Firefighter exam tossed out by Conn. fire dept.

[amigocabal]

Firefighter exam tossed out by Conn. fire dept.
An expert said it discriminated against women and minorities; the city will create a replacement exam for applicants

Yesterday At 5:38 AM
The Advocate

STAMFORD, Conn. — The city has to throw out its firefighter exam after an expert said it discriminated against women and minorities.

Officials announced Thursday they intended to send the matter to the Board of Finance in order to fund a $150,000 replacement exam.

RELATED ARTICLES
NAACP wants hiring changes at Conn. fire department
New Haven reverse discrimination case puts focus on testing company
Multiple-choice promotion tests flawed, FRI session told
RELATED CONTENT SPONSORED BY

Meanwhile, the city has already written to the 753 men and women who took the test, informing them that they could take the replacement, which will likely happen in early May. They will not have to pay the $35 examination fee again.

Men and women who took the test in January immediately began complaining to the Human Resources and Fire departments, saying the two hours allotted for the test was not enough and the Stamford exam was much more difficult than other fire departments' entrance exams.

As it turned out, the test was also highly slanted in favor of white men.

Continue reading...

This is quite an extraordinary claim, that a test could be rigged to favor one ethnic group over another. I can not begin to imagine how to rig a test in that manner. It would have been helpful if the text of the allegedly discriminatory questions had been posted in the article.

[Ralin]

Just guessing, but they could include questions where the right answer would be obvious to people from a particular socio-economic background but not others (i. e., "What do you put a tea cup on?" Answer: A saucer. "What the fuck is a saucer and why would you put a cup on one?), questions geared towards people with a higher education level (I don't know all all the requirements to be a firefighter and I'm sure they want reasonably smart people but good reading and writing skills can only be so important to the job), put the physical requirements higher than they need to be to do the job well to weed out a disproportionate number of women, things like that.

Whatever it is that's a lot of money to spend and a lot of time to waste over nothing for a city that's apparently very short on firefighters at the moment, so I can't imagine they'd be at this point if someone didn't have a solid case.

[Wild Zontargs]

If the logic here is similar to other cases, such as the "racist" exam for the Boston Police Department, or the "racist" FDNY exam, it goes like this:

-Any test that produces results that disadvantage minorities is racist
-Minorities do not pass the exam at the same rate as non-minorities
-The exam is racist by definition, because it produces results that are racially discriminatory

Multiple choice and true/false, having only one correct answer and not allowing for partial credit, "is inherently discriminatory because blacks and Hispanics historically do worse on such exams compared with white and Asian candidates." [from BPD link above]

It's a standard false cause fallacy: minorities are more likely to fail the test, therefore the test itself is racist. Adjusting the test until you get equal pass rates (too often by dumbing it down until everyone passes) won't solve whatever underlying problems led to the fail rates, but it makes the political heat go away.

[Simon_Jester]

It's very easy to bias a test against a certain racial group, as Ralin describes. Or rather, it's easy to bias the test against people in a certain income category... when most of the poor people in your city just happen to be racial minorities.

[Joun_Lord]

It's very easy to bias a test against a certain racial group, as Ralin describes. Or rather, it's easy to bias the test against people in a certain income category... when most of the poor people in your city just happen to be racial minorities.

So technically the test isn't racist but maybe "classist"? Harder to pass for people of low income thanks to their lack of education with such fancy smancy rich people type questions like Ralin above posted or atleast questions that would require a decent education.

Race might be part of it but I'm sure a well educated and relatively wealthy black or hispanic could pass tests like this while poor white trash would fail. I've no idea about the racial make-up of the area this test if from but I'd assume (and probably make an ass of myself) that minorities make up a substantial portion of the poor in the area. You'd find the same results in inner city and more "ghetto-ish" areas. However in areas where its predominately white poor people, it would be white people who couldn't make the cut or atleast the white people who don't have the education to pass the test.

Of course it sounds a bit like what people on this very board have conjectured. Race problems are still a problem but the problem is starting to morph into a class problem where even some white people are being discriminated against (if thats even possible, which some people seem to think but thats a whole other can of worms that I'd prefer not to stick my toe in because it would get slime and worm bits on my toe and thats nasty).

[Baffalo]

At the paper mill here (my dad works in HR and was discussing this with me), I was once asked to verify some numbers based on the fact this guy was screaming discrimination because his test had more right answers, but the other guy won. Turns out, the test was weighted for certain areas, and my dad asked me to verify that the way the averages worked out to let the one guy with fewer total answers right pass, while the other guy still fell behind. Why it was weighted I don't know.

