# BCFD burned again by lowered hiring standards **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 23, 2008, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bcfd-burned-again-by-lowered-hiring-standards/434644 "2008-01-23T08:07:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Trunk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/87869e/32.png) [@Trunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trunk)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2008, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bcfd-burned-again-by-lowered-hiring-standards/434644/41 "2008-01-29T15:11:40Z")
[QUOTE=danceswithcats] You didn’t miss anything, dim bulb, other than the point of my previous and present post. One more fucking time: I’ve been pitting a testing protocol and hiring procedure which admits **unqualified** persons. White, black, or paisley. Male, female, or hermaphrodite. [/QUOTE] And what I’m saying is that stupid shit happens to veterans, and stupid shit happens to newbies, and when you cherry pick your examples of incompetence, it doesn’t really speak to your credibility, bright eyes. ---
**Author:** ![ShadowFacts](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shadowfacts/32/2934_2.png) [@ShadowFacts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadowFacts)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2008, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bcfd-burned-again-by-lowered-hiring-standards/434644/42 "2008-01-29T16:33:18Z")
I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone more thoroughly pnwed than **danceswithcats** has been by **mhendo** in this thread. Well done, sir. ---
**Author:** ![danceswithcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9e8a1a/32.png) [@danceswithcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/danceswithcats)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2008, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bcfd-burned-again-by-lowered-hiring-standards/434644/43 "2008-01-30T06:50:19Z")
[QUOTE=ShadowFacts] I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone more thoroughly pnwed than **danceswithcats** has been by **mhendo** in this thread. Well done, sir. [/QUOTE] Thanks for the leet speak. You’re what-12? Go back to texting the other kids in middle school about Hannah Montana. > [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Did someone once get rejected from the Baltimore Fire Department? Lots of people get rejected. If you’re suggesting one of those persons was me, you’re wrong. I never applied to BCFD. I knew at the outset that I’d never be able to convince you folks that what’s going on in Baltimore’s Fire Department is a fucking mess with no winners. Since the Sun hasn’t done any follow up, [here’s a lengthy article published last week by LA Weekly regarding hiring practices and females](http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/women-firefighters-the-gender-boondoggle/18193/?page=1). No doubt someone will claim that things are different in Baltimore. From the above linked article: > [@](#): > > Whomever the 15-member City Council and Villaraigosa decide to blame next, the fact is that Los Angeles is not unique. Cities trying and failing to turn women into firefighters range from New York, with its 1 percent female crews, to San Francisco, with its 13.8 percent — a stat that seems impressive, but which is generously padded with paramedics who do not fight fires or live at firehouses. > > Jon McDuffie, first vice president of the L.A. firefighters’ union, says, “You can throw millions of dollars into this,” but departments all over the country are struggling to recruit women. “We can’t all be wrong.” ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2008, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bcfd-burned-again-by-lowered-hiring-standards/434644/44 "2008-01-30T16:43:17Z")
[QUOTE=danceswithcats] I knew at the outset that I’d never be able to convince you folks that what’s going on in Baltimore’s Fire Department is a fucking mess with no winners. [/QUOTE] I know that our unwillingness to accept your unfounded assertions must be frustrating, but i’m afraid it’s not going to change. Also, contrary to your implication that i don’t want to hear the bad news, i would be very interested in knowing about far-reaching structural and procedural problem in the BCFD. Anyone who lives in Baltimore knows that plenty of this city’s institutions are plagued by lack of funding, petty politics, backstabbing, and corruption. As i said earlier, in the thread, the problems with the city’s property inspection people are legion, and the Baltimore CityPaper did a multi-part expose of the department last year. I would not be especially surprised to learn that the BCFD has problems. I’m also opposed to hiring firefighters—of whatever race or ethnicity or gender—who cannot physically do the job. I think that is a Bad Thing. But if you continue to assert that a group of disparate events somehow adds up to an indictment of the changed hiring practices of 2004, you’re going to have to provide more evidence that just your say-so if you want people to take your argument seriously. Given how ill-considered and evidence-free and analysis-impoverished your rants often are, i won’t hold my breath. ---
