# Toppling the wall to recruit women



## Nightstalker (Jul 25, 2006)

*Toppling the wall to recruit women*

Police obstacle course changed

* By Milton J. Valencia TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
*

Police recruits taking a state-required physical abilities test will see a change in the obstacle course, a move to address concerns that aspects of the test discriminated against women.

The change was made last week, after a review of results over several years showed women failed at a significantly higher rate than men.

Specifically, the change centers on a five-foot wall in the obstacle course, one of several components in the physical abilities test. Previously, the wall had been a straight surface, but it now features two braces, making it easier to scale.  

Felix Browne, a spokesman for the state administration, said the test "was revised to more accurately reflect the essential functions of a police officer's job," and that the braces are meant to "simulate the types of fences officers are likely to encounter while on duty."

Concerns with the test mainly focused on the dimensions of the wall, with many complaining its flat surface was an unrealistic setting, though a fence would be more appropriate because it allows for foot leverage.

The concerns of bias were based on the need for upper body strength to scale the flat wall, which many saw as an advantage for men because of their physical makeup. Without the ability to gain footing, recruits relied solely on upper body strength.

Women across the state have scaled the wall and passed the test. But even some of them have said it requires more energy from women because of the differences in upper body strength, and leaves them with less stamina to finish the obstacle course. In many cases, women completed the course, but seconds beyond the deadline, and so failed.

The six women in a Worcester police recruit class who took the test in March failed, even after two attempts. In Boston, 11 of 23 women who took it around that time failed after two attempts.

The statistics mirrored results among police departments statewide. From July 2005 through February, 71 of the 110 female candidates failed the test, or 64 percent. In comparison, 92.5 percent of the 510 men who took the test during that time passed.

In 2004, 104 of the 172 women who took the test failed, or 60.5 percent. In 2003, 39 percent of the 121 female cadets failed. In 2002, only 36.4 percent of the 143 cadets failed, and in 2001, 32.1 percent of the 140 cadets failed.

There was no definitive answer why the statistics grew worse over the years. The test had not changed since it was created in 1999. Still, the growing failure rate stirred concern among police departments across the state.

"In the past test, there were some concerns that the wall was potentially restricting a number of good potential candidates," said Elaine Driscoll, a spokeswoman for Boston police.

Police chiefs in Fall River and New Bedford also sent a joint letter to the state human resources division calling for the test to be examined.

"What we were seeing was 93 percent of all males who took it passed, but when you looked at the number of females who passed, it was clearly a disproportionate number. That in itself should be a red light to look at the testing system," said Police Chief Gary J. Gemme, who led the calls for a review of the exam.

"It seems to be that the state, in reviewing this whole process, recognized there needed to be some changes."

The chief worked with state Sen. Edward Augustus Jr., D-Worcester, in lobbying for a review of the exam. Mr. Augustus joined the local legislative delegation in sending a letter to the governor's office calling for a review, and secured $80,000 in funding.

Mr. Browne, of the governor's office, said the review of the physical exam is complete, and that the administration will now review the written exam, both of which are state-required under civil service rules.

"If that does do away with the disparity we were seeing previously then I'm satisfied," Mr. Augustus said. "I didn't want something disproportionately knocking out otherwise qualified women, who were disqualified from police departments across the state."

The failure rate results were also hurting efforts by departments to hire more women.

Chief Gemme said several of the women who failed in the last recruit class were Hispanic, and spoke Spanish.

"Anytime you can have your department reflect the diversity of the community, that's a positive thing," he said.

The women in the last class passed background checks, psychological exams and other requirements to become police officers, but were disqualified by what amounted to a five-foot-wall with no crevices to gain footing, an obstacle the chief said an officer rarely encounters in the real world anyway.

Many police officers across the state, including women who passed the wall, opposed any changes to the exam, saying it properly screens qualified candidates for a physically demanding job, and that public safety depended on it. The issue became fodder for police-based Web sites and chat groups. Many argued women shouldn't receive advantages in the name of diversifying a work force.

