# State Police Test Unfair



## MJS (Feb 29, 2008)

I came across this article in the paper and thought I'd share it.





> Racism is so entrenched in the Connecticut State Police that basic hiring practices ensure only a few minority troopers will even enter a training class, never mind be promoted in the ranks, an attorney representing a black troopers' coalition said Thursday.
> 
> Thursday's accusations by New Haven lawyer John Williams follow other recent claims of racism voiced by a broad range of troopers &#8212; from a commissioner's former chief of staff to the first female Hispanic trooper.





Now, I've taken the Ct. State Police exam a few times and a guy I work with was also in the process, although he is no longer.  Now, the CSP exam brings in quite a large number of people.  Typically, they draw in more candidates than the average PD.



Now, I'm not employed by the state, nor do I know whether or not any discrimination plays a part in anything.  However, it was interesting to me anyway, to see people complain about the test scores.  Now, going by all of the past tests that I've taken, they usually take people with the high scores.  Lets say that you got 1,000 people applying for the CSP exam.  You need to start weeding people out, so imagine how many you'd have if you only took people who got a 65?  But, if 65 is passing, why not take those people too?  I'm assuming the 65 puts those people in a pool to draw from, but most likely, they're going to pick people whos scores were higher.



Here is another interesting part:





> The Polygraph Examinations have been scheduled for those candidates that have successfully passed the written examination and physical assessment portion of the selection process with a written examination grade of *83* and higher.





My thoughts:  bust your *** and do your best to study and get as high of a score as possible.  The same goes for all of the other parts of the exam.  Personally, I'd rather see people who got a higher score progress, rather than someone who barely made it.  If you take the test one time and get bumped, chalk it up as a loss, and work harder next time.  



So...do you feel that this process is unfair?  Do you feel that its discriminating against anyone?  For those that are LEOs, what is your selection process like?


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 29, 2008)

Its the using of ones race to attempt to get special treatment. You want a better chance? Do better on the test.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 29, 2008)

Well, it's not fair to say "We're only accepting the top 10 scorers". We have to have levels.
White guys, your pass score is 95
Black guys, your pass score is 65
Hispanics, you pass at 45 and we'll have someone there to read you the test in Spanish.
Asians, your pass score is 99 because we know you're really smart.
Women, you pass at 55, unless you'reablack woman where you'll pass at 45, or if you're a hispanic woman where you'll pass just by showing up and putting your name on the paper.

Seriously...does the above sound racist? Well, it is, and it's the way alot of places work. 

Personally, I find the above to be racially offensive and everyone involved should too.

I want the best of the best, not a scaled ladder of satisfaction with diminishing requirements because of skin color or dna.


----------



## newGuy12 (Feb 29, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I want the best of the best, not a scaled ladder of satisfaction with diminishing requirements because of skin color or dna.


I agree.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 29, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I want the best of the best, not a scaled ladder of satisfaction with diminishing requirements because of skin color or dna.



The PD has more concerns than simply getting the "best of the best".  Having sizable numbers of minority officers makes policing those same minorities easier, for instance.  Having a good number of hispanic LEO's that can speak spanish makes policing those neighborhoods much easier and more effective, and that is just one example.  Having an all white force could result in higher test scores, but worse actual police work.  Thus, it makes sense for PD's to make some effort to recruit such minority officers, as long as they meet the requirements.

That said, I have no idea if this test is biased or racist.  I sort of doubt it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 29, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> The PD has more concerns than simply getting the "best of the best".  Having sizable numbers of minority officers makes policing those same minorities easier, for instance.  Having a good number of hispanic LEO's that can speak spanish makes policing those neighborhoods much easier and more effective, and that is just one example.  Having an all white force could result in higher test scores, but worse actual police work.  *Thus, it makes sense for PD's to make some effort to recruit such minority officers, as long as they meet the requirements.*
> 
> That said, I have no idea if this test is biased or racist.  I sort of doubt it.



I agree, especially with the bolded part.


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 29, 2008)

Well, this stigma of racism and racial inferiority will continue til we *teach our children* that the quality of brains don't necessarily reflect the bodies they're in. Until then it's going to be a problem.


----------



## MJS (Feb 29, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Well, it's not fair to say "We're only accepting the top 10 scorers". We have to have levels.
> White guys, your pass score is 95
> Black guys, your pass score is 65
> Hispanics, you pass at 45 and we'll have someone there to read you the test in Spanish.
> ...