**Author:** ![The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_King_of_Soup)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2008, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bcfd-burned-again-by-lowered-hiring-standards/434644/45 "2008-01-31T02:13:40Z")
Now _that’s_ a resume-booster! I don’t know whose club **danceswithcats** is trying to join, but he’s willing to post a thread against BCFD’s attempts to increase African-American presence in the department and offer as evidence (belatedly, after everything else gets easily shot from under him) an article about LA’s inability to graduate women from its fire academy because of the physical requirements. I tells ya, folks, If you really want to be accepted by all the wrong people, demonstrate your willingness to appear not merely stupid and hateful, but actually pitiful in the anti-affirmative action cause. Why else would he include a quote which explicitly says that the one success story, SF, “pads” the statistics with woman paramedics, who have an easier time of things physically, when the person involved in the Baltimore story (the one he was originally pushing, remember?) was training to be…a paramedic. Nobody is willing to look this stupid and obstinate unless it’s some sort of hazing ritual. If **danceswithcats** , seemed ordinarily to be a nice or decent or intelligent person, you might even feel sorry for him, until you realized from the crap he’s willing to say what circle he’s bidding to join. ---
**Author:** ![danceswithcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9e8a1a/32.png) [@danceswithcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/danceswithcats)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2008, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bcfd-burned-again-by-lowered-hiring-standards/434644/46 "2008-02-01T23:32:16Z")
Gee-a FDNY Deputy Chief writes about the same thing > [@](#): > > Letters to the Editor > Sound the Alarm on Fire Test > > To the Editor: > > Much exuberance accompanied recent announcements regarding the results of > the FDNY recruitment program, and many facts were presented to support > claims that it, and the written test it led up to, were very good things. > I would like to present some facts which were not trumpeted but which the > people who may have to work with the firefighters produced by this test, > as well as those who will be (ostensibly) protected by them, deserve to > know. > > I will also include some of my opinions (which are not necessarily those > of the FDNY) since opinions, as opposed to objective and cognitive > knowledge, were so highly prized on said test. > > There were 195 questions; 105 of them were subjective (therefore > illegitimate) and 87 of those 105 accepted more than one answer. This was > an opinion poll, or a guessing game; not a test. In addition, DCAS did not > explain beforehand how it would score this test, leading to suspicion that > it wanted to be able to “cook” or manipulate the answers to achieve a > desired result. > > Why else would 45 percent of all questions have more than one answer? I’ll > tell you why - FDNY sources stated after the test “that the test was a way > to have as many applicants as possible pass” and that “the idea is to get > as many candidates to pass as possible and then let the extended training > period weed them out.” I’m sure that candidates who spent a great deal of > time, money and effort preparing will be very happy to hear that; maybe > they should sue for fraud. > > Answers to the 105 subjective questions covered a range stretching from > “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree,” with five possibilities for each > choice. This format had never been used before, but that’s not a problem; > many different formats have been used over the years for both entry and > promotion tests. > > A problem does arise, however, when it is revealed that the city’s > tutorial program (which was established at taxpayer expense to prepare > candidates) contained none of these types of questions nor even any > suggestion that they might appear. Curiously, one group’s tutorial course > did have these types of questions. > > Now, which group could that have been? Oh, of course - it was the Vulcan > Society. The very same group whose complaint led to the current Justice > Department lawsuit against the FDNY. The group which represents black > firefighters, whose ranks the city is desperately trying to expand > (mystery novel buffs will recognize that I am establishing motive here). > How could it have happened that this was the only group to review these > types of questions when even the city’s own tutorial did not? Are they > extraordinarily prescient? > > Now, far be it from me to cast any aspersions - especially when an > “exhaustive” investigation occurred, concluding five weeks after the test, > utilizing a civilian member of the FDNY (who was involved in the > recruitment campaign and is sympathetic to the Vulcan Society) as a > liaison to DCAS. Based on this (very cursory) examination, it was > determined all was above board and all rumors of malfeasance should be > debunked. > > Hmmm … I’m skeptical. And although I believe many people who have been > placed in awkward circumstances by events beyond their control have only > the best intentions as to the future of the FDNY, there might be some > willful ignorance being practiced. A Daily News article published the day > before the test stated that “sources confirmed that the written exam … > has been altered from previous editions.” Who else knew about this > alteration? When did they know it? Did they have specifics, such as how > ridiculous the questions were and that a never-before-seen format (which > again, was not part of the city’s tutorial) was being used? Who was the > source? Was this leak part of the investigation? I can’t answer any of > these questions, but to ensure the integrity of this and future tests, > someone should be asking them. > > Apart from the dubious content there were several procedural departures > from the norm which are disturbing. Widespread reports