Any Idea On The Next Announcement?

[Winco_One]

I've said this over and over again, this test was created by people who understand human behavior and psychology better than any of us ever will. They have PhD's in the subject and didnt just pull these questions/answers out of thin air just to pick on poor debt-ridden CTI students.

This is an appeal to authority fallacy. There are a lot of intelligent people who can make it through a rigorous PhD program, do lots of complex research, but are utterly inept when it comes to dealing with real people outside of the sterile bubble of academia. You can crank out a bunch of lengthy research papers and fancy statistical graphs, but none of that means shit if you can't reliably and effectively apply any of it to real world situations; the human psyche doesn't neatly conform to statistical charts and tables. Believe me—the world of psychology is loaded with intelligent, well-intentioned people, but lots of them are quacks nonetheless. Once you learn to become aware of such bullshit, you can easily spot it from great distances.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of the BQ in future hiring bids. I wonder what the FAA sniffers will say if a currently rejected applicant passes the BQ next time. If the FAA has decided that you don't have the right qualities as of now, how can you suddenly have "the right stuff" for the next bid? Well, they didn't mind administering a BQ that contradicted a bunch of people's WQ ATSAT scores, so who cares if there's no logic?

So that leaves us with a few options regarding the BQ:
1) The BQ will be tweaked because it is currently flawed.
2) If the BQ rejects an applicant and later accepts the same applicant without any tweaks, it is flawed.
3) Future applicants will game the system and pass the BQ, thus demonstrating that the BQ is an unreliable, easily manipulated, steaming pile of dung.

 

[Juan Valdez]

This is an appeal to authority fallacy. There are a lot of intelligent people who can make it through a rigorous PhD program, do lots of complex research, but are utterly inept when it comes to dealing with real people outside of the sterile bubble of academia. You can crank out a bunch of lengthy research papers and fancy statistical graphs, but none of that means shit if you can't reliably and effectively apply any of it to real world situations; the human psyche doesn't neatly conform to statistical charts and tables. Believe me—the world of psychology is loaded with intelligent, well-intentioned people, but lots of them are quacks nonetheless. Once you learn to become aware of such bullshit, you can easily spot it from great distances.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of the BQ in future hiring bids. I wonder what the FAA sniffers will say if a currently rejected applicant passes the BQ next time. If the FAA has decided that you don't have the right qualities as of now, how can you suddenly have "the right stuff" for the next bid? Well, they didn't mind administering a BQ that contradicted a bunch of people's WQ ATSAT scores, so who cares if there's no logic?

So that leaves us with a few options regarding the BQ:
1) The BQ will be tweaked because it is currently flawed.
2) If the BQ rejects an applicant and later accepts the same applicant without any tweaks, it is flawed.
3) Future applicants will game the system and pass the BQ, thus demonstrating that the BQ is an unreliable, easily manipulated, steaming pile of dung.

The pass amount was way lower than expected.

A lot of CPC's probably sat with applicants to give their insight.

The OTS don't have the resources/network the CTI/VRA's do and its much less likely they know someone who passed.

 

[Winco_One]

You picked an awful example, anyone with a basic understanding of meteorology knows global warming exists....

Most people with a basic understand of astronomy will tell you that climate change may be inevitable but is usually tied to solar activity and stellar movements. Be careful which cool-aid you choose to drink...

As someone who studies both meteorology (BTW, meteorology != climatology) and astronomy, I can tell you that the issue it is far, far more complicated than how you stated it. There are so many complex, interconnected processes at work, and you can't necessarily point to any one thing and say, "this is the reason..." However, regardless of whether any changes in our climate are a direct result of anthropogenic activity, I'd like to know how pumping hundreds of billions of tons of pollutants into our environment, while destroying our forests and polluting our oceans is somehow a defensible political ideology. I realize we can't run our world on the current forms of solar, wind, or whatever else, but this whole Red vs. Blue / Us vs. Them ideological dick measuring debate helps nobody. To nobody in particular: study the climate change issue for yourself and don't rely on fanatic TV entertainers on either side to explain it to you.

