Reverse Discrimination Case

[jillio]

I have to kindly ask you to keep your condescending behavior in check. It's because I have something called job duties. Before I comment on it, I wanted to do some research on my own free time. Naisho's post regarding firefighter exam just actually saved my time.



I'm sorry but no I will not look at it this way because this hypothetical example is absolutely fallacious and absurd!!!! Again - it is very apparent that you have a superficial understanding in office politic and how the business works. In case you didn't know, it does not really revolve around on some computation to determine if it's biased in any way.

It is neither fallicious nor absurd, but a direct connection to the topic of testing and assessment...the very core issue in this lawsuit. The fact that you refuse to look at it is not evidence of my lack of knowledge, but quite simply, your lack of ability to apply critical thinking skills. Your last statement is simply evidence that statistical concepts are not taught in your IT program.

 

[jillio]

and do you have any idea what the questions look like to make such statement?

That was a response to DD's hypothetical situation, Jiro. Try to keep up here. My response was directed toward the fact that her hypothetical situation did not include any information that could be used to determine if the test was valid for testing people skills. Since she based her situation on one I had used previously, and I had included said information, I was simply pointing out that the assumption presented was lacking in information.
and you need to stop focusing on scores, statistics, or whatsoever. What you need to do is to actually research on what the questions are and how the questions are constructed (see naisho's post above). and you also need to look into "office politic" (*hint - something that your psychology graduate study does not cover*)

The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology already focused on the questions. Construct validity has already been found to be lacking.

Graduate level psychology does not cover office politics? You're funny. Two specialties in the psych field, that are specialties also in the Ph.D. programs, cover exactly that. One is known as Organizational Psychology, and the other is known as Social Psychology. You really need to make sure that you know what you are speakingof before you attempt to make broad statements such as that. You are destroying your own credibility by demonstrating your lack of knowledge.

1. All firefighters passed SAME standard at fire academy
2. All firefighters are EQUALLY trained
3. All firefighters (for those who want to do promotion test) are given SAME studying materials

You are making an assumption here that you have not supported as truth when any evidence whatsoever. However, let's go with your assumption. If that is true, then you explain the disparity of scores based on the above.

 

[Daredevel7]

May I state the obvious?
Some people here think that black people just don't do as well as white people for tests. Let's say it's true. Reasons could be cultural. Some cultures place education higher than work, or families higher than education/work, and so on. Let's assume that the black people just don't have a strong work ethnic and aren't as studious as their white and hispanic counterparts. In this case, Jillio is basically asking (correct me if Im wrong) "Does this even mean that they aren't as qualified just because they don't have a strong work ethnic towards tests?" and Jiro is basically asking "Well if they want the promotion so bad, stfu and start studying."

Basically, do we try to accommodate for the people because of how they were raised or do we force them to do it a specific way (that they are capable of doing) "just because that's how the real world is."

 

[jillio]

It seems like each individual's amount of knowledge and qualification would make it pretty easy to have that happen. If those particular men were less qualified, they could easily not be in the top 25%, similarly, if they were exceptionally qualified, they would make up a majority of the top scorers.

Then you explain why the ones that were "qualified", in this instance, were so clearly divided by race. What is your explanation for that phenomenon?


Thank you, that is exactly what I have been trying to get at. This is not about the test at all, because the city wasn't concerned with the test when the threw out the results. According to their own quotes, they weren't even worried about any implications of the scores other than "no black firefighters would be promoted". That is not a good enough reason to handle the situation the way they did.

Then you explain why the results were so clearly divided by race. Explain that phenomenon. And it is about the test, because without the test, there would be no foundation what so ever for the white firefighters lawsuit. The test cannot be removed from the equation.
Re: your last statement, I suppose you are entitled to your opinion. However, those with the information pertinent to this case believe otherwise. And, given some of the facts you have shared regarding your minority status, you really need to be grateful the lower courts decided the way they did.



I don't continue to miss it, I keep explaining why it's not the issue. I'll say it again: The city would have had plenty of time to administer another test if they had actually questioned the test's validity at the time that they threw out the scores. If that had been their concern, they could easily have said that, explained what they were doing, and obtained another test from any other firehouse. The reason that they "didn't have enough time" is that they weren't concerned with the validity of the test until after the complaints and lawsuits had been filed and they needed a legal justification for their actions. Might they still be right? Sure, I've never said anything otherwise, but that does not justify the way they handled it, and it does not make it anyone's fault but their own that they never gave another test.

And the city did question the test's validity prior to scrapping the test scores. Check the OP. It clearly gives a chain of events that indicates the city suspected flaws in the test, and had those flaws confirmed prior to making a decision. Do you actually think that the city officials received the test scores back, said "Oops! No minorities were promoted. Let's scrap those scores and flush that $100,000 down the sewer without any answers as to why the scores fell the way they did?" Yeah, right. Of course that's what happened. Had that been the case, the white firefighter's would have won their lawsuit in the first court, rather than having it dismissed and ending up having to go all the way to the Supreme Court in an attempt to get a decision in their favor.