 
I agree, especially with the underlined part.  I remember an article and IIRC, I may have posted it here in the study.  It was something along the lines of someone saying the judicial system or prison system wasn't fair, because there're more minorities in jail then non minorities.  

I'm not racist.  I have black and hispanic friends.  However, as I said in my OP, I don't think that the standards should be lowered because person A got an 80 and person B got a 68.  Sorry, next time you'll work harder and do better.  The basic questions that one finds on the written exam are ones that you will be faced with as a cop.  If you can't do the job on the written, how the hell are you going to do it in the field?  I find it very hard to believe that every black or hispanic that takes a police test needs to have reduced scores in order to pass.

Believe me when I say, you would be very surprised at some of the people that show up to these tests.  Now, I'm not saying you need to show up in a 3 piece suit, but good God, dress decent.  A nice pair of dockers and a nice shirt, or a clean pair of jeans and a nice shirt.  I see people walk in with faded jeans, 5 sizes too big, with half their *** showing, a shirt that my wife and I could fit in at the same time, and a doo rag.  Now, are these the people having a hard time with the test?


----------



## geezer (Feb 29, 2008)

MJS said:


> I'm not racist. I have black and hispanic friends.
> 
> I see people walk in with faded jeans, 5 sizes too big, with half their *** showing, a shirt that my wife and I could fit in at the same time, and a doo rag. Now, are these the people having a hard time with the test?


 
Maybe you just don't like certain minority fashion trends? First off, you know damn well that the newspaper never gets it 100% right. Controversy sells papers. And secondly, _there is a lot of bias out there_. You can't stop it if you've already made up your mind not to see it. Maybe we're all bigots at some level. And I'm working as hard as I can evolve a little. One way to begin is to open your eyes.


----------



## MJS (Feb 29, 2008)

geezer said:


> Maybe you just don't like certain minority fashion trends?


 
Well, how they dress isn't effecting me at all.  But, IMO, I'd think that one would want to start off giving a good first impression.  Attitude and appearance are just a few things that people are looking at.  Of course, one would hope that if a person who dressed like that, made it to an interview, they'd put on a suit. 




> First off, you know damn well that the newspaper never gets it 100% right. Controversy sells papers. And secondly, _there is a lot of bias out there_. You can't stop it if you've already made up your mind not to see it. Maybe we're all bigots at some level. And I'm working as hard as I can evolve a little. One way to begin is to open your eyes.


 
Well, you're preaching to the choir with your opening line.  I've said the same thing countless times.  

I still stand by my comments on the testing process and the effort that people do/don't put into the test.


----------



## punisher73 (Mar 1, 2008)

I remember watching and interview with someone from the NAACP.  It was during a debate on affirmative action and one man made the comment that said it shouldn't matter other than who the most qualified person was.  The man from the NAACP told him that was a racist statement implying that blacks were less qualified than whites!

I understand that the comments about having minorities patroling the minority areas to deal better with the public.  But, I can see a problem with that. 1) My black friends that I work with are considered "Sell outs" and it causes problems, or they get "you gonna treat a brother like that" and expect special treatment because of being a minority.

Don't get me started on the physical fitness standards test in Michigan.  For my age group it was a little over 30 push ups, for the women it was 7!!!!  Why the discrepency?  My ex-wife could do just as many push ups as me because she trained and exercised hard.  Women should have to be able to do the same job as men.  I also have a friend in the MSP that trained recruits in their academy and she had NO problem doing push ups.  WHY?  Because she trained for them.  Why the double standard?  Why not have qualified people regardless of man/woman red, yellow, green or purple.

Professional sports has it right.  They pick the best players to make the best team regardless of who you are.  No one says anything about that if the racial balance isn't equally represented.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 1, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Well, it's not fair to say "We're only accepting the top 10 scorers". We have to have levels.
> White guys, your pass score is 95
> Black guys, your pass score is 65
> Hispanics, you pass at 45 and we'll have someone there to read you the test in Spanish.
> ...


 
I'm a big believer in true *affirmative* action.  I'm not particularly aware of anyone doing true *affirmative* action; it's just too simple to use "hiring preferences" instead.  Isn't a "hiring preference" just discrimination in a nicer suit?

