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

[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.

[Akhlut]

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

Depends on the state and the work contract signed by a person. For instance, all of my jobs so far have been "hire-at-will" jobs, meaning I could be fired at any time, for any reason without repercussion. However, other jobs can have job contracts that will stipulate certain conditions that won't affect the employer.

[Formless]

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.

Okay, but then we get back to the question of "why are more intelligent officers less motivated/happy with their jobs than the merely average?" I don't see what about the work would be less than stimulating enough (though I'm admittedly not a cop, and those who are could enlighten me here). Is it a bad work environment? That would not suggest good things, I would think. Is it a stressful occupation? Obviously, but I'm not sure how intelligence would make it more stressful (again, maybe someone who has worked LE could enlighten me on this).

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

Okay, you got me there.

[Akhlut]

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?

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

Notice how you're just saying "low intelligence," not "average intelligence." Saying "low intelligence" has connotations of being below average.

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.

A paper I linked to shows the turnover rate for small departments is nearly 1 in 5. If that's not a problem, I don't know what is.

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 police departments would want to weed those issues out as best they could. Just because those traits are more strongly correlated to lower-than-genius intelligence does not necessarily mean anything; after all, I suspect most bank tellers are of average intelligence, yet banks manage to prevent them from raiding the till to an extreme extent, despite there being a stronger correlation of theft to people of average or lower intelligence.

[Akhlut]

A paper I linked to shows the turnover rate for small departments is nearly 1 in 5. If that's not a problem, I don't know what is.

Just to expand on this point a bit; so, if we assume that the figure of $60,000 for replacing an officer is a good ballpark number, let us consider a small municipal police force with 30 officers. Every year, they're spending $360,000 on getting new officers. In three years' time, that's over a million dollars. $1,000,000 to simply maintain the police department with their base number of officers. This is not including the officers' salaries, fueling vehicles, purchasing ammo, internal audits, the utilities, the ancillary staff that aren't officers (janitors, 911 dispatch, etc.), and numerous other expenses. Now, if they instituted more stringent hiring processes to retain more officers, they could potentially save hundreds of thousands of dollars in just a few scant years.

Now, if the police department had some halfway strong evidence that suggested officers with IQs that were above a certain number were more likely to quit, would it not make sense to put a ceiling on what the IQ for hiring would be so they don't have to risk blowing their budget on hiring and training new people all the time?

[Formless]

Notice how you're just saying "low intelligence," not "average intelligence." Saying "low intelligence" has connotations of being below average.

Please do not cherrypick my words and present them out of context. Nowhere in my response to Mike was I indicating they are selecting for low intelligence. I was responding to the implication that discriminating against low intelligence individuals is the same as discriminating against high intelligence individuals.

A paper I linked to shows the turnover rate for small departments is nearly 1 in 5. If that's not a problem, I don't know what is.

I'll skip this for now since you expanded on it in another post.

And police departments would want to weed those issues out as best they could. Just because those traits are more strongly correlated to lower-than-genius intelligence does not necessarily mean anything; after all, I suspect most bank tellers are of average intelligence, yet banks manage to prevent them from raiding the till to an extreme extent, despite there being a stronger correlation of theft to people of average or lower intelligence.

Granted, but don't see how it follows that the police department's current policy is helpful in this regard.

[Akhlut]

Please do not cherrypick my words and present them out of context. Nowhere in my response to Mike was I indicating they are selecting for low intelligence. I was responding to the implication that discriminating against low intelligence individuals is the same as discriminating against high intelligence individuals.

There's still the matter that they're definitely attempting to hire competent people, simply ones that, for whatever reason (either supported or not), they feel are less likely to quit the job that they're sinking a lot of money into for training.

Granted, but don't see how it follows that the police department's current policy is helpful in this regard.

This particular policy of putting a ceiling on intelligence for new hires isn't meant to reduce traits that aren't related to retention, though. This particular policy is irrelevant with regards to propensity for criminal behavior of the potential hire, it is, as stated, solely to reduce the likelihood of officer turnover. I'd imagine they have other policies in place to help reduce criminal propensities (background checks, psych evaluations, etc.).

Now, whether they're being truthful is another kettle of fish altogether. However, if they're right, I can see how it is is a legitimate policy decision. Police departments have a high turnover problem and a high cost of replacing those turnovers, so any reduction in turnover is a bonus.