CobrayCommando
Moderator
Whatever.
This is just pathetic. Affirmative Action run Amok
- Thread starter Wildcard
- Start date
urbanassault
New member
Maybe instead of going completely off topic and flaming me for spelling one word wrong you should focus your attention elsewhere, I am engineer I went to a tech school.....no english courses I also do not have the spellcheck program on here but thanks for pointing that out I appreciate it.
invention_45
New member
tyme:
I'm guessing what you wrote was somewhat facetious.
Whether or not it was, it helped to show what I am actually trying to get across.
The devices cops use to determine speeding do all the math and arithmetic by themselves. I would not be too surprised to find that all a cop has to do is key in the speed yielded by the radar device to his laptop and out pops the correct charge for the citation.
From the comments of some other guys:
Critical thinking and math. They're not the same. Critical thinking's more a social science sort of thing. Math is a little more mechanical than that.
I was waiting for somebody to mention that math gets used at accident scenes.
Let's say I get in an accident that's involved my stepping on the brakes and making a skid mark (I'm guessing that's where you were going with that).
Now the officer at the scene measures the marks and records them. So far, ok. Officer hasn't used any math.
I decide to fight some issue, and I am arguing something about speed related to my skid marks. The officer comes to court. He has done (by himself) some math involving the marks and makes a claim about my speed.
Now, I don't try this myself, because the whole courtroom would be asleep by the end of it. But I hire an "expert witness" who then actually DOES the math showing that the cop can't calculate what he just claimed, and presents it succinctly. I will win, hands down.
Why?
Because skid marks (and any other accident-related mathematical dedcutions) are way beyond what anybody could expect a police officer to do. Some might be able to, but very few.
Now, if the officer takes his report back to the station and a DETECTIVE looks at the report, there might be a different result. Either the detective might have verifiable math/physics skills OR he will look around the department for such skills. They are DEFINITELY there.
Once that person (crime scene analyst or something like that) does the calculations, if HE shows up in court and makes a claim, then I'm doomed.
THIS person needs to have been evaluated for his math skills on hiring, NOT the cop that made the report.
Put yourself in the chief's position (or in HR's position). You have to hire an effective cop. You have in front of you two guys of the same color. The test you have given evaluated them this way:
math writing reading physical
comprehension fitness
candidate 1 30 70 75 80
candidate 2 90 45 60 80
I would pick candidate 1 every time. He reads documents (warrants, court orders) that are sometimes a little hard to understand. He writes reports that citizens rely on to be understood by the courts. He really doesn't do any math to speak of.
Take the math off the test, thereby disarming the Justice Department.
It's not nearly as important as other skills, so there's no reason to dig in your heels and keep it on the test, leaving the JD that to whine about.
Remember, I do NOT think not knowing math by ANY MEANS makes a police officer stupid.
And also remember I eat math for lunch, so I'm not by any means anti-math.
The reality is that somebody in that department made what I think was the ill-considered decision to put the questions on the test and now would have to eat a little crow to remove them. Happens all the time.
Just give him some ketchup and get over it.
I'm guessing what you wrote was somewhat facetious.
Whether or not it was, it helped to show what I am actually trying to get across.
The devices cops use to determine speeding do all the math and arithmetic by themselves. I would not be too surprised to find that all a cop has to do is key in the speed yielded by the radar device to his laptop and out pops the correct charge for the citation.
From the comments of some other guys:
Critical thinking and math. They're not the same. Critical thinking's more a social science sort of thing. Math is a little more mechanical than that.
I was waiting for somebody to mention that math gets used at accident scenes.
Let's say I get in an accident that's involved my stepping on the brakes and making a skid mark (I'm guessing that's where you were going with that).
Now the officer at the scene measures the marks and records them. So far, ok. Officer hasn't used any math.
I decide to fight some issue, and I am arguing something about speed related to my skid marks. The officer comes to court. He has done (by himself) some math involving the marks and makes a claim about my speed.
Now, I don't try this myself, because the whole courtroom would be asleep by the end of it. But I hire an "expert witness" who then actually DOES the math showing that the cop can't calculate what he just claimed, and presents it succinctly. I will win, hands down.
Why?
Because skid marks (and any other accident-related mathematical dedcutions) are way beyond what anybody could expect a police officer to do. Some might be able to, but very few.
Now, if the officer takes his report back to the station and a DETECTIVE looks at the report, there might be a different result. Either the detective might have verifiable math/physics skills OR he will look around the department for such skills. They are DEFINITELY there.
Once that person (crime scene analyst or something like that) does the calculations, if HE shows up in court and makes a claim, then I'm doomed.
THIS person needs to have been evaluated for his math skills on hiring, NOT the cop that made the report.
Put yourself in the chief's position (or in HR's position). You have to hire an effective cop. You have in front of you two guys of the same color. The test you have given evaluated them this way:
math writing reading physical
comprehension fitness
candidate 1 30 70 75 80
candidate 2 90 45 60 80
I would pick candidate 1 every time. He reads documents (warrants, court orders) that are sometimes a little hard to understand. He writes reports that citizens rely on to be understood by the courts. He really doesn't do any math to speak of.
Take the math off the test, thereby disarming the Justice Department.
It's not nearly as important as other skills, so there's no reason to dig in your heels and keep it on the test, leaving the JD that to whine about.
Remember, I do NOT think not knowing math by ANY MEANS makes a police officer stupid.
And also remember I eat math for lunch, so I'm not by any means anti-math.
The reality is that somebody in that department made what I think was the ill-considered decision to put the questions on the test and now would have to eat a little crow to remove them. Happens all the time.
Just give him some ketchup and get over it.
urbanassault
New member
I would have to say no, seems that public education is much better in the north
"It's not nearly as important as other skills, so there's no reason to dig in your heels and keep it on the test, leaving the JD that to whine about."
And because it's not as important as the other skills, the test doesn't go beyond simple arithmetic. No one is saying that a police officer needs to be able to analyze the physics and geometry of a traffic accident. From the original post, here is a sample question:
“On Tuesday, Officer Jones worked the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift. At 10:55 p.m. he was called to the scene of an accident where he remained until 1:30 a.m. How long past his regular shift did Officer Jones work?”
This just isn't rocket science.
Tim
And because it's not as important as the other skills, the test doesn't go beyond simple arithmetic. No one is saying that a police officer needs to be able to analyze the physics and geometry of a traffic accident. From the original post, here is a sample question:
“On Tuesday, Officer Jones worked the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift. At 10:55 p.m. he was called to the scene of an accident where he remained until 1:30 a.m. How long past his regular shift did Officer Jones work?”
This just isn't rocket science.
Tim