But even with such tests, he's mentioned how there are tests where all you have to do is put your name on the exam to pass... and people still fail it. They literally turn in a blank sheet of paper and then wonder why they fail, then scream discrimination. They also deal with issues such as a family getting on their case about being discriminatory because they won't hire someone, when there's already 10 other members of this guy's family (everything from aunts and uncles to brothers and sisters) who already work out there, and the guy's not being hired because he failed the test. But apparently, that's racist.

The point I'm trying to make here is that sometimes, people misconstrue something as being racist, when it could simply be that 1) The people are failing the test for reasons as simple as not finishing on time or not filling it out properly, 2) women being excluded because they don't meet the physical requirements, or 3) most of the applicants are white males and so are proportionally more likely to be represented. Because hey, if you get nothing but men applying for a position, it's rather hard to hire a woman, right?

[Simon_Jester]

So technically the test isn't racist but maybe "classist"? Harder to pass for people of low income thanks to their lack of education with such fancy smancy rich people type questions like Ralin above posted or atleast questions that would require a decent education.

Harder to pass if you really did sincerely try to use the educational opportunities available to you, but happen to have been born poor, is the really important part.

Thing is, in modern America it's a lot more effective to accuse someone of racism than it is to accuse them of classism, and classism is often used as a proxy for racism in any event. Especially in large cities and areas around them where there aren't a lot of low-income whites.

Of course it sounds a bit like what people on this very board have conjectured. Race problems are still a problem but the problem is starting to morph into a class problem where even some white people are being discriminated against...

Well, to a large extent this was always true- a racial minority person with money, with access to luxuries and certain kinds of education, would usually have less trouble with racism than a low-income person of the same race would. People would take them more seriously and treat them with less disrespect.

[Alyrium Denryle]

2) women being excluded because they don't meet the physical requirements

When it comes to the physical requirements, one has to ask "are these requirements set artificially high, or ridiculously high?". Even without rampant misogyny, weird feedback loops can happen in the physical requirements for traditionally masculine professions like soldiers and firefighters for reasons that are are completely insane and are likely readily imagined for everyone who has ever seen men in a weight training class of gym. It begins with d and ends in ick measurement proxy.

[Adam Reynolds]

When it comes to the physical requirements, one has to ask "are these requirements set artificially high, or ridiculously high?". Even without rampant misogyny, weird feedback loops can happen in the physical requirements for traditionally masculine professions like soldiers and firefighters for reasons that are are completely insane and are likely readily imagined for everyone who has ever seen men in a weight training class of gym. It begins with d and ends in ick measurement proxy.

While there certainly are times in which this is true, there is still the fact that on average women have around 60% the overall strength of men. Anything that tests physical strength will be statistically biased in favor of men. The only way around this, as has been done by both the US military and most police departments, is separate physical standards for women. This then often leads to problems when said women end up directly competing with men physically in their actual jobs.

[madd0ct0r]

I'm not sure the average woman or average man is applying to be a firefighter.

[Thanas]

Anybody remember the literacy exam that was posted here? Because it may be that the tests here are similar, with you passing being dependant on the whim of the test grader. If you just got one racist as a grader in those type of tests who fails everybody whose name is hispanic or "stereotypical black" then it is easy to see how a test might be racist even if under perfect circumstances it might not be.

[Tanasinn]

It's really impossible to tell if this is legitimate or sour grapes until the old test is leaked.

[Grumman]

Anybody remember the literacy exam that was posted here? Because it may be that the tests here are similar, with you passing being dependant on the whim of the test grader.

A literacy exam that predates the Civil Rights Act. If you want to imply that that bullshit has survived fifty years, you should have more reason to believe it might be true than "maybe". Wild Zontargs has argued the opposite, but he backed his position up with a more relevant example - another firefighter exam from within the tri-state area that was also accused of being discriminatory. I'll admit that I didn't check every single question for signs of racism, but every one that I read was something that a firefighter should be capable of doing.

[darkjedi521]

This happens frequently enough in southwest CT that it no longer surprises me. Stamford is right in the middle of the richest part of the state, and less than an hour from Wall Street.

