This is a genuine question: how do you stop people from rambling without being rude? This is why I love email -- if someone rambles on email, I can just read it later, or not at all. But rambling is tough for me, especially if the person (read: colleague or student) is in MY office. Somehow whenever I say I have to go, or give some excuse, people look miffed or hurt. Or they ignore me until I repeat it. Maybe it's my delivery? I thank all the powers that be that there was no such thing as a Blackberry when I was engaged in the full time practice of law.

Kathy, I did not believe that you were crying, until I followed the link. Now I'm crying too. Made my day. I'm going to work on my merit raise memo, which is always a downer, and then read it again this afternoon. Thanks. I gotta get me some Mrs. Dash!

384 pages? That's like a short story for Pynchon. Are any of Pynchon's books on tape -- and if so, has anyone listened? I found Doc Sportello in the trailer pretty soothing actually (he kind of sounds like some of my family members), even if I couldn't figure out if he was reading from the book or what. Maybe I'll give Pynchon another try (my husband is currently slugging through Mason & Dixon). I gave up after 50 pages of V. One final note: Anyone else notice that it's getting a little smoky in the Lounge today ... (this post is the second marijuana reference today)

Interesting points, all. Thanks. I guess at the root of this is the problem I purported to sidestep but really didn't. In the NHFD case, I am deeply troubled by the intersecting problem of (i) a test that may evaluate skills different from those required by the job and (ii) the clear disparate impact of the test on certain disadvantaged groups. I just can't believe that so many more white firefighters are so much more qualified to be captains than African American firefighters. The starkness of the disparity in test results suggests to me a (serious) flaw in the test. That disparity should, in my view, significantly impact the cost/benefit analysis of finding a better test. The question of who decides is a good one and very tricky, especially here where the employer thought it was a great test until they saw the results, and I guess we all know what the Court thought. And, yes, I agree, Anon, this intersection (bad test/disparity) is reproduced in so many other areas of education and employment, including law school exams, the Bar exam, and law professor hiring. (as for offensive linemen, I'm sure I'd have an opinion if I knew anything about what they do!)

Fair enough. And you are absolutely right that all players have to take the Wonderlic (though my understanding, admittedly minimal, is that particular attention is paid to how quarterbacks score, because of the premium placed on the quarterback's ability to make decisions and memorize plays etc). But putting the flaws in the analogy aside, what about my ultimate point about the assumptions underlying "chalk and talk" type tests -- that if a person scores well on a memorization test, or one that tests cognitive ability, they will perform well in the field (cf. bar exam)? This is where I see the connection between the Wonderlic and the NHFD test (and perhaps law school exams). I understand that the NHFD test was more elaborate than the Wonderlic (as are law school exams), but I think they are based on a similar assumptions.

Speaking of Ted Nugent, he apparently has a new reality show in which he and his son Rocco hunt down contestants (free range reality show contestants) a la "The Most Dangerous Game." It's called Runnin' Wild From Ted Nugent. I do not know what happens when Ted and Rocco catch these people -- I guess that's part of the show's allure? Check it out. Maybe you could relive part of your youth by trying out. http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/04/ted-nugent-will.html

Thanks for this interesting post calling out the Times on its penchant for euphemism. I stick with the Times, because it is better than most alternatives, but I admit that their use of language sometimes sets my teeth on edge (how's that for a visual?). Do you ever read Sunday's Public Editor column? Have you checked out the recent columns on the use of language related to the "CIA interrogation techniques"? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/opinion/26pubed.html Pretty interesting. Given that some readers excoriated the Times for its use of the adjective "brutal" to describe the practice of bashing people against walls (I guess reasonable minds can differ!), I wouldn't hold out hope that the Times will openly call for the appointment of a liberal to replace Souter. I think the Times is too easily cowed by accusations of bias. But, hey, maybe they'll do it on the editorial page -- or get Frank Rich to do it. Ok, I am done avoiding grading. Back to work.