Too smart to be a cop?

[ulmont]

The jokes almost write themselves...

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.
...
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.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836#.UYFROeS-1I7

[The Brain]

IQ of 33 seems a bit high, yes.

[crazy canuck]

They are probably looking for the types that buy guns for their four year old kids.

[CountDeMoney]

They should've let him become one;  his IQ would've dropped enough over time.

[Admiral Yi]

Seems reasonable to me.  You need some way of amortizing training cost in the absence of indentured servitude contracts.

[Viking]

Mr. Einstein, you seem to have scored too high on the test to be a police officer. If you really want the job there is only one option. Here you have a paper bag and a stick of glue. Come back when you score below 30.

[Eddie Teach]

Seems reasonable to me.  You need some way of amortizing training cost in the absence of indentured servitude contracts.

Would it be illegal/unconstitutional for them to have required terms of service like the military?

[Admiral Yi]

Would it be illegal/unconstitutional for them to have required terms of service like the military?

Don't know.

[CountDeMoney]

on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

It is a pretty silly theory, though.  I've known incredibly accomplished people from other walks of life--a college instructor, IT tards, a chemist, even a former MLB pitcher--leave their professions because they liked the concept of driving the car with the nifty light bar to fight crime and suppress evil. 
Mainly because they wanted to do it ever since they were a kid and they finally had the chance whether through retirement, divorce, or the kids finally moved out of the house. 

Shouldn't hold their intelligence against them; then again, police agencies aren't always known for flexing theirs.

[merithyn]

If my company pays for training for me (specifically college costs), then I'm required to spend at least two years at my current company or pay them back. So, it's not illegal.

I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with a police officer being forced to stay on the job longer than he/she wants to be there, however. That just seems like a receipe for disaster.

[CountDeMoney]

Seems reasonable to me.  You need some way of amortizing training cost in the absence of indentured servitude contracts.

Would it be illegal/unconstitutional for them to have required terms of service like the military?

Virtually all agencies now have you sign an agreement upon hire to reimburse the agency for training if you leave within 2 or 3 years as a condition of employment.  I've never seen it enforced myself, though.

[crazy canuck]

Seems reasonable to me.  You need some way of amortizing training cost in the absence of indentured servitude contracts.

Would it be illegal/unconstitutional for them to have required terms of service like the military?

Not sure what you have in mind but generally contracts of personal service cannot be enforced by an order of specific performance.  They way most organizations get around this problem is contractual provisions which require the employee pay back x amount of training costs if they leave before x date.

The military has its own military law so that might be how they get around the problem.

[Tonitrus]

If my company pays for training for me (specifically college costs), then I'm required to spend at least two years at my current company or pay them back. So, it's not illegal.

I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with a police officer being forced to stay on the job longer than he/she wants to be there, however. That just seems like a receipe for disaster.

Would you be comfortable with someone in the military working with high-value weapons/explosives/top secret info, etc being forced to stay if they no longer want to be there? 

For language-training jobs (which can require upwards of two years, just in training), the USAF recently eliminated the 4-year enlistment option, and now requires the previously optional 6-year term.

[garbon]

I applied for a job that is about a 5 minute walk from my current apt. The interviewer flat out told me that he had concerns that I'd be bored and leave because of my intelligence.  I was: not amused though he was right it was a boring job.

[Barrister]

Is the thesis even true?  Are smart people more likely to grow bored and quit?