[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
You cannot use a selection tool- in this case meeting a requirement- that adversely affects female applicants without demonstrating that the standard used represents a bona fide occupational requirement. If women who do not meet this requirement can perform the job satisfactorily, it cannot be used in selection.
If were the case then there is no reason that the standard should be applied to males either.
The only way you could justify requiring males to meet the standards but not females would be to argue that women who fail to meet the requirement can still perform the job satisfactorily, whereas men who fail to meet the standard cannot.
Regular Gonzalez is right. The widely used Physical Aptitude Test for fire-fighters, the C-PAT is the same for men and women.
[/quote]
You know, I was thinking about what Aragorn said about how hard science majors don’t have the “I know better” attitude that people in the social sciences have. So here is a question to all you guys with hard-science backgrounds: how often have you had someone with NO knowledge, background, or experience in your field of expertise argue with you about the subject you specialize in?
This is getting out of hand. If you really want to know more about selection, feel free to do a program in industrial relations or human resources management.
I’m not quite as familiar with US case law, but the same principle does apply. You cannot use a selection tool- in this case meeting a requirement- that adversely affects female applicants without demonstrating that the standard used represents a bona fide occupational requirement. If women who do not meet this requirement can perform the job satisfactorily, it cannot be used in selection.
The problem is, you seem to have seen this as an area where opinion matters; I don’t. The law is what it is, and with very good reason.[/quote]
Opinions always matter. Opinions shape law. Opinions elect leaders (in sufficient number). Just because I’m not a judge, or a legislator doesn’t mean that my opinions are moot. It just means that it takes a lot more than my whim to sign a law, or change a law. But it can be done.
That is completely untrue, and you know it. Zephead said that, not me. If you don’t believe me, go back and check the previous page or two. I’ll thank you not to misquote me again.
[quote]
And
I’m sorry, but with all due respect you are out of your ever-loving mind. [/quote]
Yes, I said that. At least I had the etiquette to give you your ‘due respect’ first before I disagreed. And for the record, a phrase like that is exactly how I would disagree with a colleague or social friend of mine. It was used to express avid disagreement, and I have used it many times. If I had wanted to openly insult you I would have done much worse…you should look to Rainjack’s arguments for similar epithets.
[quote]
But then it’s MY attitude you have a problem with? You took a very strong position and insulted anyone that may disagree with you. This might be forgivable if you weren’t wrong. I’m guessing you have no background in selection, or any other aspect of human resource management, yet you feel entitled to say nonsense like this.[/quote]
Once again, that wasn’t me calling people worthless human beings. Don’t misquote me. Also, I would like to point out that just because I have no official transcript stating that I studied for X years and got X degree, it doesn’ t mean I am incapable of rational thought or argumentation. Or, for that matter, independent research into a subject. This is a bad assumption to make, because it implies that you think a certification (a piece of paper denoting a course study has been passed) means someone is qualified. That is not the case.
One has only to look at real life. There are many examples, but I’ll go with the low hanging fruit—certified personal trainers in general, and many of the nutrition majors I’ve read about, seen, or talked to.
You know, I was thinking about what Aragorn said about how hard science majors don’t have the “I know better” attitude that people in the social sciences have. So here is a question to all you guys with hard-science backgrounds: how often have you had someone with NO knowledge, background, or experience in your field of expertise argue with you about the subject you specialize in?[/quote]
All. The. TIME. So many times I can’t count them. Of course, that doesn’t always mean they’re uneducated buffoons either, now does it? And even then, I’ve learned from both fools and wise men. Of course to do that, I have to avoid thinking I’m the only one that knows anything worth knowing.
[quote]
This is getting out of hand. If you really want to know more about selection, feel free to do a program in industrial relations or human resources management.[/quote]
Once again, certified does not equal qualified. I’ve had completely unqualifed, CERTIFIED board doctors misdiagnose me before. IN their specialties (sports med, illness, you name it). That’s one reason I do my research before going to a doctor, and one reason that I KNOW certifications are not the be all/end all.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
You know, I was thinking about what Aragorn said about how hard science majors don’t have the “I know better” attitude that people in the social sciences have. So here is a question to all you guys with hard-science backgrounds: how often have you had someone with NO knowledge, background, or experience in your field of expertise argue with you about the subject you specialize in?
This is getting out of hand. If you really want to know more about selection, feel free to do a program in industrial relations or human resources management.[/quote]
Oh please, HR is set up for people too insecure to handle their own business. It’s bunk brought on by political correctness and anyone that considers it science is a fool.