 

[DontCallMeShirley]

The OTS don't have the resources/network the CTI/VRA's do and its much less likely they know someone who passed.

You mean Google? I'm basically OTS and know two people who passed in one of my classes alone.

 

[Juan Valdez]

You mean Google? I'm basically OTS and know two people who passed in one of my classes alone.

What I meant is I think if your friends with someone who passed there is much likelier to be collusion. I can't imagine many OTS candidates (who haven't attended a CTI program at all) would know anyone who got selected personally other than searching on google and stumbling upon stuck mic. Would strangers help them? I don't know.

 

[ColdAilment]

"Congressional pressure" That's a funny joke. Congress doesn't give two shits and a ham sandwich about less than 5,000 job openings.

Oh yeah they do. Keyston XL Pipleine will only create a few hundred permanent jobs and about 2,200 temporary jobs and they are jumping all over that. I do know that many people have decided to write their congressman on this issue. How prevalent it is in the congressman's priority list is unknown, they may not even know that people think there's an issue with the FAA hiring process. Remains to be seen.

 

[ColdAilment]

This is an appeal to authority fallacy. There are a lot of intelligent people who can make it through a rigorous PhD program, do lots of complex research, but are utterly inept when it comes to dealing with real people outside of the sterile bubble of academia. You can crank out a bunch of lengthy research papers and fancy statistical graphs, but none of that means shit if you can't reliably and effectively apply any of it to real world situations; the human psyche doesn't neatly conform to statistical charts and tables. Believe me—the world of psychology is loaded with intelligent, well-intentioned people, but lots of them are quacks nonetheless. Once you learn to become aware of such bullshit, you can easily spot it from great distances.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of the BQ in future hiring bids. I wonder what the FAA sniffers will say if a currently rejected applicant passes the BQ next time. If the FAA has decided that you don't have the right qualities as of now, how can you suddenly have "the right stuff" for the next bid? Well, they didn't mind administering a BQ that contradicted a bunch of people's WQ ATSAT scores, so who cares if there's no logic?

So that leaves us with a few options regarding the BQ:
1) The BQ will be tweaked because it is currently flawed.
2) If the BQ rejects an applicant and later accepts the same applicant without any tweaks, it is flawed.
3) Future applicants will game the system and pass the BQ, thus demonstrating that the BQ is an unreliable, easily manipulated, steaming pile of dung.

I gotta agree with this. It makes sense.

There will definitely be people who fail it the first time and pass it the next time. It's not like their personality changed...

 

[ColdAilment]

As someone who studies both meteorology (BTW, meteorology != climatology) and astronomy, I can tell you that the issue it is far, far more complicated than how you stated it. There are so many complex, interconnected processes at work, and you can't necessarily point to any one thing and say, "this is the reason..." However, regardless of whether any changes in our climate are a direct result of anthropogenic activity, I'd like to know how pumping hundreds of billions of tons of pollutants into our environment, while destroying our forests and polluting our oceans is somehow a defensible political ideology. I realize we can't run our world on the current forms of solar, wind, or whatever else, but this whole Red vs. Blue / Us vs. Them ideological dick measuring debate helps nobody. To nobody in particular: study the climate change issue for yourself and don't rely on fanatic TV entertainers on either side to explain it to you.

PERFECT! Preach on.

 

[GS3k]

This is an appeal to authority fallacy. There are a lot of intelligent people who can make it through a rigorous PhD program, do lots of complex research, but are utterly inept when it comes to dealing with real people outside of the sterile bubble of academia. You can crank out a bunch of lengthy research papers and fancy statistical graphs, but none of that means shit if you can't reliably and effectively apply any of it to real world situations; the human psyche doesn't neatly conform to statistical charts and tables. Believe me—the world of psychology is loaded with intelligent, well-intentioned people, but lots of them are quacks nonetheless. Once you learn to become aware of such bullshit, you can easily spot it from great distances.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of the BQ in future hiring bids. I wonder what the FAA sniffers will say if a currently rejected applicant passes the BQ next time. If the FAA has decided that you don't have the right qualities as of now, how can you suddenly have "the right stuff" for the next bid? Well, they didn't mind administering a BQ that contradicted a bunch of people's WQ ATSAT scores, so who cares if there's no logic?

