[redmenace]

I have never understood how or why this concept should be enforced. How can anyone claim that a math test is racist or stacked against someone.

If no one knows what I am refering to there is an attached PDF.

[Galemp]

huh?

[redmenace]

have you ever heard of a thing called the Civil Rights Act? The courts have stated that if hiring process of a firm demonstrate "racially disproportionate results" such as test batteries that they are violating the Civil Rights Act and thus discrimination.

I am sorry I find that a little retarded.

[WMCoolmon]

The problem is that they're trying to fix the result rather than the cause.

Like changing the answer of a math problem, rather than trying to make sure you did the problem right.

Of coruse, then people bring in the defense of 'well, they may not have had as many opportunities'.

Personally I call BS, and say, if they don't have as many opportunities to learn, why the **** are they attacking jobs? Why not fund scolarships targetted at people lacking opportunities?

Of course, oftentimes people take the easy path and just commission racist scolarships.

In essence, it's the assumption that if one thing is bad (discrimination against ethnic groups) then the opposite is good (discrimination for ethnic groups)

Edit: Classic example...if one guy ever says on the internet that he likes large boobs, and there are girls about, all the other guys immediately take pains to assure the women that, no, they prefer small boobs.

[redmenace]

I remember Tiara commenting a long time ago about racial issues here in the US. In retrospect she is partially right. But the greater problem isn't so much race as a breakdown of class and geographical location. However, these civil right advocates that yell and scream discrimination, are merely attacking a symptom of a greater problem. They seem to want to settle for a seamingly second best thing. I don't always agree with Bill Cosby, but often I think he hits the nail on the head with his criticisms of the black community and the need to better them selves.

That said, make no mistake, this is America's Problem. We created this problem. Our forefathers through their use of slavery brought us where we are today. Unfortunatly, that is part of their legacy.

[Galemp]

Question is, was it any better than the culture of human sacrifice it displaced...

/has recently read Pastwatch

[aldo_14]

Ah, the old catch-22.  On the one hand, you have inherent possibility of bias in any human-derived system (including the test itself), on the other hand you have the problem when assuming bias creates an inverse bias.  I always felt positive discrimination (what's the exact term again?  'Affirmative action'?) is still discrimination, and ultimately it'll just act to reinforce existing bias and paranoia; if some guy gets denied uni/work because an ethnic minority candidate is picked for no reason beyond quotas, it's not going to make that rejected person feel anything but less tolerant.

Although I'd say it's also grossly unfair when/if you have a situation that, for example, gives preference to people from better schools simply because of that schooling.  To me that's definite geographical bias, and a person who gets a B+ at an underfunded public/state school definately should be given the same merit as someone with an A at a private school with far better resources to learn from.

[redmenace]

But a person that is from a private school is going to have greater intelligence as a result of the resources and such. Why shouldn't that persons not be given greater weight in hiring? Intelligence has a moderate correlation to job performance. Why shouldn't a company use intelligence or a cognative ability exam? Their goal is to hire the best workers.

[Flipside]

Yes, I'm a big non-fan of positive discrimination, the important word is discrimination, it doesn't matter what prosthetics you tag onto it.

Having seen adverts for 'Black Women only Social Clubs', or 'Free computer graphics training for Asians aged 16-21 only', while I understand that in some cases people that have just emigrated here require support etc to settle in,  I don't see this as being any worse than had I seen an ad for 'White men only social club', which would have been assured a closing under the equal ops act.

Aptitude tests are commonplace in the UK, I don't really consider them discriminatory as such, mostly they consist of extremely basic, easy questions, and maybe the odd one or two related to the kind of job you are doing. I've personally never found them challenging, and if you're going for a job in finance and can't even answer 'What's 60 divided by 3', then the company really ought to know about it, after all it's their money they are spending.

[redmenace]

The thing is that laws here is the united states anti descrimination laws are screwy as well. They allow for a very thin line for Human Resource Professionals to walk.

[Goober5000]

*throws a firebrand into the mix*

It's widely recognized in medicine that different races have different inherent susceptibilities to certain diseases.  Why should it be such a big deal if different races have different inherent academic or physical strengths?  Look at blacks in basketball or Asians in math for example.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by redmenace
But a person that is from a private school is going to have greater intelligence as a result of the resources and such. Why shouldn't that persons not be given greater weight in hiring? Intelligence has a moderate correlation to job performance. Why shouldn't a company use intelligence or a cognative ability exam? Their goal is to hire the best workers.

