Want to become a cop? Better not be *intelligent*

[Formless]

You read that right. At least, so says the Courts in New York:

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.

I mean, seriously, the police are allowed to discriminate against smart people when hiring. What more needs to be said? That's fucked up on such a basic level I don't know what to say. That on top of this the courts don't seem to understand what discrimination looks like is also hilarious in that "I want to strangle myself" kind of way.

[Simon_Jester]

The hiring policy itself is self-parodically bad.

But how has the court misunderstood the definition of discrimination?

[Formless]

Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category.

That. Saying that the police department isn't discriminating against intelligent people because they discriminate consistently is a bit like saying the KKK isn't racist because they hate all people of African decent, and not just those who live in the US.

[Formless]

Frankly, there are two problems I have with that argument:

1. It smells like thinly veiled bullshit on the part of the police department. What evidence is there that high intelligence correlates to low motivation in police work, and thus high turnover? That proposition should be considered suspect. Dumb people are more likely to follow bad orders, after all, its a principle militiaries worldwide have employed for ages. Also, if this were true shouldn't the correlation be found in other blue collar fields? That includes highly prestigious blue clue collar work like firefighting and medicine, by the way. If not, what makes police work special?

2. Even if the latter correlation was supported by evidence (the standard by which an assumption is demonstrated not to be a prejudice), it may still be discriminatory if the test fails to work as advertised on an individual basis-- in other words, if it spits back highly intelligent but also highly motivated police who apply for the job. Discrimination is defined at the level of the individual as well, if you hadn't noticed.

Edit: Of course, it goes without saying that I (hell, even the courts) question whether high turnover should override the blatantly obvious need for police who are higher than average intelligence.

[Teebs]

Does a big department like the NYPD not have career advancement prospects anyway? Certainly in the UK police forces after doing 2 years on the beat you can go off to other, potentially more interesting areas. I don't see how being a more senior officer or doing specialist work is going to be any less stimulating/rewarding for someone than any other career.

[Darth Wong]

Contradiction spotting time:

2. Even if the latter correlation was supported by evidence (the standard by which an assumption is demonstrated not to be a prejudice) ...

Edit: Of course, it goes without saying that I (hell, even the courts) question whether high turnover should override the blatantly obvious need for police who are higher than average intelligence.

So ... if something strikes you as self-evident, then you do not require evidence, but if it strikes other people as self-evident, then they are making assumptions from prejudice?

In any case, if they've been collecting IQ data on new hires for a while, it's entirely possible that they do have job turnover data to justify the policy. Intelligence is not a protected category like race or gender (after all, no one cries foul if a company refuses to hire stupid people), so it's possible to have justified discrimination on the basis of intelligence.

[Gerald Tarrant]

Does a big department like the NYPD not have career advancement prospects anyway? Certainly in the UK police forces after doing 2 years on the beat you can go off to other, potentially more interesting areas. I don't see how being a more senior officer or doing specialist work is going to be any less stimulating/rewarding for someone than any other career.

The City that was being sued wasn't New York, it was New London Connecticut. The suit was resolved in a Federal appeals court located in New York City. Wikipedia's page listed it's ([edit] New London's[/edit])population as only 27,000. So I think it's unlikely that they have very many advancement opportunities.

[darkjedi521]

The City that was being sued wasn't New York, it was New London Connecticut. The suit was resolved in a Federal appeals court located in New York City. Wikipedia's page listed it's ([edit] New London's[/edit])population as only 27,000. So I think it's unlikely that they have very many advancement opportunities.

Ah, New London, CT. The same city that brought us the lovely Kelso decision. There's not much out in that corner of the state except two Indian casinos, a Navy base, Electric Boat, and the US Coast Guard Academy. Groton/New London is the major metro area for that part of the state, next nearest large cities are Providence and Hartford.

[Simon_Jester]

Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category.

That. Saying that the police department isn't discriminating against intelligent people because they discriminate consistently is a bit like saying the KKK isn't racist because they hate all people of African decent, and not just those who live in the US.

So, is it discrimination against tall people if I only hire short, lightweight people to be horse jockies?

[Formless]

So ... if something strikes you as self-evident, then you do not require evidence, but if it strikes other people as self-evident, then they are making assumptions from prejudice?

Not what I intended. I meant the latter statement as a value judgement on how I think police departments should be hiring-- that I would prefer the cops to be overqualified but fewer of them due to turnover than for there to be lots of cops on the street who are 20 IQ points less intelligent than myself by design of the hiring policies (as opposed to a bias due to average intelligence being, well, average). Lower intelligence means higher likelihood of negligence, incompetence, and corruption from the force, and I'm not sure it's worth that risk just to save a few dollars on training new officers.

In any case, if they've been collecting IQ data on new hires for a while, it's entirely possible that they do have job turnover data to justify the policy. Intelligence is not a protected category like race or gender (after all, no one cries foul if a company refuses to hire stupid people), so it's possible to have justified discrimination on the basis of intelligence.

