Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops

dfwtinman · Jul 9, 2013

So, all those cop shows where the detective is a stone genius are a sham? The true model is not Andy but Barney?

But, I guess that explains why Sherlock Holmes works freelance.

Said the plaintiff:

“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.”

Yep, sounds like a smart guy. Except, unfortunately for him, the government's conduct was not subjected to strict scrutiny because intelligence is not a protected class. Endangered maybe, but not protected.

Manuel Royal · Jul 9, 2013

That story's from the year 2000; that was a previous century. New London city hiring practices may have changed.

Don · Jul 9, 2013

Manuel Royal said:
That story's from the year 2000; that was a previous century. New London city hiring practices may have changed.

*slinks off with his tail between his legs, muttering...*

cornflake · Jul 9, 2013

StormChord said:
Wh– what? You can be rejected from a job for being too smart? Why is that a thing?

In all seriousness, wouldn't it be good to have more smart cops around?

Not particularly, no. I've heard this discussion for a long time here, and it's been standard for some departments to deny people who test too high forever.

It's not only that they'll bail and the municipality will have lost the $ spent on training, but other factors. Very smart cops tend not to be particular adherents to rules, which can be good in some situations, but beat cops need to follow a lot of little rules. Very smart people in general also tend toward needing or looking for more stimulus. Riding or walking around on patrol, busting the same petty crimes and doing endless boring paperwork is not stimulating. When cops are bored they either become less attentive or look for things to amuse themselves, neither of which is likely to provide a great outcome for the public.

Smart cops good, very smart cops, possibly not so good.

Johncs · Jul 9, 2013

Manuel Royal said:
That story's from the year 2000.

So these "proper" hires now have over a decade in. Much better...

Michael Wolfe · Jul 10, 2013

cornflake said:
Not particularly, no. I've heard this discussion for a long time here, and it's been standard for some departments to deny people who test too high forever.

It's not only that they'll bail and the municipality will have lost the $ spent on training, but other factors. Very smart cops tend not to be particular adherents to rules, which can be good in some situations, but beat cops need to follow a lot of little rules. Very smart people in general also tend toward needing or looking for more stimulus. Riding or walking around on patrol, busting the same petty crimes and doing endless boring paperwork is not stimulating. When cops are bored they either become less attentive or look for things to amuse themselves, neither of which is likely to provide a great outcome for the public.

Smart cops good, very smart cops, possibly not so good.

And this is all the more reason why the policy makes little sense, imo, since one has to speak in generalities in order to speak accurately about such a group.

Princess Marina · Jul 10, 2013

I think this is wonderful. I'm not sure if the UK has a similar system but it wouldn't surprise me. So Inspector Morse has no chance, anyone who can do the Times Crossword must be over the IQ standards.

cornflake · Jul 10, 2013

Michael Wolfe said:
And this is all the more reason why the policy makes little sense, imo, since one has to speak in generalities in order to speak accurately about such a group.

Of course I'm speaking in generalities - I was talking about 'smart people,' which has no particular barometer. The specific department in the suit has their own line on their own test, that they correlate TO an IQ. Other departments use full-scale IQ testing, other psychometrics, etc., and all have their own hiring scales, based on their own departments.

The scales and hiring limits and decisions can be based on various and sundry things, again depending on department, who the department consults with, etc. I don't know of a study relating cops and IQs and job performance, time on the job, or such, and I think it'd be hard to set one up as policing is a very varied occupation and hiring varies greatly as well.

alleycat · Jul 10, 2013

Princess Marina said:
I think this is wonderful. I'm not sure if the UK has a similar system but it wouldn't surprise me. So Inspector Morse has no chance, anyone who can do the Times Crossword must be over the IQ standards.

Oh, Morse could easily slip under the IQ cutoff. Just let him go to the pub for a couple of hours, or have a somewhat attractive middle-aged woman sit close by.

Chrissy · Jul 10, 2013

What if the guy was motivated to work his way up to... I dunno, Sherriff or something? Just because you start as a beat cop doesn't mean you'll always be driving around in a squad car.