I also haven't ignored that question, I've answered it many times, if you read my posts. It's very simple: we don't know. There is absolutely no way for us to know if they weren't eligible because of the test, or because they were less qualified. You are of the opinion that they were ineligible simply because the test might have been flawed. I happen to disagree, I think that they did poorly on an exam, and others did better because they were more qualified. Both are opinions, and neither of us can say anything more. The whole point is that you have been arguing definitive statements that you make that you can't possible back up since we have no information either way.

Sorry, there may not be a way for you to know it. But evidently, there was a way for the experts in testing and assessment to know it. But, let's go with that. You explain why the scores were so clearly divided based on race. If it isn't a result of testing bias, what is the explanation for the fact that all minority participants fell into significantly lower ranges than did the white participants?


Please point out which questions I have not answered, and I will either do so, or refer you to the posts where I did.

Scroll back. There are numerous questions you have failed to answer. But lets see if you can manage to answer the ones in this post alone.


Exactly, it is the whole point. You question the reasoning behind that decision, and not this one. Interesting...

Critical thinking skills, my dear, critical thinking skills. You must be able to see where situations are different as well as where they are similar.


I'm not in my field because I want to become even more proficient in it? I don't see how that makes any sense. I could have left college with my bachelor's and gotten plenty of jobs in the field of chemistry. Instead, I chose to continue to learn more in that field while at the same time doing research and contributing to it. I don't see how that means that I'm not "in the field of chemistry" still. I am practicing, and researching, and learning, and have been published and recognized by the ACS for my work. If you don't consider that being in a field, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The point is, you are not a professional in your chosen field. You are a student of the field. That tells me that you have not learned everything you need to know to place yourself above a professional in your field in knowledge and experience. You are studying. You are not putting your knowledge into practice, because your knowledge still has you at the level of a student. Exactly what journals have you been published in? I'd be interested in reading those articles. Were they written under a faculty and co-authored with a faculty advisor? And exactly, you are still learning. You don't know everything you need to know in your own field. How is it that you assume you can know everything you need to know in another field in which you have no knowledge or experience. In the problems of chemistry, even as a student, I would defer to you. It is not my area of expertise. It is yours. However, testing and assessment is my field, and that is the topic we are discussing.


If you can provide anything other than a cheap shot to back that statement up, I would like to see it. There are multiple quotes in the articles provided about the city feeling like they were in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation because racially, things would look bad either way. That indicates a concern about nothing more than appearance.

And why do you think that things would look bad either way, dear? If the test had been valid, it would not have been a concern.


Or any other number of factors that were clearly not included in jillio's "analysis". I should also say that we have no indication of what the board that is questioning the test included in their analysis, either. Without knowing what they did or did not consider, it is very hard to simply accept their opinion as hard fact.

Yes, we do have indication of what the board is questioning. It is stated in the OP. Perhaps you don't understand it, but it is there.


Again, you can't "normalize" anything to provide an accurate representation without have some idea of the people's knowledge and qualification.

This makes virtually no sense whatsoever.:laugh2:



There are tons of firehouses in CT, and I doubt that every single one of them was using the same test, or using a brand new test all at the same time. It should not be hard to contact another firehouse and request to give your firefighters the exam that they use and have been using for however long.

But they didn't do that, now did they? Instead, they paid $100,000 for a test design that has since been found to have questionable validity. Hindsight is 20/20. Court decisions nor test scores are based on what they "could" have done. They are based on what "was" done.


He's trying to say that if you stopped focusing so much on race and instead just considered the range of scores on the exam, there probably would not have been any issues since the range accurately reflected what would be expected from any average group of men taking that exam. The only issue came up when they looked at race (and nothing else).

I am not focused on race. If you consider the range of scores, you see that all the minorities fell into the significantly lower ranges. That is a fact. Can't ignore it. All you can do is explain the why of the phenomenon. I am saying it occurred becuase of problems inherent to the testing instrument. So, you are saying the testing instrument had nothing to do with the fact that all the minorities fell into the significantly lower ranges of scores. So you explain what the "why" is behind the fact if it has nothing to do with the instrument. You explain it. My explanation favors the fact that the fact of the test scores cannot be explained by the fact that blacks and Hispanics are naturally less capable of learning and passing a test simply because of their race. It says the problem is not the test taker, it is the test. You tell me why it is that all the minorities fell into the lower range of scores.

 

[jillio]

May I state the obvious?
Some people here think that black people just don't do as well as white people for tests. Let's say it's true. Reasons could be cultural. Some cultures place education higher than work, or families higher than education/work, and so on. Let's assume that the black people just don't have a strong work ethnic and aren't as studious as their white and hispanic counterparts. In this case, Jillio is basically asking (correct me if Im wrong) "Does this even mean that they aren't as qualified just because they don't have a strong work ethnic towards tests?" and Jiro is basically asking "Well if they want the promotion so bad, stfu and start studying."