Yes, but on the other hand the justification for selecting against low intelligence applicants is that the may lack basic competence. Turnover on the other hand is an economic justification, and where law enforcement is concerned not the same priority. According to the article, even the court questioned the wisdom of this practice, even if it is legal.

[Formless]

So, is it discrimination against tall people if I only hire short, lightweight people to be horse jockies?

Obviously not, if tallness and lightness are qualities demonstrably connected to bad performance on the track. Unless you want to be pedantic and point out that there is a such thing as positive discrimination, which I will point out now before someone says it is obviously not what I am talking about.

[Simon_Jester]

According to the article, even the court questioned the wisdom of this practice, even if it is legal.

That's the crux of the matter- the New London police department's practices may be deeply stupid and incredibly counterproductive, without being illegal, and without the court justly being able to ban the practices.

There's nothing in the rules that says you can't shoot yourself in the foot, in other words.

[evilsoup]

Lower intelligence means higher likelihood of negligence, incompetence, and corruption from the force

Incompetence maybe, but why do you think that people with high IQs are less likely to be negligent or corrupt?

[Formless]

Lower intelligence means higher likelihood of negligence, incompetence, and corruption from the force

Prove it.

See every other profession on earth.

Incompetence maybe, but why do you think that people with high IQs are less likely to be negligent or corrupt?

Because those tendencies can be seen in more intelligent people in general? Sure, its not 100% failsafe, but at the very least the ability to think for oneself tends to help avoid doing stupid or blameworthy things because you were told to do them or pressured into doing them.

[Akhlut]

Not what I intended. I meant the latter statement as a value judgement on how I think police departments should be hiring-- that I would prefer the cops to be overqualified but fewer of them due to turnover than for there to be lots of cops on the street who are 20 IQ points less intelligent than myself by design of the hiring policies (as opposed to a bias due to average intelligence being, well, average).

Do you have any evidence that the 20 point increase in intelligence (which is just over 1 standard deviation over average) in the average officer would offset the potential losses in manpower? Remember that crime scene investigation types are, generally, going to be actual scientists hired expressly because they are scientists, so your average beat cop is not going to need to be extraordinarily well-versed in entomology to figure out how long a corpse has been in the woods based on which insect larva are currently eating it. Now, the offset of a general increase in officer intelligence can probably be tolerated if (and I'm making assumptions here) the loss in manpower is maybe 5-10%, but if you see a drastic reduction, well, I strongly suspect that the gains in intelligence are going to be worthless. If I need 30 cops on patrol during a given shift, then having only 15 of them with IQs of 130 aren't going to be more useful to do things like pull over drunk drivers, respond to dispatch calls, and so forth because being more intelligent than average won't make sobriety tests go faster, won't make ticket-writing go faster, and won't make response times faster (especially with only 50% of the number of officers you require).

Lower intelligence means higher likelihood of negligence, incompetence, and corruption from the force, and I'm not sure it's worth that risk just to save a few dollars on training new officers.

While other people have already covered the negligence, incompetence, and corruption angle, I'd like to present a source on how much it costs to train a police officer.

http://www.13wmaz.com/news/graphics/Cal ... rnover.pdf <- Oh, hey! This is exactly the document we need!

On page 4, we learn that the total cost of replacing an officer without any particular special training is nearly $60,000US (at least in that area). Not exactly a small chunk of change, especially these days with many local municipalities experiencing very strong budget constraints. A small municipal department that has to replace two officers in a year might find itself unable to replace them, thus leading to manpower shortages. Whoops.

Yes, but on the other hand the justification for selecting against low intelligence applicants is that the may lack basic competence.

They're not hiring retards, they're hiring people of average intelligence. Further, LEO hiring is usually fairly stringent in comparison to, say, office worker hiring. Turns out that, even from a simple cover-your-ass viewpoint, it's a lot better to weed out incompetent officers because it will cost the department a lot of money in lawsuits over the years. Remember, it costs a shitload of money to train these people, so they will want to make sure they're hiring competent people, even if they aren't of genius-level intellect.

[Akhlut]

See every other profession on earth.

Investment bankers and corporate officers; they tend to be very intelligent people. They also are more likely to be negligent or corrupt.

Because those tendencies can be seen in more intelligent people in general? Sure, its not 100% failsafe, but at the very least the ability to think for oneself tends to help avoid doing stupid or blameworthy things because you were told to do them or pressured into doing them.

Smart people can be negligent simply because they don't care about their work or get bored with it, while I'd submit it's much easier for them to be corrupt, because they can figure out how to hide it better.

[evilsoup]

You may have noticed that we are going through a global economic crisis brought on by highly intelligent but negligent and corrupt bankers.

Intelligence doesn't preclude laziness or complacency (and hence negligence), nor does it preclude corruption. What you are saying fits in with my biases, which is why I'm going to demand you provide some evidence for your assertion that people who score high on IQ tests (or your intelligence measurement of choice) tend to be less negligent and corrupt.

