Except that what it is saying about IQ tests it is also saying about every other type of pre-employment test. It’s not about IQ tests- it’s about pre-employement tests in general. If there is a disparate impact on one or more protected classes, the employer must be able to show the tests are reasonably related to the job. Can’t require a high school diploma (when that requirement has a disparate impact on minorities) if the 5th grade drop-outs you hired prior to imposing the requirement are successful at performing the job. No requiring sanitation workers to run with a 100 lb bag of garbage ( which has a disparate impact on women ) if the union contract says they do not have to pick up a bag over 40 lbs and they never have to run
It is about preemployment tests. IQ tests are one type of preemployment test, and, as such, are subject to this legislation. I do not see how anything I am saying is contradicting what you are saying. The focus on IQ tests is a response to comments made upthread by Even Sven.
Here’s a little recap; it sarta when Sven says this upthread:
If you go back and read the whole thing with this context in mind, I think you will see that your post is adding emphasis and perhaps a little clarity to what I am saying, and not contradicting it.
And if you go back and read in context, you’ll see that she said
Griggs didn’t ban IQ tests or any other pre-employment rests. Companies are absolutely free to use IQ tests if they can show that the test is “reasonably related” to the job. Which is really just a way of saying “useful for their purposes”. IQ tests can’t be “useful for their purposes” if the scores don’t predict success on the job. They’re also not “useful for their purposes” if there is less expensive way of obtaining the same information - such as requiring a college degree. Which still must meet the standard set in *Griggs *
I never said Griggs banned IQ tests, not even close. An employer may think that a test would be useful for its purposes, but may not use it because they might not be certain that they would have a strong enough legal case to defend it; or they might not even want to risk having to defend it. Also, they may want to try and use a test and monitor the results internally, but again they might not do that if they are uncertain of the legal outcomes. So, an employer may think an IQ test might be useful yet still refrain from using when they weight everything in balance including the legal issues involved.
You are reading stuff into the decision that simply isn’t there, or perhaps rephrasing it poorly. I suggest you read the actual opinion instead of the Wikipedia article.
It must be demonstrable that the test is “a reasonable measure of job performance.” That is not the same thing as saying they must be applicable to the specific functions of the job. By definition, an IQ test will only be applicable to general functions of any job.
In any event, that requirement only applies to the extent that the testing controls hiring decisions. If you use a test as a single factor in hiring decisions, it doesn’t matter if it has nothing to do with the job at all. Only if you use a test to eliminate applicants from a pool do you get to the job performance rule.
No, it started when Flyer asked why companies didn’t use IQ tests anymore and sven responded.
I’m not sure what you are trying to say here.
Anyway, this seems to be going around in circles. Are there legal implications for employers who use aptitude testing in the hiring process? Sure. Nothing in Griggs actually prevents or even inhibits employers from doing so when it would actually benefit them, however.
That is what I am saying. From that position, I am saying that the legal implications may or may not have an actual effect on the frequency of use of IQ tests, and that it would be difficult to determine whether or not the legal implications have and impact on the use of IQ testing.
So I see it boiling down to different positions people are taking. I think we are all agreed that there are legal implications to IQ testing. Some are on the side that these legal implications have no effect on the use of IQ tests by companies for the purposes of hiring because IQ tests are unreliable for that purpose.
My position is a more agnostic one, I think if we had a legal environment absent of the Griggs decision, that there is reason to believe that IQ testing may have more of a place in hiring. But, I am also saying there is not really any way to know that; or to really know the effectiveness in the real world of all the testing that is out there unless the restrictions which limit this flexibility in testing are lifted. I just see it as basic scientific skepticism, however YMMV.
Agghgh! That’s the opposite of the point I was trying to make. I had no intention of denigrating any field, much less something as cool as engineering. I do perceive engineering-types as special, as in worthy of admiration. But pretty much every STEM person I know, including my own mother, has felt it necessary to take potshots at humanities as a valid course of study. You took offense to my defense.
[QUOTE=The Niply Elder]
we engineers can think just like you humanities majors just fine, thank you.
[/QUOTE]
This is just what I mean. Your whole argument here smacks of, ‘‘Well, humanities, anyone can do that, but we engineers are doing the truly valuable work!’’ It’s great that you have 50 credits of studying humanities in college but unless your whole world revolves around writing, like mine has from the day I could hold a pen, I really don’t think you get how my brain works. Let me ask you this - have you ever taken several hours to compose one post on the Straight Dope? Can you even conceive of a mindset that would prompt someone to do that? I spent no less than 8 hours yesterday writing fiction, for my own amusement. Can you relate to that? Ever smuggled lined paper into high school choir class so you can work on your novel when you’re supposed to be doing rhythm drills? Ever had actual relationship problems because you couldn’t pull yourself away from putting words on paper? If so, why the hell are you an engineer? If not, why do you presume to think like me?
