Gender discrepancies in fitness tests

[shawmutt]

I was just reading this article:http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,6390338.story

Quote:

FBI analyst sues, claims 1 pushup kept him from being special agent

An intelligence analyst for the FBI in Chicago who allegedly missed becoming a special agent by a single pushup has filed a gender-discrimination lawsuit alleging that the FBI's fitness test is flawed and biased against men.

Jay Bauer, a Northwestern University doctoral graduate, joined the FBI in 2009 after leaving the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee as an assistant professor in its communication sciences department, according to the lawsuit filed last week in federal court in Chicago.

It seems that Jack Bauer's underachieving brother can't do a measly 30 un-timed pushups--which is pretty sad in my book, but it opens the question--are the lopsided fitness tests fair? I believe if a woman is being hired for the same job she should be able to do the same fitness test.

Should women who are being hired to do the same job be required to perform the same fitness test? Are women incapable of doing the same test, or is it akin to making women play softball because they "need" a bigger target to hit?

[Hellbound]

Actually, the question is what the test is for.

If you're testing a general fitness level, then the test does need to be varied based on gender. A woman at a certain level of fitness can't do as many push-ups as a man at the same level (fitness meaning general cardiovascular fitness and muscular strength and endurance). Women tend to develop less muscle mass, and it's proportioned a bit differently. The military's fitness tests also have different standards for men and women. If the standards were identical, then (generally speaking) the women would need to be at a much higher fitness level to pass; they'd need to spend even more time and effort to score the same on the test (as a man).

However, if the test is something specific to the job (for example, a fireman might have to demonstrate the ability to lift a 200 pound person and carry them for some distance), then the standards should be the same.

All depends on what you're measuring.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by shawmutt

I was just reading this article:http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,6390338.story



It seems that Jack Bauer's underachieving brother can't do a measly 30 un-timed pushups--which is pretty sad in my book, but it opens the question--are the lopsided fitness tests fair? I believe if a woman is being hired for the same job she should be able to do the same fitness test.

Should women who are being hired to do the same job be required to perform the same fitness test? Are women incapable of doing the same test, or is it akin to making women play softball because they "need" a bigger target to hit?

Is the test for upper body strength, or for endurance?

If the former, then the agency has to show why that is a BFOQ that shouldn't be adjusted for biological differences.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally Posted by Hellbound

However, if the test is something specific to the job (for example, a fireman might have to demonstrate the ability to lift a 200 pound person and carry them for some distance)

Why would they need to do this? Are fat people fireproof?

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

Why would they need to do this? Are fat people fireproof?

If you can hold the victims up in the air high enough, the flames won't reach them...

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

Why would they need to do this? Are fat people fireproof?

Originally Posted by crimresearch

If you can hold the victims up in the air high enough, the flames won't reach them...

Or you might need to carry an unconscious person outside of a burning building, and 200 pounds was a number picked more or less at random; it's not intended to be factual, but simply to illustrate the idea of the difference between measuring fitness in general and measuring specific capabilities).

Of course, you're more than welcome to nitpick the poor example and miss the primary point *shrug*.

[Bikewer]

Police departments have run into problems with PT tests os this sort. Most featured an adjustable scale that was weighted to age. Older officers didn't have to run as fast or do other tasks as well as younger officers.
But....they were tasked with doing the same job... So, younger officers complained that the older guy would be expected to wrestle the same bad guy they were, so why the different standard?

As well, it used to be the case that new recruits wereever expected to have 20/20 vision. However, few older officers had perfect vision... Yet they still worked "the street"...

Finally, there were cases of senior officers suffering debilitating injuries while training, or having heart attacks during mandatory PT tests, which would result in prolonged, duty-related rehabilitation on the department's nickel, or lawsuits from the officers ( or thei survivors).

[Hellbound]

There are concerns about the fairness of the tests, but in general the tests are designed not to meet some set standard of performance (you have to be able to run this fast to do your job), but rather to measure general fitness (you're keeping yourself in decent physical shape for your gender/age group).

