Reverse Discrimination Case

[Jiro]

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.

keyword - sarcastic. and that post isn't for you. just a poking and giggling between DD and I. Did my post hit your funny bone or something? Anyway - I believe this lawsuit regarding New Haven firefighter test should be dismissed by U.S. Supreme Court and that's my stance.

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.

Admitted? I admit NOTHING. I simply answered your question if I've ever had a professor who curved the grade. Who am I to argue with? it's his class and his discretion. In my class - I would not curve the grade because I don't believe in it. It's a farce.

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.

Let's not try to use my personal life for your agenda. I believe I've answered enough of your questions regarding my personal life. If you want to use your personal life for an example, go ahead.

The test was both oral and written so no you are not correct that written exam is the only criterion used in this case.

 

[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.

Remember also, those values are for the Captain's examination. You will see your values in my calculations for the Captains. We are doing assessment of the Lieutenants.. I think.

 

[jillio]

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).

It will change automatically in SPSS when you use the appropriate program for the analysis you are attempting to do. To be frank, if you are unfamiliar with which statistics to apply to various questions, SPSS is not very user friendly. You might want to keep in mind that SPSS is designed for use with psychological concepts, which vary from sociological concepts. In this case, the sociological analysis is to analyze the population as a whole. However, because assessment and testing is in the psychological domain, we are not interested in omega, or even mu. We are looking at the comparison of individual scores to provide meaning. That requires using the program specifically to determine that. However, even with the figures you have come up with using an incorrect computing formula, your figures are close enough to mine to still show a serious postive skew when you convert and sort.

 

[Jiro]

all these SPSS talk.... I've spent one semester on it and I have absolutely no idea how I passed the course with a B. Either I was high at that time or I had a memory loss from concussion.....

 

[jillio]

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:

There you go. A poorly constructed test does not have validity. It does not test what it is intended to test. If he is a poor professor, and his test does not cover the material in the way it has been taught, then the test is not valid. You have actually just supported every point I have made.

What do you think the chances are, in a college class, of every student being below average?

 

[Daredevel7]

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.

Really? To me, it seems like some professors just like to mentally rape us. In some classes, the test averages were 30-50%. After all, there is a reason why we called Differential Equations (Diff EQ) "Diff Screw"

 

[jillio]

Remember also, those values are for the Captain's examination. You will see your values in my calculations for the Captains. We are doing assessment of the Lieutenants.. I think.

Actually, I did my analysis on the Captain's exam. I mistakenly stated that it was the Lieutenant's exam, but corrected that a while back.

 

[jillio]

keyword - sarcastic. and that post isn't for you. just a poking and giggling between DD and I. Did my post hit your funny bone or something? Anyway - I believe this lawsuit regarding New Haven firefighter test should be dismissed by U.S. Supreme Court and that's my stance.


Admitted? I admit NOTHING. I simply answered your question if I've ever had a professor who curved the grade. Who am I to argue with? it's his class and his discretion. In my class - I would not curve the grade because I don't believe in it. It's a farce.

I see. So, in effect, you believe that unfairness in assessment is acceptable.


Let's not try to use my personal life for your agenda. I believe I've answered enough of your questions regarding my personal life. If you want to use your personal life for an example, go ahead.

The fact that you won't answer whether you accept such a test as being a valid indication of your ability to perform your job duties is simply more support for my points.
The test was both oral and written so no you are not correct that written exam is the only criterion used in this case.

No, Jiro. One exam, 2 subsets ( written and oral). Different weights given to the different subsets. Exactly the same situation I described in the question you refuse to answer. And I did not say that the written exam was the only criterion. I said the exam was the only criterion. The exam includes both subsets.

 

[Jiro]

There you go. A poorly constructed test does not have validity. It does not test what it is intended to test. If he is a poor professor, and his test does not cover the material in the way it has been taught, then the test is not valid. You have actually just supported every point I have made.

Major major difference - the exam was constructed by professor. This fireman test was constructed by a professional & reputable firm. I don't think the professor would dolled out $100,000 for an exam

What do you think the chances are, in a college class, of every student being below average?

Because of that - we the angry students got 3 professors (different subjects, different schools) fired and we were given a "do-over" exam by dean. suffice to say - majority of us passed but a few didn't.

 

[naisho]

So what exactly is going on here? Can someone clarify?

Are the prospective Lieutenants the ones fussing about the promotion?

Or is it the captains that are fussing in this case?

I was pretty darned sure the analysis was to be done on the lieutenants because of a post I read off DareDevel's back in the ashes somewhere.
Luckily the raw math for both captains and lieutenants are already provided in the calculations.

 

[Jiro]

Really? To me, it seems like some professors just like to mentally rape us. In some classes, the test averages were 30-50%. After all, there is a reason why we called Differential Equations (Diff EQ) "Diff Screw"

 

[Jiro]

I see. So, in effect, you believe that unfairness in assessment is acceptable.

The fact that you won't answer whether you accept such a test as being a valid indication of your ability to perform your job duties is simply more support for my points.

