|
Post by ssaer on Dec 14, 2009 11:05:30 GMT -5
From the minutes of the AALJ Labor Management Committee, December 9-10, 2009:
Update on ALJ hiring – Nancy Griswold advised that 226 new ALJs would be hired in FY 2010. Forty-three have been hired and trained already (in October). The Agency plans to get 50 judges off the existing register and have a spring class, with a mid-April report date to the hearing offices. One hundred thirty-three judges will be hired off the refreshed register once OPM prepares it. To some extent, the hiring depends on OPM (for the register) and GSA (for opening the new offices on time).
|
|
|
Post by deminimis on Dec 14, 2009 16:00:13 GMT -5
. . . I read it as somewhat odd that SSA is only seeking 50 hires from this register, as it was just recently "refreshed." The mention of a "refreshed register" in 2010 does not seem consistent with the idea that OPM would be terminating this register in favor a new register, but they could mean the same thing. . . . I'm not reading ssaer's post the same way you are, I don't think. The register has not yet been "refreshed." The 50 hires would be from names on the register before the recent application period on November 9-10, 2009. The register will be considered "refreshed" when OPM completes its action on the current applications, including the writing demonstrations and structured interviews. So the 50 hires would be from the pre-November 9 register and the remaining 133 judges will be hired from the 900+ recent applicants, plus whoever else remains on the register. It does seem strange to me that there is a plan to hire 50 from the current register when 900 or more new applications are being processed that will result in a larger pool to choose from. It also seems strange to me that OPM would open the register to 900 applicants for 133 positions. But I'm new here and still trying to learn the system.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Dec 14, 2009 16:59:17 GMT -5
"It also seems strange to me that OPM would open the register to 900 applicants for 133 positions. But I'm new here and still trying to learn the system."
When I first applied, in May of 2007, it seemed that of the 1250+ applicants (it closed the midnight after 1250 applicants had been reached), at least half had screwed up by either leaving out their state license numbers or the date they were first licensed. The computer threw those out and no human being ever looked at the applications. A lot of people appealed, but almost all of the appeals were unsuccessful. Then if 450 of these 900+ are allowed to do the test and the first interview, it seems to me just having read this board for two and a half years, that about half of them, or about 225, will get low scores, for some unknown reason (doesn't seem the reason is always lack of relevant experience). So that would mean that they would be hiring 133 out of 225. We've all bought our lottery tickets. Now it's a waiting game.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Dec 14, 2009 18:28:51 GMT -5
"It also seems strange to me that OPM would open the register to 900 applicants for 133 positions. But I'm new here and still trying to learn the system." When I first applied, in May of 2007, it seemed that of the 1250+ applicants (it closed the midnight after 1250 applicants had been reached), at least half had screwed up by either leaving out their state license numbers or the date they were first licensed. The computer threw those out and no human being ever looked at the applications. A lot of people appealed, but almost all of the appeals were unsuccessful. Then if 450 of these 900+ are allowed to do the test and the first interview, it seems to me just having read this board for two and a half years, that about half of them, or about 225, will get low scores, for some unknown reason (doesn't seem the reason is always lack of relevant experience). So that would mean that they would be hiring 133 out of 225. We've all bought our lottery tickets. Now it's a waiting game. Having done this whole thing twice, in '07 and '08, a few of my observations. As I posted before, I don't think the OPM testing process is arbitrary or without a basis in experience. More experience generally means a better application (AR) score. Perhaps even more important is your ability to give the OPM reviewer what he or she wants in the AR, which has been generally called "buzzwords" here. Loosely translated: give them the same language used in the inquiry. In addition the exam (WD) requires skills you either have or don't. Studying won't help because its not that kind of exam. Lastly, the SI or structured interview is just that. If you're not confident that you can perform admirably in this setting, practice with a loved one or good friend. You can predict alot of the questions that are going to be asked if you think about it. Unfortunately, we are sworn to secrecy as to this process. I think the low scores (having scored "relatively" low and high) are mostly related to the AR, but in my case I'm sure it was all three. Comparing experience is not always a useful indicator because one AR may get 15 points above another with alot less in legal experience. Finally, getting a high score and not having any agency experience may well be the basis to get you three-striked by SSA, IMO the cruelest of all blows in this system. There is all this information in spades within the back pages of this Board. Any applicant would do well to read them, seperating the wheat from the chaff.
