Police Can Bar High I.Q. Scores

[Scott Free]

METRO NEWS BRIEFS: CONNECTICUT; Judge Rules That Police Can Bar High I.Q. Scores


A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a man who was barred from the New London police force because he scored too high on an intelligence test.
In a ruling made public on Tuesday, Judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven agreed that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, was denied an opportunity to interview for a police job because of his high test scores. But he said that that did not mean Mr. Jordan was a victim of discrimination.
Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.
Mr. Jordan, 48, who has a bachelor's degree in literature and is an officer with the State Department of Corrections, said he was considering an appeal. ''I was eliminated on the basis of my intellectual makeup,'' he said. ''It's the same as discrimination on the basis of gender or religion or race.''

- Source

I know someone who couldn't become an RCMP officer because his IQ was too high.

And we wonder why there is so much corruption in government. "Have the RCMP investigate the allegations of wrong doing," they say. :roll:

What is the point when the police aren't even capable of understanding the crime? 8O

 

[Praxius]

Just because the guy is smarter then the average police officer, that doesn't default them all to stupidity.

 

[missile]

Also sure he can be just as brutal as the ones with normal I.Q's

 

[karrie]

What's the cut off in iq for being able to be a police officer (Scott, I'm doubting it's below 100... lol).

And the reasoning? Do they make worse officers? Work worse with others or the public? Are they less able to access their training and function on pure muscle memory? What is it exactly?

 

[Kreskin]

If their IQ's are so high why aren't they intentionally getting questions wrong to come within range?

 

[#juan]

This sounds almost too silly. In most Services, military or police, the cream would eventually rise to the top. I can't think of a good reason to ban anyone because they were too intelligent...:roll:

 

[Nuggler]

This sounds almost too silly. In most Services, military or police, the cream would eventually rise to the top. I can't think of a good reason to ban anyone because they were too intelligent...:roll:

Well, if you're the man in charge, and you're a dumb dork, and know it; it's wise to prevent too many smart dorks from sneakin up behind ya.........."job wise", eh...............Check out the Fed. Gov........8O

Some cream rises. By the time it works it's way to the top, it's usually sour.........

:read2:eh!

 

[#juan]

God.....You're cynical........;-)

 

[karrie]

This sounds almost too silly. In most Services, military or police, the cream would eventually rise to the top. I can't think of a good reason to ban anyone because they were too intelligent...:roll:

They didn't say they were intelligent, they said they scored high on standardized intelligence tests. I've met plenty of people with high iq's... I swear they're some of the dumbest people on the planet. Please don't ask what my iq is... lol.

 

[Colpy]

What's the cut off in iq for being able to be a police officer (Scott, I'm doubting it's below 100... lol).

And the reasoning? Do they make worse officers? Work worse with others or the public? Are they less able to access their training and function on pure muscle memory? What is it exactly?

I remember seeing a 60 Minutes piece on this guy when the issue first arose.........he first took action against the Police Dep't because he thought they were engaging in age discrimination (he was 44, I believe, when he applied).......only when the suit got underway did he discover it was his IQ that disqualified him.

The reason given for rejecting high IQ applicants?

To train an officer costs between $100,000 and $150,000.

The vast, vast majority of police work is dull, boring, uninspiring.............simply drudge stuff.

Studies have shown that the higher the IQ of the officer, the sooner he gets bored and disgusted, and walks away from the work............thus requiring the Force to spend another $150,000 to train a new officer. Thus the preference for officers of merely average intelligence....they are much more apt to stay with the job....they are, in the eyes of the bean-counters, a better investment.

Stupid Stupid sTupid Stupid

Obviously, whomever came up with this requirement would have had a long, happy career as a traffic cop.

 

[karrie]

thanks Colpy, that's illuminating.

I don't think it's 'right', especially knowing the officers I know..... I know I'm not 'smart' enough to do their job.... but it makes sense the way you explained it.

 

[Praxius]

What's the cut off in iq for being able to be a police officer (Scott, I'm doubting it's below 100... lol).

And the reasoning? Do they make worse officers? Work worse with others or the public? Are they less able to access their training and function on pure muscle memory? What is it exactly?

Perhaps on previous studies and police reports, that on average, those with a higher IQ have tended to either overthink a situation that might have cost someone their safety or life, or they tend to be more resistant to following orders they may question..... in other words, perhaps they're too much of a bother.

Couple of posts added since I responded above, so disregard if you like.

 

[hermanntrude]

surely rejecting someone from a job based on an arbitrary score such as their IQ (which has been shown to be a fairly poor indicater of intelligence) is discrimination?

 

[karrie]

surely rejecting someone from a job based on an arbitrary score such as their IQ (which has been shown to be a fairly poor indicater of intelligence) is discrimination?

What sorts of defining factors can we possibly have for ruling out a job? If something is a proven risk factor for costing them more money (obesity, previous injury, likelihood they'll be dissatisfied, drug addiction), then is it justified?

 

[hermanntrude]

do you suppose that IQ bears any correlation to the risk factor for an employee? You study psychology, don't you? and you know that IQ tests are very fallible and not a good indicator of intelligence

 

[Outta here]

I'd be interested to know if the 'intelligence' tests were designed to highlight different 'types' of intelligence. There are, I think, different areas of IQ strength.. For example, someone who's brilliant at rearranging pieces of a puzzle until it forms a coherent picture might be only average with mathematical equations.

So an overall test might evaluate the sum of all the different categories of strength, but for a specific job, a specific area of strength may stand out as incompatible for that line of work.

 

[karrie]

do you suppose that IQ bears any correlation to the risk factor for an employee? You study psychology, don't you? and you know that IQ tests are very fallible and not a good indicator of intelligence

IQ tests aren't a good indicator of general intelligence no. I even said that in this thread. I think it's a stupid policy on their part. But, a high IQ score would indicate a propensity toward enjoying or seeking mental challenge. And if the job lacks that, then they may have a case.

My point wasn't that they're right, but, what sorts of factors are ever 'good' factors for excluding someone from a job?

 

[Tonington]

What sorts of defining factors can we possibly have for ruling out a job? If something is a proven risk factor for costing them more money (obesity, previous injury, likelihood they'll be dissatisfied, drug addiction), then is it justified?

I believe that argument was thrown out when pregnant mothers were being canned. A young male driver is also more likely to cost an insurance company money, but that doesn't mean they can discriminate against us without due cause(ie. a history of accidents,) at least not anymore. You obviously need to have physical attributes, the PARE test weans out the lardos. Weaning out someone perceived to be intelligent is plain nuts.

No matter how it's sliced, it's a discriminatory practice. Maybe they should use the aptitude scores like the Military does. If you score high, your range of jobs available becomes larger. It's pretty wasteful to have talents go unused. So maybe this guy makes a better investigator than a beat cop.

 

[Scott Free]

Just because the guy is smarter then the average police officer, that doesn't default them all to stupidity.

Relative to him it does.

 

[Scott Free]

If their IQ's are so high why aren't they intentionally getting questions wrong to come within range?

This isn't common knowledge so they don't realize they should do that. I'm surprised though, you don't have to talk to many police officer to realize they aren't the brightest bunch.