To me, and I've said this before here, true affirmative action is going out into the targeted community, and working to make people want to work for you, helping them develop the necessary skills and background to be able to work for you, and working to keep them once you've got them.  In other words, if MPDC wants more cops who grew up in the city, they need to go into Anacostia, SE DC, and other places, and work with the kids.  Help the kids stay in school, steer them to appropriate college classes (and make sure they have the HS grades to get there), show them the benefits and advantages of being a cop, and help them stay out of trouble.  Notice -- these are POSITIVE actions, done in the targeted community.  There'd be no need for special grading of tests, etc. because they'd meet the standard.  ANYONE in that community can take advantage of the assistance, or it offsets the clear educational advantage of other communities.

There are valid reasons for selecting a black, or a Latino, or a local, or non-local or whatever candidate over another, equally qualified candidate.  (Yes, no two people are truly equal, but at the end of the process, you're going to have several people who are more or less equally ranked.)  But, the underlying premise in this post:



Empty Hands said:


> The PD has more concerns than simply getting the "best of the best". Having sizable numbers of minority officers makes policing those same minorities easier, for instance. Having a good number of hispanic LEO's that can speak spanish makes policing those neighborhoods much easier and more effective, and that is just one example. Having an all white force could result in higher test scores, but worse actual police work. Thus, it makes sense for PD's to make some effort to recruit such minority officers, as long as they meet the requirements.
> 
> That said, I have no idea if this test is biased or racist. I sort of doubt it.


 
is one I disagree with.  Law enforcement agencies must strive to hire only the best of the best.  We can't compromise; the public safety and public trust is endangered when you compromise.  This has been borne out in various jurisdictions.  MPDC has more than one academy class in which the majority of the members still on the force after several years cannot testify in court; they've had their credibility to seriously compromised! And these classes have almost invariably been linked to a stretch of rushed hiring where they shortcut the process.

Find the best of the best; then sort among them by the extra criteria.  Go out and proactively recruit among the populations that you have a special need for -- but don't settle for a less qualified person because they speak Spanish (it is possible to learn Spanish) or are Asian or whatever.



punisher73 said:


> I remember watching and interview with someone from the NAACP. It was during a debate on affirmative action and one man made the comment that said it shouldn't matter other than who the most qualified person was. The man from the NAACP told him that was a racist statement implying that blacks were less qualified than whites!
> 
> I understand that the comments about having minorities patroling the minority areas to deal better with the public. But, I can see a problem with that. 1) My black friends that I work with are considered "Sell outs" and it causes problems, or they get "you gonna treat a brother like that" and expect special treatment because of being a minority.
> 
> ...


 
If the physical standards are based on work tasks... why should they be different for different people.  A criminal running from me is going to look over his shoulder, and say "Oh, he's over 30, I have to slow down", and he's not going realize he's resisting a female and ease up.  if you need to push a car out of the road, it doesn't get lighter because you're older or female...

And I've also seen where people of a given background have to fight for credibility among "their" community... Once that badge is on their chest, very often, the officer is no longer seen as a part of the community -- they're "Da Man."


----------



## grydth (Mar 1, 2008)

One question I'd have - How well does the test measure what is needed for an effective police officer?

I hire (not LEO positions) off civil service lists. To this day, the best person I ever hired was somebody at the dead bottom of a list with a score of 70.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 1, 2008)

grydth said:


> One question I'd have - How well does the test measure what is needed for an effective police officer?
> 
> I hire (not LEO positions) off civil service lists. To this day, the best person I ever hired was somebody at the dead bottom of a list with a score of 70.


This is another great point... Tests alone are not enough, in my opinion, to assess someone's fitness for a job.  Especially one that is so complex and variable as law enforcement.  I've seen great test-takers who were slugs on the street, or who had no judgement or common sense...


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 2, 2008)

grydth said:


> One question I'd have - *How well does the test measure what is needed for an effective police officer*?


 
IMO, that is the only question we need to ask.

The testing process should serve to find candidates that meet the necessary criteria for the job/department/unit, etc.  For example:
-what physical fitness/conditioning standards are necessary for this job?
-what level of "academic" knowledge is necessary?
-is the person psychologically fit for this type of job?
(and so on...)

If a person does not measure up, then it should not matter what color or gender they are, they shouldn't get the job.  If it is apparent that a particular group is statistically less likely to "make the cut," the standards should NOT be lowered to accomodate the "lowest common denominator" (LCD).


