FDNY.......Is this lady FF a liability?

[mugsy]

I can't speak for the FDNY, and I do not want to defend shifting standards in general, but for the military general purpose forces (i.e. non "Special Forces") the PT test is not designed to produce a match to some absolute standard. For example, the FDNY has a portion of their test that is designed to test a candidate's ability to drag an average body weight a certain distance - that is a very specific test made to replicate a specific job task.

In contrast, the military PT test is designed to screen for a basic level or muscular strength and aerobic fitness - it isn't to screen for a particular military task, but just to see if the candidate is fit - essentially screening for at least upper 50% (IIRC) fitness in each age group and gender. Once in the military there are many task specific tests (march times with rucks, etc.) and on those some may have been adjusted for females if there was an obvious disparity. But in all honesty, many of the task specific tests were measured in an arbitrary manner, so changing them arbitrarily is hard to condemn.

So, unless there is not just a measure but a specific, verifiable reason for that measure, one shouldn't be too eager to jump to conclusions about suitability being related to test results. Where there is a solid verifiable link then the standard should be enforced because there would logically lead to some type of degradation in performance.

 

[TedKennedy]

In the Marines I scored 100 on pull ups and crunches and 95 on the three mile run which I ran in 18:18. A WM ran the three miles in 21 minutes and scored a perfect 300.

Yes, and the Marines have been the target of "diversification" trends of late. Seems some folks are unhappy that such a large chunk of the USMC is made up of southern white boys. I'd like to see one of our engineers come up with some root-cause analysis for Marine vs Army geography/diversity...

 

[SMS]

I can't speak for the FDNY, and I do not want to defend shifting standards in general, but for the military general purpose forces (i.e. non "Special Forces") the PT test is not designed to produce a match to some absolute standard. For example, the FDNY has a portion of their test that is designed to test a candidate's ability to drag an average body weight a certain distance - that is a very specific test made to replicate a specific job task.

In contrast, the military PT test is designed to screen for a basic level or muscular strength and aerobic fitness - it isn't to screen for a particular military task, but just to see if the candidate is fit - essentially screening for at least upper 50% (IIRC) fitness in each age group and gender. Once in the military there are many task specific tests (march times with rucks, etc.) and on those some may have been adjusted for females if there was an obvious disparity. But in all honesty, many of the task specific tests were measured in an arbitrary manner, so changing them arbitrarily is hard to condemn.

So, unless there is not just a measure but a specific, verifiable reason for that measure, one shouldn't be too eager to jump to conclusions about suitability being related to test results. Where there is a solid verifiable link then the standard should be enforced because there would logically lead to some type of degradation in performance.

Well written mugsy.

In short...setting standards to assess cardiovascular and muscular fitness based on the the physiological differences between men and women is one thing. Adjusting task specific standards for men and women is entirely another.

One is ok, the other is bullsh$t.

 

[BadgeBunny]

Mugsy and SMS are right ...

The particular test I have personal knowledge of has nothing to do with brute physical strength and everything to do with a learnable skill ... One that even I have mastered and I'm a damned civilian ...

 

[elance]

So in part to this thread and another here. Let me know when diversification applies to middle aged fat man and pro- ball, I want me some 48mil but would settle for half.

Elance

 

[turkeyrun]

I don't think anyone on our dept could run a mile and a half in under 12 min

I hate running and always have. However, as part of a PT before baseball season one year, we had a new coach that had just retired as an Army Drill Sargeant required everyone on the team to run that mile and half in under 12 minutes. As a catcher and calculating 4 bases at 90 feet between each base, the maximum I would run at any given point would be 360 ft; a distance somewhat shorter than the 7920 ft required by Sarge.

I completed the distance in 12th place at 10 min 12 secs, with all 20 teammates under the 12 minute mark.

IF this is a requirement of the job, it should be required of EVERYBODY. I agree, setting standard requirements may skew gender quotas. Either enforce the standard as stated or lower the standard for ALL.

 

[myappliancestore]

As someone who has spent the last two years testing and trying to get on a fire departments I don't think you should be able to get a chance at getting a job unless you pass the physical.

 

[TedKennedy]

Seems simple to me - the requirements to be a (fill in the blank) are XXXX physical fitness score, and XXXX intelligence score.
That's the requirement, period.

How $^%$$ hard is that to understand?

 

[SMS]

Seems simple to me - the requirements to be a (fill in the blank) are XXXX physical fitness score, and XXXX intelligence score.
That's the requirement, period.

How $^%$$ hard is that to understand?

Agreed....Set the standard and apply same. This broad shouldn't be allowed on the force unless she meets the standard. Period.

I was just getting into the minutiae of the development and applicability of different standards.

 

[firepolicedude]

Female FDNY recruit quits after failing running test 6 times

http://www.firerescue1.com/fire-dep...uit-quits-after-failing-running-test-6-times/