Basically, do we try to accommodate for the people because of how they were raised or do we force them to do it a specific way (that they are capable of doing) "just because that's how the real world is."

We don't accommodate for it, per se. We take it into consideration in interpretation of what the test scores actually mean, and how acurrately something like a test score predicts success in a given job. And we don't use a single test as the only criterion.

 

[lsfoster]

May I state the obvious?
Some people here think that black people just don't do as well as white people for tests. Let's say it's true. Reasons could be cultural. Some cultures place education higher than work, or families higher than education/work, and so on. Let's assume that the black people just don't have a strong work ethnic and aren't as studious as their white and hispanic counterparts. In this case, Jillio is basically asking (correct me if Im wrong) "Does this even mean that they aren't as qualified just because they don't have a strong work ethnic towards tests?" and Jiro is basically asking "Well if they want the promotion so bad, stfu and start studying."

Basically, do we try to accommodate for the people because of how they were raised or do we force them to do it a specific way (that they are capable of doing) "just because that's how the real world is."

I don't think that black people don't do as well as white people at all. I think that people who have had a poorer education and who value education less do worse than people who had been well-educated and are driven to do well academically. There is a huge difference. The mistake that is often made is to say that the former are blacks or minorities and the latter are white. It is true that there are more minorities who are still in a lower socio-economic status, and therefore probably are less educated or value things more than education, but I would never say that any of those things are true simply because they are a minority. Each case is about the individual, and their life and circumstances. White families who are in lower economic brackets are no different, and the same goes for minority families who are in higher economic brackets.

The fact is, in New Haven, it is even more likely that the minority firefighters come from lower-income backgrounds. (Just based on the demographics of New Haven, and from personal experience). It it also true, however, that many of the white firefighters probably also came from lower-income households. There were way more white firefighters who were also ineligible for promotion because of the test. I have said many times that "culturally", most of these men probably grew up together, went to school together, and live in the same towns and neighborhoods together. Jillio has yet to respond to any of the times I have asked what exactly "culturally" speaking would put just the black firefighters at a greater disadvantage than their white peers who grew up in the same cultural and social circumstances.

If there is something "invalid" about the test, it will most likely be that it is biased against people who had worse options academically and don't value education as much. That includes black, white, hispanic, and any other race of people. To judge the exam based solely on how it affected the black firefighters is just as discriminatory to the white and hispanic firefighters who did well and those who didn't. It basically says that your "cultural disadvantage" only matters if you're a minority, and also that it isn't fair for someone to be more qualified than someone else.

 

[jillio]

I don't think that black people don't do as well as white people at all. I think that people who have had a poorer education and who value education less do worse than people who had been well-educated and are driven to do well academically. There is a huge difference. The mistake that is often made is to say that the former are blacks or minorities and the latter are white. It is true that there are more minorities who are still in a lower socio-economic status, and therefore probably are less educated or value things more than education, but I would never say that any of those things are true simply because they are a minority. Each case is about the individual, and their life and circumstances. White families who are in lower economic brackets are no different, and the same goes for minority families who are in higher economic brackets.

If the socio-economic consequences you have described is not the result of being of a minority status, what is the reason that minorities disparately are subject to these consequences?
The fact is, in New Haven, it is even more likely that the minority firefighters come from lower-income backgrounds. (Just based on the demographics of New Haven, and from personal experience). It it also true, however, that many of the white firefighters probably also came from lower-income households. There were way more white firefighters who were also ineligible for promotion because of the test. I have said many times that "culturally", most of these men probably grew up together, went to school together, and live in the same towns and neighborhoods together. Jillio has yet to respond to any of the times I have asked what exactly "culturally" speaking would put just the black firefighters at a greater disadvantage than their white peers who grew up in the same cultural and social circumstances.

This is the first time that you have asked that question specifically, but I have already answered it in context. Nothing separates them. That is why none of the low scoring white firefighters are involved in the lawsuit, lol. And to have to ask what separates the cultural experience of a white man from a black man in this country, no matter their economic status is an absurd question. Are you truly suggesting that the experience of a black man growing up in America is the same as the experience of a white man growing up in America, or that there are no differences in that experience after they reach adulthood? Surely you are not saying that.
If there is something "invalid" about the test, it will most likely be that it is biased against people who had worse options academically and don't value education as much. That includes black, white, hispanic, and any other race of people. To judge the exam based solely on how it affected the black firefighters is just as discriminatory to the white and hispanic firefighters who did well and those who didn't. It basically says that your "cultural disadvantage" only matters if you're a minority, and also that it isn't fair for someone to be more qualified than someone else.