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on Dec 14, 2009 23:49:50 GMT -5
. . . I read it as somewhat odd that SSA is only seeking 50 hires from this register, as it was just recently "refreshed." The mention of a "refreshed register" in 2010 does not seem consistent with the idea that OPM would be terminating this register in favor a new register, but they could mean the same thing. . . . I'm not reading ssaer's post the same way you are, I don't think. The register has not yet been "refreshed." The 50 hires would be from names on the register before the recent application period on November 9-10, 2009. The register will be considered "refreshed" when OPM completes its action on the current applications, including the writing demonstrations and structured interviews. So the 50 hires would be from the pre-November 9 register and the remaining 133 judges will be hired from the 900+ recent applicants, plus whoever else remains on the register. Your take on the "refresh" is correct. It has not yet happened. The refresh will be once the people who just applied have gotten NOR and placement on the current register. Apparently ODAR plans to ask for a small cert right after the holidays and get them started by April if the announcement holds true. OPM won't have time to process the most recent applicants before that happens. It does seem strange to me that there is a plan to hire 50 from the current register when 900 or more new applications are being processed that will result in a larger pool to choose from. It also seems strange to me that OPM would open the register to 900 applicants for 133 positions. But I'm new here and still trying to learn the system. There are plenty of well-qualified people on the register from which to hire another 50 right now. As has been noted many times, being passed over on previous certs does not always mean that someone has been permanently stricken from consideration by the hiring agency. There are some people that the selecting officials at ODAR know they never want as ALJs for some reason and there are many more who simply had someone else chosen from their group of 3 when competing for a spot in the past. For those not deliberately "3 striked" but simply not selected, ODAR may pick them on the next cert or the one after. I don't believe that OPM has any intention of trashing the entire register in Oct. 2010 and starting from scratch. It would make soliciting applications and adding people to the register in late spring or early summer 2010 a ridiculous waste that might bring the wrath of Congress back onto them. Whatever else they are at OPM I don't believe they are people who want to waste their own time and energy or stir up a hornet's nest with no gain for their agency.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Dec 15, 2009 10:12:09 GMT -5
I don't know how significant it is but in the old days there were at least a dozen different WDs, all fact situatioins relevant to various agencies. I got stuck with a horrendous SEC exam question- you know commercial paper and banking regulations. Ugh! Other ALJs had EPA, OSHA, and DOL predicated exam questions. I think everyone sitting at each WD site had the same question but I am not certain every site had the same question. The WD was given at hundreds of sites around the country- I believe everywhere there was an OPM office. So I am not sure what they do now but their MO has been to change the WD.
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on Dec 16, 2009 0:00:38 GMT -5
/ On page 6 of the recent opm job announcement it states: "the current alj register is set to expire in October 2010, although opm may extend that date." Allrise already did everyone the service of posting the above quote the last time that this same point was discussed in this very thread.As can be seen from the quote, OPM retained the discretion to extend the current register beyond Oct. 2010. Let's all try to post accurate info in order to be as helpful as possible to those still trying to negotiate a confusing process. We are all busy people and as attorneys a little fact-checking before starting to fence with other posters would probably keep the time-wasting nonsense to a minimum.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Dec 16, 2009 10:59:08 GMT -5
Decadealj said "I got stuck with a horrendous SEC exam question- you know commercial paper and banking regulations". Egad, way to ruin everyone's Christmas, Decade.
|
|
|
Post by elmerfuddgantry on Dec 16, 2009 17:15:53 GMT -5
There are 1,103 topics and 16,945 posts on this board. Any suggestions where to start?
|
|
|
Post by ALJD on Dec 16, 2009 22:37:31 GMT -5
There are 1,103 topics and 16,945 posts on this board. Any suggestions where to start? The FAQs tacked to the top of the forum?