allege that > candidates were driven to the test in FDNY vehicles and that people > without admission cards were allowed in, as were people who showed up an > hour late, forcing those who followed directions to wait out in the cold. > Cell phones were supposed to be banned but were used during the test with > impunity, and many proctors behaved in a less-than professional manner and > could offer no useful answers to reasonable questions. Candidates were > also not allowed to leave the test with a copy of their answers, which > only serves to fuel suspicion that this test was manipulated (as if any > doubt remains). All I’ve recounted so far is pretty depressing if you care > about safety, current firefighters and the long-term future of the FDNY. > Some comic relief is called for, and it is provided when we examine some > of the stated purposes of the recruitment campaign and then some of the > actions taken by the recruiters. > > During a meeting before the campaign began, those assembled were assured > that the FDNY would not be seeking “knuckleheads” but rather > self-motivated individuals. I will ignore for now the unintended hilarious > irony of conducting a recruitment campaign that seeks self-motivated > individuals and instead examine the Recruitment Unit’s supposed disdain > for “knuckleheads.” > > The wealthy recruiters of the FDNY, some if not most of who were paid > hundreds of hours of overtime, did more than simply hand out applications. > It was proudly reported after the campaign ended that they also filled out > applications, placed them into envelopes, sealed such envelopes and even > put stamps on those envelopes if the targeted applicants were not capable > of performing these acts. And that’s not all - the Recruitment Unit had > such high regard for those they had signed up that they contacted > applicants in the data base 12 times - yes, a full dozen - to remind them > to show up for the test (if someone contacted me 12 times about any one > topic I would seek an Order of Protection). I looked up “knucklehead” in > the dictionary and here is how it was defined: “someone who can’t stuff an > envelope and needs twelve reminders to do something.” > > Readers of this letter may be starting to think that I’ll run out of > things to complain about soon. On the contrary, there are many things left > that anger me, and I’ve got loads of sarcasm left with which to comment. > > The next target of my ire is the physical test, which is scheduled to be > given soon. While the components of the Candidate Physical Ability Test > (CPAT) may be valid, it has been rendered a joke by the decision to score > it on a pass/fail basis. This means that if one candidate completes the > test two or three minutes faster than another but the second candidate > completes it within the established time-frame, both are considered to > have performed equally. Put yourself in the place of a person trapped in a > fire - would you be willing to wait an additional two minutes for rescue > in order to satisfy a politically correct agenda? I didn’t think so. > > How about allowing a female firefighter three chances to raise a ladder > while you are waiting to be removed from a window? Or giving her three > attempts at forcing open a door to get to your unconscious child? Doesn’t > sound like a good idea, does it? Well, if you believe it doesn’t, then you > risk running afoul of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission > (EEOC). This agency, whose employees I’m sure consider themselves above > such grubby considerations as common sense and safety, pressured the > International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) into making changes to > the CPAT “that are designed to increase the rate at which female > firefighter candidates pass the test” according to a May 2006 letter from > the IAFF President. Acting in response to a lawsuit filed by a female > denied employment in Texas, fire departments utilizing CPAT must give > candidates three shots at passing the physical in order to mollify the > EEOC, which should probably change its name to the “GOSC” Guaranteed > Outcome Scam Commission), since it is veering away from requiring equal > opportunity and now demands changes designed to increase passing rates for > certain protected groups. > > I count myself among the seemingly shrinking number in our society who > still believe in equal opportunity for all - but only that. Concessions > should not be made to appease dangerous whiners or to support the > ever-increasing victim industry (which received a $3.2 million boost > during this campaign alone). > > Why do females constitute such a minute percentage of the FDNY? Because > only 2 percent of them can achieve the male average physically, according > to Dr. William Gregor, a Social Science Professor and retired U.S. Army > Lieutenant Colonel who is an expert on women in the military. Since the > FDNY does not hire males of average strength but rather above-average, we > can use the objective science of mathematics to conclude that a minute > percentage of females is all the FDNY should ever hire unless artificial > factors such as quotas are added to the mix. If gender activists are > searching for a truly lopsided male/female employee ratio, I refer them to > the city Department of Education, where 85 percent of teachers are female. > This situation even has the added attraction of being able to do something > for children as there are studies that suggest boys learn better from men. > If someone does embark on this campaign, be sure to tell the Department of > Education that if it needs someone to run a recruitment campaign for males > while making an obscene amount of