This guide is informational. Always verify how the rules apply to your specific case.
police profession is not just any service profession. A police officer is allowed to stop people, body search, use force, carry firearms, report criminal suspicions and write documents that can become conclusive in court. Therefore, the issue of police training requirements becomes not an internal HR issue, but a legal certainty issue
.The core question: more cops or the right cops?
Aftonbladet's 200 Seconds reviewed the 2022 police training through several articles. In the article “Police aspirants can not even refuel the car”, the alarm of experienced police officers and people with transparency is echoed. They describe aspirants who do not pass simple reporting, students who are unable to handle basic practical aspects, and cases where people are reported to have been accepted anyway.
Aftonbladet also reports on students who called suspects of grossly derogatory things in written tests, aspirants who locked themselves in the police car when colleagues got into fights, and supervisors who experienced pressure to judge nicer ones. A former police officer and teacher, Johan Siverland, says in the review that the examples are important when they become too many, because they say something about the totality of what has been taken in
.Police researcher Stefan Holgersson summarizes the problem sharply in the same review: the requirement to quickly hire a large number of police officers has led, according to him, to lower recruitment requirements and pressure to approve people who should not be approved. The consequence is not only internal work environment. It can hit the public, because police officers have a great right to use force
.The aptitude test: what does “below normal giftedness” mean?
The most sensitive part in the debate concerns the aptitude test. Here one has to be precise.
Sweden's Radio Ekot reported in 2016 that police training's aptitude test uses a nine-point Stanine scale and that a “normal-gifted applicant” was then described as a person who gets a 4, 5 or 6. Prior to the lowering, a 4th was required; the requirement was then lowered to 3. Using Ekot's older formulation means that the minimum passing level is below the range described there as normal giftedness
.The police newspaper explained in 2022 the same development more technical. The limit for passing the UNIQ test is 3 stanine points. In 2016, the limit was lowered from 4 to 3. In 2022, the test was re-normed. Prior to the renaming, according to the Police newspaper, at least 57 out of 100 points were required to get a 3rd; after the renaming, 52 was enough. The police newspaper says that in practice it has become easier to get approved
.However, there is one important nuance. According to the Police newspaper, the Danish Customs and Probation Service prefers to use the term “normal zone” and describes it as 3-7 on the Stanine scale. With that authority terminology, the limit 3 is within the normal zone. Therefore, it should not be carelessly said that anyone who manages on 3 is “below normal giftedness”. The factually sustainable formulation is instead: the requirement has been lowered from 4 to 3, and in Ekot's older description 4-6 was in the normal aptitude range, while the Customs and Probation Office later describes 3-7 as the normal zone
.2022 renormalization: same figure, lower score requirements
The National Audit Office describes in the report Admission to Police Training that the UNIQ aptitude test measures verbal, spatial and logical ability and that passing requires at least stanine 3. The report also outlines the changes:
- 2012: the language test is removed.
- 2016: the requirement for passing the aptitude test is lowered from 4 to 3.
- 2022: the requirement for passing high school grades in history is removed.
- 2022: the aptitude test is normalized, which, according to the Swedish National Audit Office, means that it does not require as many points to get a 3rd.
Riksrevisionen writes that the proportion who passed the aptitude test increased by 13 percentage points after the renaming. It's not just a technical detail. When a system simultaneously has policy goals of more police officers, any such adjustment becomes part of steering towards more enactments
.The National Audit Office's criticism: admission is not secure enough
The National Audit Office's overall conclusion in 2025 is that admissions to police training are not effective. The criticism is not that every student is weak. The criticism is that the system is not secure enough to select the right people
.The central shortcomings are:
- No comprehensive work analysis: The police authority does not have sufficient data on what qualities and abilities are required in the police profession.
- Unclear limits: it is not ensured that the test limits measure the right things for the profession.
- Fallacy principle: applicants must pass a test in order to proceed. It can weed out suitable candidates on unclear grounds when thresholds are uncertain.
- The aptitude test is different: more people with a foreign background fail the aptitude test, which, according to the Swedish National Audit Office, cannot be explained mainly by differences in grades or university exams.
- The language issue is unresolved: previous language tests were removed, while Aftonbladet's review and the National Audit Office's observations point to practical problems with writing ability.
- Unfit candidates may slip through: The National Audit Office warns that the shortcomings could mean unsuitable candidates are adopted while suitable candidates fall away.
The number became an end in itself
Aftonbladet commentator Oisín Cantwell linked the 200-second review to the political “auction” of more police officers. He pointed to the fact that politicians have long competed for numbers: more police, more seats, greater authority. It is an understandable political response to crime, but it is dangerous if the number of police becomes more important than the control of who gets police credentials
.This is precisely where the issue of education meets the rule of law. A police officer who is unable to cope with stress, Swedish debriefings, proportionality assessments, weapons exercises or independent decision-making skills is not only a risk to the working environment. The person may make the wrong decision with a baton, stun gun, firearm, coercive means or deprivation of liberty
.The new proposals 2026: tightening or new adjustment?
In May 2026, the police newspaper reported on the working group's proposals for new admission requirements. The group says it has done its homework with the work analysis and that the ambition is not to lower the requirements. The proposals include, among other things:
- enhanced psychological interviews,
- examination of Swedish tests,
- running moments to test endurance and mobility,
- gender-differentiated norms in Isokai,
- Isokai shall measure maximum value instead of mean,
- supplementary muscle test,
- an examination of how physical ability should be maintained over time,
- revised medical requirements where multiple diagnoses should no longer be absolute barriers if they are well controlled or clarified.
There are parts that sound reasonable. A police profession doesn't require the same body type in everyone, but it does require real function: running, carrying, intervening, writing, understanding, assessing risk and cooperating under stress. The problem is whether “modernisation” becomes a word that can mean both more accurate selection and lower thresholds as
recruitment targets press on.What should be reviewed going forward?
If the state wants both more cops and better cops, more than slogans are needed. The minimum requirement should be open
follow-up of:- how many are adopted after each change of requirements;
- how the results on aptitude tests, language, physics and psychology interviews develop over time,
- how many people fail during training, aspirant tenure and the first years of service;
- the number of people receiving disciplinary sanctions, weapons-related anomalies or employment law actions;
- whether reports, interrogations and intervention reports are of a legally useful level;
- whether tutors can actually overrule aspirants without quota pressure.
requirements of police training should not be constructed to exclude people unnecessarily. But they also must not be engineered to deliver political staff goals. Anyone who gets the state's right to use force must pass more than the minimum to get through an admissions process
.Sources
- Aftonbladet: Police aspirants can't even refuel the car
- Aftonbladet: The alarm, the police students are too bad
- Aftonbladet: Politicians' fault that police students are too bad
- Aftonbladet/TT: The criticism, unfit people can be trained as police officers
- Aftonbladet/TT: This is why students get the nob of police training
- Sveriges Radio Ekot: Reduced aptitude requirements for police officers
- Sveriges Radio Ekot: Talent requirements have been lowered again
- Police newspaper: What has really happened to the talent requirement?
- Riksrevisionen: Admission to police training
- Police newspaper: Here are the proposals for new admissions requirements
- SvD Leader: Government must stop police lowered demands