[Alyrium Denryle]

While there certainly are times in which this is true, there is still the fact that on average women have around 60% the overall strength of men. Anything that tests physical strength will be statistically biased in favor of men. The only way around this, as has been done by both the US military and most police departments, is separate physical standards for women. This then often leads to problems when said women end up directly competing with men physically in their actual jobs.

The average man or woman is not applying to be a firefighter, or for that matter coming out of basic training in the military. If the original physical standards are insane then the way in which the physical standards are constructed needs to be revisited anyway. For example, the combat loads of female soldiers are the same as they are for men in the same mission and MOS, if I recall properly. When soldiers have to play the part of Marius' Mules and carry loads in excess of 60 kilos, both men and women can do that properly. Though they did have to redesign the load bearing equipment issued to women if I recall properly. It is almost as if their body shapes are different and the optimal arrangement of load bearing harnesses is different.

[cosmicalstorm]

I have heard it stated that it can take a woman 5 or 10 times longer to break down a regular safetydoor than a man. That would make female firefigthers very dangerous as they often work in situations were seconds matter. Maybe they can use growth hormones to do the job?

[LaCroix]

Maybe they can use growth hormones to do the job?

You should have quit before that sentence, and would have made a valid point. That chance has passed.

[Ralin]

I have heard it stated that it can take a woman 5 or 10 times longer to break down a regular safetydoor than a man. That would make female firefigthers very dangerous as they often work in situations were seconds matter. Maybe they can use growth hormones to do the job?

Even if that's true we're not talking about average men and women. We're talking about firefighters. Who are well above average physically no matter what the exact hiring requirements are. And who train specifically to do things like break down doors in a hurry. And also carry axes as part of their work tools.

[Eulogy]

Maybe he thought that firefighters open doors by bull rushing them?

[Ralin]

It amazes me sometimes how many people can't understand the difference between "Men are somewhat stronger than women of the same size and build" and "If a female firefighter hits a door with her axe it will rebound harmlessly with a cartoon sound effect."

[cosmicalstorm]

I remember a debate about this and they specifically stated that even a very capable woman did not have the same possibility of breaking a door as an average male firefighter. But take it with a shaker of salt, maybe I secretly hate women. Maybe the firefighter making the statement felt that his male privilieges were being threatened by menstrauting women. Maybe it was true. Is it gender-hate to state that women are less physically capable than men?
Reading on this subject reminds me of how utterly infected it is. Here is a pretty long article going to some lengths about the issue in the US:
http://www.laweekly.com/news/women-fire ... le-2151639

[madd0ct0r]

cosmicalstorm - i remember plenty of debates about women on the internet too. does that count?

[The Romulan Republic]

I remember a debate about this and they specifically stated that even a very capable woman did not have the same possibility of breaking a door as an average male firefighter. But take it with a shaker of salt, maybe I secretly hate women. Maybe the firefighter making the statement felt that his male privilieges were being threatened by menstrauting women. Maybe it was true. Is it gender-hate to state that women are less physically capable than men?
Reading on this subject reminds me of how utterly infected it is. Here is a pretty long article going to some lengths about the issue in the US:
http://www.laweekly.com/news/women-fire ... le-2151639

Women are, on average, physically weaker than men. On average. Those are key words. Their are certainly women who are stronger than most men, and pretending otherwise would be sexism.

[Kingmaker]

What, exactly, is the point of noting that average people don't apply to be firefighters or that individual women can be stronger than individual men? Unless the strength distribution has a substantially different shape for men and women, anything that requires significantly above average physical strength from men is going to produce results that are biased against women. Fewer people who qualify likely means that not only do fewer women pass, fewer women apply in the first place. And I'd expect this to become even more the case as you raise the standards above the theoretical bare minimum, which is a fairly reasonable thing to do within the bounds of sanity.

[Lagmonster]

It's worth reading the article cosmicalstorm posted, which despite an obvious bias argues at least that despite specific and costly attempts to get more women into firefighting, most couldn't pass the exact same physical tests that men did. The article goes so far as to assert that: "Nobody tried to make either of them fail. No "old boys" got in their way. Mary was admired by her male boss and encouraged at each step to be a firefighter. "I was just too slow," she says."

They cite specific examples where women trained alongside men, beat many, and yet washed out for want of sufficient body mass, strength, or endurance without feeling like a sexist bias was to blame.

This doesn't by any means constitute a 'case closed' on the issue of gender differences or limits, and doubtless cosmicalstorm may not have the ability to continue it, but it warrants discussion more serious than it's being given by some of you yahoos.