Or maybe LE doesn't work like that? I mean, with most jobs you're going to start at entry level if you have no prior experience, but you can work your way up--if you're smart and motivated.

asroc · Jul 10, 2013

Well, you can't really work your way up to Sheriff as such, since that's an elected or appointed position, but career advancement is certainly possible. You do have to put in some time on patrol, but if you're motivated, you can transfer to an investigative unit eventually, or become a detective, or a supervisor.

Although it does raise the question of how much the problem is unique to New London, population 27,000. Our cops here seem to find patrol duty stimulating enough, and at least one of them has a PhD. But this is a big city and I'm fairly certain IQ is not one of their recruitment criteria.

cornflake · Jul 10, 2013

Chrissy said:
What if the guy was motivated to work his way up to... I dunno, Sherriff or something? Just because you start as a beat cop doesn't mean you'll always be driving around in a squad car.

Or maybe LE doesn't work like that? I mean, with most jobs you're going to start at entry level if you have no prior experience, but you can work your way up--if you're smart and motivated.

Of the places I know how it works, it generally does work like that, yeah. In many of the places I know how it works, you cannot come in as, say, a detective. You must start out at the bottom and test/be promoted upwards. I know there are places that do hire from the outside for some positions like sheriff or detective, or what have you, depends on the department.

cornflake · Jul 10, 2013

Just as an example (a single, anecdotal example, not meant to mean anything larger), a guy I know joined the cops as soon as he was able, and took advantage of the department-provided incentives that paid for the rest of his college degree.

Then he used the same incentives to get a master's degree, while on the job. Then petitioned for the department to pay for law school, which was granted. The department, however, wanted him to test up to detective, but he didn't want to, because he was in law school and wanted to keep the beat job with regular hours and less stress. He argued and won.

He retired from the dept. at 39, with full retirement benefits, which included 3/4 of his pay at retirement for life, with the bachelor's, master's, and JD, all paid for by the department, and decided to pursue a Ph.D and a second career. He was a good cop, certainly, but I think it could be argued that he got more out of the department than it got out of him, or that it bargained for, or whatever. Which I'm sure could be argued for others in other capacities; I'm talking about financially. I'm not saying he was wrong, certainly, or that it was, or that cops shouldn't pursue higher education, at all. I'd think there's an argument that society in general benefits from his policing experience in his second career. I'm just saying this may be the kind of thing that in theory, some departments may be thinking about as possibilities with general financial loss. Also, I think he's a flipping genius just for having thought that clearly and far ahead at 19, as that was, basically, his plan from the outset.

Chrissy · Jul 10, 2013

That rationale makes sense. In fact, lots of companies look at it like that. I think sometimes there's a payment for an employee's education in exchange for a promise to continue to work for the company for a certain number of years.

(IMO, it's pretty poor form to take the educational assistance and then say "thanks so much, buh-bye now" when you graduate.)

cornflake · Jul 10, 2013

Chrissy said:
That rationale makes sense. In fact, lots of companies look at it like that. I think sometimes there's a payment for an employee's education in exchange for a promise to continue to work for the company for a certain number of years.

(IMO, it's pretty poor form to take the educational assistance and then say "thanks so much, buh-bye now" when you graduate.)

If you're referring to the guy in my post - he put in the 20 years required for the full retirement package. Law school is just three and the original MA was one or two years. You need two years of college to enter the dept. and he did the rest of that first, so he spent 20 years on the force and maybe seven of them in school as well - didn't just get the degrees and split.

Chrissy · Jul 10, 2013

Yeah, I wasn't meaning him. Just a general statement. Some people might take the help and split, so it's wise for companies to try to protect their financial investments in an employee.

But back to the OP, I don't think that protection should including denying someone an interview because they're ubersmart, ffs.

benbradley · Jul 10, 2013

With some of the arguments I've seen here, I wonder if the same thing happens with teachers and school administrators (not necessarily an IQ test, but evaluations than some applicants might be "too smart"), else such a bright school employee might think for themselves when one student passes another an aspirin because "my period is starting" and zero-tolerance drug rules are supposed to come into effect. A smart teacher might whisper to the students "in case anyone ever asks you, I didn't see this incident."