[Stark]

In any case, if they've been collecting IQ data on new hires for a while, it's entirely possible that they do have job turnover data to justify the policy. Intelligence is not a protected category like race or gender (after all, no one cries foul if a company refuses to hire stupid people), so it's possible to have justified discrimination on the basis of intelligence.

The article only talks about this one test (which they correlate to IQ) - do we know if they do other 'psychometric' testing? There are far more reliable ways to determine retention than saying 'he was too clever'. I imagine that police work - especially entry-level police work - has very specific demands that don't suit someone who is older, or has his specific personality or 'work style'. For all we know he's argumentative, opinionated, doesn't work well with superiors that may be younger than him, a lack of responsibility, dislike for long hours, or any number of other things that would be undesirable.

That said, I was under the impression police recruiting in the US was difficult and that they didn't get the luxury of choice in this way.

[Akhlut]

That said, I was under the impression police recruiting in the US was difficult and that they didn't get the luxury of choice in this way.

My source in an above post cites training alone as costing over $20,000US for an officer; even if they have shortages of manpower, I'd strongly suspect they're still going to be stringent in hiring simply due to budget constraints. A city just can't continually hire officers if any they hire turn out to be ill-fitted or decide to quit (as then, as my source above notes it'd then cost $60k to replace any officers).

[Stark]

Oh yeah, retention is a big deal in any skilled field, but if this is a retention issue it must be a very serious one.

[Darth Wong]

Turnover on the other hand is an economic justification, and where law enforcement is concerned not the same priority. According to the article, even the court questioned the wisdom of this practice, even if it is legal.

I don't know whether it's a good idea, as I don't have the necessary data. But neither do you, and that doesn't seem to be stopping you from emphatically declaring that it's a bad idea.

You can't dismiss turnover as an important factor. Others have mentioned the cost of training, but even if we disregard that, high turnover is a sign of bad performance.

Do you think a person who quits a job was happy and motivated and trying really hard right up until the moment he quit? That's not how it works. People quit jobs because they've been unhappy with them for a long time, and that means you're talking about an unmotivated employee who has probably not been doing his best for quite some time.

[Formless]

They're not hiring retards, they're hiring people of average intelligence. Further, LEO hiring is usually fairly stringent in comparison to, say, office worker hiring. Turns out that, even from a simple cover-your-ass viewpoint, it's a lot better to weed out incompetent officers because it will cost the department a lot of money in lawsuits over the years.

Where did I say that they are hiring retards?

Also, do keep in mind I am not inclined to trust the department's claims about turnover rates. Maybe they are right, maybe their test works too boot. But I'm not about to take their word for it when they are put on the spot.

Investment bankers and corporate officers; they tend to be very intelligent people. They also are more likely to be negligent or corrupt.

And they are in positions of great power in a society with poor controls keeping them from abusing it. Intelligence is not the only factor, make no mistake.

Smart people can be negligent simply because they don't care about their work or get bored with it, while I'd submit it's much easier for them to be corrupt, because they can figure out how to hide it better.

You know, we can keep going back and forth on this one point playing ping pong with vices and virtues of intelligent people, but at the end of the day would we really get anywhere? Pretty much every statistic out there that I am aware of suggests criminal/inappropriate behavior is strongly correlated with lower intelligence, not the other way around. If you would like to demonstrate that its a non-issue, go right ahead, with facts.

And yes, its also correlated with poverty, power, opportunity, and so forth. Those latter correlations do not change the former.

[Darth Wong]

Investment bankers and corporate officers; they tend to be very intelligent people. They also are more likely to be negligent or corrupt.

And they are in positions of great power in a society with poor controls keeping them from abusing it. Intelligence is not the only factor, make no mistake.

Uhhh ... police officers are in positions of great power, with poor controls keeping them from abusing it. Internal affairs departments are usually a joke.

[Stark]

Do you think a person who quits a job was happy and motivated and trying really hard right up until the moment he quit? That's not how it works. People quit jobs because they've been unhappy with them for a long time, and that means you're talking about an unmotivated employee who has probably not been doing his best for quite some time.

In economic ties like these, people who WANT to quit a job because they hate it may 'stick at it' because they need the money or security. It makes it even more important to make sure you hire people who aren't going to hate every second of the job (or make everyone they work with hate it).

In the US, do new hires have a probationary period where they can be fired without the regular dismissal consequences?

[Akhlut]

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/get ... 81%29.aspx

Nearly a 10% yearly loss for bigger cities, while it is over 18% yearly loss for smaller cities.

http://www.ashp.org/DocLibrary/MemberCe ... urvey.aspx

Whereas pharmacists experience a loss rate of 5.7%, for instance.

While Forbes is saying that the comparable national turnover rate for teachers in the US of 16% is "high."

So, it seems to me that it is fairly high.