----------



## MJS (Mar 2, 2008)

Punisher said:





> I remember watching and interview with someone from the NAACP. It was during a debate on affirmative action and one man made the comment that said it shouldn't matter other than who the most qualified person was. The man from the NAACP told him that was a racist statement implying that blacks were less qualified than whites!I understand that the comments about having minorities patroling the minority areas to deal better with the public. But, I can see a problem with that. 1) My black friends that I work with are considered &quot;Sell outs&quot; and it causes problems, or they get &quot;you gonna treat a brother like that&quot; and expect special treatment because of being a minority.Don't get me started on the physical fitness standards test in Michigan. For my age group it was a little over 30 push ups, for the women it was 7!!!! Why the discrepency? My ex-wife could do just as many push ups as me because she trained and exercised hard. Women should have to be able to do the same job as men. I also have a friend in the MSP that trained recruits in their academy and she had NO problem doing push ups. WHY? Because she trained for them. Why the double standard? Why not have qualified people regardless of man/woman red, yellow, green or purple.Professional sports has it right. They pick the best players to make the best team regardless of who you are. No one says anything about that if the racial balance isn't equally represented.


This is why I feel that everyone should bust their tail and apply themselves, and do the best they can on the test, not expecting any favors, etc.  Again, I'm no racist, but like I said, the questions you see on the test are ones that an officer will face on the street.  Things such as memorization, being told information and being capable of remembering what was said.  Simple everyday things such as spelling.  I personally know of officers in the dept. that I dispatch for, that hand in reports, only to get called in by the Sgt. to fix spelling, punctuation, etc.  As for the agility tests...I started a thread on that a while back.  Personally, while males and females are built differently, they're going to be facing the same things on the streets as their male counterparts.  A 6'5, 225lb drunk isn't going to go any easier on a female cop than a male.  It would be interesting to know if anyone has ever complained about that, because if someone wanted to get technical about it, thats discrimination right there.  I have to do 50 pushups in a minute and the girl next to me has to do 25?  Hmm....


----------



## MJS (Mar 2, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> This is another great point... Tests alone are not enough, in my opinion, to assess someone's fitness for a job.  Especially one that is so complex and variable as law enforcement.  I've seen great test-takers who were slugs on the street, or who had no judgement or common sense...


 
I'd say that this is why the other tests are just as important in the selection process.  It may be hard to judge someone off a written test, but put that person in front of a panel and turn the heat up a bit and you'll get a better idea of how that person is.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 2, 2008)

MJS said:


> I'd say that this is why the other tests are just as important in the selection process.  It may be hard to judge someone off a written test, but put that person in front of a panel and turn the heat up a bit and you'll get a better idea of how that person is.


Sometimes... but a panel interview, or even a background check isn't the same as reality.

Unfortunately, all the pre-qualification we can do doesn't guarantee a person has what it takes to be a cop.  I've seen people do well in the applicant process, do well in the academy, but not be able to put it together on the street for many different reasons.  Sometimes, it's just the reality that a badge and uniform isn't enough for some folks; sometimes it doesn't sink in until their first resisting subject or DOA call or whatever that  the dangers of this job are real.  Some just can't do the complex mulitasking that cops need to do -- juggling listening to radio traffic, driving, interviewing people, and more, or they just can't function without the step-1, step-2 process that just doesn't work for police investigations.  And then there are the ones that, despite the background check and psych exams, once they actually have that badge and authority, turn out to be bullies or worse.  That's why Field Training and evaluation is important, and why rookies are generally on probation for a year.


----------



## punisher73 (Mar 3, 2008)

grydth said:


> One question I'd have - How well does the test measure what is needed for an effective police officer?
> 
> I hire (not LEO positions) off civil service lists. To this day, the best person I ever hired was somebody at the dead bottom of a list with a score of 70.


 
I do not know of ANY test that really can.  I know I read an article in which Special Forces were trying to address this issue and come up with a better process because of their high attrition rates amongst soldiers during the testing process.

I know some people in the field who would not "test" well, but have great instincts and people skills and get a lot done, and I know of others who test very well, but can't apply the book smarts in the real world.

Our department has changed their test several times because it wasn't a good indicator of skills.  We had some applicants fail the test and then do another test by a different local agency and pass and be very good officers.  We've also had people score very well on the test and were horrible officers.


----------

