He told me that I did well on the math section of the qualifying test. He then talked about a few sentences that I wrote during the "critical thinking" part of the test and that he said were a "red flag," because I had said that I didn't want to have to be someone who does animal testing for work. The question that the test had asked was about how you would know which of two liquids that looked the same was toxic. There was nothing on the test that said you couldn't have reservations about animal testing to be accepted to the program; the test didn't even talk about animal testing.
I had written several paragraphs to answer the question. First, I said that I didn't want to have to be someone who tests on animals for work. Then, I said that if I were someone who didn't feel that way, I could take two animals and put each of them in its own cage with some gauze that had liquid from one of the bottles on it, and that if one of the animals got sick then I'd know which liquid was toxic.
I then gave other methods of testing the liquids:
-testing each liquid with something to which the liquid that you're trying to identify has a chemical reaction that turns it another color
-testing for the freezing or boiling points of each liquid. I said that testing for the freezing point would probably be safer than testing for the boiling point, and that you should wear goggles and gloves for all of the testing.
I never said that animal testing should be illegal or that people who test on animals are bad, or anything like that.
He actually was trying to tell me that the entire decision not even to have me do the application or to interview me for the program was made on the basis of that one test answer. There were several other sections of the critical thinking of the test, and I know that I did not do badly on any section of the test.
I said that I couldn't believe that I was being excluded without anyone even having talked to me first about my answer. He said that there would be animal testing as part of the training. I said "I understand that and I never said that I wouldn't do what I had to do for the training. There are a lot of jobs that this program trains people for that don't require animal testing."
He said "I'm sorry that you don't think (the decision not to accept you) was the right decision."
I said "I don't." Then I asked if there were someone to whom I could speak about the decision. He said he didn't know, but that he would try to have someone call me. I don't think that I'm wrong that he meant he would have someone call me to tell me that it's a final decision and there's nothing that I can do about it, although he didn't say that. I said "I can't believe that I'm being treated like this. I'm qualified for this program."
He said that he would see what he could do.
Obviously, when they made their decision before that phone call, they were looking for anything that they could use as an excuse not to accept me to the program.
How many times have people written to my blogs accusing me of being a drain on the taxpayers, on people who "work for a living"?
This is the third employment training program in a row that has rejected me. I do everything that I'm asked to do for these programs. I am qualified. I am being denied these opportunities because the conglomerate persecutes me and everyone who doesn't abuse me.
Copyright L. Kochman, December 4, 2015 @ 2:04 p.m.
