in this case, we are norm referencing to determine where individual scores fall of the minority populations vs. the peer scores. That is why conversion to a a-score at the very least is necessary to interpret the meaning of the raw score. Raw scores do not give any information regarding relative position, and in this case, relative position is important.

So, having done calculations on these once again, I can verify the following are the absolute values for raw scores of 77 LT testakers, 41 CP testtakers which I included for some reason since I saw you had used their values.

Sociological methods have told me in the past to use N-1, and that's what SPSS is doing, using N-1 for the statistical analysis for deviation. However. I have calculated the scores for you in both excel sheets using N only for a reference. The SPSS screenshots are reflective of N-1 only. It doesn't have a divide by N option. I understand the unmodified N value is important to you, so I have done both.

And these should be the final answers for raw combined scores.

Final draft:
Prospective Lieutenants raw combined score:
Mean: 68.2585
Std Dev (N): 09.4349
N Range: 58.8236 - 77.6934. (You can do the rounding if you wish, I left it there for technical purposes.)
Std Dev (N-1) here for "completeness": 09.4106
N-1 Range 58.8479-77.6691 (You can do the rounding if you wish, I left it there for technical purposes.)

Prospective Captains raw combined score:
Mean: 70.9756
Std Dev (N) : 09.1504
N Range: 61.8252 - 80.2397. (You can do the rounding if you wish, I left it there for technical purposes.)
Std Dev (N-1) here for "completeness": 09.2641
N-1 Range: 61.7115 - 80.2397. (You can do the rounding if you wish, I left it there for technical purposes.)



Data & Proof Read carefully if you want to check for errors or double check your answers and mistakes.

Above is excel computed data for the Lieutenant's exam.

Above is SPSS computed data for the Lieutenant's exam. (Again, SPSS only has N-1 values available for analysis like I said. It is here for completeness purposes)

Above is excel comuted data for the Captain's Exam.

Above is SPSS computed data for the Captain's exam. (Again, SPSS only has N-1 values available for analysis like I said. It is here for completeness purposes.





This concludes the Raw combined scores statistical section.

Note: I was finally able to calculate Standard Error percentage, but as jillio says this is for hypothesis testing only.

 

[jillio]

So, having done calculations on these once again, I can verify the following are the absolute values for raw scores of 77 LT testakers, 41 CP testtakers which I included for some reason since I saw you had used their values.

Sociological methods have told me in the past to use N-1, and that's what SPSS is doing, using N-1 for the statistical analysis for deviation. However. I have calculated the scores for you in both excel sheets using N only for a reference. The SPSS screenshots are reflective of N-1 only. It doesn't have a divide by N option. I understand the unmodified N value is important to you, so I have done both.

And these should be the final answers for raw combined scores.

Final draft:
Prospective Lieutenants raw combined score:
Mean: 68.2585
Std Dev (N): 09.4349
N Range: 58.8236 - 77.6934. (You can do the rounding if you wish, I left it there for technical purposes.)
Std Dev (N-1) here for "completeness": 09.4106
N-1 Range 58.8479-77.6691 (You can do the rounding if you wish, I left it there for technical purposes.)

Prospective Captains raw combined score:
Mean: 70.9756
Std Dev (N) here for "completeness": 09.1504
N Range: 61.8252 - 80.2397. (You can do the rounding if you wish, I left it there for technical purposes.)
Std Dev (N-1): 9.2641
N-1 Range: 61.7115 - 80.2397. (You can do the rounding if you wish, I left it there for technical purposes.)



Data & Proof Read carefully if you want to check for errors or double check your answers and mistakes.

Above is excel computed data for the Lieutenant's exam.

Above is SPSS computed data for the Lieutenant's exam. (Again, SPSS only has N-1 values available for analysis like I said. It is here for completeness purposes)

Above is excel comuted data for the Captain's Exam.

Above is SPSS computed data for the Captain's exam. (Again, SPSS only has N-1 values available for analysis like I said. It is here for completeness purposes.





This concludes the Raw combined scores statistical section.

Note: I was finally able to calculate Standard Error percentage, but as jillio says this is for hypothesis testing only.

Again, raw scores are meaningless when interpreting the meaning of the scores for comparison purposes to peer group scores. You need to convert your raw scores to at least a z-score. You are failing to do that, and therefore, you analysis is incomplete. Nor have you done a sort.

 

[naisho]

Again, raw scores are meaningless when interpreting the meaning of the scores for comparison purposes to peer group scores. You need to convert your raw scores to at least a z-score. You are failing to do that, and therefore, you analysis is incomplete.

I know, I'm doing this one step at a time. Look at my third sentence in my last post.. My analysis isn't complete yet, I'm verifying the raw data section. Is it correct or ?

 

[jillio]

I know, I'm doing this one step at a time. Look at my third sentence in my last post.. My analysis isn't complete yet, I'm verifying the raw data section. Is it correct or ?

The entered data appears to be correct, however, is you are still setting the program to use N-1, you are throwing your computations off. That is why I have an SD of 9.15 and you have an SD of 9.26. N-1 is used for hypothesis testing, N is used for assessment and testing.

 

[Jiro]

Has nothing to do with being straightforward. Has to be with the validity of the exam actually assessing what they are testing for.

So, if a professor uses a curve because the majority of the students have received below the average grade, it is because the exam has not been "straightforward" enough?

most likely explanations - his exam was poorly constructed and/or he's a crappy professor. or.... it's just his bad luck that he happened to have a class full of idiots.

to first say that his exam is most likely gender-biased / culturally-biased / etc-biased is nothing but a crybaby. are you going to sue him for that? :roll:

 

[naisho]

The entered data appears to be correct, however, is you are still setting the program to use N-1, you are throwing your computations off. That is why I have an SD of 9.15 and you have an SD of 9.26. N-1 is used for hypothesis testing, N is used for assessment and testing.

I did both! Check the calculations. I did them for N and N-1. Don't skip to the SPSS section, because I said in those SPSS seems to be designed for N-1 answers only. There seems to be no way to change this unless I manually entered it (which I have done for you in excel).