|
Post by chinook on Sept 21, 2009 9:52:24 GMT -5
Congrats to all those who have received offers, however for those of us still on the register I started a poll to list the scores. If we get a large enough response we might be able to determine the range of scores remaining etc.
|
|
|
Post by qchopeful on Sept 21, 2009 14:29:30 GMT -5
Mine is 78.
|
|
|
Post by bundo on Sept 21, 2009 14:30:42 GMT -5
Mine is 59.
|
|
|
Post by chinook on Sept 21, 2009 14:44:59 GMT -5
It is fine to post it here but please go to the Poll page and make sure you enter it on the poll.
Thanks
|
|
zag79
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by zag79 on Sept 21, 2009 15:45:16 GMT -5
I posted on the "polling palace"-but it appears that does not transfer to here. Never too old to zig a zag or is that zag a zig?
As I was saying there-the next question(s) I would have would be: of those remaining on the "register" how many have been on a "cert" before and how many times, if any?
In view of the "three strikes" rule so often referenced in discussions here in the past relating to prior certs and nonselection, it seems to me that if you have been on a cert three times and not selected that you may as well take your ball and go home until the applications are taken to create a new "register". On the other hand it would also seem that so long as you scored high enough to make a "cert" in the past that you would continue to be placed on it so long as the register is active, in which case I have to wonder why when contacted and asked about updating your references etc, a person would bother to go through those motions-talk about a "forelorn hope"---
|
|
|
Post by marciabrady1977 on Sept 21, 2009 16:17:13 GMT -5
zag79:
I think I've been on every certificate. I don't have time to go through my 5 inch file right now but I'm fairly certain I've been on every certificate. My references have always been checked as far as I know. My score is 60.63. I suspect I'm in the "three strikes and you are out" category. I continue getting on the certificate but never receive an offer.
As far as why I continue to update my references, etc... I do so because the Notification to ALJ Candidate always asks for updated contact information and an updated Geographic Availability List.
Going through the motions doesn't take much time at this point...I've perfected that skill! HA! HA!
Seek peace and stay cool.
Marcia
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Sept 21, 2009 18:06:57 GMT -5
I posted on the "polling palace"-but it appears that does not transfer to here. Never too old to zig a zag or is that zag a zig? As I was saying there-the next question(s) I would have would be: of those remaining on the "register" how many have been on a "cert" before and how many times, if any? In view of the "three strikes" rule so often referenced in discussions here in the past relating to prior certs and nonselection, it seems to me that if you have been on a cert three times and not selected that you may as well take your ball and go home until the applications are taken to create a new "register". On the other hand it would also seem that so long as you scored high enough to make a "cert" in the past that you would continue to be placed on it so long as the register is active, in which case I have to wonder why when contacted and asked about updating your references etc, a person would bother to go through those motions-talk about a "forelorn hope"--- As futile as it is, you should always respond. If for no other reason, it keeps your appeal rights active. And having said that, by all means everyone, file an appeal! You cannot change a system by complaining. The whole thing is unfair because SSA gets away with it. If they could, they would just make offers to their staff without OPM, but they have not yet figured out how to pull that off, so they are doing the next best thing. Its BS, of course, but unless you actually do something about it, you might as well shake your fist at the weather. How many were hired this time, and what percentage were hearing office personnel?
|
|
|
Post by justice1 on Sept 21, 2009 18:29:49 GMT -5
I don't know how many were hired or the percentage. I am ODAR personnel and scored a 59 and did not get hired. (but only had one city location)
|
|
zag79
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by zag79 on Sept 22, 2009 8:07:41 GMT -5
Thanks for your (and others) input MB --I fully subscribe to the "never say never" credo and my mantra in life that has served me well has been "nothing takes the place of persistence..."-but my wife also reminds me of the Kenny Rogers song about "knowing when to fold 'em" and stop beating a dead horse. No, I understand the "call" to this position very well--I know people with scores in the low 60's who were picked up on the first cert they made and others with higher scores who still sit waiting-who seem to think that they blew it at the SSA interview-or self-restricted their geo preferences-and others who have not been so fortunate as to even have made a cert but are so close they can literally smell it (roses, I think)-myself included in the latter group.
All a person can do is keep on plugging away and figure out some way to finagle a few more points if it comes to the next register and hope for the best and figure ways to do it differently. The biggest mistake that I see people seem to make with their scores is in having "expectations" and in government jobs that can be fatal. So I patiently wait and hope for the "opportunity" to present my case to "the deciders" at some point. No promises, no expectations-- How do they say that now Reality Bites? No, it is a matter of que sera sera as I see it-if at first you don't succeed...
Peace to you too-and with autumn here the coolness IS in the air-at least at my house.
Z
Z
|
|
|
Post by govatt on Sept 24, 2009 13:11:54 GMT -5
I think that some of these posting involve a misunderstanding of the three strikes rule. Normally a certification contains three names for each position. The names at the top of a register usually come up first on a certification. Therefore, it is likely that, if someone is relatively high on the register their name will keep re-appearing and, before long, the certification will just contain people who have been rejected in the past (rejection may or may not be for valid reasons - a person may score well, but have done poorly in the interview or they might be trying to get someone with an inside track). In order to allow consideration of other people an agency may strike someone after they have considered and rejected that person three times. This allows them to get another name.
