oooohhhhh. Okay I see where you are coming from.
I’m not sure people would stand for the conditions required to play by the same (less) rules in all cases.
But yeah, I get you now…
You’re dead right in explaining it, and what it represents is one of the most glaring and obnoxious examples of elites playing the insider game to enrich themselves at the expense of the little guy.
Isn’t Trump supposed to be the antidote to all that?
(Not aiming this question to you - just making the point.)
1 Like
Great post Beans…
1 Like
What?
What law prevents employers from using aptitude tests, and how does using them to find smart people help poor people?
“Mad Dog” Mattis is now Trump’s official choice for Secretary of Defense.
I know that people feel like a “Military Man” is a “natural” choice for SOD…but the Department of Defense is a huge bureaucracy that has to deal with a lot more issues than just combat (particularly infantry).
Don’t get me wrong…leadership is important…and Mattis is a proven leader…but I would bet that he would be the first to tell you that he is first and foremost a “Heart Breaker/Life Taker” at heart.
I’m more for people like Ash Carter or Gates; with a somewhat “broader” resume of experiences than Mattis does; for Secretary of Defense…but I’m more than okay with the choice.
None. Raj knows very little about a great many things.
1 Like
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. - Wikipedia.
Your IQ is set in stone by age 18, nothing can improve it.
If you are poor but smart this would be your avenue out of poverty without taking on massive debt through college
It is very rare for a former general to become Secretary of Defense for the very reasons that you point out. What is his end game in choosing Mattis for this position?
Zeb:
I’m guessing that is a simple case that Trump and Mattis’s personalities “meshed”.
Bad reason in my opinion.
1 Like
There has been talk of putting Sheriff Clark in charge of Homeland Security. I think that too is a bad idea. Sheriff Clark has been in charge of rougly 250-300 Deputies and support staff over the past several years. Homeland Security is a mammoth bureaucracy with 240,000 employees and something like a 100 billion dollar budget. He will be well in over his head and I pray that such a good man as Sheriff Clark is not put in such an untenable position.
Edit: This would be a great place to put Rudy Giuliani. Perhaps Sheriff Clark could be an underling.
1 Like
The case you cited says good faith aptitude tests are ok. You said companies can’t use aptitude tests.
1 Like
Yeah. I read that much more as anti-discrimination than anti-testing.
In fact, in my field aptitude/proof of skill are absolutely required. You will not be hired without them.
1 Like
While you’re likely correct. I LOVE this pick.
Dude is such a badass mofo. I have a liberty boner.
3 Likes
Congress would have to pass legislation to allow Mattis to serve as SecDef. There’s a chance they don’t.
(I like him, too.)
It’s a solid play at military support. I don’t know a Marine that wouldn’t die for Mattis. He’s a legend in the Corps.
2 Likes
We all know that you don’t actually read the things that you post, but this is tremendous stuff, even by your standards. From your own linked article:
“The Supreme Court ruled that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, if such tests disparately impact ethnic minority groups, businesses must demonstrate that such tests are “reasonably related” to the job for which the test is required. Because Title VII is passed pursuant to Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, the disparate impact test later articulated by the Supreme Court in Washington v. Davis, 426 US 229 (1976) is inapplicable. (The Washington v. Davis test for disparate impact is used in constitutional equal protection clause cases while Title VII’s prohibition on disparate impact is a statutory mandate.) As such, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment tests (when used as a decisive factor in employment decisions) that are not a “reasonable measure of job performance,” regardless of the absence of actual intent to discriminate. Since the aptitude tests involved, and the high school diploma requirement, were broad-based and not directly related to the jobs performed, Duke Power’s employee transfer procedure was found by the Court to be in violation of the Act.”
Pay close attention to the bolded passages. The law does not “prevent employers from using aptitude tests” at all. It states that the aptitude tests involved must be directly related to the job performed.
To clarify one step further, this does “help the poor” (or at least protect them from discrimination in hiring) by making sure that I can’t give potential employees a test on their ability to speak Latin if I’m hiring them to be a garbage collector. If I want to use an “aptitude test” it has to be related to the job I am asking them to do, which is perfectly reasonable.
Rock on, raj, Keep bringing the truth.
That’s what it’s intended purpose was but ultimately all it has done is force companies away from iq testing and towards requiring college degrees.
Half of all people don’t finish college because most of them don’t belong there. Now there are millions of people saddled with debt that either do not finish or work in an unrelated field.
Instead allow for an iq test to be applied to potential job applicants. The West was mostly built by people without fancy pieces of paper
So you’re saying the decision in this case is forcing companies to require college degrees for their job applicants?
(I’ll set aside for now that businesses are not interested in IQ tests and don’t view them as a measure of aptitude.)