No, Jiro. One exam, 2 subsets ( written and oral). Different weights given to the different subsets. Exactly the same situation I described in the question you refuse to answer. And I did not say that the written exam was the only criterion. I said the exam was the only criterion. The exam includes both subsets.

I see.... your good ole' tactic - obfuscation and flooding. and still continuing to distort and bs some more. :roll:

 

[lsfoster]

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.

If you are willing to admit individual human error on the part of the test-makers, why do you adamantly refuse to admit the possibility of it existing in the test-takers? Yes, the people who made the test could have made it wrong. You don't seem to understand that I've been saying that the whole time. What I said was that the test was not necessarily wrong just because specific individuals who didn't do well happened to be minorities. By that logic, minorities should just stop learning or studying or preparing for anything, since when they fail it will be the test's fault.

The statement he bolded was not racist at all. It implies that the individuals were not as qualified as others. It goes for the other white and hispanic individuals who didn't do as well, as well as for the black individuals. Just because you seem unable to look past anyone's race in this discussion doesn't mean that other people can't.

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.

Again, you don't know anything about the people who took the test. Your argument would assume that they were all equally qualified, or that their range of qualification was the same when looked solely by race. That is an extremely narrow and racist way to look at it.

The exact same argument that you are saying for IQ Solutions could be said for the city of New Haven. What do you expect them to say, "We definitely discriminated against the white and hispanic men who should have been promoted."? Get real. Of course they are going to try to justify their actions. But they didn't handle the situation the way they should have, and therefore are guilty of discrimination.

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?

Again, you are arguing specific hypothetical situations that have no relevance to this case or to anything else. You're just wasting time and distracting from all the points you won't respond to.

 

[jillio]

Major major difference - the exam was constructed by professor. This fireman test was constructed by a professional & reputable firm. I don't think the professor would dolled out $100,000 for an exam

Are you suggesting that a full professor is not an expert in constructing exams for the class they teach? In fact, they are more of an expert in constructing an exam for the class they teach than would be an outside firm.

Because of that - we the angry students got 3 professors (different subjects, different schools) fired and we were given a "do-over" exam by dean. suffice to say - majority of us passed but a few didn't.

Oh, I see. So, you do not want an invalid testing instrument used to make decisions in your case, but you do see it as acceptable in this case.

 

[jillio]

So what exactly is going on here? Can someone clarify?

Are the prospective Lieutenants the ones fussing about the promotion?

Or is it the captains that are fussing in this case?

I was pretty darned sure the analysis was to be done on the lieutenants because of a post I read off DareDevel's back in the ashes somewhere.
Luckily the raw math for both captains and lieutenants are already provided in the calculations.

The white guys are mad because the bias in their favor was not permitted to decide promotions. That is it in a nutshell.

I did my calculations for the data provided by DD. You then stated, when I pointed out that you were using an N of 77 instead of an N of 41 that the 41 applied to the Captain's exam. That is when I said, okay, for the Captain's exam. The N will be different depending upon which exam socres you use.

 

[Daredevel7]

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?

Actually, since you're such a fan of hypothetical situations....I will use yours above. So let's say that the above test discriminates Asians since their grammar is not as good as white people. So the test shows that most people who did well are indeed white. Let's say the IT company did the same thing as the fire dept. They hired a consultant to create a cultural blind test. The IT company sees the results and goes "Oh shoot.... not what we expected..... let's change the weights to make it more even among race." So they do and ended up making it 20% oral and 80% written, creating a nice little "American Beauty" distribution among those who were hired. How nice.. until months later.. people realize that there was a reason why it was 80% oral in the first place.... there is more talking and interaction with people and clients than doing actual computer work. So now the Asians are not doing very well interacting with the clients and clients are complaining.

 

[jillio]

If you are willing to admit individual human error on the part of the test-makers, why do you adamantly refuse to admit the possibility of it existing in the test-takers? Yes, the people who made the test could have made it wrong. You don't seem to understand that I've been saying that the whole time. What I said was that the test was not necessarily wrong just because specific individuals who didn't do well happened to be minorities. By that logic, minorities should just stop learning or studying or preparing for anything, since when they fail it will be the test's fault.

The statement he bolded was not racist at all. It implies that the individuals were not as qualified as others. It goes for the other white and hispanic individuals who didn't do as well, as well as for the black individuals. Just because you seem unable to look past anyone's race in this discussion doesn't mean that other people can't.



Again, you don't know anything about the people who took the test. Your argument would assume that they were all equally qualified, or that their range of qualification was the same when looked solely by race. That is an extremely narrow and racist way to look at it.

The exact same argument that you are saying for IQ Solutions could be said for the city of New Haven. What do you expect them to say, "We definitely discriminated against the white and hispanic men who should have been promoted."? Get real. Of course they are going to try to justify their actions. But they didn't handle the situation the way they should have, and therefore are guilty of discrimination.



