To give degs' POV its due, his response would (probably) be that a rich kid who went to great schools would be able to answer that even if the kid was average in ability and drive, whereas a smarter more driven kid that went to get-shot-inner-city-high would still have a tougher time as they never got an education in the first place even though they tried.

And that IS a reasonable point. However, I've heard that *in this case* the white firefighters using their own money hired people to help them, quit jobs to study, etc. I have NOT heard the same said from the black firefighters (although they might have done the same thing, it hasn't been publicized). The point being WHEN do you stop giving people points for their bad upbringing and start giving others points for what they do as adults?

The Supreme Court has answered in this case, at least.

Bondsman:

To give degs' POV its due, his response would (probably) be that a rich kid who went to great schools would be able to answer that even if the kid was average in ability and drive, whereas a smarter more driven kid that went to get-shot-inner-city-high would still have a tougher time as they never got an education in the first place even though they tried.

And that IS a reasonable point. However, I've heard that *in this case* the white firefighters using their own money hired people to help them, quit jobs to study, etc. I have NOT heard the same said from the black firefighters (although they might have done the same thing, it hasn't been publicized). The point being WHEN do you stop giving people points for their bad upbringing and start giving others points for what they do as adults?

The Supreme Court has answered in this case, at least.

LOL, the irony of my own post just hit me that the discrepancy would be between "rich" and "poor" and not "black" and "white", but the punishers and punishees for this are black and white and not poor and rich -- not that a lot of *rich* kids want to be firemen.

Oh, I agree entirely that such an explanation for a test-result racial (or social) dustribution is a fairly likely explanation. (I actually I raised that possibility earlier in the thread, and degs said it was evidence of racism... you know, preconceptions about academic inclinations and all that).

If indeed that is the explanation, and degsme agrees, then we've made progress - because now we can accept that the test itself is not inherently inappropriately discriminatory, but is merely accurately detecting the results of problems caused elsewhere in society.

The question then is whether it is appropriate for citizens to lower the education stipulations of the firefighters' test to make up for that other social disparity. Maybe it is - but if so, let's make that clear, and not pretend that the test itself is the problem.

The answer will be that the test itself IS the problem because a well-designed test will take all these factors into account. But at the same time, you'd be a racist to suggest people of one ethnicity or economic background just be given extra points on the test.

Good luck doing the doublethink on that one.

And try to see if indeed OUTSIDE training is important enough. And then, lets see if YOU have any evidence that this race-biased training existed.

Good luck.

Neither you nor I are sufficiently well versed in the subject to make this sort of assessment. Heck neither of us even know the score differentials.

So go read a significant number of the 18.500 that I provided you and you will have the expertise to make the call. THEN it makes sense to have you read the questions and evaluate them. Not before.

Two problems with the sqr-rt question:

1. Its not representative of the types of questions being asked. Questions on leadership and decision making are not equivilent to this sort of question
2. it is a purely factual question, highly abstract. It does not require any interpolation.

If the question instead asked about the pitch of a gable - using the same underlying maths - you now have an issue where understanding what a "gable" is increases your speed of cognition of the underlying problem. So someone from SoCal is going to be ever so slightly disadvantaged in that question.

And a sum total of such small disadvantages over a 2 hr test can easily come down to 5-10 questions. The diff between qualifying or not

My kids ARE affected. Both are young white males in univ. ineligible for any sort of aide because of being white males from a well to do household

But you are right, the disparte outcome is sufficient in and of itself. THAT IS WHAT THE LAW SAYS.

You want a different law? Pass a different law. But the reason for the BURDEN being on the respondant is because otherwise it is far too easy to engage in EXACTLY the sort of "plausible deniability" rationalization of the disparate outcome. And this has been done repeatedly so its not just an idle hypothesis.

Essentially that was the core of Separate but Equal. It took decades to come up with sufficient evidence and proof that it NEVER was "equal". But by placing the burden of proof for disparate outcomes on the plaintiff, the whites were able to prolong their unearned benefits.

degsme:

My kids ARE affected. Both are young white males in univ. ineligible for any sort of aide because of being white males from a well to do household

But you are right, the disparte outcome is sufficient in and of itself. THAT IS WHAT THE LAW SAYS.

Are you REALLY that clueless? The Supreme Court just said that is ***NOT*** what the law says! You are WRONG! Get over it already.

Frankly, that's the first cogent contribution I've seen you make in this entire topic. Something concrete that can be discussed in a way that is actually grounded in reality. And if that sounds patronizing, too fuckin' bad - you spent too many postings dribbling on about how it would all be too hard for us "non-experts" to understand.

So, since you have finally condescended to make this concrete, can you maybe add a little to it, and tell us the racial requirements of living in SoCal?

I'm not looking to "make the call," I'm looking to get a basic sense of the questions and what they are. The idea that one needs a proper level of expertise even to be afforded the privilege of seeing data is astonishing. What about the data on a new antibiotic? Would you want that kept from anyone who didn't have a degree in medicine?

Ever been an expert witness? I have - and you have to be ready to explain any facet of your professional knowledge to anyone, no matter what their background. And that is a good thing.

gringo_911:

And try to see if indeed OUTSIDE training is important enough. And then, lets see if YOU have any evidence that this race-biased training existed.

Good luck.

Huh? you are starting to froth.