So that leaves us with a few options regarding the BQ:
1) The BQ will be tweaked because it is currently flawed.
2) If the BQ rejects an applicant and later accepts the same applicant without any tweaks, it is flawed.
3) Future applicants will game the system and pass the BQ, thus demonstrating that the BQ is an unreliable, easily manipulated, steaming pile of dung.

This gives the appearance of being a well reasoned argument but it's not.

First of all calling a "lot" of psychologists quacks and saying that research papers and statistics made by Ph.D.s don't apply in the real world is downright laughable. I guess that's one way to try to debunk the fact that people with a lot more qualifications than you made the B.Q. It's not even an appeal to authority either, in the "real world" people tend to ascribe a certain sense of proficiency to those who went through these rigorous programs and successfully completed them. You're walking down a very slippery slope, besides nobody ever said that they were right or wrong just that we don't have any sort of credentials to attack their findings. Frankly neither do you despite your claim to be some sort of psychological savant who can spot the "B.S." of hundreds of thousands possibly even millions of man hours that psychologists have been putting forth to understanding the human psyche from miles away.

#1) The B.Q. could be tweaked but more than likely it will just be re-weighted. If you want to say that this is because it's flawed then go ahead but that doesn't necessarily mean that the B.Q. is without merit. Few things ever work one hundred percent correctly out of the gate.
#2) Not necessarily, out of 29,000 applicants the ones it took are more than likely near the top of the scale. It just means they're taking the next series of candidates. There won't be that many new applicants in the next bid more than likely.
#3) That's assuming that it's going to be the same questions that are going to be asked. Who knows what the next B.Q. will hold.


To everyone else, if you want to say that your AT-SAT is valid and a good indicator because of statistical research made by those with doctorates and then turn around and say that you can't trust the B.Q. I just don't understand how you can pick and choose when these assessments are valid and when they're not, quit cherry picking. The B.Q. may have only had sixty questions but if you read the personality thread it seemed to be pretty consistent when it came to identifying people with similar personalities.

 

[phillyman2633]

There are a lot of intelligent people who can make it through a rigorous PhD program, do lots of complex research, but are utterly inept when it comes to dealing with real people outside of the sterile bubble of academia.

I witness this shit on a daily basis at work. I work in facilities maintenance at Riddle and interact with professors regularly, you would not believe how detached from reality some of these people are. I take masters classes through the Riddle Worldwide (online) campus and tried going and sitting in on weekly meetings here on campus to try to get some hands-on research and had to literally stop going to these meetings because I couldn't handle the entitlement and ineptitude.

 

[NovemberEcho]

The BQ told a large number of air traffic controllers that they don't have what it takes to be an air traffic controller. The BQ's argument is invalid. If it was just a small number of current ATC'ers who were DQ'd, I could understand, but of at least 20+ controllers I know personally who applied, only 3 weren't DQ'd by the BQ.

 

[RedBullRiot13]

As someone who studies both meteorology (BTW, meteorology != climatology) and astronomy, I can tell you that the issue it is far, far more complicated than how you stated it. There are so many complex, interconnected processes at work, and you can't necessarily point to any one thing and say, "this is the reason..." However, regardless of whether any changes in our climate are a direct result of anthropogenic activity, I'd like to know how pumping hundreds of billions of tons of pollutants into our environment, while destroying our forests and polluting our oceans is somehow a defensible political ideology. I realize we can't run our world on the current forms of solar, wind, or whatever else, but this whole Red vs. Blue / Us vs. Them ideological dick measuring debate helps nobody. To nobody in particular: study the climate change issue for yourself and don't rely on fanatic TV entertainers on either side to explain it to you.

you can measure my dick if you want to

all CTI schools received a letter from the FAA talking about this recent hiring as well as future hiring processes. The FAA mentioned that they will "continue to evaluate and improve [their] recruitment and applicant assessment process." How I see this is that they are thankfully realizing the BQ may not have been the Most effective evaluation of applications and hopefully the next evaluation process is changed for the better.