This would completely undermine the school system's (belief that it has) complete control over the students in eliminating drugs, bullying, and all Bad Things that could possibly interfere with Proper and Good Schooling.

cornflake said:
Just as an example (a single, anecdotal example, not meant to mean anything larger), a guy I know joined the cops as soon as he was able, and took advantage of the department-provided incentives that paid for the rest of his college degree.

Then he used the same incentives to get a master's degree, while on the job. Then petitioned for the department to pay for law school, which was granted. The department, however, wanted him to test up to detective, but he didn't want to, because he was in law school and wanted to keep the beat job with regular hours and less stress. He argued and won.

He retired from the dept. at 39, with full retirement benefits, which included 3/4 of his pay at retirement for life, with the bachelor's, master's, and JD, all paid for by the department, and decided to pursue a Ph.D and a second career. He was a good cop, certainly, but I think it could be argued that he got more out of the department than it got out of him, or that it bargained for, or whatever. Which I'm sure could be argued for others in other capacities; I'm talking about financially. I'm not saying he was wrong, certainly, or that it was, or that cops shouldn't pursue higher education, at all. I'd think there's an argument that society in general benefits from his policing experience in his second career. I'm just saying this may be the kind of thing that in theory, some departments may be thinking about as possibilities with general financial loss. Also, I think he's a flipping genius just for having thought that clearly and far ahead at 19, as that was, basically, his plan from the outset.

If there's a "problem" in this scenario that I can see, it's that the department's tuition reimbursement program is a bit too liberal.

rugcat · Jul 10, 2013

asroc said:
Although it does raise the question of how much the problem is unique to New London, population 27,000. Our cops here seem to find patrol duty stimulating enough, and at least one of them has a PhD. But this is a big city and I'm fairly certain IQ is not one of their recruitment criteria.

I started out as a small town cop, and was quickly bored -- even though it was my own town that I cared about. But after a while, as with any job you care about, you want bigger challenges and more of an opportunity to make a difference. So I did leave because I was bored -- not with law enforcement, but with the job in a small department.

When I moved to a medium sized city (380 sworn officers) I was not bored at all.

Of course, I'm not that bright in the first place, but we had a lot of cops who really were.

cornflake. said:
Very smart cops tend not to be particular adherents to rules, which can be good in some situations, but beat cops need to follow a lot of little rules.

I actually agree with this. But if they make it through the first few years and move up to detective division, those very smart people become invaluable investigators.

cornflake · Jul 10, 2013

rugcat said:
I started out as a small town cop, and was quickly bored -- even though it was my own town that I cared about. But after a while, as with any job you care about, you want bigger challenges and more of an opportunity to make a difference. So I did leave because I was bored -- not with law enforcement, but with the job in a small department.

When I moved to a medium sized city (380 sworn officers) I was not bored at all.

Of course, I'm not that bright in the first place, but we had a lot of cops who really were.I actually agree with this. But if they make it through the first few years and move up to detective division, those very smart people become invaluable investigators.

That's what I was saying about departments having different standards, depending. In a department they need a lot of detectives and have a lot of varying opportunities to place someone who can be tagged as a candidate for advancement, possibly less downside to hiring someone with an outsized IQ than for a department with few detective positions and little for them to investigate.

Even small departments could vary. A small department in rural Alaska, in which there are only a few troopers, but those troopers have may have to deal with a much wider variety of situations across a huge area, without reasonably available supervisory support, could theoretically be open to applicants with a different psychological profile in many ways than a department with a few troopers in a small, traditionally-situated town.

Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops

dfwtinman

Cubic Zirconia in the rough

Manuel Royal

Don

All Living is Local

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

Johncs

This space for rent

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana

Princess Marina

Princess Marina

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

alleycat

Still around

Chrissy

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

asroc

Alex

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

Chrissy

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

Chrissy

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world

rugcat

Lost in the Fog

cornflake

practical experience, FTW