You know, I was thinking about what Aragorn said about how hard science majors don’t have the “I know better” attitude that people in the social sciences have. So here is a question to all you guys with hard-science backgrounds: how often have you had someone with NO knowledge, background, or experience in your field of expertise argue with you about the subject you specialize in?
All. The. TIME. So many times I can’t count them. Of course, that doesn’t always mean they’re uneducated buffoons either, now does it? And even then, I’ve learned from both fools and wise men. Of course to do that, I have to avoid thinking I’m the only one that knows anything worth knowing.
This is getting out of hand. If you really want to know more about selection, feel free to do a program in industrial relations or human resources management.
Once again, certified does not equal qualified. I’ve had completely unqualifed, CERTIFIED board doctors misdiagnose me before. IN their specialties (sports med, illness, you name it). That’s one reason I do my research before going to a doctor, and one reason that I KNOW certifications are not the be all/end all.[/quote]
The misquote was entirely accidental. I apologize for that.
I know very well that people can learn about subjects without receiving formal education. In fact, the point of a PhD is that you learn how to become an expert in whatever you want.
But what independent study have you done on selection in organizations? Are you up-to-date on case law, and the resulting legal requirements for BFORs? Why do these requirements exist?
Honestly, looking through this thread, there is so much utter rubbish that people are spouting, and they are offended when their opinion isn’t respected. To actually explain WHY it’s rubbish would take the equivalent of about half of a masters level course. I simply haven’t the time. Luckily, we live in a society where different individuals can specialize in different things. You can be a doctor, I can be an organizational psychologist, and we can ask each other when there is something in the others field of expertise you aren’t sure about. Is that so much to ask for?
[quote]SouthernGypsy wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
You know, I was thinking about what Aragorn said about how hard science majors don’t have the “I know better” attitude that people in the social sciences have. So here is a question to all you guys with hard-science backgrounds: how often have you had someone with NO knowledge, background, or experience in your field of expertise argue with you about the subject you specialize in?
This is getting out of hand. If you really want to know more about selection, feel free to do a program in industrial relations or human resources management.
Oh please, HR is set up for people too insecure to handle their own business. It’s bunk brought on by political correctness and anyone that considers it science is a fool.[/quote]
haha, how do you figure? What is it that HR people “do”, in your opinion?
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
haha, how do you figure? What is it that HR people “do”, in your opinion?[/quote]
I think if you got out of the classroom and into the real world, you would see that the majority of people laugh at the utter incompetence that the HR department is.
I have worked for 2 major entities and HR is always a cause for complaint.
[quote]SouthernGypsy wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
haha, how do you figure? What is it that HR people “do”, in your opinion?
I think if you got out of the classroom and into the real world, you would see that the majority of people laugh at the utter incompetence that the HR department is.
I have worked for 2 major entities and HR is always a cause for complaint.[/quote]
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
You cannot use a selection tool- in this case meeting a requirement- that adversely affects female applicants without demonstrating that the standard used represents a bona fide occupational requirement. If women who do not meet this requirement can perform the job satisfactorily, it cannot be used in selection.
If were the case then there is no reason that the standard should be applied to males either.
The only way you could justify requiring males to meet the standards but not females would be to argue that women who fail to meet the requirement can still perform the job satisfactorily, whereas men who fail to meet the standard cannot.
Regular Gonzalez is right. The widely used Physical Aptitude Test for fire-fighters, the C-PAT is the same for men and women.
You know, I was thinking about what Aragorn said about how hard science majors don’t have the “I know better” attitude that people in the social sciences have. So here is a question to all you guys with hard-science backgrounds: how often have you had someone with NO knowledge, background, or experience in your field of expertise argue with you about the subject you specialize in?
This is getting out of hand. If you really want to know more about selection, feel free to do a program in industrial relations or human resources management.[/quote]
I hardly think that the ability of a layman to comprehend hard science is even remotely comparable that of social science.
I am genuinely interested to hear your take on my previous statement. I am not even completely closed to the concept of having different standards for males and females in some areas. I would just like you to explain how you would justify it.
If as you say, some women who do not meet this requirement can perform the job satisfactorily, then surely there are at least some men who this also holds true for.
Edit - lol, I just realized that I inadvertently used the gender specific term Layman. I apologize for that overt display of male sexism. Women are equally as capable as men at being unqualified in specific areas of academia. From now on I will use the gender neutral version layperson.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
I hardly think that the ability of a layman to comprehend hard science is even remotely comparable that of social science.
