|
On June 01 2009 14:35 Kennigit wrote:
lol women are physically weaker than men. Obviously they have lower standards.
I apologize if I'm not making myself clear enough.
If the goal of the fitness test was to accept the top 5% of all men and the top 5% of all women, it would make perfect sense to have lower standards for women. However, I assume the test is meant to measure the amount of physical fitness that would be required in an emergency scenario. Since there is no reason to expect that women would need to be less strong in an emergency scenario, it illogical, not "obvious", to have different standards for women and men.
|
If I'm lucky, I bet I could get 0
which is a higher score than my roomate's friend's halo score after a 1v1 to 50
|
United States12607 Posts
hmmm...interesting. Here's what I could do I think:
1-minute sit-ups: probably 58+, but honestly I haven't done this since high school so I'll be conservative and say 50, which gives me 6 points.
300 m sprint: wack distance...I have no idea. I'm not a very fast sprinter so I guess I'll say 4 points here.
push-ups: 10 points.
1.5-mile run: 10 points.
~30 points total...come on guys, 12 can't be that hard. I mean, you get 5 just for being able to do 50 push-ups.
|
I'd be scraping the bottom of minimum because I don't run enough or sprint at all but could make up that with pushups mostly.
|
Sit ups: 10
300 M: 7
Push ups: 7
1.5 Mile: 5 or 6
|
|
|
On June 01 2009 14:40 overpool wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2009 14:35 Kennigit wrote:
lol women are physically weaker than men. Obviously they have lower standards. I apologize if I'm not making myself clear enough. If the goal of the fitness test was to accept the top 5% of all men and the top 5% of all women, it would make perfect sense to have lower standards for women. However, I assume the test is meant to measure the amount of physical fitness that would be required in an emergency scenario. Since there is no reason to expect that women would need to be less strong in an emergency scenario, it illogical, not "obvious", to have different standards for women and men.
I get what you mean. The system operating at 100% efficiency should have one standard to test for physical viablility as a field agent, because the important thing here is not to piss off women wanting equal hiring opportunities, but to have fully qualified field agents. The double standard here seems to violate this efficiency.
I'm thinking that the real standard is equal to the minimum standard for women, but they're just not telling us. With the minimum standard being so low (way too low imo), men should have no problem with the bar set a little higher for them because men are just physically more capable than women overall. If it's really just for looks and political reasons, then thats just -_-.
|
probably not, I'd score like 5 in pushups, 2-3 in mile run, 1-3 in situps, no idea for sprint.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 01 2009 19:31 Gliche wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2009 14:40 overpool wrote:On June 01 2009 14:35 Kennigit wrote:
lol women are physically weaker than men. Obviously they have lower standards. I apologize if I'm not making myself clear enough. If the goal of the fitness test was to accept the top 5% of all men and the top 5% of all women, it would make perfect sense to have lower standards for women. However, I assume the test is meant to measure the amount of physical fitness that would be required in an emergency scenario. Since there is no reason to expect that women would need to be less strong in an emergency scenario, it illogical, not "obvious", to have different standards for women and men. I get what you mean. The system operating at 100% efficiency should have one standard to test for physical viablility as a field agent, because the important thing here is not to piss off women wanting equal hiring opportunities, but to have fully qualified field agents. The double standard here seems to violate this efficiency. I'm thinking that the real standard is equal to the minimum standard for women, but they're just not telling us. With the minimum standard being so low (way too low imo), men should have no problem with the bar set a little higher for them because men are just physically more capable than women overall. If it's really just for looks and political reasons, then thats just -_-.
It might be, but the physical attributes are a very minor part of being an FBI agent. My guess is the physical requirements are there specifically so they can weed out people not in the top % of each sex, but they just don't explicitly say that. It's not like FBI agents actually run and jump and chase down criminals like in movies. They're mostly investigators.
|
10 in pushups dunno about the rest Id have to try it.