So, you think that a testing instrument that is invalid and creates a situation of circular disadvantage is okay? And again, I have not judged anything based solely on black firefighter's scores. Repeatedly, I have used the term minority. Blacks are not the only participants that fall into the category of "minority" in this situation. Additionally, the white participants scores have been figured in to everything. Without them, there would be no relative placement of scores. So, you see, again you are focused on "black". And trying to project your focus on "black" to me.

 

[naisho]

Basically, do we try to accommodate for the people because of how they were raised or do we force them to do it a specific way (that they are capable of doing) "just because that's how the real world is."

But think about it this way. If you apply some standard thinking outside the bag for a second.

Look at places such as Stanford, Harvard, MIT. Compare their scores for a select class between whites and blacks. I kind of doubt there will be a large disparity. And we kind of realize that too, because it takes intelligent people to enter in these schools in the first place.

So this would equate to standards at a less prestigious school. That is where the racial issue may be imminent due to cultural status, and their socioeconomic standing of not just them but their relations as well.


Basically my point is; take a high institutional area to compare racial testing disparity and it will likely show that there are little or no coherent arguments to be made from them. This likely follows suit at their future employment potential.

Take it to a lower standing institution, then there's your problem.

 

[lsfoster]

Then you explain why the ones that were "qualified", in this instance, were so clearly divided by race. What is your explanation for that phenomenon?

I don't know how many times I have to say it. We. Don't. Know. You don't know, and I don't know. What I do know, is that you make it sound like all the white people did really well, while all the black people failed miserably. That is not the case. There were many fewer black people to begin with, and their results were spread over a range of scores. There were more white people who did poorly, but nobody is saying that the test discriminated against them. The fact is, there just happened to be a number of positions available, and none of the black firefighters would have received those promotions. What if there had been more positions? Do you think that there would be the same issue if even one black firefighter had been in a position to be promoted? No, it was one specific case of a certain number of positions, and the specific individuals who did the best that day happened to not be black.

Then you explain why the results were so clearly divided by race. Explain that phenomenon. And it is about the test, because without the test, there would be no foundation what so ever for the white firefighters lawsuit. The test cannot be removed from the equation.
Re: your last statement, I suppose you are entitled to your opinion. However, those with the information pertinent to this case believe otherwise. And, given some of the facts you have shared regarding your minority status, you really need to be grateful the lower courts decided the way they did.

The test is not the foundation of the white firefighters' lawsuit at all. It is the foundation of the city's defense. The test can very easily be removed from the equation, since the test should not be on trial. The city has managed to twist the case so that it is no longer about their actions, but about the test, which is not the important factor here. I have said it before, but I'll say it again: if the test is wrong, then throw it out, set it on fire, whatever you want. Nothing about the test will justify the city's decisions.

Based on my "minority status", I certainly hope the courts throw out the case. People try all the time to say that gay people want "extra rights", and the reason they say that is because some people do try to get "extra rights". This is one of those cases. The city wants to say that discrimination only counts when it's against black people. That is not true, it is a right that everyone should have to be safe from discrimination.

And the city did question the test's validity prior to scrapping the test scores. Check the OP. It clearly gives a chain of events that indicates the city suspected flaws in the test, and had those flaws confirmed prior to making a decision. Do you actually think that the city officials received the test scores back, said "Oops! No minorities were promoted. Let's scrap those scores and flush that $100,000 down the sewer without any answers as to why the scores fell the way they did?" Yeah, right. Of course that's what happened. Had that been the case, the white firefighter's would have won their lawsuit in the first court, rather than having it dismissed and ending up having to go all the way to the Supreme Court in an attempt to get a decision in their favor.

Since neither of us were there, why don't we again agree that neither one of us can be concretely right or wrong. But you should look at the site that DD posted. Here's a quote from the New Haven's Corporation Counsel, Thomas Ude, who raised the issue of throwing out the results, “federal law does not require that you [the CSB] make a finding that this test . . . was not job-related, which is another way of saying it wasn’t fair. A test can be job-related and have a disparate impact on an ethnic group and still be
rejected because there are less discriminatory alternatives for
the selection process.” To me, that sounds like the validity of the test was not at all the main concern.

Sorry, there may not be a way for you to know it. But evidently, there was a way for the experts in testing and assessment to know it. But, let's go with that. You explain why the scores were so clearly divided based on race. If it isn't a result of testing bias, what is the explanation for the fact that all minority participants fell into significantly lower ranges than did the white participants?

They didn't, they fell into a range with the majority of the white participants. And we don't also don't know how the "experts" know anything. We don't know what they considered, or if they separately tested any of the men to determine their actual level of knowledge and qualification.

Scroll back. There are numerous questions you have failed to answer. But lets see if you can manage to answer the ones in this post alone.

If you want them answered so badly, you can certainly take the time to find them. If you can't, then just say so. I have posted the same questions over and over again when I ask you to answer them. Again, if you won't even back up your own statements, then just don't make them.

