View Full Version : This explains a lot about the NY cops......
Team Sergeant
01-19-2016, 16:01
Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops
A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.
“This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class,” Jordan said today from his Waterford home. “I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”
He said he does not plan to take any further legal action.
Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.
Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.
Jordan alleged his rejection from the police force was discrimination. He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law.
But the U.S. District Court found that New London had “shown a rational basis for the policy.” In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.
Jordan has worked as a prison guard since he took the test.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836
ddoering
01-19-2016, 16:28
He can't be that smart since he doesn't know you can change your gender.
I read a tweet on this @#dumblivesmatter.
GratefulCitizen
01-19-2016, 18:39
Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.
Let's extrapolate this...
Many occupations can get boring.
Employers want a large supply of cheap, fungible labor.
What corporations are all for common core in public schools?
Is public education really about developing each student to their personal best?
:munchin
I would hope that he goes to law school and become the DAY there so they would have to work for him to get the case prosecuted.
Da gummint isa fool o' dummasses...
It's a sad day when any occupation would hire a D- student and not the A+ student because he is too smart.
There is no reason that both couldn't end up making an excellent employee.
My dad was rejected for two jobs for being "too educated" for them. He is about to turn 70 and still talks about those two jobs to this day.
The decision makers in those situations were picked on as kids and now are exacting their revenge.
Scimitar
01-19-2016, 20:57
Police work boring?......sure some of it is, other stuff requires a huge skill set and intelligence base.
I suppose he can't sue for a dumb policy only a discrimatory one.
S
What does this have to do with NY Cops.:confused: New London Police Department is in Connecticut not NY.
It's a sad day when any occupation would hire a D- student and not the A+ student because he is too smart.
There is no reason that both couldn't end up making an excellent employee.
My dad was rejected for two jobs for being "too educated" for them. He is about to turn 70 and still talks about those two jobs to this day.
The decision makers in those situations were picked on as kids and now are exacting their revenge.
As a business owner for 30 plus years, I never hired over qualified/educated applicants for any position especially one that required costly training.
We are living in what can only be described as "interesting" times.
Too smart to enforce the law while interacting with the populace.
...nothing to see here, move along.
BrokenSwitch
01-20-2016, 03:21
As a business owner for 30 plus years, I never hired over qualified/educated applicants for any position especially one that required costly training.
I've been working for only two years, so I still clearly remember my job search. I didn't care what work I found, as long as I could earn enough to put money into savings and give my wife a comfortable standard of living (I could live with a cot, a mini-fridge, a shower, and an internet connection).
If you, as an employer, can meet my needs, then I would be delighted to work for you. If not, then I wouldn't take the job if you offered me the position. And if you felt that there was a chance I might go looking for greener pastures before you recovered the training costs, then why not put a minimum-obligation clause in the contract? There are companies that do this, and they will sue you for those costs if they have to fire you before that period ends.
What is so bad about an educated/skilled person who is willing to work hard?
What is so bad about an educated/skilled person who is willing to work hard?
The police state is much harder to establish with an educated populace, which would imply that creative and questioning individuals within the ranks are a NG to the future of the country. And then there is that GT score of 110......
Given the current anti-police climate that our leadership has fueled, I would think it would give a public service spokesman a great talking point if they had records of hiring high(higher) IQ officers.
The general consensus among the sweaty teaming masses today is that the police is just a bunch of racists white assholes on a power trip. This would be easy to combat if a department(s) could demonstrate hiring practices which enforce hiring the most qualified.
As a business owner for 30 plus years, I never hired over qualified/educated applicants for any position especially one that required costly training.
QP WCH - I am curious why you didn't draw a line between the public and private sector with your statement. Is there not some motivation for a police department to attract the MOST qualified individuals as these will be the people tasked with the safety of a lot of sometimes not so intelligent civilians? Should the hiring practices of a public sector employer be intrinsically different than those of a private sector employer?
UWOA (RIP)
01-20-2016, 09:26
I remember reading about htis several years ago. The department claims people that are to smart get bored and quit. I think they higer ups do not want anyone smart enough to question their bullshit illegal policies.
What he said ....
.
I remember reading about htis several years ago. The department claims people that are to smart get bored and quit. I think they higher ups do not want anyone smart enough to question their bullshit illegal policies.
