|
|
Post by odarite on Jun 22, 2009 21:13:39 GMT -5
"SSA plans to hire 208 ALJs in FY 2010, with 50 to 55 of the 208 to enter on duty in October 2009. As a result, we are beginning the process for hiring new ALJs. We have planned for ALJ interviews to begin on Monday, August 10, 2009, and end on Friday, August 14, 2009. "
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefulj on Jun 22, 2009 22:50:14 GMT -5
I am a little confused. Where did this quote come from. And who are they interviewing? Did they open up the cert? I assume they are not interviewing those of us on the cert who already interviewed but did not get an offer. Is this an indication that they are rejecting all of us not selected and want to reach more?
Would some of you who understand the strange SSA process help out here? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by noah on Jun 22, 2009 23:48:54 GMT -5
Who made this quote?
When was the quote made?
Where will the interviews be held?
Are they opening a new cert, or selecting from the current cert, or both?
What cities are in play?
|
|
|
|
Post by zarco522 on Jun 23, 2009 5:50:51 GMT -5
I don't know the source for the above, but it is consistent with what we were told on our first day. Next interviews in August, with an October start date. Good luck!
|
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Jun 23, 2009 13:05:23 GMT -5
You have a way with words, PF, even if you persist in poor choices in professional football teams. Think gold and black with the team logo on one side of the helmet only...
|
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jun 23, 2009 13:05:54 GMT -5
Lets not panic the newbies. Even by the loose standards of "41% insider hiring" on the last cert, this would hardly leave outsiders without a chance. By definition, the majority of the candidates hired in the last cert, 59%, were outsiders. If ODAR holds to 40% insider hiring, that would mean 20 insiders will be hired in the next cert, and 30 outsiders will be hired.
I know there are some people that are particularly bitter about their own individual treatment in the process, and that bitterness may well be justified, but the imperfect stats compiled in this board have shown that some insiders with a lower score have a better chance than an outsider with a similar score. This could be actionable, and it could result in a successful court challenge, but it certainly doesn't mean that all is lost ofr everybody else.
|
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jun 23, 2009 14:30:25 GMT -5
"I am not trying to panic anyone. Quite the opposite. I think everyone should have a realistic understanding of their chance to get one of these coveted positions, and that chance for a non-SSA person is slim to begin with. Even if the figures you quote are accurate, that is a disproportionately high number of agency personnel selected for a position in which agency experience is a non selection factor. As such, "if you ain't SSA, you ain't an ALJ," is the more prudent and practical approach for the remaining candidates."
Again, even if the insider numbers are disproportionate, they still represent a minority of the positions. The majority of the positions go to outsiders. Lets assume that only 20% of the cert of 50 is insiders, (probably a low assumption since all of us on the inside received hand delivered advanced notice of the hiring process with our afternoon martinis), which would be 30. If the 40% figure holds, 20 of the 30 would be selected, leaving 30 slots for the 120 outsiders, or a 25% chance for each outsider to be selected. If we live in a perfect world and there is no bias whatsoever, only 50 out of the 150 candidates are being selected anyway, meaning a 33% chance. Therefore, insider bias, as alleged, has caused the outsider candidates to suffer a catastrophic 7% reduction in their chances of success.
So, if you are on the outside and consider that making the cert means a worthless 25% chance of landing a great job, by all means throw in the towel. Those doggone insiders reduced your chances by 7%.
|
|
|
|
Post by noah on Jun 23, 2009 14:50:34 GMT -5
With God, All things are possible
|
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Jun 23, 2009 15:02:22 GMT -5
"God's Gift To SSA" has already been hired off of a previous cert.
|
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jun 23, 2009 15:12:25 GMT -5
I won't get into a tit for tat or bother teaching anyone about statistics, which would blow Val's numbers out of the park as her assumptions are faulty. Suffice to say that the most optimistic folks can wish for whatever they want if that pleases them. I stand by my advice. So 60% is a minority? |
|
|
|
Post by devon1 on Jun 23, 2009 17:22:40 GMT -5
Just wanted to ask for clarification. As to speculation that the 208 for FY 2010 will come from the current register, is it not possible that the October 55 could come from the current register and the balance of the 208 will be hired after yet another reopening (and even more additions to the register, even though everyone on the register since 2007 has been deemed to be qualified and even though a substantial number on the register since 2007 have never been interviewed by SSA and, if there is a reopening, may never receive an interview by SSA (I know several people who fall into this category and, to a person, each is about as qualified as one can be for the position and each has a proven track record over many years). l
|
|
|
|
Post by noah on Jun 23, 2009 20:59:58 GMT -5
Patriotsfan,
Your comments at 2:53 insult the God that I serve and are not appropriate for this blog.