[/quote]
That’s what makes it so frustrating. People seem to understnad that they don’t know anything about the hard sciences, but everyone thinks that they are experts in the social sciences. I’ve done both (neurophysiology and social psychology), and let me assure you, it is retarded to say that one is more complicated than the other. However, neurophysiology let’s you use a reductionist approach, worry about each pathway separately, and then worry about putting them together. In social psych, you can’t do that.
The satisfying answer: VO2max denotes a certain level of physical conditioning. The VO2max that represents a guy in kinda good shape corresponds to a female that is an elite level athlete. In practice, women with a lower VO2max can perform as well as men, so different standards are warranted. Anything that differentially predicts performance between men and women calls for different selection standards.
The unsatisfying answer: requirements have to represent BFORs only when they represent cause adverse impact. When adverse impact isn’t an issue, you can set whatever requirements you want.
The misquote was entirely accidental. I apologize for that.[/quote]
Ok, that’s cool. I’ve been stressing a bit lately, usually I wouldn’t get so uptight.
[quote]
I know very well that people can learn about subjects without receiving formal education. In fact, the point of a PhD is that you learn how to become an expert in whatever you want.
But what independent study have you done on selection in organizations? Are you up-to-date on case law, and the resulting legal requirements for BFORs? Why do these requirements exist?
Honestly, looking through this thread, there is so much utter rubbish that people are spouting, and they are offended when their opinion isn’t respected. To actually explain WHY it’s rubbish would take the equivalent of about half of a masters level course. I simply haven’t the time. Luckily, we live in a society where different individuals can specialize in different things. You can be a doctor, I can be an organizational psychologist, and we can ask each other when there is something in the others field of expertise you aren’t sure about. Is that so much to ask for?[/quote]
We’ll have to agree to disagree then, although I suspect my position is being slightly exaggerated in your mind, both by your frustration and my rather brief description. Saw your link, but haven’t the time to read it yet as I’m writing a paper due for submission very soon and preparing a lecture/presentation.
And no I have to admit I’m not up to date on case law etc. Under other circumstances I’d have all the time in the world to update myself. However, I will say this: the why to me is more important than the case law. Not sure how to concisely say it, but In my opinion law is often more a function of the most successful lobbyist than the most accurate and consistent conceptual/philosophical/scientific theories. Thus I place much more emphasis on the “why” than the lawyerisms. I’m more interested in whether or not the reasoning for the requirements is valid/accurate in the first place than I am what the courts rule, except to see that the rulings are consistent with the reasonings. Might not make sense, I’m tired of writing and thinking.
The satisfying answer: VO2max denotes a certain level of physical conditioning. The VO2max that represents a guy in kinda good shape corresponds to a female that is an elite level athlete. In practice, women with a lower VO2max can perform as well as men, so different standards are warranted. Anything that differentially predicts performance between men and women calls for different selection standards.
[/quote]
Just took a very brief glance at your link.
Ok, I can buy the difference in VO2 max, even though you are overstating the difference in VO2 max comparisons somewhat. If the predictor you used for screening is flawed then it represents something unequal. However, what about timed courses? If performance is equal even though V02 max is not, then performance should be the predictor. A female should in fact be able to run as fast/far as a male, provided they have not reached near olympic status. I know plenty of females that can run more than 2.5 kilometers in 11 minutes. That’s like a 7 something mile. Not hard. Especially when you consider that women may have a greater capacity for aerobic work than men (notably different than high power output, which high level track competition usually falls under).
I believe that standards should be fair. I believe that predictors should attempt to accurately describe the requirements of the job, within scientific reason. But if equal performance is the goal, then there should be 1 performance standard, not differing run times or what have you. You cannot say an 11 minute run and a 14 minute run are equal performances.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
I hardly think that the ability of a layman to comprehend hard science is even remotely comparable that of social science.
That’s what makes it so frustrating. People seem to understnad that they don’t know anything about the hard sciences, but everyone thinks that they are experts in the social sciences.
[/quote]
Ok I accept that an unqualified person has no business to be arguing the finer details of the more advanced areas of the social sciences. I just don’t think that what we are talking about here is so inherently complicated that it requires a high level of training just to be able to discuss it.
I don’t disagree in this instance. What I find much harder to comprehend is the argument that women should only be required to meet lower standards on specific athletic feats such as the beep test.
I have no interest in discussing the specifics of Canadian law.
Like Aragorn I am more interested in understanding the justification behind different viewpoints.
This is the type of logic that I have an issue with:
"The shuttle run (or beep/bleep test) is a test to determine the maximum aerobic endurance of a person and is often used in sporting and physical aptitude testing. The test was developed in 1982 by Leger.
