Intelligence: Genetic inheritance or function of effort?

[Danoff]

I'm not that familiar with the day-to-day work of an armed officer. Still, looking at those example questions as a layperson it appears to cover things you'd hope someone with a gun and the power to use it against me legally in high-pressure situations is capable of answering. If it was a one-and-done deal, maybe I could see a call for change but they're allowed to take it four times in a year.... For god's sake, just practice if this is the career you want instead of crying discrimination - many have to for other roles and only get one shot per year. It's a much more relevant test than, for example, the UCAT or SJT that most doctors will sit in the UK. The SJT used to be used for selecting where in the country you would start your career after finishing medical school but following complaints, it's been disposed of and replaced with a lottery system. You could quite literally now finish in the 10th decile of the worst-ranked medical school and bag a place practicing medicine at one of the top hospitals in the world as merit has gone out the window.

I can't imagine what an ideal screening test should look like for an armed officer that would hold up in court to legal challenges like this. To my inexperienced eyes I would imagine the maths section and section 3 are the ones that are harder to put in the context of working as a cop but even then some of the maths questions involve basic addition/subtraction of stolen item values.

Also, is anyone feeling brave enough to answer the picture question (it isn't a trick)....

I understand why this news story and court case got you rankled. It's easy to drop in on it as an outsider and just say "well yea they should be able to answer whatever question". The legal test for this is going to be whether the questions on the test got discriminatory results, and whether those same questions were actually linked to the ability to perform the job. If those questions get answered in court in the wrong way, the hiring practice is considered discriminatory.

...and I don't see much wrong with that criteria from a legal perspective.

You were shown a question or two, told the test is discriminatory, and invited to think that people are just suing over nothing. This is generally not how courts work. I'd invite you to dig further into this story.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Also, is anyone feeling brave enough to answer the picture question (it isn't a trick)....

It would appear, no more then 20ml initially, no more than 20ml more after a further 4 hours, same again, and same again, essentially capping the dose at 80ml in 16 hours and not more than 20ml in any four hour period. After that, no more until 24 hours has past since the initial dose.

I'm going to guess the possible ambiguity or inaccuracy of this answer arises from referring to both the totals given per interval, and the syringe volume as 'doses'? IFUs should not be so easy to misinterpret for the general public - e.g., you've said it's 5ml per syringe, but that's only implied - not stated - by the instructions. I'd also be checking the bottle(?), for instructions as the use of the words 'check the label' imply there's something other than the IFUs you're reading.

FWIW, in practice, I'd furnish the recipient with the information and let them decide, advising against any more than the above, and advocating for less until they noticed a difference (I'd imagine body weight and severity of symptoms offers a guide as to where between 1ml and 20ml you'd land). I don't understand the reasoning behind having paracetamol in syringe - so I can't relate to it, nor why I'd be administering it to an otherwise functioning adult in the first place, nor why paracetamol would be given, in this way, by me, for more than a day. In some bizarre scenario where this was the case, I'd probably call 111 for further advice because I'd consider it to be out of the ordinary, and I have no training, nor have ever received advice on such administration, nor been a recipient of the medication. I'd consider this a risk averse approach, and a correct interpretation of the only guidance at hand.

Am I wrong?

 

[HenrySwanson]

I understand why this news story and court case got you rankled. It's easy to drop in on it as an outsider and just say "well yea they should be able to answer whatever question". The legal test for this is going to be whether the questions on the test got discriminatory results, and whether those same questions were actually linked to the ability to perform the job. If those questions get answered in court in the wrong way, the hiring practice is considered discriminatory.

...and I don't see much wrong with that criteria from a legal perspective.

You were shown a question or two, told the test is discriminatory, and invited to think that people are just suing over nothing. This is generally not how courts work. I'd invite you to dig further into this story.

My issue isn't with the strength of the legal case. The problem is what it leads to:

Md. State Police to Relax Testing Standards as Part of New Consent Decree

Maryland State Police's changes to physical testing standards and hiring tests were prompted by a settlement and a consent decree claiming unintentional discrimination against...

www.officer.com

He said state police will be “relaxing the standards” for physical tests — mainly, removing the timing requirements within a test involving push-ups, sit-ups and a 1.5-mile run. Court documents described the existing requirements as 18 push-ups in one minute, 27 sit-ups in one minute, running the 1.5 miles in 15 minutes and 20 seconds, pulling a trigger 10 times with each hand and reaching about 1.5 inches beyond the applicant’s shoes while seated. The pass-rate for women has been less than 80% of the pass-rate for men, according to court documents.

That was for the physical component. It remains to be seen what will happen with the cognitive test, but I'm betting it will end up dumbed down even more. I'm sure many hiring practices are discriminatory when you compare one group to another (e.g. grammar school educated vs state, one ethnic group against another) - my issue is that if you aren't making the grade for whatever reason don't moan for an easier test. Be better, study, and pass it next time (you have four goes per year!). I don't want the entry to be an armed officer to be a cakewalk. Cops can be stupid enough as it is.

It would appear, no more then 20ml initially, no more than 20ml more after a further 4 hours, same again, and same again, essentially capping the dose at 80ml in 16 hours and not more than 20ml in any four hour period. After that, no more until 24 hours has past since the initial dose.

I'm going to guess the possible ambiguity or inaccuracy of this answer arises from referring to both the totals given per interval, and the syringe volume as 'doses'? IFUs should not be so easy to misinterpret for the general public - e.g., you've said it's 5ml per syringe, but that's only implied - not stated - by the instructions. I'd also be checking the bottle(?), for instructions as the use of the words 'check the label' imply there's something other than the IFUs you're reading.

FWIW, in practice, I'd furnish the recipient with the information and let them decide, advising against any more than the above, and advocating for less until they noticed a difference (I'd imagine body weight and severity of symptoms offers a guide as to where between 1ml and 20ml you'd land). I don't understand the reasoning behind having paracetamol in syringe - so I can't relate to it, nor why I'd be administering it to an otherwise functioning adult in the first place, nor why paracetamol would be given, in this way, by me, for more than a day. In some bizarre scenario where this was the case, I'd probably call 111 for further advice because I'd consider it to be out of the ordinary, and I have no training, nor have ever received advice on such administration, nor been a recipient of the medication. I'd consider this a risk averse approach, and a correct interpretation of the only guidance at hand.

Am I wrong?

The nurse read it as not being able to give 4 doses in 24 hours and so chose the 12-16 option, and instructed 5 ml to be given 3 times for a maximum of 15ml in a whole day.

As you can see that is massively underdosing.

Since she was a nurse, the carers (who are usually unqualified) would have followed her instructions for subsequent shifts, effectively giving the patient a sweety for pain relief.

Maintaining standards is important, and one way we can do that is by having robust tests. Of course, it doesn't prevent mistakes (and I've made many in my healthcare roles), but it gives confidence that you have able people filling positions.