But Mr. Augustus and the chief said they were simply looking for "a level playing field."

Chief Gemme argued that such a significant disparity in statistics of those who failed warranted a review, and that he thought it was inappropriate to judge an officer's qualifications on one obstacle course.

Mr. Browne, of the governor's office, said four police departments, including Worcester and Boston, helped test the new exam before it was adopted. And now, communities will start sending recruits to the new test, beginning Monday with the Boston Police Department.

Worcester's recruit class will take the test beginning Thursday, and there are three women candidates. In the last police academy, Worcester had no women graduates.


----------



## MM1799 (Sep 14, 2006)

Hilarious. I dont even know where to begin. Why dont they ask the women who have _passed_ the test and are on the road. I care much more about their opinion then a bunch of failures (women or men).



Nightstalker said:


> Felix Browne, a spokesman for the state administration, said the test "was revised to more accurately reflect the essential functions of a police officer's job," and that the braces are meant to "simulate the types of fences officers are likely to encounter while on duty."


When I am pursuing some idiot and they jump a fence, usually the fence magically lowers itself. I think it is the metal in the badge.. kinda like when the traffic lights go red 



Nightstalker said:


> Chief Gemme said several of the women who failed in the last recruit class were Hispanic, and spoke Spanish.
> 
> "Anytime you can have your department reflect the diversity of the community, that's a positive thing," he said.


First it's Gemme... 
Second, yes diversity is fantastic. However I'd take physical ability over multi-lingual anyday. Just because you speak spanish doesn't mean perps are going to stop fighting and running.


----------



## PBC FL Cop (Oct 22, 2003)

Wolfman said:


> Any members of the Uterus Club feel like chiming in here?


I'm sure plenty will when the lawsuits start for past failures, now that the state has acknowledged the tests were biased against women!!


----------



## Andy0921 (Jan 12, 2006)

Wolfman said:


> Any members of the Uterus Club feel like chiming in here?


I'm sure Ken will:mrgreen: 
</IMG>


----------



## Tango (Nov 28, 2004)

Nightstalker said:


> *Toppling the wall to recruit women*
> 
> Police obstacle course changed
> 
> ...


Absolute crap! Think of it this way also, the standards were just lowered for a few not so physically fit males as well.

There are obviously women on this job that have, and will continue to get over the wall. There are plenty that can hold their own, but given that its hard enough for them to earn respect...changing the standards just makes it that much harder. No one wants double standards, (except for the failures)... we all know bad guys dont have them!!

PS- MM1799- right on about the Bilingual vs. physically able.


----------



## USMCTrooper (Oct 23, 2003)

Wait....what? Where are the handles? I can't find the handles! I CAN'T CLIMB THESE FENCES.....THEY'RE TOO HIGH....THIS ISN'T THE KIND OF THING I TRAINED FOR.........SOMEBODY *GEMME* A STEP LADDER!?!?!?!?!?!


----------



## Clouseau (Mar 9, 2004)

No big deal. Except for one swat member, I can honestly say that I've never observed a female officer climb a fence anyway.:sly: </IMG>


----------



## Andy0921 (Jan 12, 2006)

So are any of the females gonna chime in here?


----------



## Mitpo62 (Jan 13, 2004)

Foot pursuits? Scaling fences? Sounds like a job for *K - 9 ! ! ! *_*woof* :huh: _


----------



## Tackleberry22 (Dec 21, 2002)

Absolute BS. Hold on one second while I pull my magical step ladder out of the air. 
Hiring unqualified candidates to fill a quota, is not only a disservice to the department, but to the individual as well. I have no problem with women in LE. However, if a female candidate receives special attention and can not perform the essential job functions; then she is useless to officers that she works with. This is not a matter of bias views or male chauvinism, it is a matter of liability. I'll be honest; I would be extremely pissed off if I got my ass kicked in, because my back up (male or female) was unqualified and working the beat.