Basically you run up and down across the gym between two lines twenty meters apart. The test is performed indoor and the speed of the participants is determined by the
interval between two beeps played on a cassette. The starting speed is 8 km/h and each minute the speed is increased by decreasing the interval between the beeps (this is called the next stage).
The cut-off used by the MFB is the level of 9.6. Women cannot compete with men fairly as a group using the same shuttle run cut-off as their bodies are simply different. Not inferior but different."
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
It’s all the educational systems fault for all this injustice. Who in hell decided to teach women to think anyway.
About the education crap stop (in the name of love), because not to long ago men usually never made it out of high school (some not even into high school), while women were the majority of graduates from college and men were expected to work in the fields while the women taught the children and made supper.
I like how women have always complained, prohibition (that went well), voting (look at the dumbass that was voted in after you were able to vote), education (so you can become house wifes again), jobs (so you can just have lower level men do your work), having someone hold a door for you (be rude) and helps you sit down (ungracious), and interaction (sexual harassment). Yet, men just get shit done and try to make everyone happy, then women just make us flip back to how it was after a couple of scores or we have to bust our balls because whatever they wanted was just ridiculous.
I say we have a revolution, everyone go home and just take off your belt and beat the shit out of them and tell them if they want to rule shit they gotta man up because you’re the provider and you run shit. Then you can arch your back and flex like a gorilla while you say “King Kong ain’t got shit on me.”
This is the type of logic that I have an issue with:
"The shuttle run (or beep/bleep test) is a test to determine the maximum aerobic endurance of a person and is often used in sporting and physical aptitude testing. The test was developed in 1982 by Leger.
Basically you run up and down across the gym between two lines twenty meters apart. The test is performed indoor and the speed of the participants is determined by the
interval between two beeps played on a cassette. The starting speed is 8 km/h and each minute the speed is increased by decreasing the interval between the beeps (this is called the next stage).
The cut-off used by the MFB is the level of 9.6. Women cannot compete with men fairly as a group using the same shuttle run cut-off as their bodies are simply different. Not inferior but different."[/quote]
If performance level on the test is arbitrary, then it absolutely does not make sense to place the level unrealistically high for women, nor is it legally defensible (at least in the US or Canada).
The reason for the logic above is the following: very often, the standard is “ok, how well would a ‘fit’ person do”. It may have nothing to do with job requirements, and the test performance level that represents “fit” may be very different for men and women.
As an aside, I recommend everyone take a look at that link. I only skimmed it, but it seems to give a pretty good exposition of what the problem is. They only seem to allude to it, but the level of sexual harassment 9and i do NOT mean “hitting on” or “flirting”) and bullying toward female firefighters is unbelievable. Unfortunately, the same is true of pretty much all male-dominated fields. Earlier in this thread, someone said something about no one saying anything when men have to do all the “hard” (physically demanding and/or dangerous). Well, the reality is, the men in those jobs go out of their way to keep women out.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
but the level of sexual harassment and bullying toward female firefighters is unbelievable. Unfortunately, the same is true of pretty much all male-dominated fields. Earlier in this thread, someone said something about no one saying anything when men have to do all the “hard” (physically demanding and/or dangerous). Well, the reality is, the men in those jobs go out of their way to keep women out.[/quote]
I thought we were talking about physical standards, and not sexual bullying/harassment.
Fire-fighters have a bad rep that I don’t think is deserved. I can believe that the level of sexual harassment and bullying was very high when women were first breaking into the field. But speaking only of the City of Richmond, when I interviewed with the department 2 of the 5 lieutenants on the panel were women. I have also been on ride alongs with 2 different houses, 1 had a female lieutenant in charge, and the other was all male. The crew with the female lieutenant showed nothing but respect to her, even the “old timers”, both to her face and behind her back. The all male crew had a crass, politically incorrect sense of humor, but they said nothing but good things about the female fire-fighters in other crews.
As far as the C-PAT, it does not test a “general level of fitness.” It is entirely based on the equipment fire fighters use, the gear they wear, and the activities they have to do on the job. A fire truck cannot carry two different sledge hammers, or a lightweight version of the Jaws of Life for women, so when they take the C-PAT they have to swing the same ten pound hammer, drag the same hose and carry the same equipment for distance in the same time frame that the men have. Therefore, the test is as objective and fair as it could be.
I think having women pass the same PAT as men, which many have done and will continue to do, goes a long way towards ending the sexual harassment and bullying that you referred to, because the women will have proven from the day they were hired that they are just as physically capable as their male counterparts.