overtime, I’m their man … oops, I mean > person. > > For those who are blinded by ideology, or live their lives in quaking fear > of being called a bigot because they disagree with a member of a protected > group, or who are simply obtuse, I will end this letter with a few of the > reasons why I spend so much time trying to protect standards. > > 1. I believe everyone should be treated equally. > > 2. I believe manipulating standards to benefit any one group by definition > puts other groups at a disadvantage. > > 3. I believe that programs, preferences and set-asides that target women and minorities cause these groups to be viewed, in the words of author Shelby Steele, “as almost interminably weak” and place a “pitying stigma” on even the most hard-earned achievement. > > 4. I believe, as written in the Letters of Junius, “that one precedent > creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law. What yesterday > was fact, today is doctrine.” If we allow such a God-awful sham as this > recruitment program and test to pass without ridicule and critical > comment, the dangerous whiners who have spawned them will be emboldened > and feel free to move forward with such nonsense on promotion tests. > > 5. I believe that “psychometrician” (the term used to describe those who > designed this written test) and the theory that a test can predict who > will be a good team player prove George Orwell’s observation that there > are some things that only an intellectual can be stupid enough to believe. > > 6. I believe what British Field Marshal Montgomery said about truthfulness > with subordinates: “A leader must speak the truth to those under him; if > he does not, they will soon find it out and then their confidence in him > will decline.” > > 7. I believe that I will make new enemies with this letter (in addition to > those I already have) but also believe the FDNY should be defended, and > take solace in this quote of Winston Churchill’s: “You have enemies? Good. > That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” > > 8. I believe that reducing education requirements and scoring the CPAT on > a pass/fail basis for the express intention of increasing the number of > black and female firefighters respectively is in direct violation of laws > prohibiting discrimination in hiring, testing and other terms and > conditions of employment. So are recruitment activities that do not target > every group equally. I do not believe, however, that anyone will take > action on these points, as that would be impolitic. > > PAUL D. MANNIX, Deputy Chief, FDNY ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2008, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bcfd-burned-again-by-lowered-hiring-standards/434644/47 "2008-02-01T23:47:29Z")
[QUOTE=danceswithcats] Gee-a FDNY Deputy Chief writes about the same thing [/QUOTE] And i’ve already stated, unequivocally, that if firefighter applicants cannot pass the tests, and cannot perform up to standard on the physical tests, then they should not become firefighters. Not a single word of that article, nor of your own “analysis” in this thread, supports your OP’s claim, which was that the discovery of a single drug-dealing firefighter constitutes evidence that changed hiring practices have “burned” the Baltimore City Fire Department. There are some interesting points raised in the FDNY Deputy Chief’s letter. There are issues there that are important, and that deserve rational debate. Unfortunately, you’re the last person i’m interested in discussing them with, because you’ve shown yourself incapable of anything but bile and stupidity. ---
**Author:** ![The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_King_of_Soup)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2008, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bcfd-burned-again-by-lowered-hiring-standards/434644/48 "2008-02-02T00:59:05Z")
[QUOTE=danceswithcats] Gee-a FDNY Deputy Chief writes about the same thing [/QUOTE] This is just so _cool_ of **danceswithcats**. When you’re losing an argument about the Baltimore Fire Department’s attempts to increase black membership, and you’ve just been raked over the coals for the fact that your evidence doesn’t come anywhere close to supporting your thesis, and then (eventually, after harsh reality finally penetrates) you try _again_ with an article about a _different_ city’s fire department facing a completely _different_ problem, and get thumped between the eyes again for _that_, and then you trump your adversaries with yet _another_ (unlinked this time, because who needs to get caught again?) letter to the editor about yet _another_ city about yet _another_ fire department’s problems, which problems _still_ have nothing to do with your OP, you have probably passed the last test and are now the proud second-in-line-to-the-mimeograph-operator’s-assistant for your local bigoted idiot club. There aren’t many who would pretend to be a complete moron in front of so many people for so long for such a limited return. So, congratulations. Anyhow, thanks to the **dunce** for providing a long, dull, unattributed and unqualified indictment of the FDNY’s testing process which does not even begin to support the **dunce** ’s argument. At least it keeps the OP’s ignorance in plain view. I’ve often thought bigoted ignorance should not be allowed to run down the SDMB’s drain just because some **dunce** of an OP jumped ship. At last we have a poster arrogant and desperate enough to keep himself onstage long enough for innocent bystanders to realize that he’s not the hero, he’s the clown. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bcfd-burned-again-by-lowered-hiring-standards/434644.md?page=2)