Sept. 8, 2000 – 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.
Has the average intelligence increased? As in, someone who scored a 100 in 2024 would definitely be smarter than someone who scored a 100 in 1969.
Average IQ cannot increase or decrease. The test is calibrated so that 100 is always the average. It’s for this reason and many others that comparing historical testing data is difficult.
In the revised version of his book “The mismeasure of man” (about biodeterminism and measurement) Gould was asked why he didn’t draw the obvious comparison between IQ and phrenology. His answer was that such a comparison would be unfair… to phrenology. The methods of phrenology were bunk, but it’s theory (that different regions of the brain were responsible for different functions) was sound. IQ fails both in methodology and theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
The short answer is “Yes”. Scores rise about 3-pts every decade and the “Q” is adjusted accordingly. That said, modern education and modern intelligence testing aren’t independent of one another. It is very possible to train for an IQ test and improve your score (a thing that was originally argued as impossible when these tests were formulated). And - both consciously and unconsciously - we’ve geared our education system around improvements on standardized exams.
There’s also a host of environmental improvements - better nutrition, fewer diseases, less heavy metal poisoning - which all contribute to higher cognition. These latter factors are suggested in no small part thanks to a leveling off of the Flynn Effect in later years, both thanks to marginal declines in all of the above and thanks to the diminishing returns once individuals reach peak performance.
But intelligence testing is also a very sketchy and misunderstood field, with lots of scams surrounding its practical application and enormous stigmas associated with any population that scores “below average”.
Much like polygraph testing and dowsing (yes, American police still use dosing rods), its a methodology that police seem to cling to long after it has worn out its usefulness in practical terms.
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
Yea sure, because they could get “bored”. What you really mean is because they could start asking questions and potentially start changing the way things are typically done.
Corrupt systems cannot be changed from within. By their nature they select against honest agents.
Just as a quick example it’s common for police to pad their overtime. Now suppose Officer Honest always turns in an accurate timesheet. Officer Honest never makes arrests for bullshit. On paper, Officer Honest is lazy and unproductive compared to their dishonest peers.
There are policing organizations that are still very hungry for well-educated and intelligent recruits. In the USA, the FBI and the CIA both have high barriers to entry. The NSA is easily one of the biggest employers of mathematicians in the world. The IRS, the SEC, the FDA, the FCC, the DEA - all happy to hire smart young professionals.
You’re not going to get a job as a beat cop, but you’re very much in the running for the DA’s office as a prosecutor or the state homicide detective’s unit. And don’t worry, there are plenty of very intelligent people who are also very dependable when it comes to taking a kickback and keeping their mouths shut.
Yes but those places don’t hire people who have ever used cannabis even though that is most of the college educated population. So really you’re screwed either way.
Sure. But you can just… lie. When asked “have you ever used drugs”, say no.
