Should I.Q tests be allowed for employment screening?

[Holy Roller]

Suppose your husband applies for a job, but when he goes in for the interview, human resources says he has to fill out an I.Q. test first. He asks if it's pass/fail, and human resources says yes.
Furthermore, she says your husband has to score at least a 130 on the test (Stanford Binet test), which means his intelligence has to be in the upper 98% of the general populace if he wants to get this job!
He mentions to human resources that he meets the qualification and has the experience for the job, and that the I.Q. test may be a form of intelligence discrimination.
Do you agree?
The job description does not in any way relate to any of the material administered in the intelligence test.

 

[feral]

Suppose your husband applies for a job, but when he goes in for the interview, human resources says he has to fill out an I.Q. test first. He asks if it's pass/fail, and human resources says yes.
Furthermore, she says your husband has to score at least a 130 on the test (Stanford Binet test), which means his intelligence has to be in the upper 98% of the general populace if he wants to get this job!
He mentions to human resources that he meets the qualification and has the experience for the job, and that the I.Q. test may be a form of intelligence discrimination.
Do you agree?
The job description does not in any way relate to any of the material administered in the intelligence test.

The last sentence of the OP, which I took the liberty of markng in bold font, would seem to indicate that an intelligence test is unnecessary -- though I would still debate the question of unfair. Whose needs are more important? The corporation, who is paying the employee? Should they have to accept those workers who they do not deem smart enough? Or does the population matter most and should we attempt to fill jobs and make sure all are employed while not allowing practises which might deny a certain segment their position? If having a quantitative level of intelligence is necessary for doing a job, testing seems fair. If it's not needed, then it does seem arbitrary and discriminatory.

 

[Mling]

If the guy is qualified for the job, then results on an IQ test are irrelevant. They don't measure things like attention span or ability to interact with others, which are vital for many jobs.

 

[JadeTigress]

If the guy is qualified for the job, then results on an IQ test are irrelevant. They don't measure things like attention span or ability to interact with others, which are vital for many jobs.

I second this.

 

[Washington]

If IQ is a BFOQ then IQ testing should be permitted.

"A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a man who was barred from the New London police force because he scored too high on an intelligence test.

In a ruling made public on Tuesday, Judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven agreed that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, was denied an opportunity to interview for a police job because of his high test scores. But he said that that did not mean Mr. Jordan was a victim of discrimination.

Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.

Mr. Jordan, 48, who has a bachelor's degree in literature and is an officer with the State Department of Corrections, said he was considering an appeal. ''I was eliminated on the basis of my intellectual makeup,'' he said. ''It's the same as discrimination on the basis of gender or religion or race.''

source
​

According to this decision the IQ test was evidently deemed a BFOQ and acceptable when administered and applied equally to all who applied.

 

[stan1980]

I don't think this is a particularly easy to answer. Any decent employer is going to take into consideration a number of factors when hiring a person. If they want the most intelligent candidate (well at least the person who scores best in a particular test, even if it doesn't relate to the job), then that is their prerogative although it clearly wouldn't be advisable from an employer's point of view.

 

[S53]

Wow. There are too many people out there who think the world should give you something. Your applying for a job. He can give you an IQ Test. It's no different than having an employer sending you off for a drug test.

 

[Braunwyn]

Suppose your husband applies for a job, but when he goes in for the interview, human resources says he has to fill out an I.Q. test first. He asks if it's pass/fail, and human resources says yes.
Furthermore, she says your husband has to score at least a 130 on the test (Stanford Binet test), which means his intelligence has to be in the upper 98% of the general populace if he wants to get this job!
He mentions to human resources that he meets the qualification and has the experience for the job, and that the I.Q. test may be a form of intelligence discrimination.
Do you agree?
The job description does not in any way relate to any of the material administered in the intelligence test.

Why are you only addressing the women and homosexual men on this forum? Have you had it with the straight guys here?

To answer your question, I wouldn't consider it discrimination. I might consider it to be bad business practice though depending on a few factors. If several applicants have the experience and qualifications required than I'm guessing it's not an obscure position. With that in mind, what percentage of the 2% of the general population that fit the IQ criteria reside in the region where the job is located? What percentage of these folk are looking for new employment, this job/field in particular and have the experience necessary? Are you, as an employer, offering a competative pkg to draw these people to your business? Also, IQ doesn't guarantee productivity, innovation and commitment. As an employer you might have slim pickings.

eta: with the above in mind I have to change my answer. Yes, it would be discrimination but not against the applicants.

 

[Bombila]

I'm amazed someone actually found an example of an employer using an IQ test as a selection requirement.

I would think experience and appropriate education would be the main criteria for an employer, since IQ tests, whether resulting in low or high scores, don't predict whether someone is a productive worker, or able to work with others, or particularly creative or practical in their approach to problem solving.

Discrimination? Depends on several factors. Stupid method of choosing employees? Definitely.

 

[Mling]

My mom has complaints about having to take a lie detector test a long time ago (before it was illegal for employers to require them). What really ticked her off was that they asked questions that polygraphs can't handle *at all.* Like, "would you ever steal from us."

 

[EbonNelumbo]

I think an IQ test is ridiculous. it's difficult enough now to get a job with the economy (at least in my city) and the restrictions already set forth.

 

[Washington]

I think an IQ test is ridiculous. it's difficult enough now to get a job with the economy (at least in my city) and the restrictions already set forth.