Critical thinking skills, my dear, critical thinking skills. You must be able to see where situations are different as well as where they are similar.

A response which does not actually address the issue, or answer the question, or offer any examples of where they are different or similar. Maybe you just want to talk about critical thinking skills, instead of using any...

The point is, you are not a professional in your chosen field. You are a student of the field. That tells me that you have not learned everything you need to know to place yourself above a professional in your field in knowledge and experience. You are studying. You are not putting your knowledge into practice, because your knowledge still has you at the level of a student. Exactly what journals have you been published in? I'd be interested in reading those articles. Were they written under a faculty and co-authored with a faculty advisor? And exactly, you are still learning. You don't know everything you need to know in your own field. How is it that you assume you can know everything you need to know in another field in which you have no knowledge or experience. In the problems of chemistry, even as a student, I would defer to you. It is not my area of expertise. It is yours. However, testing and assessment is my field, and that is the topic we are discussing.

No, my point was that I could easily go get a job right now and have enough qualification to be "professional", but am instead choosing to expand my current knowledge. And I am putting my knowledge into practice by working independently on a project that I designed. Do I have an advisor? Yes. So what. Many "professional" also collaborate and co-author papers. I'll be sure to let the scientific community at large know that apparently they are not "professionals".

And let me say it again, this is not a discussion about testing and assessment. You keep trying to make it one because you feel that then you can simply tell everyone else they don't know anything, but it still doesn't make it the issue. The test is still not the issue, but I'll say it as many times as I have to before you are capable of understanding that.

And why do you think that things would look bad either way, dear? If the test had been valid, it would not have been a concern.

No, the validity of the test has no bearing on the "appearance" of only promoting white firefighters.

Yes, we do have indication of what the board is questioning. It is stated in the OP. Perhaps you don't understand it, but it is there.

Again, if you would like to provide evidence, then that would be fine. Otherwise, unless you are secretly in contact with the group analyzing the test, we don't know what they are considering or how they have reached any of their conclusions.

This makes virtually no sense whatsoever.

If you have trouble understanding a simple concept, that really makes me worry about how you assess testing materials. You can't "norm" something based on one single factor that can be affected by a multitude of other things which you are conveniently ignoring. Race does not imply anything about their knowledge or qualification.

But they didn't do that, now did they? Instead, they paid $100,000 for a test design that has since been found to have questionable validity. Hindsight is 20/20. Court decisions nor test scores are based on what they "could" have done. They are based on what "was" done.

Exactly, they didn't. And this decision should be based on what they "did" do, which was discriminatory. I'm glad we agree.

I am not focused on race. If you consider the range of scores, you see that all the minorities fell into the significantly lower ranges. That is a fact. Can't ignore it. All you can do is explain the why of the phenomenon. I am saying it occurred becuase of problems inherent to the testing instrument. So, you are saying the testing instrument had nothing to do with the fact that all the minorities fell into the significantly lower ranges of scores. So you explain what the "why" is behind the fact if it has nothing to do with the instrument. You explain it. My explanation favors the fact that the fact of the test scores cannot be explained by the fact that blacks and Hispanics are naturally less capable of learning and passing a test simply because of their race. It says the problem is not the test taker, it is the test. You tell me why it is that all the minorities fell into the lower range of scores.

Nope, not focused on race at all.

I have explained this many times. My explanation favors the fact that each man is responsible for making himself qualified, and you have absolutely no idea which men did so.

 

[naisho]

'IQ does not explain black-white income differences,'

If you thought/believed IQ differences between black and whites determined how much income or what job they got in the end, check this out. It's a study conducted by Stanford themselves.

'IQ does not explain black-white income differences,' economist says

11/09/94
CONTACT: Stanford University News Service (415) 723-2558
'IQ does not explain black-white income differences,' economist says

STANFORD--Recent claims that IQ at birth determines one's fortunes in life are based on flawed interpretations of statistical data, according to labor economist Martin Carnoy, a Stanford professor of education.

In Faded Dreams, to be published this month by Cambridge University Press, Carnoy argues that contrary to Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's assertions in The Bell Curve, large changes in African Americans' achievement and income can result, and have resulted, from government action.

Using detailed census data from the past 50 years and many of the same sources cited in The Bell Curve, Carnoy finds that positive changes in the ratio of black to white economic performance mark the period.

Gains in African American children¹s school test scores, including SAT scores, relative to whites over the past 20 years were expected to result in rising college graduation rates and higher wages for African American high school and college graduates, he said. Neither occurred, but no one, including Herrnstein and Murray, blames this on IQ differences.

"The Bell Curve recognizes the existence of this huge increase in scores," Carnoy explained, "but it conveniently ignores its implications for their theory on the importance of IQ, which tightly connects IQ and wages. If IQ were so consequential for wages, young black high school graduates should have cut the wage difference with whites by about one-third in the 1980s. In fact, young blacks' wages compared to white graduates¹ were the same in 1979 and 1989."