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Dec 17, 2009 18:29:55 GMT -5
There are 1,103 topics and 16,945 posts on this board. Any suggestions where to start? 53 pages ain't all that much. Go to the beginning in 2007 and scan forward. You'll be doing tons of scanning as a Judge. Alot of folks are gone. Drop-outs, graduates and a few (self) or otherwise extinguished... Most, if not all of the passion and gritty angst is gone. I miss it dearly, others don't. Most are lurkers, posting warily, like we do in a foreign pool, checking the temperature of the water and deciding not to jump in. patriotsfan, nonamouse, ruonthelist, morgullord, workdrone, valkyrie and of course our sponsors pix and aljdisc are the long haul folks. Alot of Judges have contributed their time and wisdom...like alot of things you get out of this what you put into it. John Lennon said it best.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Dec 17, 2009 18:42:19 GMT -5
Private, I think that if a lot of people hear in January that they have been eliminated from the process because their license numbers and/or date first licensed did not appear on the correct line, your wish for gritty angst will be granted.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Dec 17, 2009 22:53:34 GMT -5
It isn't hard folks- every topic you can think of has been addressed ad nauseum on this board. Try the research tool to focus on a particular issue. The position is hard enough to attain without burdening yourself with ignorance. Good luck- you will need it.
|
|
|
Post by elmerfuddgantry on Dec 18, 2009 16:04:23 GMT -5
RTFM (look it up) is my favorite answer-avoidance technique. Yes, I read the FAQ a long time ago. The search engine on this board is not very efficient. Try searching for "SI" and see what happens. Master of the Obvious. That's 53 pages of threads, not 53 pages of posts. Before I get bashed for being an ingrate, I appreciate the work of those who created, contribute to, and maintain this forum. Excellent information unobtainable elsewhere. I am merely nettled by the gratuitous and unhelpful suggestions above. I am considering HTTrack www.httrack.com/ or a similar tool to download the entire board and create a document that can be printed and read chronologically by thread. The information is here, but deeply buried.
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on Dec 18, 2009 17:20:53 GMT -5
/ Allrise already did everyone the service of posting the above quote the last time that this same point was discussed in this very thread.As can be seen from the quote, OPM retained the discretion to extend the current register beyond Oct. 2010. Let's all try to post accurate info in order to be as helpful as possible to those still trying to negotiate a confusing process. We are all busy people and as attorneys a little fact-checking before starting to fence with other posters would probably keep the time-wasting nonsense to a minimum. And let's not get our panties in a bunch, nonamouse! Goodness, who hired the school marm? Is ANYONE chewing gum on this Board? I hope you brought enough for EVERYONE! Since you are determined to engage in some type of battle and pick apart my posts, you might at least try being correct. Since you keep telling everyone that you got an ALJ position somewhere, this board is not about you and your ego. I am sadly not surprised that you felt the need to descend into childish name-calling after I attempted to keep it civil and impersonal. What I wanted to write after you went back to your usual MO of picking apart anything written by certain posters whom you have deemed "agency" people would not have made it past the censoring software. I would direct you to enter the nearest 3-way mirror and check your own panties if you can see them past your gigantic bruised ego.