----------



## Andy0921 (Jan 12, 2006)

Tackleberry22 said:


> Absolute BS. Hold on one second while I pull my magical step ladder out of the air.
> Hiring unqualified candidates to fill a quota, is not only a disservice to the department, but to the individual as well. I have no problem with women in LE. However, if a female candidate receives special attention and can not perform the essential job functions; then she is useless to officers that she works with. This is not a matter of bias views or male chauvinism, it is a matter of liability. I'll be honest; I would be extremely pissed off if I got my ass kicked in, because my back up (male or female) was unqualified and working the beat.


Couldn't have said it better...I agree 100%


----------



## Nightstalker (Jul 25, 2006)

Tackleberry22 said:


> Hiring unqualified candidates to fill a quota, is not only a disservice to the department, but to the individual as well. I have no problem with women in LE. However, if a female candidate receives special attention and can not perform the essential job functions; then she is useless to officers that she works with. This is not a matter of bias views or male chauvinism, it is a matter of liability. I'll be honest; I would be extremely pissed off if I got my ass kicked in, because my back up (male or female) was unqualified and working the beat.


Very well put! I think thats the best response ive seen on here thus far!


----------



## Andy0921 (Jan 12, 2006)

They can always use the good old period excuse like they did to get out of running in gym.
"Sarge, I had cramps!"


----------



## HousingCop (May 14, 2004)

*Wow, when I started a thread a few years ago about the 5 foot wall being the "Grand Canyon" to some student candiates, I nearly got my ballbag bashed in by the CLUB. Anonymous emails, nasty PM's saying I was a typical chauvenistic male pig etc...... Shortly thereafter, POOF, I was expelled from Masscops for my first sabattical. *

*Glad to see the tempo in here is in favor of keeping the older plain wall standard. I was going to post last week when my buddy had told me that the wall had been Dumbed Down for the "vertically challenged" and those who consider themselves pear shaped, but I kept my distance from this red hot subject.*

*I trained under the old Cooper Standards and all the ladies who went to prescreening passed. I didn't see what was so wrong with the old standards as opposed to the new ones. Most everybody I know who has left my job done the new PAT seems to think it's way easier than the old Cooper Standard.*

*Well we cartainly can't blame Deval Patrick for this...... YET. *


----------



## Edmizer1 (Aug 27, 2006)

I'll be the first to disagree with everyone. This job is not about fast cars, big guns, and bulging muscles. Fitness is important but men and women have physical differences. In this case, one part of the overall test was a problem. When I went through the academy in the mid 90s the old "Cooper" standards were used which you had to pass to get in, and had to pass several times while in the academy. We had one guy who was a serious weight lifter and in great overall shape. He was almost dismissed because he couldn't pass the "sit and reach" flexibility test. He was so muscle bound he had problems with the test. Women had almost no problems with this test. They actually had to "reach" farther to pass than men of the same age group. I don't think the guy ever really passed the test but it was overlooked and he was allowed to graduate anyway.


----------



## SinePari (Aug 15, 2004)

Mom: "Don't worry, Nancy. You're better at taking written exams than those boys."

Nancy: "You're right mom, I shouldn't worry about the wall. I'll get hired anyway."


----------



## HPD104 (Jan 12, 2006)

Maybe Devall Patrick can pass a law that all fences/walls that extend higher then five feet have to have handles installed, and all violators will be subject to a fine... This is ridiculous, What is this job coming to? I can't dunk a basketball, or throw a fastball of 100MPH, or perform brain surgury...so I dont try out for the Celtics, or the Sox, or apply to med school, the point is there are things we can and cant do in this world based on our own bodies/skills...and unfortunately not everyone can climb a wall, so those people either need to train harder, or find a new career. I'm so sick of this state making it harder for the "qualified" people who actually score in the high 90's and pass the PAT to get a job in L.E. and making it easier for people who score low and cant pass this test.


----------



## j809 (Jul 5, 2002)

The only thing I didnt agree with the current PAT test is that the time limit is the same for someone that is 21 years old or 65 years old. Cooper test has gradual increases with age, PAT doesn't.