"Asian Americans score higher than whites on tests. If we took The Bell Curve's argument about income determination seriously, Asian American male college and high school graduates should earn significantly more than whites of the same age. Yet they earn less," he said. "Men in general continue to earn more than women even when their labor market experience is the same. Married men also earn higher wages than single men, yet no one would claim that marriage makes you smarter.








Also. this might be a killer for everyone reading here. This sentence is almost like a puncher.

Argument of former Education Secretary William Bennett and other conservatives who say that African Americans are responsible for their own economic problems by not taking enough advantage of schooling.

 

[lsfoster]

If the socio-economic consequences you have described is not the result of being of a minority status, what is the reason that minorities disparately are subject to these consequences?

You're saying that people are poor because they're minorities. I'm saying that a lot of poor people also happen to be minorities. The difference should be pretty obvious. Your way of describing the situation is inaccurate, racist, and also ignores any low-income person's disadvantage who doesn't happen to be a minority.

This is the first time that you have asked that question specifically, but I have already answered it in context. Nothing separates them. That is why none of the low scoring white firefighters are involved in the lawsuit, lol. And to have to ask what separates the cultural experience of a white man from a black man in this country, no matter their economic status is an absurd question. Are you truly suggesting that the experience of a black man growing up in America is the same as the experience of a white man growing up in America, or that there are no differences in that experience after they reach adulthood? Surely you are not saying that.

I asked what would separate them that would affect their ability to take this test. Their general life experiences are not the issue, and are not "in context". There are differences between white people growing up culturally if they are jewish, italian, polish, irish, anything in the world. But those don't seem to be considered to affect their ability to take this test. Therefore, you have still failed to answer the question I asked.

So, you think that a testing instrument that is invalid and creates a situation of circular disadvantage is okay? And again, I have not judged anything based solely on black firefighter's scores. Repeatedly, I have used the term minority. Blacks are not the only participants that fall into the category of "minority" in this situation. Additionally, the white participants scores have been figured in to everything. Without them, there would be no relative placement of scores. So, you see, again you are focused on "black". And trying to project your focus on "black" to me.

Exactly, and if you consider the "minority" scores, there were hispanic men who would have been eligible for promotion. I'm only focused on "black" because that is what the city of New Haven decided to focus on, making it the major issue. Also, in that paragraph, I mentioned black, white, and hispanic men. I'm not sure where you got the "focusing on black" other than trying to distract from the issue and again fail to respond to the point I made.

 

[jillio]

I don't know how many times I have to say it. We. Don't. Know. You don't know, and I don't know. What I do know, is that you make it sound like all the white people did really well, while all the black people failed miserably.
Well, then, you need to read more clearly, because I have said nothing of the kind, nor have I implied anything of the kind. Again, your focus on race is interfering with your ability to actually read what is written. Stop projecting your own issues onto what is being said. And just because you don't know doesn't mean that no one else knows. Additionally, if you don't know, then you cannot, in any way, tell me that what I have stated is not true. If you don't know what didn't cause the disparity, then you don't know what did cause the disparity. So, it would appear that you have no more argument.

That is not the case. There were many fewer black people to begin with, and their results were spread over a range of scores. There were more white people who did poorly, but nobody is saying that the test discriminated against them. The fact is, there just happened to be a number of positions available, and none of the black firefighters would have received those promotions. What if there had been more positions? Do you think that there would be the same issue if even one black firefighter had been in a position to be promoted? No, it was one specific case of a certain number of positions, and the specific individuals who did the best that day happened to not be black.

You cannot say that. You have already stated that you don't know what caused the disparities, and now you are offering an explanation for the disparities. The laws of probability completely refute your attempt at an explanation, so it could be easily refuted anyway. But the fact is, you said you don't know. Which means that you cannot offer an explanation. Nor can you refute any other explanation.

The test is not the foundation of the white firefighters' lawsuit at all. It is the foundation of the city's defense. The test can very easily be removed from the equation, since the test should not be on trial. The city has managed to twist the case so that it is no longer about their actions, but about the test, which is not the important factor here. I have said it before, but I'll say it again: if the test is wrong, then throw it out, set it on fire, whatever you want. Nothing about the test will justify the city's decisions.

Wait a minute. Do you even think about what you are writing? If the test is not an important foundation of the lawsuit, what exactly are the white firefighters suing for? They are suing because scores were thrown out. Without the test there are no scores. So, an invalid test that creates unfair promotion practices is perfectly fine. The city should have just gone ahead and used that which was found to be invalid because just because a test is found to be biased is no reason not to use it and to make decisions based on innacurrate scores? Your arguments are getting more and more ridiculous. The city DID throw out the test.

Based on my "minority status", I certainly hope the courts throw out the case. People try all the time to say that gay people want "extra rights", and the reason they say that is because some people do try to get "extra rights". This is one of those cases. The city wants to say that discrimination only counts when it's against black people. That is not true, it is a right that everyone should have to be safe from discrimination.