Unless your IQ falls in the lower percentiles maybe an IQ test would be to your benefit.

 

[EbonNelumbo]

I have an inlaw who is mentally retarded, and while I don't really like the person, it wouldn't be fair if she was trying to find work and was disallowed from doing so, even if she met all other qualifications but failed the IQ test.

 

[~Wisdom Seeker~]

I wish they were!

The truth is, to be desirable by most employers, you have to be submissive to authority, a sheep if you will. Of moderate intelligence, (able to follow orders, perform tasks, not think too independently.) not be too interested in rocking the boat, disturbing the status quo if you will, ie: think for yourself. You have to be easily controlled.

People who have high I.Q.'s... don't fit this criteria.

Ergo, this is why I.Q. tests are never used to access a person's desirability for employment.

 

[~Wisdom Seeker~]

I have an inlaw who is mentally retarded, and while I don't really like the person, it wouldn't be fair if she was trying to find work and was disallowed from doing so, even if she met all other qualifications but failed the IQ test.

The truth is, your in-law would have a better chance of getting a job than someone with say, an I.Q. of 150. A genius. Why? Because there are laws that put people with disabilities at the front of the line. And there are incentives given to employers for hiring said individuals.

That's not "fair" either. If we're being rational about it. But, yet, that's how it is.

 

[MsAnne]

What a great thread / question. One of those that made me stop and say, "Hmmm.."
Is it unfair? I don't think so - only because an "at will" employee can be hired or fired for any reason other than specific descriminations.
Do I think it's a good idea? - No

On an interesting side note:

I have an inlaw who is mentally retarded, and while I don't really like the person, it wouldn't be fair if she was trying to find work and was disallowed from doing so, even if she met all other qualifications but failed the IQ test.

I am one of 4 children, and the only girl. I have a developmentally disabled brother. He is self sufficient and is able to live on his own, but is not able to handle his own finances or time schedules of any kind.
When I was in grade school, we were all given IQ tests by the district. I always I assumed I scored the highest in my family as I was the A-student, the actor, the musician, etc., and none of my brothers gave 2 hoots about school.
It wasn't until about 10 years ago that my mother broke down and told me the results of those tests - You got it, my D.D. brother scored the highest of all of us, and not by a small margin either.
Talk about humbling!

 

[Foolish_Fool]

It depends on the job. Most jobs all you need to do is follow basic instructions. In those cases an IQ test would be pointless.

For some jobs, especially those with a heavy technical or R&D slant then you want somebody with better than average problem solving skills who can think on their own. I would be in favor of IQ tests simply because it would make my life infinetely less frustrating when my boss hires people who are as sharp as a balloon and expects me to train them. I would rather have an intelligent person with no experience than a dumb person with tons of experience.

 

[Braunwyn]

It depends on the job. Most jobs all you need to do is follow basic instructions. In those cases an IQ test would be pointless.

For some jobs, especially those with a heavy technical or R&D slant then you want somebody with better than average problem solving skills who can think on their own. I would be in favor of IQ tests simply because it would make my life infinetely less frustrating when my boss hires people who are as sharp as a balloon and expects me to train them. I would rather have an intelligent person with no experience than a dumb person with tons of experience.

I'm not following how a person with tons of experience and the usual education required for highly technical and R&D positions could be dumb.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Suppose your husband applies for a job, but when he goes in for the interview, human resources says he has to fill out an I.Q. test first. He asks if it's pass/fail, and human resources says yes.
Furthermore, she says your husband has to score at least a 130 on the test (Stanford Binet test), which means his intelligence has to be in the upper 98% of the general populace if he wants to get this job!
He mentions to human resources that he meets the qualification and has the experience for the job, and that the I.Q. test may be a form of intelligence discrimination.
Do you agree?
The job description does not in any way relate to any of the material administered in the intelligence test.

No, because IQ test are being proven unreliable. A MI test would be a much better alternative, and a 'home brew' form of MI tests are a key component of each interview, even though most do not realize they are even being given.

 

[Phylogeny]

If the IQ test was actually an accurate indicator of how creative or innovative or intelligent the person is, then I think the test is a valid assessment for a job. Even for jobs that seem to require little intelligence, the employer may still want a certain level of intelligence for that position.

That said, most IQ tests do not truly test the brain's potential. So much of what makes a person "smart" is dependent on educational level and other environmental factors.

As for why R&D and technical positions may want to have someone intelligent over someone well educated and experienced....well, R&D is a field where, after being educational qualified, really expects its workers to "think outside the box". No amount of training will ever make a scientist innovative if there's no internal spark that sets off a new idea.

As for technical work, I'm familiar with software programming and I'd say that that's a technical job which really rewards the high-level thinker. Much of programming is not straight forward and I find myself performing brain acrobatics to find eloquent solutions to difficult problems.

But as far as the sentiment of whether the employer as the right to want to hire someone intelligent, even if they are qualified in every way, I think that's already being done. When I interviewed with Microsoft, every single person there was educational qualified (college degree in computer science/engineering etc). Everyone there had the required experienced (interns or research). However, they picked us based on our problem solving skills. We were given very IQ-like questions that forced us to think outside of the box. The company wanted to hire programmers that could think beyond what they were taught and bring fresh approaches to unique problems. In that way, I guess Microsoft was utilizing an IQ test to hire employees.