Remove your offensive comments.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jun 24, 2009 8:12:04 GMT -5
Patriotsfan, Your comments at 2:53 insult the God that I serve and are not appropriate for this blog. Remove your offensive comments. Okay, okay - get a grip, all. Puh-leeeese. Actually, Morg's comment was waaaay more funny: "God's Gift To SSA" has already been hired off of a previous cert. but ALJDiscussion and the Mighty Pixie have the right to take down a post - not sayin' ya can't demand, Noah, but ...really, you demand PF remove his post? A wee bit intolerant. Personally, my Entity has a he// of a sense of humor and would belly laugh at PF's comments. After all, there WAS the Platypus, ya know... |
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jun 24, 2009 8:19:25 GMT -5
... By definition, the majority of the candidates hired in the last cert, 59%, were outsiders. If ODAR holds to 40% insider hiring, that would mean 20 insiders will be hired in the next cert, and 30 outsiders will be hired. I know there are some people that are particularly bitter ... This is not a "majority" rules kind of process, and what you think you know about bitterness is only an assumption, and likely a mistaken one. |
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jun 24, 2009 8:51:03 GMT -5
... By definition, the majority of the candidates hired in the last cert, 59%, were outsiders. If ODAR holds to 40% insider hiring, that would mean 20 insiders will be hired in the next cert, and 30 outsiders will be hired. I know there are some people that are particularly bitter ... This is not a "majority" rules kind of process, and what you think you know about bitterness is only an assumption, and likely a mistaken one. Again, I am not trying to get into the argument of whether or not insider favoritism exists, whether the favoritism is justified, or even whether or not the OPM scores do, or should matter. What I am trying to say is that even if there is insider favoritism or misuse of the OPM scores, it does not significantly affect the overall chances of the outsider candidates. If the numbers show that the majority of successful candidates come from the outside, any argument that outsiders have little or no shot at success is ridiculous. Even when using my hypothetical above that supposes particularly heavy favoritism, the odds for the outsiders are not very badly affected. What we should be communicating to anyone new to the board is that rightly, or wrongly, candidates should not put too much stock in their OPM scores beyond getting a score that will make it onto a cert. |
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jun 24, 2009 9:01:12 GMT -5
... What I am trying to say is that even if there is insider favoritism or misuse of the OPM scores, it does not significantly affect the overall chances of the outsider candidates. ... Even when using my hypothetical above that supposes particularly heavy favoritism, the odds for the outsiders are not very badly affected. Again, you make an assumption that it does not "significantly" affect and then go on to say that, gee, even if it does, the odds for the outsiders "are not very badly affected." Tell that to an outsider like PF who was #1 on the cert and was nonselected in favor of insiders with much lower scores. Boy-Howdy, ain't that the truth! |
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jun 24, 2009 10:31:07 GMT -5
Okay, I give. The system is completely corrupt and outside candidates don't have a snowball's chance in hell of being selected. Any outsider thinking of spending the time, money and effort on shot at being an ALJ is a chump and deserves all of the pain they reap from a process they never should have started to begin with. I would really hate to see all of my competition from outside of SSA lose interest and drop off the register, but somehow I think I'll get over it.
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefulj on Jun 24, 2009 10:38:26 GMT -5
Rather than "chump," I think "duped" is the operative term. an expensive lesson. I hope that future seekers read between the lines and have a more realistic idea of their chances against the annointed ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jun 24, 2009 10:54:57 GMT -5
Again, I am not trying to get into the argument of whether or not insider favoritism exists, whether the favoritism is justified, or even whether or not the OPM scores do, or should matter. What I am trying to say is that even if there is insider favoritism or misuse of the OPM scores, it does not significantly affect the overall chances of the outsider candidates. If the numbers show that the majority of successful candidates come from the outside, any argument that outsiders have little or no shot at success is ridiculous. Even when using my hypothetical above that supposes particularly heavy favoritism, the odds for the outsiders are not very badly affected. What we should be communicating to anyone new to the board is that rightly, or wrongly, candidates should not put too much stock in their OPM scores beyond getting a score that will make it onto a cert. Favoritism -- which is the polite phrase we employ to describe an agency's blatant violations of OPM regulations -- ALWAYS hurts other candidates. It does not take a degree in statistics to understand that if even 40% of available positions are "reserved" for insiders, that significantly reduces the number of available positions for everyone else, thus significantly reducing their ability to be selected, and significantly reducing their over percentage chance of a position. If I have 100 positions, and I tell a group of 600 people, you may all apply for these positions, then most people say, "gee I have a 1 in 6 chance of getting the job" (100/600). Now remove 40 of those slots and hand them over to certain favored members of the 600 applicants, lets call them "insiders," and the "outsiders" chance of getting a job now becomes less than 1 in 10 (60/560). Now I may be no Einstein, but I prefer the 1 in 6 chance over the 1 in 10 chance. Is that "significant?" I think so. But in the end, its not the "chance" of getting the job, its the abuse of the process to make sure that those 40 people got a job when, in a fair and open competition, they might not have gotten without the exercise of favoritism. That constitutes an uneven playing field, and while you may think that's OK, I don't. I signed up for a fair and open process. Was I naive? Apparently. Was I wrong to expect that? No, I don't think so. Am I wrong to question and complain about it? I don't think so. So, in short, I think that many of us were significantly affected by SSA's use of favoritism in this process. Yes, if you have 100 slots and 600 candidates there is a 1/6 chance for each candidate, or 16.6% chance. But if you remove 40 slots as reserved for the insiders, then you also have to remove all of the insiders from the competition for the remaining 60 slots, not just the successful ones. If that number is 33% of the field, or 200, then you have 60 slots for 400 candidates, which means a 15% chance. 16.6% vs 15%!!! Believe it or not, there are some of us insiders out there who were not selected. We may not be a convenient statistic, but mathematically I think we should still count. Your math assumed that every insider met with success. Again, I am not trying to say that an outsider's chances are necessarily even with an insider's. What I am saying is that the difference is far less than you make it out to be. Yes, assuming ODAR chose to blackball you to get you out of the way of other candidates, you have personally been significantly affected, but for the overall field of outsider candidates, not much at all. |
|
|
|
Post by extang on Jun 24, 2009 11:00:52 GMT -5
"less than 1 in 10 (60/560)."
Actually, 60/560 is a little more than 1 in 10.
Point of information for the new ALJs: a mistake like this in one of your decisions would result in an AC remand. Or let me put it this way: I have seen plenty of AC remands for mistakes more insignificant than this.
|
|