Sure. That's why you argue for gay marraige, right? Here you demand equal opportunity in that arena for your minority status, but argue against equal opportunity in the test and assessment arena for people just because their skin is a darker color. What a hypocritical position to take.:roll:


Since neither of us were there, why don't we again agree that neither one of us can be concretely right or wrong. But you should look at the site that DD posted. Here's a quote from the New Haven's Corporation Counsel, Thomas Ude, who raised the issue of throwing out the results, “federal law does not require that you [the CSB] make a finding that this test . . . was not job-related, which is another way of saying it wasn’t fair. A test can be job-related and have a disparate impact on an ethnic group and still be
rejected because there are less discriminatory alternatives for
the selection process.” To me, that sounds like the validity of the test was not at all the main concern.

That is in reference to only one type of validity, and also, that action is what is specifically prohibited under Title VII. Did you bother to look up the case setting legal precedent I referred you to earlier? And the test is an issue simply because it was the criterion used. You conveniently ignore the fact that had it not been for the test being used as the criterion, there would not be a lawsuit because there would be no scores to have been thrown out. However, the legal expert is saying exactly the same thing I am saying. This instrument produced a disparate effect. That means it is not a fair way of deciding promotions.

They didn't, they fell into a range with the majority of the white participants. And we don't also don't know how the "experts" know anything. We don't know what they considered, or if they separately tested any of the men to determine their actual level of knowledge and qualification.

No, they did not. Evidently, they are called experts for a reason. Because they possess the knowledge and experience to confer expertise. Even if you knew what they considered, chances are you would not understand the implications of what they considered. That is evidenced by many of your arguments. The reason that you do not consider certain issues to be of value in the decision is, quite simply, because you do not have the expertise to understand the implications. Perhaps if you had this expertise, you could fund your chemistry education by testifying as an expert witness in the area of testing and assessment. But, then, there is also a very good reason why you do not fund your chemistry education in that way. You don't have the expertise necessary.

If you want them answered so badly, you can certainly take the time to find them. If you can't, then just say so. I have posted the same questions over and over again when I ask you to answer them. Again, if you won't even back up your own statements, then just don't make them.

And you have yet to answer any of the numerous questions you have been asked. You simply side step them. Again, If I am wrong, as you say, and this test contained no bias and was completely valid for the purpose for which it was intended, explain why the minority scores were significantly lower and grouped by minority status? You keep wanting to tell me I'm wrong, but you have yet to come up with an explanation of why I am wrong. So, don't say "I don't know" because that means you don't know that I am wrong, either. Give me your explanation. If this test was a valid and reliable instrument, and contained no bias, why did the scores not fall on a normal curve? Laws of probability say they will, given all things equal. They did not. You explain it.



A response which does not actually address the issue, or answer the question, or offer any examples of where they are different or similar. Maybe you just want to talk about critical thinking skills, instead of using any...

It would be nice if you could discuss them, and/or use them.




No, my point was that I could easily go get a job right now and have enough qualification to be "professional", but am instead choosing to expand my current knowledge. And I am putting my knowledge into practice by working independently on a project that I designed. Do I have an advisor? Yes. So what. Many "professional" also collaborate and co-author papers. I'll be sure to let the scientific community at large know that apparently they are not "professionals".

Most professionals collaborate with other professionals, and with equal status. The fact that it is necessary for you to have an advisor means that you have not reached that status as of yet. If you had, you wouldn't need the supervision of an advisor. The scientific community is comprised of professionals. However, you are a student studying to become a part of that professional community. Oh, you failed to note what journal you were published in, and what article it was. Another question unanswered.
And let me say it again, this is not a discussion about testing and assessment. You keep trying to make it one because you feel that then you can simply tell everyone else they don't know anything, but it still doesn't make it the issue. The test is still not the issue, but I'll say it as many times as I have to before you are capable of understanding that.

Ahh, the test is an issue. Without the test, there would have been no scores to throw out, and the city would not have to justify its actions, nor would the white firefighters have a lawsuit.

No, the validity of the test has no bearing on the "appearance" of only promoting white firefighters.

There was no "appearance" to it. It didn't "appear" that way. It was that way.

Again, if you would like to provide evidence, then that would be fine. Otherwise, unless you are secretly in contact with the group analyzing the test, we don't know what they are considering or how they have reached any of their conclusions.

I have a much better idea of what is considered in regard to this situation than do you. I have already posted, in a reply to DD, I believe it was, exactly what is considered in determining the various types of validity on a testing instrument. And you really need to stop using "we" when you are referring to yourself. Don't assume because you don't know something, no one knows it.


If you have trouble understanding a simple concept, that really makes me worry about how you assess testing materials. You can't "norm" something based on one single factor that can be affected by a multitude of other things which you are conveniently ignoring. Race does not imply anything about their knowledge or qualification.

