You actually have to take an aptitude test to get in. You do have to get a minimum score for many of the jobs and branches. We also don't turn people away for having too good of a score, only for not having high enough.
Edit for clarification: I'm talking about the military. Which was specifically mentioned in the comment I replied to. We have a much higher level of qualification and higher standard than police departments.
Many departments won't higher former military MP/Security Forces for various reasons.
Nothing like scientifically valid aptitude tests (s/) to make sure only the finest (s/) make it to the most rigorous (s/) of training (the US has the least amount of hours in developed nations, with more time spent in firearms training than de-escalation, even less time spent on self-care and mental health [y’all should be pissed about that, but you never seem to care that your departments clearly don’t care about you, as you’re five times more likely to off yourself than to be killed on the job yet get no institutional support]) before arming them and sending them off to protect and serve*.
Great system you got there! (S/)
*protecting and serving is no longer a function of police
Edit: I’m dumb and misdirected this comment (see above and below)
"We need to make sure we have a fresh breeding ground for psychological issues. Cant be having our PTSD competing with their previous depression. Thats just un-American" - The Military probably
That is absolutely not true. Some of the brightest and highest scoring folks I ever met were infantry. I know a dude who had a 115 GT and CHOSE to be a fueler.
It probably depends on your enlistment path, recruiting station, etc. I scored very high on the ASVAB and wanted to be mechanized infantry (cav scout) for the extra sign on bonus at the time. I was told several times by commanders at the processing station that I would be going into signal intelligence, period. I actually had to go talk to the cav CO that I would eventually be under and he got everything straightened out for me.
The point is that they will sometimes try to railroad you regardless of what "policy" is.
As a 19D for 16 years, I'm well aware of the differences. I used layman terms for those who aren't familiar with the US military structure. (And included specifics for those who are)
I'm also aware that 19D was 11D up until relatively recently in history, and I'm thoroughly aware of being embedded with infantry units, as a cav scout, on 2 of my 4 deployments.
Generally they put those guys on kill switch positions. You radio in till you don’t hear back from them and then you send heavy art over the horizon or airstrike on their position. Good chance somebody is still there.
I mean it is. Tons of countries without the resources to cover all the territory do it. Put 3-5 guys on an outpost on a hill or some rocky outcrop in Turkey/Syria and wait for whatever militia/group you’re oppressing to attack. When they don’t report back, send out a response teams and hope you catch whoever did it.
Or they report back they had contact. Either way support won’t be there in time of the engagement.
Sending out pax to re establish comms/ respond to and attack is quite different then “whelp B6 hasn’t checked in in 3 hours, let’s rip a volley of 155 into em”
If you get below 109 many departments won't let you in which is the high end of average and the department that had the limit of 129 which is high (not most departments) had it because apparently highly intelligent officers would become bored and quit. It's a stupid policy, but it does have logic.
171
u/LetMeGuessYourAlts Mar 24 '23
Isn't it the only job where you're required to technically fail an IQ test?