That is silly.
All the material needed to answer all firefighting questions that could come up, should be provided at the fire stations.
If you have people buying it on their own, you could get conflicting authors and opinions, that would be dangerous.

Again, the equipment they used isn't relevant - a line officer needs to know the capabilities of the equipment they might encounter in mutual aid situations, etc.

Trust me, I've forgotten more about this topic that you'll ever remotely comprehend. Your knowledge comes from a newspaper article. Mine comes from 15+ years in the fire service.

Matt

Wrong.
There is far more variance between individuals in any race than there is between races.
So there is no valid conclusion one can make about anyone, given their race.

The test results clearly show the results were invalid.

This doesn't have anything to do with racial discrimination, though, unless you wish to say that minorities are too stupid to think outside the box and, *GASP*, buy their own books.

Yes, it is silly. You don't have any fucking idea what you're braying about, but you keep doing it.

In your unqualified, uninformed opinion.

You really, truly have no clue.

Matt

What you say proves the test was invalid, because since the question did not specify the type of equipment, but still requested an orientation that was equipment dependent.

The correct answer to which way to park on a hill is that it depends on the equipment, and that was not one of the 2 possilbe answers.

Again, it was the White firefighters who claimed racial discrimination.
No one who said the test was invalid said it was because of race.
They had not yet determined what was wrong with it.
But obviously those who scored highest spent the most.
So it is not hard to see the problem.

It depends on many things. There are also departmental SOPs to consider.

You're taking an issue you clearly don't understand, and trying to draw conclusions from it.

Matt

All I have to take into consideration is the fact you obviously did not read the articles, because those quoted as complaining about the questions, such as parking direction on a hill, cited department SOPs needing to be considered.
What you are saying is exactly why the test was faulty.
At least in this one question that was quoted.
What you are saying is obviously not one of the allowed answers.

You're plainly not understanding the situation, and you plainly don't want to learn.

So I'm done wasting both of our time trying to explain it to you.

Matt

Yes, and it appears as though there was.You didn't say it here?

The SCOTUS was wrong again, and shows how it have been packed with bigots.

The test was blatantly unfair, because it was based on reading material that was not available at the fire stations.
[...]
This shows why Sotomayer and people like her are so important for the SCOTUS.
Right now there is no justice.Education costs money, so those who would spend the most would be the ones with the most education. At least that is what the trend would probably look like.

Again, bigots do not imply race necessarily.
Once could be bigoted over anything, like wealth, status, culture, religion, etc.

And there is no indication there was any "education" involved.
Those who passed the test did not necessarily learn anything that would help them on the job.
In fact, the argument of those against the test was that it was not job related at all, and was poorly written.

So what does Sotomayor have to do with it?Why do you say that?So, where is the copy of the test? And how do you know the guy was telling the truth about the direction of the truck being unimportant? Maybe he was one of the dumbasses who failed and doesn't know jack shit about firefighting.

The only relevance to Sotomayer that I know of is that she had ruled on it in a lower court.

As I have said before, those who did the best may not have the best qualifications or training, because they did not hire expert firefighters, but simply bought different books than what most had read, and they hired tutors who were knew how to take generic tests well.

But you do have a point that I have little to go on except the actions of the city in disregarding the results of the test, and from the one firefighter who was interviewed for the article.
That is not enough first hand information to be sure.
But I prefer to trust the city, Sotomayer, and almost half of the SCOTUS, who signed the Ginsberg dissent.
I think the odds are that it was then likely a bad test.

Yes, they bought books, studied the books, learned the information, and did better on the test. How does that not make a person more qualified again?You trust those (minority) vs. the SCOTUS majority? I don't see the logic in that.