I recently spoke with a current LEO with over twenty-years in the police department of one of the largest cities (Houston) in the country, and that was his primary concern. In his opinion, new officer recruits were not terribly inquisitive and would act on any order given by their superior officers, no questions asked.
What is so bad about an educated/skilled person who is willing to work hard?
Nothing, so please point out where I said that there was.
a. If you, as an employer, can meet my needs, then I would be delighted to work for you. If not, then I wouldn't take the job if you offered me the position.
b. And if you felt that there was a chance I might go looking for greener pastures before you recovered the training costs, then why not put a minimum-obligation clause in the contract? There are companies that do this, and they will sue you for those costs if they have to fire you before that period ends.
When looking to fill a position in the company.
a. First and foremost, I'm looking at what you can do for the bottom line of the company.
b. Even if that were legal, I would never want to have to use the legal system to force someone to work for the company against their will.
I recently spoke with a current LEO with over twenty-years in the police department of one of the largest cities (Houston) in the country, and that was his primary concern. In his opinion, new officer recruits were not terribly inquisitive and would act on any order given by their superior officers, no questions asked.
That's one of the worst parts about all of this. An independent and inquisitive thinker should be an asset and not traits that one would want to discourage in an employee. When that is the case...one should question whether they really want to work there or for them.
(1VB)compforce
01-20-2016, 12:40
When looking to fill a position in the company.
a. First and foremost, I'm looking at what you can do for the bottom line of the company.
b. Even if that were legal, I would never want to have to use the legal system to force someone to work for the company against their will.
Agreed.
If you, as an employer, can meet my needs, then I would be delighted to work for you. If not, then I wouldn't take the job if you offered me the position.
...
What is so bad about an educated/skilled person who is willing to work hard?
There are a couple of things that most, non-business owning, people don't consider in discussions like this. Two of the biggest factors in employment are the actual cost of hiring and the cost of firing/laying off.
As business owners, we can't really afford to take the chance of hiring someone and having them leave within a short time. Hiring expense in my industry averages 20% of first year salary. If a person is hired and then turns around and leaves, we are still stuck with that expense. On top of that, when a person is laid off or fired, you have the cost of unemployment (reflected in the company contribution to the unemployment taxes) and then the cost of hirig the replacement. Those are just the hard costs, there are soft costs and employee morale issues that go with it as well.
A person who is slightly overqualified may be worth the risk. A person who is completely overqualified is a risk that an owner can't take unless there are mitigating factors that will help ensure loyalty.
What the article is speaking of is what I would refer to as on-boarding costs. Training, equipment, the labor to get someone in the system and so on. While I don't agree with high intelligence as a basis for declining the application, I can understand exclusion of someone that is very likely to be actively recruited by other, higher paying, employers.
And if you felt that there was a chance I might go looking for greener pastures before you recovered the training costs, then why not put a minimum-obligation clause in the contract? There are companies that do this, and they will sue you for those costs if they have to fire you before that period ends.
These obligation clauses typically fail in court except in the case of company officers or executives with fiduciary responsibilities. The typical employee can ignore these pretty much at will (in most jurisdictiions). Yes, the company could sue for recompense, but even if they win, it's spending a ton of legal fees to get a judgement and the likelihood of recovering actual cash is pretty low. Even if able to recover the judgement it's usually through wage garnishment, which means that we effectively cannot use the cash for a period of time. Remember, we're not hiring to try to create a debt, we're hiring to fill a need in our business, which remains unfilled as soon as you leave. We'll have to spend the money to hire again. We'd rather just get it right the first time.
To add to WCH's "b" I don't want anyone working for me that doesn't want to work for me. It would just make a strained situation worse. It would also set up scenarios that could cost me a hell of a lot more money than just rehiring.
Given the current anti-police climate that our leadership has fueled, I would think it would give a public service spokesman a great talking point if they had records of hiring high(higher) IQ officers.
The general consensus among the sweaty teaming masses today is that the police is just a bunch of racists white assholes on a power trip. This would be easy to combat if a department(s) could demonstrate hiring practices which enforce hiring the most qualified.
QP WCH - I am curious why you didn't draw a line between the public and private sector with your statement. Is there not some motivation for a police department to attract the MOST qualified individuals as these will be the people tasked with the safety of a lot of sometimes not so intelligent civilians? Should the hiring practices of a public sector employer be intrinsically different than those of a private sector employer?