Too many people believe the tests are the former type, rather than the latter.

Of course, there are still some valid concerns about whether the scales are properly weighted for age and gender; for example is a woman who scores a 70% really at the same fitness level as a man who scores 70%? Or a 20 year old versus a 40 year old? But valid criticisms need to argue about what the tests are actually intended for.

Now a caveat, my experience comes primarily from the U.S. Army, but as I understand the testing is similar for most government agencies and police deprartments. They may have different eventsm different lengths of running/swimming/biking/whatever, and so forth, but almost all fo them are intended to test a fitness level. It's not a matter of "you have to run this fast to do your job", but a matter of "if you can run this fast then that puts you in the top X% of your demographic as far as fitness, which is what we want".

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by shawmutt

I was just reading this article:http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,6390338.story



It seems that Jack Bauer's underachieving brother can't do a measly 30 un-timed pushups--which is pretty sad in my book, but it opens the question--are the lopsided fitness tests fair? I believe if a woman is being hired for the same job she should be able to do the same fitness test.

Should women who are being hired to do the same job be required to perform the same fitness test? Are women incapable of doing the same test, or is it akin to making women play softball because they "need" a bigger target to hit?

PT tests for females are adjusted down to compensate for lower body mass, upper body strength, etc.

Both LEA's and the military services have been using the formula for some time.

I've met many women who could compete on an equal level with men endurance wise, but very few that can compete in strength tests involving upper body strength.

I'll always remember what Mayor Ed Koch stated when females began being hired on by FDNY - "I don’t care what sex a firefighter is, as long as they can carry a 200 pound mayor out of a burning building.”

As far as "fairness" goes, the FBI trainee had ample opportunity to muscle up before entering the program, so no sympathy there from me, but as well as a women can do many jobs in the military, I'd keep women out of the combat MOS and as far away from the shooting as possible.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Hellbound

Or you might need to carry an unconscious person outside of a burning building, and 200 pounds was a number picked more or less at random; it's not intended to be factual, but simply to illustrate the idea of the difference between measuring fitness in general and measuring specific capabilities).

Of course, you're more than welcome to nitpick the poor example and miss the primary point *shrug*.

Went right over your head, hmmmm? Next time, I'll PM you a sarcasm smiley.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Hellbound

There are concerns about the fairness of the tests, but in general the tests are designed not to meet some set standard of performance (you have to be able to run this fast to do your job), but rather to measure general fitness (you're keeping yourself in decent physical shape for your gender/age group).

Too many people believe the tests are the former type, rather than the latter.

Of course, there are still some valid concerns about whether the scales are properly weighted for age and gender; for example is a woman who scores a 70% really at the same fitness level as a man who scores 70%? Or a 20 year old versus a 40 year old? But valid criticisms need to argue about what the tests are actually intended for.

Now a caveat, my experience comes primarily from the U.S. Army, but as I understand the testing is similar for most government agencies and police deprartments. They may have different eventsm different lengths of running/swimming/biking/whatever, and so forth, but almost all fo them are intended to test a fitness level. It's not a matter of "you have to run this fast to do your job", but a matter of "if you can run this fast then that puts you in the top X% of your demographic as far as fitness, which is what we want".

The military has latitude that other employers, even other public employers, do not.

Physical testing for law enforcemnt et al. is still held to the BFOQ standard set by the Supreme Court in the 80s.

Carrying a 200 pound person can be accomplished by using the whole body, so isolated upper body strength tests like bench press and pushups (which tend to favor males) have to be balanced against that.

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Carrying a 200 pound person can be accomplished by using the whole body, so isolated upper body strength tests like bench press and pushups (which tend to favor males) have to be balanced against that.

Um, yes, that was exactly what I said. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

There is a difference between a general fitness test (such as that used by the Army and by several law enforcement agencies and similar), and a specific capacity test (such as some fire departments or rescue squads do, where the person has to actually pick up an appropriately weighted dummy (or a person pretending to be unconscious) and carry it/him/her a certain distance).

