That's because they always find that the test questions and results have nothing to do with ability to perform the job.

fnord wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

That's because they always find that the test questions and results have nothing to do with ability to perform the job.

So there's no objective method for determining who is suited to do the job?  Does the same apply to the law boards?

Edit:  It seems the NAACP's official opinion agrees with mine, that lowering the standards is a disgraceful farce.

http://abc.daytonsnewssource.com/shared … 6103.shtml

I don't need to be able to run equipment or carry heavy weights out of burning buildings to practice law.   And by the way, there is no affirmative action on the bar exam.  If you pass the exam it's because you answered enough questions right to pass.  There is no curve, no minority target number, or anything like that.  Same with medical boards.

The NAACP needs to shut the fuck up and leave the legal side of this issue to the lawyers.  In every one of these cases they can either change the test or lower the score.  If they lower the score it's because they determined that lowering the scores would not effect the quality of the candidate or the work.  There are many hoops that you have to jump through to make a new exam, which could tie up the hiring for years in court.

fnord wrote:

You of course are trying to step around the issue.  You stated the questions on the police exam were not relevant to the job, implying that tests are not an objective method of determining suitability for the position.  I asked you if the same was true of the questions on the law boards.  It's not out of the question that there could be a lawsuit in the future because not enough black test takers passed.

I thought I made it very clear that I thought written tests were not an objective method of determining suitability for a position that requires skills that have nothing to do with one's ability to take a test. 

And to my knowledge no one has ever challenged the exams required for licensing of lawyers or doctors (or real estate agents or CPAs) because not enough black people passed because the tests ARE related to the skills and knowledge necessary for the job.

fnord wrote:

The NAACP needs to shut the fuck up?  When did you join a White Power group?  But seriously, whose fault is it that it's necessary to jump through hoops to make a new exam and risk having hiring tied up in court for many years?  Could "lawyers" be the correct answer?

I know this may come as a shock to you, but the NAACP does not speak for all black people.  And it's not lawyers who create the problems.  It's police and fire departments who have a long history of open and obvious discriminatory practices.

fnord wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

And to my knowledge no one has ever challenged the exams required for licensing of lawyers or doctors (or real estate agents or CPAs) because not enough black people passed because the tests ARE related to the skills and knowledge necessary for the job.

It took me only a few moments to find this legal journal article that discusses challenges to bar exam results on racial grounds.

The point of exam questions for doctors and lawyers is to test the candidate's memory and their ability to reason.  I would suggest that memory and reasoning skills are important for officers to possess, therefore testing is a legitimate part of the hiring process.

Did you even read the article?  The author concedes that there are very few cases, and they always lose.  Two of the plaintiffs were able to show individual discrimination, but none were able to show systemic discrimination.  The firefighter and police officer cases tend to be about discrimination that is more obvious.

Practicing law is about much more than memory and reasoning, but less so than being a firefighter or a police officer where you have to have fitness and particular skills unrelated to how well you do on a standardized test.  The whole reason standardized tests were created was to keep certain people out of professions...not to measure fitness for a profession.  In the old days lawyers would apprentice.  They didn't even need to go to law school.  Lincoln didn't even go to law school or apprentice and no one ever argues that he wasn't fit for the profession.

fnord wrote:

That's true of any profession, but if you can't recall and understand the core principles and knowledge base and use them as a basis for reasoning, then it's not possible to be good at the "much more" part.

Much of being a good litigator is the ability to think on one's feet.  The bar exam certainly does not measure who will make a good trial attorney and who should stick to tax law.  There has not been one case where I have had to recall the core principals off the top of my head and a legal determination was made just based on my memory.  The bar exam doesn't measure ones fitness to practice law...it's just a money making venture for the states and the test preparation companies, especially since you can retake the exam multiples times until you pass.

fnord wrote:

Yes, standardized tests were created to keep certain people out of the professional guilds, the incompetent who would be a danger to the public if they were admitted and an embarrassment for the other members of the guild.  Measuring fitness for the profession is very much the point.

You stated to your knowledge, nobody had challenged the bar exam results because not enough black people had passed.  It took me only a few moments to determine there had been lawsuits; the outcomes were irrelevant.  There will no doubt be more such actions in the future.

To me, none means so few that they are statistically insignificant.  The author cites 5 cases and states that there's not really anything out there despite the fact that there is a disparity in the passage rate.  And the outcomes are absolutely relevant. People tend not to sue if there is a high likelihood that they will lose.

And I disagree with your assertion regarding standardized tests.  They were created to keep the lower class (and Jews) out of the elite universities.  Tests for professions don't do shit to keep incompetent people out of the profession.

Last edited by headkicker_girl (2011-03-12 22:14:33)

hedgewizard wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

I don't need to be able to run equipment or carry heavy weights out of burning buildings to practice law.   And by the way, there is no affirmative action on the bar exam.  If you pass the exam it's because you answered enough questions right to pass.  There is no curve, no minority target number, or anything like that.  Same with medical boards.

It has no bearing on your point, but the medical boards are indeed graded on a curve.  25% of American medical school graduates pass each time.  The score of the top 15% is the standard for foreign medical school graduates who took it at the same time.  How many times you can fail each of the three tests and still be licensed depends on the state.

I was only talking in terms of minorities.  I know two minorities (one African, one Puerto Rican), who did just fine in medical school but could not pass the medical boards after multiple attempts.  They were not granted any special privilege because of their minority status.  They were treated just like the white candidates who can't pass the boards.