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.
Exactly, neither of us can know. But you have been making definitive statements that would require more knowledge than you have. Maybe you're finally starting to see the point.
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.
And nor can you. Maybe you're finally catching on. *crosses fingers*
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.
The existence of the test is important, sure, but the validity of the test is not the point of the lawsuit being brought against the city. I have already said that if the city thought there were problems with the test, they would have handled the situation entirely differently, and that would be a separate issue.
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.
No, I'm arguing for equal opportunity. Clearly you can't see the difference. You're arguing that discrimination only applies to minorities, that is not equal.
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.
No, you are ignoring the fact that there are too many factors that we know nothing about to be able to make such a definitive statement. I really thought you were starting to catch on, too...
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.
And "experts" in every single field have been wrong before, and surely will be again. I should also point out that I have been arguing that you are the one ignoring issues in your "analysis", not me. If you understand how great the implications of those issues are, then I'm glad you agree that ignoring them made your "analysis" useless and irrelevant.
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.
I have answered your questions, if you are unwilling to go back and find specific ones that you think I didn't, that's your problem. Similarly, I have stated an almost absurd amount of times that we do not know why some minorities scored lower. First of all, they were not "grouped" by status, they covered a range of scores, and were interspersed with other white and hispanic firefighters' scores who also did not do as well on the exam.
In regards to the bolded part, that is the whole point. I have been trying to make you understand that you can't tell everyone else in the whole thread that they are wrong and idiotic simply because you have a different opinion. So if you understand that, please stop doing so.
In regards to the bolded and underlined part, you have absolutely not evidence that anything was even, and are assuming a huge factor in your "analysis" if you do so.
It would be nice if you could discuss them, and/or use them.
Again, not responding to the post and insulting me. Getting kind of old, really.
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.
It's not unanswered, if you are really interested, feel free to pm me and I'll send you the information. However, it has no relevance to this situation, and unlike you, I don't feel the need to shove my "experience" down everyone else's throat.
There was no "appearance" to it. It didn't "appear" that way. It was that way.
Now, now, jillio, surely you understand that interpretation is important, and there's always room for interpretation. How things were, and how the city was afraid that things would "appear" could be two very different things.
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.
"We" is referring to the people involved in this conversation, and we all have access to the same information about this case. You don't have a better idea what was considered unless you have talked to the people who did the assessment. You can say you have your own opinions about what was considered, based on what you would consider important, but we have no evidence of what was or was not considered.
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.
I won't go into what your statements indicate.
How exactly was throwing out the test scores discriminatory? You are still failing to explain that.
No, I have explained that many times. They threw out scores because they feared a lawsuit, and that action only had an adverse effect on the white and hispanic firefighters involved. If you look up the definition of discrimination, I'm sure you'll be able to figure it out.
Completely focused on race. It is evidenced throughout your posts.
Clearly you missed the point of that sentence. In your post, you said that you weren't focused on race, and in the next sentence, "If you consider the range of scores, you see that all the minorities fell into the significantly lower ranges." Indicating that you are, very clearly, focused on race.
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.
Although I don't know that the skew is that significant. If it's skewed, the cumulative distribution plot would be oddly asymmetrical around 0, and they all are to some extent, some more than others. However, I'd rather trust an equation or formula than my eyes, especially with sample sizes this small. Is there such a formula that I can throw these numbers into that will say valid or invalid?