----------



## Deuce (Sep 27, 2003)

Edmizer1 said:


> I'll be the first to disagree with everyone. This job is not about fast cars, big guns, and bulging muscles. Fitness is important but men and women have physical differences. In this case, one part of the overall test was a problem. When I went through the academy in the mid 90s the old "Cooper" standards were used which you had to pass to get in, and had to pass several times while in the academy. We had one guy who was a serious weight lifter and in great overall shape. He was almost dismissed because he couldn't pass the "sit and reach" flexibility test. He was so muscle bound he had problems with the test. Women had almost no problems with this test. They actually had to "reach" farther to pass than men of the same age group. I don't think the guy ever really passed the test but it was overlooked and he was allowed to graduate anyway.


You, are a boob... 

When I jump over a fence (yes chief we do that shit) and I'm fighting with some crackhead I'd want that muscle head that can scale or go through the fence on the job instead of the split tail that can touch her toes easier than me...


----------



## potatochip (Sep 28, 2005)

Edmizer1 said:


> I'll be the first to disagree with everyone. This job is not about fast cars, big guns, and bulging muscles. Fitness is important but men and women have physical differences. In this case, one part of the overall test was a problem. When I went through the academy in the mid 90s the old "Cooper" standards were used which you had to pass to get in, and had to pass several times while in the academy. We had one guy who was a serious weight lifter and in great overall shape. He was almost dismissed because he couldn't pass the "sit and reach" flexibility test. He was so muscle bound he had problems with the test. Women had almost no problems with this test. They actually had to "reach" farther to pass than men of the same age group. I don't think the guy ever really passed the test but it was overlooked and he was allowed to graduate anyway.


This is good to know. I didn't realize the "sit and reach test" would be useful in breaking up a drunken brawl at 2am or fighting the town nutjob out in the woods.

"Sir, you should just stop fighting. Apparently you don't realize I can touch my toes."


----------



## Nightstalker (Jul 25, 2006)

Just an updated article I found....

http://telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061109/NEWS/611090785/1101

*More women pass test*

Police recruits tackle wall

Boston police officials are embracing a change in the obstacle course after recruits recently completed a state-required physical abilities test and women scored better than in recent years.

Of the 25 women who recently took the test, 17 passed, a 68 percent passing rate. The figure is significantly higher than the 50 percent rate of females in Boston's last class, and the average of 33 percent statewide. The disparity in the percentage of women who pass the test compared to men - who passed at an average of 92 percent - raised concerns that the test was discriminatory against women.

Boston's testing of the new obstacle course comes as Worcester police recruits are set to take the test for the first time since it was changed on Oct. 23. At least one woman plans to take the test today, and three others could take it within weeks. Worcester Police Chief Gary J. Gemme was one of the more vocal chiefs who questioned whether the test was biased, and said Boston's results and the fact that a change was made is encouraging.   

"We're hoping all of our female candidates pass the test," Chief Gemme said. "This is a significant improvement in terms of the test. There were original issues with the test, and I'm glad they got it resolved."

Police chiefs from throughout the state, from Boston to Fall River, raised concerns about the test after a review of results over the last several years showed women failed at a significantly higher rate than men, raising the possibility that the test was biased.

Chief Gemme said he, like other police leaders statewide, has been trying to diversify the department with more female officers, and the test handicapped those efforts. The last police academy in Worcester graduated 23 recruits, none of them women. Six recruits failed to pass the state exam.

"I'm glad they made changes, but I won't be happy until we have more women on the police force," Chief Gemme said. "It's important for the whole community."

Specifically, the change centers on a 5-foot-high wall in the obstacle course, one of several components in the physical abilities test.

Previously, the wall was a flat surface, but it now features two braces, making it easier to scale.

Felix Browne, a spokesman for the governor's office, said the test "was revised to more accurately reflect the essential functions of a police officer's job." He said the braces are meant to "simulate the types of fences officers are likely to encounter while on duty."