I’ve already made it clear I can’t think like you. Neither would I assume that taking 50 credits in STEM courses would enable me to think like an engineer. I’d be able to follow your conversations a bit better but engineers are people who, when they are drunk, apply themselves to questions like whether or not there is torque in sex (my roommates did this in college.) This is not something that would ever occur to me to wonder about, drunk or sober. I am never going to be that person any more than you will ever be me.
Society already agrees your skills are more valuable. You win! So just gloat in silence, please, rather than feeling the need to put others down.
I do agree humanities degrees could stand to be more well-rounded.
If this is overly snarky, I apologize, I’m having a very bad day.
I’m guessing most of the people on this board are well-rounded in terms of aptitude and intelligence, so slinging anecdotes back and forth in this thread may be kind of useless. Most people are not good at everything.
I’m using my liberal arts degree to order pizza at the moment.
Eh… you have to be careful that the college you want to transfer to will accept the credits you get from community college. Some schools won’t even transfer all the credits you earn at another four year college, so we learned when UNH (university of New Hampshire) only accepted some of my brother’s credits from the University of Southern Maine.
Community colleges are not all the same from what I’ve seen; some are pretty good though and are tied into state programs that have automatic transfer if you’re GPA is half decent.
I can personally, I don’t know about the rest. I have a BS in philosophy (if you’re going to get a bs, it really should be in philosophy), with minors in physics, mathematics and computer science. Probably 100+ science credits, I’m not really sure though…
I make tons of money and date hot chicks.
That might have been snarky, but not overly so. The post you were responding to was pretty infuriating.
To be clear, you’re saying that about a quarter of your college experience consisted of humanities classes. If they were like mine, they were mostly at the introductory level, likely with an exception or two. So what this post is saying is pretty much, “hey, the first year of college is pretty much the same as the last one.” Bullshit.
My engineering degree required both breadth and depth in humanities, so I took some classes in history, language, and literature (everyone took writing, so that barely counts). I met the depth requirement with three classes in anthropology, topping out in a junior level class in anthropology theory. Did that teach me to think like an anthropologist? Not remotely.
An anthropology degree from the same school requires a wider foundation in anthropology theory (I took introductory cultural anthropology, but majors have to be conversant in cultural, archaeological, and biological). The junior level class I took is not only required for the major, but is a prerequisite for a number of further classes that are also required. Majors then get into the meat of their field, taking upper level comparative survey classes, seminar classes, and other advanced electives, as well as required classes in cognate disciplines (i.e., classes in other fields that enhance their understanding of their major). The humanities requirement from my engineering degree didn’t train me to think like an anthropologist any more than taking calculus trains somebody to think like an engineer. At best, I learned the basic tools that I would need to learn to think like an anthropologist. People with anthropology degrees can think circles around me.
Other fields, too. I’m a pretty decent writer, and for an engineer I’m a damn good writer. In the past, I’ve published scientific papers and gotten grant proposals funded on my own. At my current job, though, my department has an editor who can go over the writing in papers and proposals. She has minimal scientific background, but she have an MFA in creative writing. Everything I’ve ever sent to her comes back better than it was. The way she thinks about language, word choice, sentence structure, etc. is different than the way I think about them. I’m learning to be a better writer working with her, but she’s miles ahead of me - and because (like Spice Weasel) she loves to write, she’s always going to be.
This is an entirely different discussion that can be (and should be) had without denigrating entire fields of study.
I took issue with Spice Weasel’s condescending post classifying engineers as “types” and engineers’ brains as “special”. The point of my post was to de-emphasize pitting the tribal rivalries between humanities and sciences and emphasize the differences in curriculum, specifically the level of well-rounded variety of the curriculum. The humanities classes I took are a variety ranging from 101 level to 400 level classes shrug. This is a pit thread after all about the question of whether or not to go to college, given the OP conclusions that college is worthless, anti-creativity, etc.
Thank you, Enginerd. I’m a humanities major who ended up doing the technical writing and editing job, such as you describe, before. Never a word of thanks from any engineer, nor any recognition of my abilities with the written word. Indeed, I was often put down as a lowly humanities major, as I was not an engineer.
I got fed up with unrecognition and denigration, so I sought and found another career.
Still, I’ll take this as a word of thanks and a recognition of my abilities in those old days. Thank you finally, thank you very much!