Comments on: Ricci v. DeStefano – the New Haven Firefighter case – Which Is Fairer, Multiple Choice or Oral Examinations?

By: James Stroud

James Stroud — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:28:22 +0000

Oral tests do not leave a written record. They have an inherent bias because they are subjective. Underrepresented minorities may want to consider this fact when pushing for oral tests as a panacea for racial imbalance in the workplace. Written tests with predetermined answers are better in terms of accountability because of the ability to audit any student's performance post facto. Additionally, that differentially weighting the oral tests changes the racial balance also raises the possibility that the orals panel gave preferential grades to minority candidates. If the racial balance of the individuals who passed moved in the other direction with the greater weighting of the oral exam, then orals panel would be subject to criticism for bias against minorities. If anything, the most parsimonious conclusion about the New Haven tests is that any bias in the oral section falls in favor of minorities.

By: Miss Terby

Miss Terby — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:09:32 +0000

Nobody thought there was anything wrong with the test until they found out that the people they wanted to pass the test didn't pass it. The assertion that an oral examination would provide a better indication of who is qualified and who is not was really only a reaction to these "undesirable" test results. Moreover, does anybody really believe that the City would have been found to have acted in "good faith" (the dissent's preferred test)?

By: Dan S.

Dan S. — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 02:15:45 +0000

RE: " Are multiple choice tests or oral examinations better for evaluating leadership capability in a field like firefighting?"

Multiple choice tests are only reliable if each question has more than one 'correct' answer and the test-taker must select the best solution to the problem presented in the question. Oral exams are only reliable if the test-taker is presented with questions that require both knowledge of specific facts and the need to incorporate those facts into several variations of typical work scenarios. Since firefighting is a profession that requires rapid decision making skills, superior situational analysis, and the ability to communicate decisions in a concise and clear manner, I think potential leadership skills can be better assessed via oral exams that require defending ones choices for a particular problem. I want a leader who can make reliable decisions, not just recite memorized facts.

AND: "Do you think that the City had a decent argument that the 60-40 weighing (60 for the written portion, 40 for the oral) was, in hindsight, a mistake, and that more reliance should be placed on the oral exams?"

Since the ratio was determined by 'union rules', the City may not have had any choice in that area….at least not until the next round of contract negotiations. My question is why must cities keep reinventing the wheel when giving promotional tests? Surely there are established testing formats that have proven worthwhile for other firefighting units.

By: dave

dave — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:49:03 +0000

I think the nuts and bolts of firefighting could be best tested in a written exam. But I think that leadership and management could best be proved during a well crafted oral test. It is interesting that the union wanted the breakdown so the city wasn't necessarily the 'bad guy.'

I too would hate to be on that fictional City Council. I would imagine you would have to decide statistically how many people of what race you wanted to promote. Give separate tests and promote the top x number of whites, y number of blacks, etc. I would vary the tests so that 80% on one would not necessarily equate to 80% on the other.

I would have liked the court to answer more questions.

Can we now, respectfully of course, ask Sotomayor 'Do you understand why you were wong on this?' during the confirmation.

And, could we extrapolate the Massey Coal ruling and expect Justice Sotomayor to recuse herself from cases involving affirmative action?

By: Quidpro

Quidpro — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:06:57 +0000

The city found itself on the horns of a dilemma only because the "disparate impact" test requires actual discrimination on the basis of race. And all in the name of a statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race!

The city's post-test assertion that the two components of the trest should be weighted differently would tend to support Justice Alito's position. Scalia's prediction is correct: The Court will soon be required to address the constitutional tension between "disparate treatment" and "disparate impact". Griggs and its codification into Title VII would appear to be unconstitutional under any fair reading. Such a finding would remove the unconstitutional horn from the dilemma.