Most intelligent and most qualified are not synonymous. Public sector and private sector employers should higher on criteria that are based on success and retention rates. If a company or PD has found that hiring people who score above a certain level on evaluation tests leads to a low retention then, I would say that it would be fiscally irresponsible to continue to hire those individuals. Given that PDs are spending taxpayer's dollars and publically traded corporations are spending stock holder's money makes it even more irresponsible to do so.
The biggest issue I see with the police not hiring officers who are too "smart" is that there is generally only one way on to the force. You start at the bottom and work your way up.
It might be all right for patrol officer to be 108 on the IQ test. But is 108 all you want for Detectives, Captains, and others with more responsible roles?
I get that intelligence is not everything, but it seems to me that any good sized organization would want a few brilliant people on its staff.
doctom54
01-20-2016, 18:48
I remember reading about htis several years ago. The department claims people that are to smart get bored and quit. I think they higer ups do not want anyone smart enough to question their bullshit illegal policies.
I concur
Bleed Green
01-20-2016, 19:33
I benchmarked the FDNY in 07 and was kind of shocked at their promotion system. To promote to the Lt. and Capt. levels was akin to getting a Masters Degree and going higher than that was a Phd level education to pass the tests. Years of study and tutoring and 10s of thousands of dollars to promote. I was impressed to say the least, and I was told NYPD has a similar system that they used. I guess they don't subscribe to this theory.
I benchmarked the FDNY in 07 and was kind of shocked at their promotion system. To promote to the Lt. and Capt. levels was akin to getting a Masters Degree and going higher than that was a Phd level education to pass the tests. Years of study and tutoring and 10s of thousands of dollars to promote. I was impressed to say the least, and I was told NYPD has a similar system that they used. I guess they don't subscribe to this theory.
^^^^^And what does USBP subscribe to?
BrokenSwitch
01-21-2016, 02:22
WCH and (1VB)compforce, thank you for your replies. I understood the concerns about retention, but I had no idea about the 20%-of-first-year-salary cost of hiring (though my boss already told me that the annual cost of employing me is almost 1.5x my actual paycheck).
WCH, you're absolutely right about minimum-obligation clauses indicating a much larger problem, rather than fixing a smaller one. The main place I know of that applies such a thing is a job-training program that recovers its costs by taking a percentage of its graduates' wages once they are hired, for the first two years or so of their employment... sort of like a student loan, but with less paperwork and fewer interest payements.
As a new member of the workforce, it was very frustrating to see so many "entry-level" positions that were only open to students, but not fresh-out-of-college/no-worldly-experience graduates.
(1VB)compforce
01-21-2016, 05:14
The main place I know of that applies such a thing is a job-training program that recovers its costs by taking a percentage of its graduates' wages once they are hired, for the first two years or so of their employment... sort of like a student loan, but with less paperwork and fewer interest payements.
You're welcome. Training costs for professionals are a different case. I do something similar for programs I pay for with my employees. Basically, they are already employees and not eligible for training until they've been with me for a while, which is the difference. I don't hire someone to immediately train them.
In the IT industry there are certifications that benefit both the employee and the employer. I pay the costs of that type of training with the written understanding that they will stay with my company for at least a year after completion (2 years for more expensive certifications) or they must repay the cost of the trainimg. It's different because they are already qualified for, and effective in, the position before I take that risk and pay for it. They're already a fit and now we are just working on improvements that benefit them and the company.
Team Sergeant
01-22-2016, 15:16
I recently spoke with a current LEO with over twenty-years in the police department of one of the largest cities (Houston) in the country, and that was his primary concern. In his opinion, new officer recruits were not terribly inquisitive and would act on any order given by their superior officers, no questions asked.
I think our military already crossed that line when the current administration secretly negotiated with terrorists for the release of a known traitor.
And used a counter-terrorist unit to execute those illegal orders.
Roll that around in your mouth for a minute or three........
:munchin
Bleed Green
01-22-2016, 16:36
^^^^^And what does USBP subscribe to?
Our promotional test was written by psychologists that came to us due to a RIF in some other branch of govt. Our promotions tend to run in order of how well one tends to schmooze and judging by how many people with stars on their collars that have been terminated as of late, good leadership skills were optional in acquiring those stars. Since we have taken the liberty of re-writing promotion polices that go against everything that OPM has ever written ours is a mess to say the least and discriminatory and fraudulent predicated upon your perspective.