• Captain Aggravated
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    9 months ago

    The other thing is that the bar should be for going over not under. They have standards for maximum intelligence and won’t hire people who are too smart.

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      That’s not strictly or universally true. Yes, there was a federal (SCOTUS?) case about that, I think for New Hampshire, and the rationale was that people that were too smart (>120 IQ) tended to get bored on the job and quit, which costs the city more in training. BUT I don’t think that all police departments use the same hiring practices.

      I can’t speak for all police agencies, but over a decade ago I applied for Chicago PD, because I figured that it didn’t take much to be a better person and cop than Jason Van Dyke, or Anthony Abbate. The application test was pretty easy, except for recognizing faces (mostly because the pictures were photocopies that were 1" square). The problem was that they had a lot of things that moved you up on the selection process, like, did you have an immediate relative that was a cop, did you have prior military service, did you go to public schools in Chicago, etc… That meant that people with cop relatives ended up getting hiring preference over people that were smarter and better suited for the job.

      In retrospect, I’m really glad I didn’t get high enough up in the lottery to get an offer; the more I learn about policing, the less I like police agencies in general, even if there are individual cops I can respect.