|
Post by getready on Aug 18, 2011 16:21:03 GMT -5
Someone just PMed me that the cut-off was 67.04. 67.04 seems like an awfully high cutoff number. The summer 2011 cert dipped down to 61, according to the polls. Yikes.
|
|
|
Post by yankeesfan on Aug 18, 2011 16:31:40 GMT -5
Good luck to all on this cert.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Aug 18, 2011 16:34:14 GMT -5
And good luck to all who, like myself, did not make this cert. That new application is bound to come out at some point.
|
|
|
Post by spirit on Aug 18, 2011 18:28:06 GMT -5
Does anyone know the locations on this cert?
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Aug 18, 2011 18:28:34 GMT -5
I'm amazed that we have such quick inside info about the supposed cutoff score, when we know so little else. Anyway, for those of us with limited GALs, a cutoff score without a GAL match doesn't mean much. If your cities are not in play, you can be left on the sidelines with an 85.
No email yet, I'm assuming it's a no match on my GAL, until I hear otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Aug 18, 2011 18:49:29 GMT -5
The person who PMed me regarding the cut-off score had emailed Bob Gehlken.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Aug 18, 2011 18:51:44 GMT -5
Well, that's good, but it still doesn't mean much except to those with wide open GAL's or close to it. Guess we'll just have to wait and see what other info comes in. I'm thinking the cert may be smaller than we thought, if the cutoff is that high, but the cities that are on it could make a difference, too.
|
|
|
Post by Litigator on Aug 18, 2011 21:02:08 GMT -5
I know someone with relatively wide-open geographic availability. That individual's GAL received today from Bob Gehlken lists the following 35 locations:
REGION / LOCATION
01 Hartford, CT 02 Brooklyn, NY 02 Voorhees, NJ 03 Charlottesville, VA 03 Huntington, WV 03 Philadelphia East, PA 03 Roanoke, VA 03 Wilkes Barre, PA 04 Charlotte, NC 04 Florence, AL 04 Greensboro, NC 04 Macon, GA 04 Middlesboro, KY 04 Montgomery, AL 04 Tampa, FL 05 Cincinnati, OH 05 Cleveland, OH 05 Dayton, OH 05 Evansville, IN 05 Fort Wayne, IN 05 Indianapolis, IN 05 Milwaukee, WI 05 Orland Park, IL 05 Valparaiso, IN 06 Alexandria, LA 06 Dallas North, TX 06 Fort Smith, AR 07 Columbia, MO 07 West Des Moines, IA 07 Wichita, KS 09 Moreno Valley, CA 09 Oakland, CA 09 Sacramento, CA 09 San Bernardino, CA 10 Eugene, OR
I make no assurances that this individual's GAL includes all of the locations associated with the current certificate of ALJ eligibles. The individual has previously advised SSA that he/she wasn't willing to work in certain locations.
|
|
|
Post by allrise on Aug 18, 2011 21:30:54 GMT -5
I don't know if all of the emails have been sent but I did not get one. I will never understand how all this works but I made the July 2011 cert for 2 locations on this list. How could I be in the top 3 in July and not in August?
|
|
|
Post by doodlemom on Aug 18, 2011 21:45:56 GMT -5
I really doubt all the emails have gone out. They started so late in the afternoon. We know of at least 35 locations/slots on this cert so that means triple that number of people are going to get emails. There is no way they all went out today.
|
|
|
Post by grassgreener on Aug 19, 2011 8:15:15 GMT -5
Are the transfers complete? Any rumblings of a supplemental cert.?
|
|
|
Post by chinook on Aug 19, 2011 8:25:59 GMT -5
There are at least two way that I can think of which would not have you on the cert even though you were on the last cert which included two of those cities. First is that 10-point veterans could have taken the test and gotten on the cert with a higher score than yours. More likely is that this is a smaller cert than the last one. The falicy in your logic is that you might not have been "in the top 3 in July" for any particular city. Remember that OPM does not match people from the register to specific cities on the cert. If they are sendind a 100 person cert, they pick the top 100 people on the register with any city on the cert, making sure that there are at least 3 people on the cert for each city. You could have been number 8 for each of your cities last time but in the top however many were on the cert. Depending on your score you could now be number 6 for those cities but not make the cert because it is a smaller cert. just a thought.