On the other hand, a person may be on a certification several times, but in each case, someone considered better (rightly or wrongly) was on the certification and was selected. In that case, the agency would likely not apply the three strikes rule unless they thought it would allow them to get to someone they wanted for the position.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Sept 24, 2009 14:18:48 GMT -5
govatt- I believe what PF (and the Hag before him) have really illustrated, if not proved, is that ODAR has used the 3 strike methodolgy to isolate and eliminate pesty Vets who got in the way of reaching down the register to reach folks who couldn't even pass the experience qulification (litigation) until SSA got OPM to change it to allow AA writing experience to count. It may not have been a personal rejection but once the Vet can be eliminated, he or she can be eliminated forever. I won't even touch the whole insider-outsider subject again; PF has relighted that powder keg on another thread.
|
|
|
Post by chinook on Sept 24, 2009 14:33:22 GMT -5
PF
On one of the other threads someone asked if the 3-strike victims were all Veterans. Do you have the information to calculate what percentage are Veterans and could you do so when you have a chance. (I know you have been busy giving individual info which is greatly appreciated by all -- well by most.)
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Sept 24, 2009 16:17:07 GMT -5
PF, I hope you don't mind my jumping in here.
Here are some numbers from the 2008 certs:
* 22.4% of the people considered under the first Certificate were veterans. * 19.25% of the people selected for 135 positions under the first certificate were veterans. * 38.5% of the people who received only three considerations before 5 CFR 335.402 was used to preclude them from further consideration were veterans. * 22.1% of the people considered under the second Certificate were veterans. * 11.4% of the people selected for 61 positions under the second Certificate were veterans.
If you acknowledge the statistical reality that, on a large hiring list, the percentage of veterans hired will always be equal to or greater than the percentage of veterans on the list due to the operation of the veteran's preference, you will see that the percentage of veterans hired was less than the percentage on the certificate. Also, there is the fact that the 3-strike club is populated by veterans almost twice as frequently as they appear on the cert itself.
We are way beyond standard deviations here.
My numbers are hard and well-researched. When I presented them to CoSS he did not refute them.
Challenge my numbers if you will but bring proofs that they are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Sept 24, 2009 18:41:12 GMT -5
PF, I hope you don't mind my jumping in here. Here are some numbers from the 2008 certs: * 22.4% of the people considered under the first Certificate were veterans. * 19.25% of the people selected for 135 positions under the first certificate were veterans. * 38.5% of the people who received only three considerations before 5 CFR 335.402 was used to preclude them from further consideration were veterans. * 22.1% of the people considered under the second Certificate were veterans. * 11.4% of the people selected for 61 positions under the second Certificate were veterans. If you acknowledge the statistical reality that, on a large hiring list, the percentage of veterans hired will always be equal to or greater than the percentage of veterans on the list due to the operation of the veteran's preference, you will see that the percentage of veterans hired was less than the percentage on the certificate. Also, there is the fact that the 3-strike club is populated by veterans almost twice as frequently as they appear on the cert itself. We are way beyond standard deviations here. My numbers are hard and well-researched. When I presented them to CoSS he did not refute them. Challenge my numbers if you will but bring proofs that they are wrong. Ok but before we do that can you help with some additional info? When you talk about first and second certificate, I assume you are talking about 2008 - certificate 1 earlier in the year and certificate 2 later in 2008.
|
|
|
Post by jam on Sept 24, 2009 21:32:19 GMT -5
PF - am I to understand you have a list that SSA has compiled and the Agency has said none of these people will ever get a job as an ALJ? Or it that status inferrred by them being considered three times and then not considered again?
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Sept 25, 2009 7:18:54 GMT -5
Candidates with a veteran's preference will be over-represented as a class on any certificate. The veteran's preference places more veterans on a cert than would otherwise appear due to the bonus points. The preference does not insure that these will all be veterans that are attractive hires due to potentially lower levels of valued experience.
If I recall, any hiring agency that three-strikes a veteran would have to clear it with OPM. Is there any evidence that this procedure was not followed?
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Sept 25, 2009 7:50:16 GMT -5
I am probably wrong but I think the OPM clearance is only required for 10 point preference eligibles. If so, I don't know if the VP data can be broken down tp 5 and 10 point status. If so, that may also be a very interesting statistic.
|
|
|
Post by happybear on Sept 25, 2009 8:02:39 GMT -5
PF, can you tell if veterans were pitted primarily against other veterans on the certificate? If so, would that sort categorization violate any particular rule or just common sense and the spirit of the VP act?
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Sept 25, 2009 8:05:29 GMT -5
Those "bonus" points Val mentions are earned. The hard way. A 10-point veteran is an individual with a service-connected disability. That means that the veteran was injured while performing their military duties. All of the 10-pointers I know would much rather be physically whole than have 10 points added to their civil service ratings.
By referring to those points as "bonus" points, you belittle and demean those who cared enough about this country to spend some time protecting it for others who consider themselves too important to be bothered with making sure that our present and future as a free country are secured.
|
|
|
Post by happybear on Sept 25, 2009 8:23:12 GMT -5
I mean, its not much of a "preference" if it is being used to pit vets against each other, hire the ones with the lowest score and three strike the other two. Kind of the opposite...
|
|