 

[rjaeger13]

This gives the appearance of being a well reasoned argument but it's not.

First of all calling a "lot" of psychologists quacks and saying that research papers and statistics made by Ph.D.s don't apply in the real world is downright laughable. I guess that's one way to try to debunk the fact that people with a lot more qualifications than you made the B.Q. It's not even an appeal to authority either, in the "real world" people tend to ascribe a certain sense of proficiency to those who went through these rigorous programs and successfully completed them. You're walking down a very slippery slope, besides nobody ever said that they were right or wrong just that we don't have any sort of credentials to attack their findings. Frankly neither do you despite your claim to be some sort of psychological savant who can spot the "B.S." of hundreds of thousands possibly even millions of man hours that psychologists have been putting forth to understanding the human psyche from miles away.

#1) The B.Q. could be tweaked but more than likely it will just be re-weighted. If you want to say that this is because it's flawed then go ahead but that doesn't necessarily mean that the B.Q. is without merit. Few things ever work one hundred percent correctly out of the gate.
#2) Not necessarily, out of 29,000 applicants the ones it took are more than likely near the top of the scale. It just means they're taking the next series of candidates. There won't be that many new applicants in the next bid more than likely.
#3) That's assuming that it's going to be the same questions that are going to be asked. Who knows what the next B.Q. will hold.


To everyone else, if you want to say that your AT-SAT is valid and a good indicator because of statistical research made by those with doctorates and then turn around and say that you can't trust the B.Q. I just don't understand how you can pick and choose when these assessments are valid and when they're not, quit cherry picking. The B.Q. may have only had sixty questions but if you read the personality thread it seemed to be pretty consistent when it came to identifying people with similar personalities.

ANYONE ELSE TIRED OF THIS GUY??

 

[GulfCharlie]

ANYONE ELSE TIRED OF THIS GUY??

Its better than the Archie League guy... Its like standing next to him using a Urninal and Archie League guy saying "Lemme see your scholong, mine is bigger and has porked many a man/woman/animal so therefore I am better."

 

[kas2686]

ANYONE ELSE TIRED OF THIS GUY??

Yes.

 

[rjaeger13]

Its better than the Archie League guy... Its like standing next to him using a Urninal and Archie League guy saying "Lemme see your scholong, mine is bigger and has porked many a man/woman/animal so therefore I am better."

Ha. it's like, ok ok..... cool, dude, you were selected from a random mystical BQ set of 60 questions..... stop trying to justify WHY you were selected. If you were NOT selected you would be pissing and moaning like the rest of us..... SEAHAWKS FOOTBALL RULES! Boom.

 

[Zedd]

In response to people saying the BQ is invalid due to CPC's failing it, could it be possible that the BioQ is designed to identify those who would have a higher success rate? Not whether or not you CAN be a controller, but if you are LIKELY to become a controller.

Just playing devils advocate here. I think that in me making it and multiple CTI grads I know not making it is pretty fucked up.

 

[DaOsprey]

Ha. it's like, ok ok..... cool, dude, you were selected from a random mystical BQ set of 60 questions..... stop trying to justify WHY you were selected. If you were NOT selected you would be pissing and moaning like the rest of us..... SEAHAWKS FOOTBALL RULES! Boom.

Actually I applied under a different hiring authority thank you.

 

[GulfCharlie]

^Same

 

[charliezuluatc]

The admin of this site is once again, asleep at the helm.