The_Breeze wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2003 at 5:48pm:

In other words, I am an administrator at the FBI and am faced with hundreds of applicants who are qualified, and sucessfull through the process.  How then do I legally weed out such numbers for my limited openings?  I suggest that now minor admissions become significant (absent same in others) and the trimming process begins.  The failure is placed at the polygraph for simplicity sake (no video, no background check, no proof) and an applicant is told they are not within parameters.  Your thoughts?

Breeze,
Simple fix.  Raise the cut off scores at Phase II.  Let less people get to the polygraph.

Three Agents do the interview in Phase II.  They are well trained in fairness.  Their scores can be trusted.

An applicant who fails to achieve a passing score in Phase II has no further career ramifications.  An apllicant who fails a polygraph, however . . .

Using a polygraph to intentionally thin the applicant pool is morally wrong.  Labelling epople as spies and druggies and liars when there may or may not be SUFFIECIENT proof is wrong.  And posting these results as fact on the FBI public record, preventing other career opportunities is also wrong.

Chris