re: .

quote:

---

“Someone may not be the best reader, but they can still be very smart in picking up things.”

---

Hey I guess we're not paying them to read

quote:

---

Never understood why teams can't just look at the college transcripts of players and/or evaluate them during the interview process. The wonderlic test seems silly anyway

---

b/c lots of them don't do their own work

Racist fueled hypothetical test questions by fellow posters in 3...
2....1

Im gonna laugh

St.Louis had to dumb down their Sergeants Test, because a certain part of the force couldn't pass. Also, let's add, they forced you to put your race, on the front page, to boot.

The St.Louis Fire Department was sued, and City gave in to dumb their test down. Claimed it was slanted to the White candidates.

My Question, if the test is about your job, and stuff you were taught, how can it be slanted, catered, etc to one race or group?????

The dumbing down of standardize tests has been done all over the country in a number of different context. The results always stay the same because the smarter applicants are able to adjust -- it's one of the byproducts of them being smarter.

NFL teams know that the Wonderlic is just one tool in the evaluation. On the field, pure physical skills and talents will typically make a bad Wonderlic score irrelevant. Then again, there are some talented players who are just so f*cking dumb that their talent just can't compensate.

Teams also know that many players "study" for the test and take several practice tests. And, just like the SAT/LSAT/GMAT/GRE/MCAT, the more you "practice" the better scores you get. I remember hearing a story that J.P. Losman scored in the single digits (oh, that fine Tulane education!!!) until his agent got him a few different tests and had him practice. He was then able to improve his score enough so that teams didn't think he was a complete dumb arse.

the article linked in that blog post goes into more detail and is kinda LINK

as is the pic



that ain't no football playa!

I agree with it. If you're an owner, you need to know how quickly your investment (player) can learn football related topics. Who cares if they can't calculate the area of a square.

Right, I understand the need to adapt and evolve, it just doesn't really seem like there was anything wrong with the other version. Or at least, wrong in the sense that it caters to white people, which is what I'm assuming this dude is getting at with the "socioeconomic" angle.

I mean, if they wanted to have a real legit testing system, why not just give them a thorough, detailed test related to plays/schemes/skills for their position? I agree with the poster above that said doing these math/logic problems doesn't really prove a whole hell of a lot. I guess my whole issue isn't with changing the test, it's changing it to be more "equal", which we still don't know wtf they mean.

So what are they doing to make questions like below less biased?

quote:

---

Assume the first two statements are true. Is the final one:

1. true, 2. false, 3. not certain?

The boy plays baseball. All baseball players wear hats. The boy wears a hat.

Assume the first two statements are true. Is the final one:

1. true, 2. false, 3. not certain?

The homie plays basketball. All basketball players wear shorts. The boy wears a pair of shorts.

---

quote:

---

Three individuals form a partnership and agree to divide the profits equally. X invests $9,000, Y invests $7,000, Z invests $4,000. If the profits are $4,800, how much less does X receive than if the profits were divided in proportion to the amount invested?

Three individuals form a drug ring and agree to divide the profits equally. X invests 9 kilos of cocaine, Y invests 7 kilos of cocaine, Z invests 4 kilos of cocain. If the profits are $400,000, how much less does X receive than if the profits were divided in proportion to the amount invested?

---