|
|
ampa
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by ampa on Aug 19, 2011 9:01:54 GMT -5
So, 35 cities. Does that mean they will hire at least 35? Any word yet from good sources as to how many spots are to be filled?
|
|
|
Post by iplawyer on Aug 19, 2011 10:11:59 GMT -5
So, 35 cities. Does that mean they will hire at least 35? Any word yet from good sources as to how many spots are to be filled? My understanding (FWIW) is that it is possible that some available positions usually are filled by transfers after a Cert is sought from OPM. Those transferred-from vacancies can only be filled through a Cert if those locations happen to be listed on that Cert (in other words, that there was already a vacancy at that location). So a certain number of vacancies that are created by transfers cannot be filled. However, several of the locations are new (I think), which means that they may fill more than one vacancy from the Cert.
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper on Aug 19, 2011 11:20:22 GMT -5
I know someone with relatively wide-open geographic availability. That individual's GAL received today from Bob Gehlken lists the following 35 locations: REGION / LOCATION 01 Hartford, CT 02 Brooklyn, NY 02 Voorhees, NJ 03 Charlottesville, VA 03 Huntington, WV 03 Philadelphia East, PA 03 Roanoke, VA 03 Wilkes Barre, PA 04 Charlotte, NC 04 Florence, AL 04 Greensboro, NC 04 Macon, GA 04 Middlesboro, KY 04 Montgomery, AL 04 Tampa, FL 05 Cincinnati, OH 05 Cleveland, OH 05 Dayton, OH 05 Evansville, IN 05 Fort Wayne, IN 05 Indianapolis, IN 05 Milwaukee, WI 05 Orland Park, IL 05 Valparaiso, IN 06 Alexandria, LA 06 Dallas North, TX 06 Fort Smith, AR 07 Columbia, MO 07 West Des Moines, IA 07 Wichita, KS 09 Moreno Valley, CA 09 Oakland, CA 09 Sacramento, CA 09 San Bernardino, CA 10 Eugene, OR I make no assurances that this individual's GAL includes all of the locations associated with the current certificate of ALJ eligibles. The individual has previously advised SSA that he/she wasn't willing to work in certain locations. Add: 05 Akron, OH 05 Toledo, OH By my count - 37 ht
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Aug 19, 2011 11:25:51 GMT -5
Toledo is pretty much always on there.... I only have one city on what we are using as the list. So, not surprised to be on the sidelines this time.
|
|
|
Post by vacuum on Aug 19, 2011 11:30:52 GMT -5
If the certificate is this large, it should include about 111 people. I am surprised that the cut-off is so high. My score is below 67 but high enough to have been included in several certificates, and some of those seemed to be smaller than this one. I do have a few cities on my GAL included in this certificate.
|
|
|
Post by chinook on Aug 19, 2011 11:31:33 GMT -5
Understandable, since the foreclosure of Packo's Hot Dogs, is there any reason to go to Toledo?
|
|
|
Post by maxlaw on Aug 19, 2011 12:21:48 GMT -5
If the certificate is this large, it should include about 111 people. I am surprised that the cut-off is so high. My score is below 67 but high enough to have been included in several certificates, and some of those seemed to be smaller than this one. I do have a few cities on my GAL included in this certificate. 67 is high. If correct, it could reflect a pent-up backlog of high scorers a who've been passed over. I tend to think that the reported number is incorrect, but who knows? Maybe someone who's interested should set up a poll...
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Aug 19, 2011 12:25:51 GMT -5
There are a few cities on this list that I don't remember seeing before. That could explain a little, depending on how the GALs shake out. I have no reason to disbelieve the number, even though I would have thought that a list of about 110 people would have gone a bit lower than that.
All that said, if there is that pent up supply of passed over people, I think this list may again show that being "three struck" is, in many cases, a temporary condition.
|
|