Concerns about the test mainly focused on the configuration of the wall, with many complaining its flat surface was unrealistic and did not allow for foot leverage. Without the ability to gain footing, recruits had to rely solely on upper body strength, which was considered an advantage for men.

Statewide statistics over the last several years showed an average of 33 percent of women who took the test failed, though some 93 percent of men who took it passed.

The findings triggered concerns among police leaders. However, many others, including female police officers, supported the test, saying it was a proper screening tool for a public safety job. Still, those who raised concerns said any component of the test with such a disparity between men and women warranted a review.

Elaine Driscoll, a spokeswoman for Boston police, said her department was pleased with the modification of the wall. She said the number of women who passed the recent test was an improvement compared to years past.

"The findings suggest there was a larger success rate, specifically amongst females," she said. "The wall now more closely represents something that would more realistically resemble something an officer would come across on the street."

Those who supported the review of the test, including state Sen. Edward M. Augustus Jr., D-Worcester, said they weren't attempting to change the test on behalf of women, but simply to create a level playing field for both genders.

"If that does do away with the disparity we were seeing previously, then I'm satisfied," Mr. Augustus has said. "I didn't want something disproportionately knocking out otherwise qualified women, who were disqualified from police departments across the state."

Chief Gemme said he embraces the change, saying the improvement among female recruits in Boston confirms there were problems with the original test.

Still, the chief said he was cautious about endorsing the changes, because Boston still had a disparity between the passing rates of men and women. Of the females who took the test, 17 of 25 passed, compared to 81 of the 83 men.


----------



## Bravo2-7 (Jan 9, 2005)

If I was a female on the job I would be pissed about this because they had to work to get over the thing. I have referred many times to the member of my academy class who is 5 feet tall and she worked hard and got to the point where she could get over the wall. I am sure she would be pissed upon hearing about this because she went about things the right way, she worked hard to overcome the obstacle, she did not whine and complain about how it was unfair.


Let's be honest here too though, the PAT was already pretty easy, for both male and females. Those of us who are on the job here in Mass know that passing the PAT proves nothing as far your physical fitness for getting through the academy. Well some of the academies anyway (Lowell!!!!)


----------



## Deuce (Sep 27, 2003)

All of them, except for the ones that complain and get sent to some specialized unit ....


----------



## badgebunny (Aug 17, 2005)

:sb: ....okay here I am on my soap box...as I stated here before I do not think the standards for men and women should be different for the PAT test! You either can do it or you can't. I am insulted that whoever gives these tests thinks that because some don't make the committment to train that the test should be "dumbed down" for females. WHAT?!?!?!?.....You've got to be kidding me!!!! If you want it, you will train to pass the PAT test! Does it suck that women have less upper body strength...maybe...but now that we all know this...shouldn't we (ladies) make sure that we work on our upper body strength so that we will pass the test? It makes me soooo mad that some females think it should be different so we can pass. We have to fight for respect as it is in the job, why make ourselves more of a target by whining about the wall! GO TO THE GYM AND WHEREVER ELSE YOU MIGHT NEED TO AND TRAIN LIKE YOU HAVE NEVER TRAINED BEFORE AND GET YOUR A**OVER THAT WALL AND STOP MAKING EXCUSES! If you don't then you have no one else to blame but yourself. Okay I am done for now with my rant...Thanks!


----------



## j809 (Jul 5, 2002)

He badge bunny!!!


----------



## Mitpo62 (Jan 13, 2004)

I too am aware of women who can't get over the wall, but know just as many that do. Change the test or standards? Nay. And hey, what about those big guys? I had some guys in my class who were defensive linemen big and I wondered how in the heck they made it through the window, let alone get over the wall. Geeeesh! :blink:


----------



## Officer Dunngeon (Aug 16, 2002)

Wolfman said:


> Any members of the Uterus Club feel like chiming in here?


Yes... HOORAY! Pass me another donut, it's all smooth open sailing from here!


----------



## Macop (May 2, 2002)

Hey I can't pass the standards that are already easy as hell, so lets make it easier, what a fucking joke.


----------

