Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're right, I should have read it. I had read it before, needed to refresh my memory.
Still stands. Sure, they passed the test, but were they QUALIFIED to do the job? As in MOST QUALIFIED? How many of the other candidates were BETTER QUALIFIED? Do we lower the standards just to be "fair"? Fair to whom? The public deserves the BEST QUALIFIED to do the job, not just anyone that (barely) passes the test in favor of better qualified applicants.
If you read the article you would know that the most qualified didnt necessarily got the jobs. Someone who scored 100 had as much chance as someone who scored 89. If it was the most qualified, the one who scored 100 would be hired first.
If you read the article you would know that the most qualified didnt necessarily got the jobs. Someone who scored 100 had as much chance as someone who scored 89. If it was the most qualified, the one who scored 100 would be hired first.
That's not what I got out of the article I read. I read it as the cut off was 89 because that was the lowest score for the applicants qualified to do the job. As in 100 applied for the job, the cut off was raised to 89% because enough applicants were at 89% or above. Then I'm guessing other factors besides the test score came into play, such as knowing the skills and being physically fit. I don't remember what the passing percentage was when I took the FF1 course, but it was at least 80% if not higher.
Doesn't really matter what I think, a Judge had all the evidence and sided with the claimants. Must have been more information in court than there was in the article.
You're right, I should have read it. I had read it before, needed to refresh my memory.
Still stands. Sure, they passed the test, but were they QUALIFIED to do the job? As in MOST QUALIFIED? How many of the other candidates were BETTER QUALIFIED? Do we lower the standards just to be "fair"? Fair to whom? The public deserves the BEST QUALIFIED to do the job, not just anyone that (barely) passes the test in favor of better qualified applicants.
Most qualified, well my nephew is the most qualified person in fire I know with a Masters of Engineering in Fire Engineering and he is a volunteer firefighter.
So if you go down that road of wanting all Kansas firefighters to have a engineering degree with a year of certification in fire thereafter they will be well qualified, but I doubt if many would be Firefighters could handle taking a four year engineering degree.
Screw the percentages, screw the cutoffs, hire the people with the best scores and capability to do the job. Period. If you disagree with that statement, you are a liberal moonbat idiot.
Most qualified, well my nephew is the most qualified person in fire I know with a Masters of Engineering in Fire Engineering and he is a volunteer firefighter.
So if you go down that road of wanting all Kansas firefighters to have a engineering degree with a year of certification in fire thereafter they will be well qualified, but I doubt if many would be Firefighters could handle taking a four year engineering degree.
Well how do you measure who is the most qualified firefighter? Would you rather have a firefighter who scored 100 on a test but is somewhat timid, or one who scored 85 but will not hestitate for one second to run into a burning building? Do you want a firefighter who is fearless and a risk taker? If so, what if he's reckless with lives?
Well how do you measure who is the most qualified firefighter? Would you rather have a firefighter who scored 100 on a test but is somewhat timid, or one who scored 85 but will not hestitate for one second to run into a burning building? Do you want a firefighter who is fearless and a risk taker? If so, what if he's reckless with lives?
Edit - My mistake. I thought you were responding to a different post.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with this. If you have a problem with the test itself, call for a change to the test. Completely irrelevant.
So whether a firefighter is fearless or one who hesitates is irrelevant? I don't know about you but I'd prefer a fearless firefighter than one who scores well on tests.
So whether a firefighter is fearless or one who hesitates is irrelevant. I don't know about you but I'd prefer a fearless firefighter than one who scores well on tests.
See above. My fault.
But yes I agree with you, however it is in fact irrelevant to the OP.
Edit again - and btw my point went right over your head.
Screw the percentages, screw the cutoffs, hire the people with the best scores and capability to do the job. Period. If you disagree with that statement, you are a liberal moonbat idiot.
no shortage of those on this thread, unfortunately.
no shortage of those on this thread, unfortunately.
No shortage of crappy rationalization for this idiocy either. Hire the most qualified candidates. One guy gets an 80, one guy gets an 81, you hire the guy with the 81. Anything else is retarded at best.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
