I did pretty well on the S.A.T. tests by picking up free study guides. There were also some that costs less than 50 bucks. Of course I do know of at least one person whos parents really did spend thousands of dollars on some test prep for him but he's in a relatively similar station in life than I am. Point being is that spending thousands on to prepare for a test isn't necessary, but for those that did, they deserve to do better. That's what the free market economy is all about. Sucks but that's life. FYI, are you saying that dyslexic people shouldn't have to work harder to get the same results? That's pretty much what happened, as the dyslexic is/was pretty much the only one who fit the scenario you're describing.

Second point, how do you know that actual station procedures weren't on the test? If you have actual copies of the test please make them available.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

There is nothing wrong with some being more ambitions then others and making more money, but that is not the question here, but of actual experience and safety. And test preps don't make the person more qualified, only higher test scores (most likely).

With the dyslexic, the point is they won't be able to have people read for them in real life, so it should bring up questions.

With the station procedures, we don't have much from the test, but we do have one example that showed the test was bad, from what we were told.

No, I am sure of what I wrote, and look questionable things up when I have time. (maybe not right away)
And no, I have absolutely 0 fire fighting experience.
But I have owned dozens of buildings with fire systems, have been there for every inspection, and have used, worked on, or observed hundreds of others.

What annoys me is how people try to use any "air of authority" at all, when in reality it is only the test that is important, and that the only evidence we have is from the sources critical of it. We don't have anything concrete that is positive about it. In fact, those suing are not on record as saying it was a good test. It would be different if this company had a long history of writting the exam, but they don't. This was their first time. So it is likely they did not do such a great job.

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

We have one example that showed that one question was bad. Not the entire test. But even that is up for debate as one poster pointed out that it doesn't matter what kind of truck it is. Some need to be pointed in the right direction so every truck should be pointed in that direction if there is a hill. The fact that the guy complaining couldn't make that not so far leap tells me a great deal about his ability to think beyond the obvious. If some do and some don't and the answer is "it depends", then the correct answer is the direction that the "it depends" trucks need to be in. Sometimes test are designed that way so they can test the takers cognitive abilities. I'll go with a professional testing company any day over a guy who failed when it comes to whether questions were relavant and asked correctly.

__________________
"If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine," he said. "It's the post office that's always having problems." Barack Obama on government run healthcare. 08/11/2009

American by birth.
Conservative by the grace of God.

Still sore about the war of northern aggression.

The point is that there is no ONE right direction.
Some trucks MUST be pointed in different directions, and the direction can depend on things like the street width, distance to hydrant, pavement type, etc. So the test over simplified, and was wrong. And what matters most is what the actual station procedure was, which was either direction, not what a book claimed was best.
The test should have had an "it depends" answer, and it was wrong because it didn't.
The professional testing company with any experience, also said this newby company test was badly done.

But yes, it is possible the test was not bad.
We don't have all the evidence.
However, it is most likely the test was bad, because so many agreed it was bad.

Well, nice to see you don't let facts stand in your way...

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

To settle this garbage about the truck's direction - the test DID specify the type of equipment. The complaint from one of those who did not score in the top percentile was that his station did not use those kinds of trucks so he did not see why that question was on the test.

That doesn't indicate a bad test - it indicates laziness on the part of the applicant.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Silence is golden...Duct tape is silver.

The "other" company was one of their competitors. I can think of no greater opportunity for the competition than to slam other guy in a national forum. Let's keep their comments in perspective.

__________________
"If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine," he said. "It's the post office that's always having problems." Barack Obama on government run healthcare. 08/11/2009

American by birth.
Conservative by the grace of God.

Still sore about the war of northern aggression.

Back to the original post.... I'm sure it has been pointed out that Sotomayor often has had to rule according to established supreme court precedent, which historically supported the intent of affirmative action. If the supreme court wants to overturn their own precedents (which is probably not too controversial for affirmative action which has always been a 'temporary' solution), that shouldn't reflect poorly on Sotomayor's rulings on affirmative action.

The interesting thing NOW is how many more reverse-discrimination cases will be brought in front of the court system now that the SCOTUS has overturned precedent?

The city and the lower court had the most information, and they said it was bad.

The SCOTUS only had limited legal argument, and could not include evaluation of the original testimony, so did not conclude the test was good.
No one concluded the test was good.
So most likely it was bad.
The best you could say is that it was equally bad for everyone.
But I think the key is the use of conflicting resources.
That was a bad idea.
The test company should have run the test by the station captain, to make sure it followed their actual procedures.

That is not what the articles said.
The only articles I have read, said that no truck type was specified.
Nor would it be right to include questions about trucks that we not in the free station reading material.

True, but the competitor also have much more experience with fire qualification testing.
It sounds to me like there should be some investigation as to why the new company was picked?

No kidding. As I might have mentioned a dozen or so times, I've inspected these systems you've read about.....

Instead of just telling me to beleive you, what you could have done was to explain there are 3 types of sprinkler systems instead of the 2 I was aware of.
It is not like it is that hard to understand how they work.