I would argue you have a very warped definition of the word "smart."

Smart is, as far as I've ever seen it used, lowest indicator of being more intellegent then average. 

Anything over 115 should fit that bill. 

Genius, which is the word I believe your looking for, tends to vary in defitition anywhere as high as 180 and over, and as low as 120.

120 because it's generally observered that once you've reached 120, in general whether or not you do something "genius" in application it is based far more on other factors then basic IQ.

The drifting is called the "Flynn Effect.'

As for IQ tests, your only tested on your IQ if it seems apparent it's really high or really low... and they usually do tell you.

They actually do use IQ tests for adults as well.  In general when it's done for the "Population" they mean the population that is your age, and have an age scale built in so you can get the right score for your age.

Not really much point to it except for the average guy unless ego wanking if you score high. 

Does anyone else think this is a method to "protect" senior officers and their positions? People who come in with a IQ or a Master's Degree sometimes intimidate others... (not that the degree necessarily makes a police officer, but it's still an achievement above others).

I'm not sure I agree with the courts decision, but then again.... I'm not a psychologist.

Nah, Police Officers are by and large union.

It's all Office politics and passing the exams which don't change. (actual score outside of pass doesn't matter i believe.)

Interesting to know! Though the fact that someone that intelligent doesn't atain proffesional succes probably has more to do with his or her definiton of success. Being a bouncer probably pays well enough for him to live a fullfiling life, and it's acutally more a sign of intelligence if somebody isn't influenced by what other people think of him(or their definition of succes) and doesn't feel the need for kapitalistic consumption just to feel happy.

I'm not a big fan of eliminating candidates because they have too much education, too much experience, are over-qualified, or are "too smart" ... While these actions are driven by legitimate fears about how interested a candidate really is in a career, there are also many legitimate reasons why someone would want to pursue a career that is "beneath them". I've personally known a handful of people who, after obtaining a level of financial success that ensured they didn't need much to maintain a quality of life they were happy with, changed careers to prioritize other areas of their life beyond their career.

I understand that it is difficult to determine whether someone is being completely honest in an interview, but simply getting people to explain why they are choosing to change their career can demonstrate whether the person is looking for a job or the position you're offering. While some people probably would think I'm suggesting that a person needs to have a life defining justification, something as simple as "I have three children under 5 and I'm looking for job security to ensure that I can raise my children" often is completely understandable.

Yes, I agree that it requires passing exams and politics, but I still think any position hiring someone who is even perceived as "too smart" is still intimiating to the "higher aboves" (especially in law enforcement). There are still senior officers who weren't required back in the day to have a degree. At least where I'm located, if a canidate doesn't have a bachelor's or higher, then they are not even considered.