The yah so is that no ordinary person could spend that much time or money on a studying for a single exam, while still trying to do their job and maintain a family.
Studying for an exam does NOT enhance job skills.
It does not make a person more effective at their job.
He is good at doing his current job, but there is no way to tell if a dyslexic could do the job of a captain well, because he is not currently doing the job of a captain.

And the point of pension, salary, etc., of captain, is to point out that captain is often a political plumb that is handed out as a political favor or other payoff. It is a very well paid job, and it is wrong to allow financial matters become a deciding factor. People should not be able to buy jobs with expensive tutors. There were more tutors than just ones converting books to audio tapes. But what happens if he becomes a captain and has to look something up in a book, in an emergency?

What comprehension problems are you having now?I don't see where you provided links. Could you tell me the post #?Where? I see no links from you.How do you get experience without being a firefighter? If what you said were true, nobody can become a firefighter. If experience is everything, then you need experience to even start. If you can only get experience on the job, then you can't be a firefighter without it. In other words, you can't get experience because you can't become a firefighter, and you can't become a firefighter because you don't have experience/You don't "experience" doing something unless you actually do it. In other words, experience isn't everything, and part of it is actual knowledge and can, most certainly, be learned.So, to be a firefighter, you don't have to know that high temperature fires in an insulated building can cause extreme temperatures that can kill a firefighter, and the only way to discover this is by actually experiencing being melted?But you still need to know the principle that it spreads faster that way. Just because it doesn't have an ethnic name attached to it, doesn't mean it's not a theoretical principle.I still see no links from you.

You are totally wrong.
The Oklahoma class book proves it, if you would have read it.

First of all, OSU could be a trade community college for all we know, and this is actually more of a building safety engineering degree, for people responsible for designing buildings, not fighting fires or fire captains.
And clearly this says it is the ONLY one.
So there is none in New Haven.

Nothing you said has any bearing on this situation.

You don't know what you are talking about, as usual: Fire Science Degree College and University Degrees.

What is the "Oklahoma class book," what does it prove, and how does it prove it?Well, it says "university," not "college," and certainly not "community college" or "trade community college." So what the fuck are you talking about?The program is fortunate to also have the International Fire Service Training Association

International Fire Service Training Association is an association of fire service personnel who are dedicated to upgrading fire fighting techniques and safety through training.
International Fire Service Training Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gee, looks like they do have experts on the matter.It says it's the only "accredited fire protection and safety engineering technology program." That means there could still be non-accredited ones, or simply accredited programs with different names and with slightly different focuses. Engineering knowledge also appears to be important to firefighters.

Totally wrong.
You don't have to be a cloud or get wet, to know that from experience, when it get dark from clouds, it is likely to start raining.
You can gain experience from observation.

When you learn that there is a danger from high temperatures in a building, that is not theoretical knowledge of the temperatures a human body can endure, but the experience of past human failures being passed on to you.
Apprenticing a trade from others is mostly experiential, not theoretical knowledge. While books can be helpful, they can also be wrong for actual operating procedures, so tests based on them can easily have invalid results.

Ok.
Good point.
Firefighting has become bigger business than it was in my experience, so they now do have tutors capable of actually teaching useful information.
But that does not prove that any of these applicants who did well on the test actually did know more useful information.
We don't know who the tutors were, or what they learned from them.
It only proves that my assumption they could not have learned anything useful was wrong.

It would be a correlative assumption, though. You correlate dark clouds with rain, but you don't know how it actually works.So it is impossible to learn that there is a danger from high temperatures in a building? You think it is more efficient to wait for someone to melt on your shift versus reading about it in a book?Well, until you show how these books and that test are wrong, it really doesn't matter what you think could be the case.

I also still see no links from you. Just crazy ass jumps to conclusion.

The University of Phoenix has online trade school classes.
The word university does not prove accredation.
And it is not clear this program would help firefighters, since it is about designing buildings, but also does not necessarily apply to captains openings in New Haven.

Wrong.
Correlative assumptions are usually based on experience, not knowledge.
And no, you can learn experience from books as well.
And no, I don't have to prove the books and tests were wrong, because the only evidence we have is one statement by one actual firefighter who took the test, who gave an example of how it was wrong.
You have nothing at all to base a belief the books or test were right.

And I gave you several links before.
What advantage could there be in finding them again?

Unfortunately, we're talking about the Oklahoma State University. Try to keep up.It says so on the linked page, I believe.Gee, I can't imagine how, in addition to being trained for the uniformed fire services (mentioned on the page), knowledge of engineering would help a firefighter. I mean, aint firefighting just a matter of hooking up a hose to a pipe and watering down fires? Shit, it's not like fires ever occur on anything other than tiny shacks and flat terrain.

Which is what we've been telling you all along.

Right - you don't know anything - you've assumed a tremendous amount, and you've been utterly wrong.

This is just one of your many assumptions, and trust me, the rest are just as wrong.

The University of Maryland isn't a trade school. Face it, you're just wrong.

Christ, you really don't even know enough to know that you don't know a damn thing.

Building construction is a vital part of a fire officer's knowledge base. As is fire behavior.

When fire officers don't know this stuff, people get fucking killed.

You're really, seriously talking out of your ass. Please stop - your idiotic claims not only expose your willful ignorance, but they are downright insulting to those who perform the role of a fire officer.

It's not mechanical trade, and your comparison just demonstrates that you don't know the square root of jack shit about what a fire captain does.

Uh, so experience and knowledge are totally different? If you "know" about clouds and rain from experience, you don't actually have any "know"ledge of it?Well, then it's settled. The firefighters who bought the books were simply getting more experience (or at least it's possible). You said earlier:

"it was supposed to be a test of experience instead of knowledge"
And now you are saying that "you can learn experience from books." In other words, those who got the expensive books were probably learning experience from them, making them more experienced firefighters, just like you wanted.Actually, that's a reason why you wouldn't be able to prove your point, not why you don't have to. And make no mistake. You still have to prove your claims if you want them to be taken seriously.Here is your original claim:
"The test was blatantly unfair"

It was based on a number of baseless claims, making itself a baseless claim, too.I don't see any posted by you. If you want anyone to take you seriously, it's recommended that you back up your claims.

Ouch, that's gonna leave a mark......

Matt