I was pointing out the difference to those who make the argument posted in the OP:

Quote:

I believe if a woman is being hired for the same job she should be able to do the same fitness test.

The test is NOT testing for specific capacity (i.e.- you have to do 30 push ups to do your job, but we'll give you a pass if you're old/female); it's testing for general fitness (we expect you to maintain a reasonable fitness level for your age and gender, and we'll test it using push ups, sit ups, and a run).

So arguing against these tests on the idea that exceptions are beign made for some people is missing the point entirely of what they are attempting to measure. It's not a valid argumnet. It's like someone complaining that the new car they cought doesn't float, and trying to sue the automaker. That isn't what it's intended for, and it's not a valid criticism.

Hopefully that helps clear up my point.

[Quad4_72]

Ah yes, the good old fitness test dilemma. As far as the FBI guy trying to be a special agent, he should be ashamed and embarrassed. He couldn't do 30 untimed push ups and he is complaining about it? He has no business being a special agent and should be confined to a desk job the rest of his career.

On one hand I agree with the argument that it is used simply to measure your overall fitness, and that is why there are two different standards. It is not a measure of what the job entails. On the otherhand, if being a special agent is anything like being a police officer, then the test DOES measure what part of the job entails (The running more specifically), in which case there should be one standard.

The problem is if you make one set standard, you have to make it either extremely easy for males or make the test almost impossible for females. Lets use the military for example. If you take a look at both the male and female standards, if a female maxes out her scale, that is still not even passing on the male scale. So if in the military all females had to meet the male standard, there would literally only be a small handful of females left in the military.

If this same concept is applied to the police force, then you would eliminate almost all females out there in the force, making the ratio too unequal.

[Hellbound]

And Quad makes a more reasonable argument against the fitness tests (thanks for understanding my point!).

It can be argued that certain things are (or should be) required by the job, and shouldn't be adjusted based on gender and/or age. That's a different argument from the assumption that the fitness tests are intended to measure that, rather than a general fitness level.

Maybe I'm over-complicating my posts. But there are several arguments that are being conflated, which is my issue.

The tests are intended to measure general fitness, and as such should be adjusted based on age and gender. The argument that the standards should be the same are assuming the tests are measuring a specific capacity instead of general fitness, and is invalid.

However, arguing that a certain specific capacity should be required, and thus no adjustment to raw scores shoudl be done, is a different and valid argument (it's the "you aren't testing the right thing" argument).

Likewise, arguments that the fitness test doesn't measure fitness equally for both genders/ages is valid (basically, "even thought he standards are different, a woman/older person/martian doesn't have to work as hard for the same score").

I apologize for my wordiness, but I'm trying to clarify my points and (in theory) prevent misunderstandings

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by Hellbound

And Quad makes a more reasonable argument against the fitness tests (thanks for understanding my point!).

It can be argued that certain things are (or should be) required by the job, and shouldn't be adjusted based on gender and/or age. That's a different argument from the assumption that the fitness tests are intended to measure that, rather than a general fitness level.

Maybe I'm over-complicating my posts. But there are several arguments that are being conflated, which is my issue.

The tests are intended to measure general fitness, and as such should be adjusted based on age and gender. The argument that the standards should be the same are assuming the tests are measuring a specific capacity instead of general fitness, and is invalid.

However, arguing that a certain specific capacity should be required, and thus no adjustment to raw scores shoudl be done, is a different and valid argument (it's the "you aren't testing the right thing" argument).

Likewise, arguments that the fitness test doesn't measure fitness equally for both genders/ages is valid (basically, "even thought he standards are different, a woman/older person/martian doesn't have to work as hard for the same score").

I apologize for my wordiness, but I'm trying to clarify my points and (in theory) prevent misunderstandings

These points are all correct and valid. In the case in the OP, the FBI guy doesn't have a leg to stand on. What we would call him in the Army is a fecesbag.

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

These points are all correct and valid. In the case in the OP, the FBI guy doesn't have a leg to stand on. What we would call him in the Army is a fecesbag.

He doesn't have a leg to run on either, apparently.