When you learn anything at all about what you are attempting to discuss, then we will discuss norm referencing. Your statements indicate that you have no idea what you are talking about. I'll stick to what I am qualified for, and you stick to your periodic tables.


Exactly, they didn't. And this decision should be based on what they "did" do, which was discriminatory. I'm glad we agree.

How exactly was throwing out the test scores discriminatory? You are still failing to explain that.

Nope, not focused on race at all.

Completely focused on race. It is evidenced throughout your posts.

I have explained this many times. My explanation favors the fact that each man is responsible for making himself qualified, and you have absolutely no idea which men did so.

Your "explanation" explains nothing. That is the whole point. We are not discussing personal responsibility....we are discussing disparity in test scores. If we use your explanation of personal repsonsibility, then you are also saying that all of the minority candidates failed to study properly. Do you actually believe that this is a reasonable explanation for the placement of scores? Surely to God you do not believe that.

 

[darkdog]

Got it. I divided the data into four groups: Everyone, Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics. Within each group, there are three data sets: oral, written, and total scores. So that's twelve data sets for each the captain's test and the lieutenant's test. I found the means, medians, and SDs for all of those. I also took the z-scores and the t-scores, graphed their probability densities and their cumulative distributions, as well as the percentages of the populations within the SDs. On all my charts, I compared the actual results to a perfect normal curve. Here are some examples. Sorry they're kind of small and fuzzy.

These are just for the captain's exam and they are the total scores of the entire population. I would have included all 12 datasets, but that makes for a very messy chart. I could have easily picked Blacks- written score or Hispanics- total score or any other data set from among the 12.

I'm wondering what the purpose of getting the t-score is. The charts look the exact same- only the numbers on the axes are different. Anyway, I got all that data. Now how would I go about evaluating for validity?

 

[jillio]

Got it. I divided the data into four groups: Everyone, Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics. Within each group, there are three data sets: oral, written, and total scores. So that's twelve data sets for each the captain's test and the lieutenant's test. I found the means, medians, and SDs for all of those. I also took the z-scores and the t-scores, graphed their probability densities and their cumulative distributions, as well as the percentages of the populations within the SDs. On all my charts, I compared the actual results to a perfect normal curve. Here are some examples. sorry they're kind of small and fuzzy.

These are just for the captain's exam and they are the total scores of the entire population. I would have included all 12 datasets, but that makes for a very messy chart. I could have easily picked Blacks- written score or Hispanics- total score or any other data set from among the 12.

I'm wondering what the purpose of getting the t-score is. The charts look the exact same- only the numbers on the axes are different. Anyway, I got all that data. Now how would I go about evaluating for validity?

Good job. And you can easily see the skew. Well, it depends on what you are using the converted scores for. T scores would more often be used for hypothesis testing, so if you are developing a hypothesis and basing further research on the scores, you would probably want to convert to t-scores.

When you sort by race, what do the increasing skews tell you? That there is most likely a problem with validity of the instrument, rather than with the test takers. If the problem were the test takers, the scores would distribute normally with a few outliers.

If you now want to determine validity of the instrument, you will need the actual test, as well as a population. In post 449, I explained the methods used to determine various forms of validity on a testing instrument.

But, given your stats, what would you suspect from the distribution of scores?

 

[Jiro]

Jillio - just a friendly suggestion. Don't quote COMPLETELY if the post is very long. It's simply unnecessary and a waste of space. Just simply remove the pictures.

 

[darkdog]

What you are referring to as a student T distribution is simply the curve obtained when raw scores are converted to t-scores.

Nope. The reason I brought up the Student's t-distribution in the first place was to show an example of a distribution that looks normal, but isn't. If it has a high degree of freedom, it is pretty close to a normal distribution, but still not quite.

It is used to determine the confidence level for the mean when you have a sub-population and you don't know the mean of the greater population.

 

[jillio]

Jillio - just a friendly suggestion. Don't quote COMPLETELY if the post is very long. It's simply unnecessary and a waste of space. Just simply remove the pictures.

:topic:

 

[jillio]

Nope. The reason I brought up the Student's t-distribution in the first place was to show an example of a distribution that looks normal, but isn't. If it has a high degree of freedom, it is pretty close to a normal distribution, but still not quite.

It is used to determine the confidence level for the mean when you have a sub-population and you don't know the mean of the greater population.

oops...now you are back to hypothesis testing.

 

[Jiro]

:topic:

what's the matter? stepped on the nail or something? btw - no comment about naisho's post regarding firefighter exams? I see nothing culturally-biased about it.

 

[jillio]

what's the matter? stepped on the nail or something? btw - no comment about naisho's post regarding firefighter exams? I see nothing culturally-biased about it.

That isn't the exam in question, duh. And just because you don't see it from a sample posted on AD doesn't mean it doesn't exist.