|
|
|
Post by maxlaw on Dec 18, 2009 18:24:39 GMT -5
RTFM (look it up) is my favorite answer-avoidance technique. Yes, I read the FAQ a long time ago. The search engine on this board is not very efficient. Try searching for "SI" and see what happens. I'm not sure any search engine will be much good with 2 letter searches. I generally just use Google, and add the restriction "site:aljdiscussion.proboards.com". It's not perfect, but it's an improvement. Master of the Obvious. That's 53 pages of threads, not 53 pages of posts. Still, the point is, I believe, well-intended, and well-taken. The most informative posts tend to be clustered around the times of the "main events", so you may want to look at when the register opened in 2007 and 2008, and start with the interesting topics around those times. Then you can look at when the WD and SI were in those years, and so forth. Once you find a poster whom you deem to be interesting or informative, you can scan all of their posts. I think that the time investment, though substantial, has been worthwhile, if for no other reason than I have a far more realistic picture of my chances of success here. Before I get bashed for being an ingrate, I appreciate the work of those who created, contribute to, and maintain this forum. Excellent information unobtainable elsewhere. I am merely nettled by the gratuitous and unhelpful suggestions above. I am considering HTTrack www.httrack.com/ or a similar tool to download the entire board and create a document that can be printed and read chronologically by thread. The information is here, but deeply buried. HTTrack is a nice spider tool, but I don't know if it is worth it to download the entire site. The last time I looked at it, it honored NOROBOTS type tags, and I think I remember that proboards enables that by default. Don't rely on my faulty memory though. Also, you could have a problem reading chronologically because some of the posts seem to be missing. I'm not sure if that's due to past posters who have decided to delete them or if it is related to the closure of the Wild Wild West section (or whatever it was called). Hope that's helpful
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Dec 18, 2009 21:55:09 GMT -5
RTFM (look it up) is my favorite answer-avoidance technique. Yes, I read the FAQ a long time ago. The search engine on this board is not very efficient. Try searching for "SI" and see what happens. Master of the Obvious. That's 53 pages of threads, not 53 pages of posts. Before I get bashed for being an ingrate, I appreciate the work of those who created, contribute to, and maintain this forum. Excellent information unobtainable elsewhere. I am merely nettled by the gratuitous and unhelpful suggestions above. I am considering HTTrack www.httrack.com/ or a similar tool to download the entire board and create a document that can be printed and read chronologically by thread. The information is here, but deeply buried. 53 pages of threads, indeed. Those pages are rather obviously relegated to Judges and wannabes and those about to go to training, aka the 'btweens. As I stated before alot of Judges have unselfishly given their time. Alot of ups and downs and fingers crossed. And yes the information is there, in spades. maxlaw has a very good point and his time line is accurate.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Dec 23, 2009 8:10:15 GMT -5
Private, I think that if a lot of people hear in January that they have been eliminated from the process because their license numbers and/or date first licensed did not appear on the correct line, your wish for gritty angst will be granted. The only thing that can be said constructively about what happened to you is that when it happens to others and they are wise enough to read this Board, they will feel some small degree of comfort knowing it wasn't just them. You give an alligator a finger, they take the whole hand. Good luck, tricia!
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Dec 23, 2009 8:15:58 GMT -5
Since you are determined to engage in some type of battle and pick apart my posts, you might at least try being correct. Since you keep telling everyone that you got an ALJ position somewhere, this board is not about you and your ego. I am sadly not surprised that you felt the need to descend into childish name-calling after I attempted to keep it civil and impersonal. What I wanted to write after you went back to your usual MO of picking apart anything written by certain posters whom you have deemed "agency" people would not have made it past the censoring software. I would direct you to enter the nearest 3-way mirror and check your own panties if you can see them past your gigantic bruised ego. My, my someone got up on the wrong side of her broom this morning. As for me, I'll never engage in dialogue with a weaker mind. As Mark Twain eloquently noted: "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Or, if you prefer Will Rogers: "Never miss a good chance to shut up." Heeding the words of those men more wise than myself, I'll give nonamouse her last word on this topic, such as it is, and remind myself that "the kindest word in all the world is the unkind word, unsaid." Merry Christmas all! PF I think the point is that you two are ALJs now and maybe putting away GI Joe is the thing to do. Everyone transitions differently.
|
|
|
Post by saintsfan on Dec 25, 2009 9:22:11 GMT -5
Merry Christmas to all....(please chill)
|
|