I don't see anyone failing this test with very little practice, the whole thing seems pointless.
|
11-12 :p wheres the equality? O_o
|
|
|
On June 01 2009 22:28 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2009 19:31 Gliche wrote:On June 01 2009 14:40 overpool wrote:On June 01 2009 14:35 Kennigit wrote:
lol women are physically weaker than men. Obviously they have lower standards. I apologize if I'm not making myself clear enough. If the goal of the fitness test was to accept the top 5% of all men and the top 5% of all women, it would make perfect sense to have lower standards for women. However, I assume the test is meant to measure the amount of physical fitness that would be required in an emergency scenario. Since there is no reason to expect that women would need to be less strong in an emergency scenario, it illogical, not "obvious", to have different standards for women and men. I get what you mean. The system operating at 100% efficiency should have one standard to test for physical viablility as a field agent, because the important thing here is not to piss off women wanting equal hiring opportunities, but to have fully qualified field agents. The double standard here seems to violate this efficiency. I'm thinking that the real standard is equal to the minimum standard for women, but they're just not telling us. With the minimum standard being so low (way too low imo), men should have no problem with the bar set a little higher for them because men are just physically more capable than women overall. If it's really just for looks and political reasons, then thats just -_-. It might be, but the physical attributes are a very minor part of being an FBI agent. My guess is the physical requirements are there specifically so they can weed out people not in the top % of each sex, but they just don't explicitly say that. It's not like FBI agents actually run and jump and chase down criminals like in movies. They're mostly investigators.
Basically what Jibba said, I think generally the point is simply to see if you are fit enough and healthy enough by their standards to your respective gender and you are not going to die on the job exerting yourself lol. There are also other requirements to being an agent that are probably far more important than the physical test and that should warrant more attention. There are many different fields an agent might be a part of, I am sure in the few that will certainly require physical activity (maybe counter terrorism) the women probably have to be able to perform on par. But a lot of an agents time is probably spent behind a desk and dealing with paperwork, investigations, accounting fraud etc. like other law enforcement officers.
|
On June 01 2009 13:59 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2009 13:41 BanZu wrote:On June 01 2009 13:35 micronesia wrote:
Why are there different standards for females than males? Do they have different job responsibilities?
edit: not sure but I doubt I'd do well XD Women typically lack the athleticism that men have. Just how it is. :/ Sit-ups: 3 300m: 10 Push-ups: 5 1.5 mile: 10 The running is easy for me but I suck at sit-ups and push-ups Then why are women hired for the FBI if they are worse at the physical aspects of the job? Isn't that putting them and others in danger? Obviously I'm not trying to suggest that the FBI shouldn't hire women, but this issue in general is one that frustrates me.
Well to be fair, I'm sure that there are some types of undercover jobs where being a good looking female would be more useful than being a guy.
|
On June 01 2009 14:39 decafchicken wrote:
They should make lower mental requirements for women since men are smarter too.
LOL.
I'd get around 12ish, give or take 2.... School really takes the conditioning right out of ya.
|
United States24805 Posts
On June 01 2009 15:18 JWD wrote:
~30 points total...come on guys, 12 can't be that hard. I mean, you get 5 just for being able to do 50 push-ups.
I just noticed this and... 50 pushups isn't that easy for everyone lol. If you have a decent sized frame and don't work out a fair bit then that's impossible without changing it up and doing a lot of strength training.
|
On June 01 2009 14:35 Kennigit wrote:
lol women are physically weaker than men. Obviously they have lower standards. It's not really relevant though cause some of the fastest and hardest people i know are girls. If they can hold their own then people shouldn't care.
but see women also more useful than men becaues they have vaginas
|
What kind of pushup are we doing? Right angle bend at elbow? Or all the way down?
|
I'd get 10 points through 1.5 mile run, I think it'd be easy to get the last 2 points :D
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
On June 01 2009 13:29 Gliche wrote:
I actually expected it to be a little harder. Everything looks easily trainable except for the 300 meter dash. 1-2 months routine exercise and almost everyone can hit 12 points easy.
3 Weeks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
