A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

Re:A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U... by otalp on Friday June 01, 2018 @08:40PM (#17211818)

> it is a system with little filtering, personally or institutionally, of the bad elements

Wrong. It is a system that explicitly filters out the good elements.

"US Court Ruling: You Can Be “Too Smart” to Be a Cop. Police department disqualifies anyone whose IQ is “too high" (https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-court-ruled-you-can-be-too-...)

"Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops"(https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U... by threatofrain on Friday June 01, 2018 @10:50PM (#17212360)

That's the same thing as barring someone for being overqualified, isn't it?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U... by vageli on Saturday June 02, 2018 @09:08AM (#17214421)

I can't think of many jobs you'd be turned away from for being too smart.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U... by kardos on Saturday June 02, 2018 @12:19PM (#17215192)

One rationalisation is that hiring someone "too smart" for the work required means that they'll soon become bored and move on, so your effort invested in training them is wasted.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U... by DrScump on Saturday June 02, 2018 @07:58PM (#17217102)

For a modern American police force in the Bay Area, for example, taking a candidate from academy entrant to fully qualified officer is a six-figure cost.

That's why many Bay Area LEOs focus their recruiting on recent graduates from other Bay Area forces.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U... by zwily on Saturday June 02, 2018 @03:14PM (#17215906)

This is exactly what I’ve heard the justification is.

[ Parent | on HN ]