Or an arm to push on

[sarge]

In the case of the APFT, adjusting the test to account for physiological differences is valid, and need not be 'corrected', so long as advantagous and adverse personnel actions depend in some part on an individuals score.

For most of my time, PT scores were one component of a Soldiers standing on a promotion list - the better the individual performed against their APFT standards, the higher they were on a promotion list. Conversely, failure to meet a minimum score for any event on the APFT could be grounds for any number of adverse actions - including jail time (unlikely in the extreme, but possible). So long as a PT test is used as a discriminator in this fashion, it must be adjusted for age/gender.

[Tiktaalik]

I'm an LEO, and our fitness test is both gender and age adjusted, with women having to stretch further in the flexibility portion and men having to bench press a larger portion of their body weight, and other adjustments. It is, as others have said, a test of general fitness, because our jobs are too variable to come up with task-based tests that are based enough in reality to be supportable in court (we tried once). As far as age adjustment, I think you can make the argument that there are other important skills besides fitness that go into making a good or at least functional LEO. If you want to use some fitness standard as a make-or-break test, you are discounting education, firearms skills, certifications to teach or deal with special circumstances, experience, martial arts experience, negotiation skills, and a whole host of other things.

[Jarlaxle]

Well, as someone that cannot do ANY pushups (my left shoulder simply will not take that angle without collapsing), I'm not going to comment. However, my wife will. Her direct quote: "The test for a man and a woman should be the same. They do the same job, they should have to pass the same tests."

I must point out that, as of six months ago my brother, eight years younger and an active-duty Marine Corps NCO, could not even come close to keeping up with her. His exact words: "I'd bet she could beat anyone in my company on the obstacle course."

[Rasmus]

So ... what good is a general fitness test, and why should it be needed for any job, if the results do not indicate that i can or cannot do something?

Why would I, as a man, not be suitable for a job due to my "unfitness", if I can still run faster, longer, lift more, etc. than the majority of extremely fit women? How is my unfitness a problem in any way?

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Rasmus

So ... what good is a general fitness test, and why should it be needed for any job, if the results do not indicate that i can or cannot do something?

Why would I, as a man, not be suitable for a job due to my "unfitness", if I can still run faster, longer, lift more, etc. than the majority of extremely fit women? How is my unfitness a problem in any way?

That's why they are called 'BFOQs'.

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by Rasmus

So ... what good is a general fitness test, and why should it be needed for any job, if the results do not indicate that i can or cannot do something?

Why would I, as a man, not be suitable for a job due to my "unfitness", if I can still run faster, longer, lift more, etc. than the majority of extremely fit women? How is my unfitness a problem in any way?

Because your fitness level correlates positiviely with fewer sick days, less likelyhood of many diseases such as strokes, heart attacks, and so forth, more tolerance for adverse conditions (such as lack of sleep, cold, heat, and similar), and numerous other benefits.

Your fitness level does measure something (in theory: one could argue about the accuracy of the tests), just not a specific capacity to (for example) do push-ups.

To answer your second question, a man who can barely pass the US Army female standards would be out of shape, compared to the general population of males in his age group (for that matter, many who can pass the male test are out of shape, but that's neither here nor there). While if we went the other direction, you'd have some men who are out of shape (but still managing to pass the test), but the women would all have to be athletes.

IN the Army's test (and many others, I presume, but I obviously can't speak to all of them) your "raw" score is converted to a score on a scale of 1-100. The raw score is the number of push-ups in 2 minutes, sit-ups in 2 minutes, and time on the 2 mile run. The composite score takes that raw score and, based on age and gender, gives a score between 1 and 100 (with 60 or higher as passing). And that's the key...the fitness test standards are intended to be the same...in that a man and a woman that are at the same general fitness level should get the same composite score.

[autumn1971]

One of my brothers is a US Navy officer, and, as I understand it, he has to pass a fitness test now and then. Given how his body has aged I know that there is no way that he anywhere near as quick or limber as any young officer is at 21. They keep promoting him, though, so I guess he's fit enough.