New Haven Independent

Posted by: cedarhillresident | May 2, 2007 9:45 AM

No the exam was done wrong I talk to a few people now that have taken it!! The oral exam was done wrong. Some had 2 people some had three and most that had 3 did not pass. Some knew the questions and had rehursted answers. Which make the oral not a true test!

Posted by: As Ususal | May 2, 2007 2:17 PM

Rob Smuts was too busy working on the campaign, he paid no attention to the hiring program. Karen Dubois Walton was the "acting Mayor" so where are her comments? Or maybe John Burtula, oppps, he's gone too.

So the people that worked so hard on this, now have to listen to flat out llies about what they were promised the hiring practice would entail. And Human Resources director Burgett, she is one of the biggest sores on this cities behind

Posted by: westvillecharlie | May 2, 2007 2:27 PM

Is the problem with the oral exam that more minorities are failing it than whites? Is that the problem. I don't ever recall the oh so pious Rev. Kimber ever getting upset because a white man was wronged, so i'm going to make my assumptions, as dangerous as that is.
Does it matter what color the skin of the person wearing that big fireman's hat is if they can't get your wife, child or pet safely out of a burning house because they are either not strong enough or smart enough to do so? No it does not. Again, these are life savers we're talikng about, not meter maids or DMV clerks. Don't screw with my or my family's safety.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | May 2, 2007 5:53 PM

westvillecharlie I have to say the ones I know of where white. So I don't think race was an issue. And the ones I know were New Haven residents.

Why would you even give the writen test if it does not count!! And why did so know the (more or less) answers to the oral exam. And why were so scored with only 2 tester and some with 3 testers that makes it unfair.

Posted by: testtaker112 | May 3, 2007 1:34 PM

I understand the story given about what would be considered in the final list is different than what is actually being done, but I think the overall outcome is not going to be as dramatically effected as people think. Yes, the written portion does not directly play a part in the "final" hiring list- BUT, one did need a 70% to move on to the orals, only 830 out of the 1600 passed the written. So then just consider everyone who failed the written farther down the list then those who passed. Same thing with the oral. Maybe instead of saying "pass" or "fail" all the oral particpants could have been scored, but instead of taking the time to assign numers, an arbitrary cut off was set. The physical agility test being pass/fail is pretty common in the fire service, and does not sound like a point of contention. I have no idea how the orals were scored, but the fact that so many people "failed" does not make the test corrupt...

Posted by: testwatcher | May 3, 2007 3:02 PM

TESTTAKER112
The fact that they would alter the process after it started should give you concern, but when it comes to Tina Burgett rules are made to be broken. Is that O.K. with you?
You are also misiformed about some of the facts you state. 1600 people did not take the written, about 1125 did. Your pass rate is accurate, 832. The oral test was also scored and they are now intending on ranking the eligible list of only your oral score. The issue I believe that people have with that is (1) the subjectivity of oral panels, (2) Some panels had 2 people some had 3 and a host of other compromises, ie test security etc.
The physical agility being pass fail is fairly common but the time you get to complete it and the difficulty of the stations is what makes it good or bad. As far as the former, the time, it was a joke. Good luck anyway.

Posted by: concerned jake | May 3, 2007 3:16 PM

He testtaker, get your head out of your .... maybe you need to get screwed a few more times by the city before you loose your nievety.

Nothing that comes out of civil service can be trusted, they only use testing agencies that will provide the desired result. If the test was on the up and up this would never had been an issue.

Posted by: Brian | May 7, 2007 9:16 AM

So not to throw stones or anything, but I think the flood gates need to be closed and the tears wiped away. Call me a "Darwinist"(survival of the fittest and the rest are cut) or a little cut throat but this is getting stupid. I don't buy the garbage about throwing this test out. Despite what you or your friend "who I know would be a good firefighter" think, the test should stay. This test was designed by people who do this for a living and I'm sure they advised New Haven in every move the city should make and what will happen with it. I don't like that I failed either and given the opportunity, I would test again and try my luck. But I'm not at the head of the line whining about it. I'm looking to pass the next one. The rest of you who failed need to buck up and be men/women about it. Two, three or ten people on the oral board, you still didn't give the answers that they were looking for. All this would not have happened with any other department because they don't have the history that New Haven has. The failing candidates are trying to capitalize off this history and come up with any excuse to get their second chance. Way to cheat the system folks in a career field and hiring process that should be full of people with integrity and good values. I can understand that you all may feel that the city needs to live by the same standards of integrity and values, but if the fire department has a desired (specifically qualified) type of person they're looking for, they should be able to guide the test in that direction. Other career fields have their own standards and guidelines for their hiring process too. You think accounting firms don't look for people with a good understanding of math skills? Or administrative assistants shouldn't be friendly and fast typists? I mean, really. These people know what they want on their department. It's also the same way with any other city's fire service test. So because it's New Haven, we can dump out all of our frustrations with testing on them? And the rest of you who are not complaining about the "fairness of failing" are all up in arms about the big bad "EOE". The whole idea behind "equal opportunity employment" is a joke and in a perfect world it wouldn't exist. But for now, we have to deal with it. I do have to say that I would take the job if it were offered to me, but if one of the reasons that I was hired was due to my color, gender or race, I couldn't help but feel a little funny about it. How about "Qualified Individual Employment"? The candidate who is most qualified, gets the job. All those under them on the list, sorry. But once again, we have what we have and you or I will have little to say about it. So lets suck it up and move on. Lastly, if you don't think the city has thought about what to do in this type situation, you need to pull your own head out of your own.... and then maybe get it examined. You think they want to go through the same bucket of junk they just did a couple years ago? So folks, maybe it's time to eat this one and move on to the next test???

Posted by: smartspanishguy | May 15, 2007 1:30 PM

I believe the City of New Haven misled me about the testing process for Firefighters. Can I get my test fee back since I paid for inclusion in a testing process that was misrepresented to me? Also, how can I get tested by 3 different panelists and someone else by 2 panelists and New Haven considers that fair? Some candidates I saw at the orals looked like they didn't have a care in the world. Now I know why. At least, I think I know why. They must've known something I didn't. Something like, THE ANSWERS maybe.