The problem is that it's easier to learn with more resources at your fingertips; anyone with 3 tutors, the top textbooks and 9 non-working hours a day to study is going to have a natural advantage which has nothing to do with actual intelligence/cognitive ability.

That's a big exaggeration, of course, but I think you have to factor in the sheer weight and effort of work required from a disadvantaged background where you have to do a lot of that stuff by yourself.  This is not so much aimed at the whole minority issue, though, more at the types of companies who only take on applicants from 'the top 10 universities' or somesuch, which really pisses me off.

Yes, there is the ole' IQ test and soforth, but I'm not sure anyone has achieved a test which can be said to be 100% relevant to a particular job, or 100% reliable.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by aldo_14


The problem is that it's easier to learn with more resources at your fingertips; anyone with 3 tutors, the top textbooks and 9 non-working hours a day to study is going to have a natural advantage which has nothing to do with actual intelligence/cognitive ability.

That's a big exaggeration, of course, but I think you have to factor in the sheer weight and effort of work required from a disadvantaged background where you have to do a lot of that stuff by yourself.  This is not so much aimed at the whole minority issue, though, more at the types of companies who only take on applicants from 'the top 10 universities' or somesuch, which really pisses me off.

Yes, there is the ole' IQ test and soforth, but I'm not sure anyone has achieved a test which can be said to be 100% relevant to a particular job, or 100% reliable.

Actually, how you are nurtured as a child has to do with intelligence/cognitive ability. A person might have a gift, but unless that gift is nurtured and encouraged, it will not blossum.

So what, those companies that do hire the creme of the crop also pay the premium for students from the top 10 universities. It is their prerogative. If I had a choice between a student from GMU and a student from Harvard, all else being the same, I would choose Harvard. What person wouldn't?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by redmenace
Actually, how you are nurtured as a child has to do with intelligence/cognitive ability. A person might have a gift, but unless that gift is nurtured and encouraged, it will not blossum.

So what, those companies that do hire the creme of the crop also pay the premium for students from the top 10 universities. It is their prerogative. If I had a choice between a student from GMU and a student from Harvard, all else being the same, I would choose Harvard. What person wouldn't?

Actually, I wouldn't; I'd pick on the person, not where they spent 4 years sitting on their arse.

 Certainly would not exclude people on the basis of their university; I mean, that's not even sensible!  People pick universities for more reasons than reputation; such as location and cost in particular.  It'll be an even more stupid policy once top-up fees are introduced in England, of course, and only the most well-off rather than the most intelligent will be equipped to got to this top 10 (well, the english ones).   Let alone the unfairness of it, it's bad business practice.

EDIT; I'd say that any person is capable of 'blossoming' at any point in their life.  It took me a good few years to figure what I was doing, after all.  Plus the teachers you have make a difference; I remember jumping from the 3rd worst to the 3rd best (roughly) maths group between 2 years for no reason beyond different teachers.

[Deepblue]

What really annoys me is when I get a test and in the corner next to the bubble to apply for National Merit it says, "fill in this bubble if you are African American and wish to apply for the National Achievement Award."

WTH!

It really pisses me off that racism is still so blatantly present. Just, it's sorta backwards this time.

[Ford Prefect]

As is always the case, the root problem here is economics. A large number of the nation's most economically depressed areas still contain a large fraction of the nation's racial minorites. Thus, minorites such as blacks and Hispanics are statistically disadvantaged by substandard school systems. In addition, the most intelligent and determined among these poor populations are still faced with the prohibitive cost of even state-run secondary education.

So I don't think it's usually a matter of discrimination on the part of the employer, but of the fact that socioeconomic conditions allow a smaller percentage of minorites to gain the necessary qualifications. Slapping the employers with race quotas isn't going to change a thing about the poor neighborhoods from which these lopsided statistics originate.

[Descenterace]

Personally, if I were hiring someone, I'd only judge them on their ability to do the ****ing job. Unfortunately Western governments have too much time and money on their hands and would prefer to impose ridiculous 'requests' upon all businesses.

OK, so you've got one person who can't do the job and one person who can. The choice would be obvious to anyone with more than half a braincell (an asset that politicians are, almost by definition, lacking), but since the incapable one is, by random chance, black and/or a woman, they should be favoured.

And the public wonders why nothing can ever be done properly.

Who's in favour of buying a sniper rifle and picking off politicians one by one? Personally, I'm in favour of buying a machine gun and solving the problem en masse.

[aldo_14]

Just chuck a condom full of flour at them; that'll get them running for cover.

[pyro-manic]

Has to be purple, don't forget...

[Flipside]

Damn, I'll buy a few multipacks, there might be a purple condom in there.....