Wikipedia has some citations in its IQ article regarding how higher IQ is a net plus for all occupations. This article seems to be the most relevant, but I don’t think a copy is available online for free. Perhaps you have an academic affiliation and can procure a copy however.

Edit: Here is an executive summary, more or less. Around 20%-30% of variance in job performance at the lowest levels can be attributed solely to GMA (IQ) or conscientiousness. This is the minimum, with higher-level jobs even more attributable to only those two variables. No one has been able to determine what the remainder of differences in work productivity is due to – certainly nothing else seems to have as big of an impact as these two factors.

“1) There are different “flavors” of discrimination in the U.S. For example, legally-defined “protected class” discrimination (e.g., race-, gender-, ethnicity-, religious-discrimination) by the government is almost always illegal. Outside of those legally-defined protected classes (e.g., intelligence), discrimination is almost always legal. ”

The first part of this klaim is fals. Cf. positiv diskrimination that is both legal and widely praktised in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

This is like saying “being a better swimmer means one posses higher skills therefore better job performance” – only in a job where swimming is an important part of the nature of the job (there is any reason to suspect that a good swimmer will be a good cashier?).

About the point “studies have shown higher IQ leads to improved productivity for all jobs, even the most menial”, I wonder if these studies really measure what most people think when they discuss if IQ is really associated with high job performance in all jobs: I suppose that what people discuss when they are discussing this is if an individual with an IQ of 125 or 130 (or higher) will be better than a “normal” individual in a routine office job, or in a blue-collar job. But I supect that these cases are so rare in real world (people in this range of IQ are rare by themselfs, and even more in that kind of jobs) that what these studies are really measuring is that people with an IQ of 110 are more productive in these jobs than people with an IQ of 90.

2 – “I’m fairly certain that studies have shown higher IQ leads to improved productivity for all jobs, even the most menial”

Any link for one of these studies?

2) In effect, the government doesn’t have any burden of proving that the “rational bases” for discrimination against those undefined classes are indeed “rational.” If a theory is knocked down as irrational, an alternative theory will simply be espoused over and over again until the person challenging the law gives up.

And I agree with the above poster who mentioned the need for some police officers to rise up into management, detective work, etc. So this policy is short sighted at best.

Yeah, my concern about such a policy is the impact at the upper reaches of control at the police department.

Do we really want to make sure that the chief of police has an IQ less than 120?

I mean, the average McDonald’s worker may be less than 100 IQ, but I’d expect that every so often some bright enterprising young person can work their way up the organization. Or is that idea just dead in our meritocracy?

Unless he had decided to challenge a rejection on the basis of IQ before he took the test in the first place? As a way of setting (overturning?) precedent? I can’t tell that from the story.

As someone else mentioned most criminals are dumb as rocks but you need a few bright detectives at least. Unless New London is too small to need specialists this seems like a very strange policy. However if it’s the kind of place where nothing ever happens then maybe it makes more sense.