Again, you are arguing specific hypothetical situations that have no relevance to this case or to anything else. You're just wasting time and distracting from all the points you won't respond to.

The answer to your first question is because of the skew indicated in the converted scores. I have stated that numerous times. It is the elephant in the room that you are refusing to acknowledge.

I know what you are saying. And I am saying that the skew disputes what you are saying. Again, the elephant in the room that you are refusing to acknowledge.

To address your third point, you quite obviously have no understanding of the issue of race in regard to this topic. It is not what I am saying. It is what the scores are saying, and it is what the white firefighters are alleging in their lawsuit. Again, the elephant in the room that you are refusing to acknowledge.

The city won't say that. That is why they threw the scores out. Duh.

I am not arguing irrelevent points at all. You are simply failing to apply critical thinking skills in order to be able to link them. That is not my responsibility.

Again, arguing for nothing more than the sake of arguing. Support your points with something....anything....anything at all, PLEASE.

 

[jillio]

Actually, since you're such a fan of hypothetical situations....I will use yours above. So let's say that the above test discriminates Asians since their grammar is not as good as white people. So the test shows that most people who did well are indeed white. Let's say the IT company did the same thing as the fire dept. They hired a consultant to create a cultural blind test. The IT company sees the results and goes "Oh shoot.... not what we expected..... let's change the weights to make it more even among race." So they do and ended up making it 20% oral and 80% written, creating a nice little "American Beauty" distribution among those who were hired. How nice.. until months later.. people realize that there was a reason why it was 80% oral in the first place.... there is more talking and interaction with people and clients than doing actual computer work. So now the Asians are not doing very well interacting with the clients and clients are complaining.

You missed the point in my situation. I stated that the oral portion was intended to check for grammar usage. Is grammar usage more important to performing the skills necessary for an IT job that is knowledge of computer applications? The answer is no. So the test should not have been weighted so that it actually gave results that indicated who had better grammar usage rather than who had better skills necessary to perform the job. The test was not valid because it did not test what it was intended to test, for Asians or non-Asians alike. Therefore, even those that did well did not properly have their skills for job performance assessed. That created a situation where cultural bias would then come into play Asians scored poorly on the grammar portion, it was weighted improperly, and therefore, due to the improper weight, and the problems with content and context validity, created a problem that divided scores disparately based on a criterion that was not an important feature in the ability to do a job. It is tatamount to saying, "We won't hire you to flip hamburgers because you can't throw a ball."

 

[jillio]

I see.... your good ole' tactic - obfuscation and flooding. and still continuing to distort and bs some more. :roll:

That is not obfuscation and flooding, Jiro. That is clarification. You are failing to note important issues, and you are misquoting me as a result.

 

[lsfoster]

The answer to your first question is because of the skew indicated in the converted scores. I have stated that numerous times. It is the elephant in the room that you are refusing to acknowledge.

No, the elephant in the room is the fact that we have no way of knowing if the people who did poorly on the exam were simply less qualified. You keep dancing around that issue without actually responding to it.

I know what you are saying. And I am saying that the skew disputes what you are saying. Again, the elephant in the room that you are refusing to acknowledge.

Again, you avoid the point. This is not an issue of the skew, or the results, or the test, or anything. It is an issue of "did the city respond correctly". The fact is, they threw the results out for one reason: they didn't want a lawsuit from the black firefighters who didn't get promoted. You have yet to give any reason that this is an acceptable thing to do. You instead continue to argue other points and insult everyone else in the thread.

To address your third point, you quite obviously have no understanding of the issue of race in regard to this topic. It is not what I am saying. It is what the scores are saying, and it is what the white firefighters are alleging in their lawsuit. Again, the elephant in the room that you are refusing to acknowledge.

No, clearly you don't, since you seem concretely opposed to reading the original articles or anyone's posts. You still haven't said anything about the real reason that the city threw out the results. Even if the test is found to be invalid, it does not justify the fact that they made a discriminatory decision. That would be like saying that if we had found WMD's, the fact that Bush illegally started a war he has no right to start was perfectly fine. It doesn't matter. The test, the skew, none of that has to do with the actual topic: did the city discriminate against the white firefighters when they threw out the results to avoid a lawsuit for not promoting any black firefighters? I say yes. So far, you have said absolutely nothing about it, despite the fact that it has been brought up numerous times.

The city won't say that. That is why they threw the scores out. Duh.

I am not arguing irrelevent points at all. You are simply failing to apply critical thinking skills in order to be able to link them. That is not my responsibility.

Again, arguing for nothing more than the sake of arguing. Support your points with something....anything....anything at all, PLEASE.

I'm arguing for the sake of arguing? Since I'm the one who side-tracked the discussion into "cultural bias" and wasted pages in an argument about SPSS results and whether or not they're being calculated correctly? This is a very simple topic, you just refuse to actually discuss it.

Also, I will point out again that many people have commented on the fact that you have no response to most points made against you other than ignoring the comment and insulting the person making it, and that you have offered nothing more than your "say-so" for just about everything you've said.