Sotomayor to white firefighters - drop dead!

[scandal 951]

But isn't a firefighters' exam more technical & operational in nature?[/font][/color]

That's affirmative action for you.

Punish hard work and skill, reward mediocrity and laziness.

As an avowed and well-known commie-pinko-liberal Obama-lover (which I am),

affirmative action is one area in which I've never had any truck with my compatriots.

It may (stress: may ) have made sense in an earlier era when the balance was so obviously tilted against minorities.

But in this day and age, affirmative action just coddles and encourages mediocrity, as mawilson suggests.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? To taking initiative? Affirmative action today does far more harm than good for minorities.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's a legitimate question to ask particularly if all things other things are equal. For example, say 90 people took the test. 30 were red, 30 were blue and 30 were green. If the test normally produces a 50% pass rate and all the people that green people and half the blue people, but no red people passed the test you would suspect that something favoured the greens and partially favoured the blue people, wouldn't you?

I think the implication being made is that the entrance bar in the first place was set lower for certain groups of people to fill AA quotas and that this is now being reflected on the test scores for promotions.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Affirmative action today does far more harm than good for minorities.

Agreed.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

It's a legitimate question to ask particularly if all other things are equal.

If a group of individuals were equal in their mastery of the subject matter, yes.

But that is never the case.

[AlHayatZween 2]

It's a legitimate question to ask particularly if all other things are equal. For example, say 90 people took the test. 30 were red, 30 were blue and 30 were green. If the test normally produces a 50% pass rate and all the green people and half the blue people, but no red people passed the test you would suspect that something favoured the greens and partially favoured the blue people, wouldn't you?

Normally yes...

That's why there was such controversy over the SATs, GREs, and other standardized tests years ago because they weren't very culturally diverse in the subject matter... so that makes sense.

i guess i just figured that the Firefighters' exam would be testing technical knowledge, kinda like an electrician's licensing exam--which is a very difficult test to boot... but what do i know, i've never seen a sample of the firefighters' test.

Edited May 26, 2009 by AlHayatZween

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

i've never seen a sample of the firefighters' test.[/font][/color]

http://www.pbs.org/itvs/testofcourage/life1.html

Edited May 26, 2009 by Randomizer

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's a legitimate question to ask particularly if all other things are equal. For example, say 90 people took the test. 30 were red, 30 were blue and 30 were green. If the test normally produces a 50% pass rate and all the green people and half the blue people, but no red people passed the test you would suspect that something favoured the greens and partially favoured the blue people, wouldn't you?

Normally yes...

That's why there was such controversy over the SATs, GREs, and other standardized tests years ago because they weren't very culturally diverse in the subject matter... so that makes sense.

i guess i just figured that the Firefighters' exam would be testing technical knowledge, kinda like an electrician's licensing exam--which is a very difficult test to boot... but what do i know, i've never seen a sample of the firefighters' test.

You can actually buy test books for that exam from Borders or B&N.

[Niels Bohr 72]

This is stupid. What happened to all the Asians?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

This is stupid. What happened to all the Asians?

They set the fire and ran off with the insurance money.

[Peikko 1,575]

But isn't a firefighters' exam more technical & operational in nature?[/font][/color]

That's affirmative action for you.

Punish hard work and skill, reward mediocrity and laziness.

As an avowed and well-known commie-pinko-liberal Obama-lover (which I am),

affirmative action is one area in which I've never had any truck with my compatriots.

It may (stress: may ) have made sense in an earlier era when the balance was so obviously tilted against minorities.

But in this day and age, affirmative action just coddles and encourages mediocrity, as mawilson suggests.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? To taking initiative? Affirmative action today does far more harm than good for minorities.

AA, presumably based on an assumption that at the time of the enactment of the act everyone in a position of authority was white and all white people prefer to employ white people. Of course, at no time was this entirely true and any attempt to artificially improve the chances of those who have not traditionally filled certain roles is bound to be at best flawed and at worst give rise to different/worse problems than those it seeks to address. Certainly difficult to know what to do for the best. It's like this idea that the UK parliament should somehow mandate a % of seats in the house to women, or racial minorities.

When you have an imbalance, all attempts to address that imbalance will be seen to be unfair and artificial in some way, but doing nothing could simply lead to a continuation of what's gone before. Personally, I don't know the answer, except to continue to see people as people, and not in terms of their external appearance or gender.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I don't know the answer, except to continue to see people as people, and not in terms of their external appearance or gender.

Well, isn't that nice of you.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's a legitimate question to ask particularly if all other things are equal.

If a group of individuals were equal in their mastery of the subject matter, yes.

But that is never the case.

Don't be silly, no one suggested all would be equally good, if that was the case, all 90 would pass the test and there would be no point in taking it. My point was simply that unless there is something particularly odd going on, there should be a spread of 'pass' marks amongst all the groups. Put it a different way. If I had 90 t shirts, 30 green, 30 blue and 30 red and I passed them out to everyone in the group taking the test in a totally random way, one would expect the passes to come from within each group. If all those wearing a green t shirt pass and none wearing a blue or red, it is legitimate to question if the green t shirt wearers gained an advantage simply by wearing a green t shirt.

I don't know the answer, except to continue to see people as people, and not in terms of their external appearance or gender.

Well, isn't that nice of you.

Of course I am nice, all moderate librul hippy smoking poodle fence sitters are nice, you jerk!

[mawilson 2,133]

I think its highly questionable to suggest for example, that minority emergency workers are somehow less qualified or competent to do their jobs - as it gives rise to the sort if thing where people refuse to be operated on if the Doctor is black. Or that black lawyers lose more cases etc...

People refuse to be operated on if the doctor is black because they question the extent to which talent

and academic merit played a role in their education. Are they are actually qualified? Or were they

pushed through med school / residency to meet some sort of affirmative action quota for minorities?

What a great idea it was to reject highly qualified whites and replace them with "minorities" who scored

lower on their exams. The fruits of affirmative action are blossoming!

[Ban Hammer 13,644]

This is stupid. What happened to all the Asians?

they won't stoop so low as to being a firefighter, they all want to be engineers.

[mawilson 2,133]

This is stupid. What happened to all the Asians?

they won't stoop so low as to being a firefighter, they all want to be engineers.

Understandable - when you're 5'2", you don't want to stoop any lower