|
|
Post by McLovin' on Jan 8, 2010 22:59:17 GMT -5
I know that the questions are confidential but for those who have taken it, what can you tell us about testing conditions, etc.? For example, if I am not accustomed to typing on a laptop, should I try to adjust in case I go to the written test? SSA provides laptops, correct? I usually plug a mouse into my laptop, because I am so much more accustomed to working on a PC. Is that going to be allowed at all? Are there breaks during the exam? Did you find that they were necessary? What else can you tell us that is within the allowed discussions?
|
|
|
|
Post by longhorn on Jan 9, 2010 9:40:43 GMT -5
Agnes:
This is from the FAQ at the top of the forum:
What about this four hour written exam? Is it multiple choice or an essay? Do you need to study? Do you have to type? What if you can't sit for four hours? What if you have to use the bathroom?
The Written Demonstration is done using a laptop at the OPM building in DC. It's basically like the practical exam when you sat for the Bar ages ago. You have 4 hours to take the test, and you're free to go use the restroom, etc. It just all comes out of your time (the clock doesn't stop). If you have a disability, contact OPM ahead of time for accommodation, but be prepared to provide documentation.
This answers your question about how long the WD takes and breaks. I don't know the answer to using your own mouse, but I doubt you can.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 9, 2010 10:20:04 GMT -5
Forget your mouse and forget about spell check. The laptop will have a seperate keyboard. Pity the fool who can't type--who was told not to type by his first boss as that was the province of secretaries.  |
|
|
|
Post by McLovin' on Jan 9, 2010 21:07:47 GMT -5
Forget your mouse and forget about spell check. The laptop will have a seperate keyboard. Pity the fool who can't type--who was told not to type by his first boss as that was the province of secretaries. I am definitely not in that boat of people who never had to learn to type. I do my own typing all day long. I can spell but I make awful typing mistakes. I am mouse addicted. How can someone with my circumstances really prepare? |
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Jan 10, 2010 2:56:27 GMT -5
Forget your mouse and forget about spell check. The laptop will have a seperate keyboard. Pity the fool who can't type--who was told not to type by his first boss as that was the province of secretaries. I am definitely not in that boat of people who never had to learn to type. I do my own typing all day long. I can spell but I make awful typing mistakes. I am mouse addicted. How can someone with my circumstances really prepare? How can you really prepare? Well, just like I tell my non-typing friends, it depends on how bad you want it and how important you think it is to prepare. If you truly are "mouse addicted" and this process is a big deal for you, start spending some portion of your day without using one. I am likely one of the world's worse spellers. When I was mentally preparing for this thing, I alloted the last 30 minutes to proofreading. |
|
|
|
Post by McLovin' on Jan 10, 2010 14:01:44 GMT -5
Is there just one fact pattern on the exam?
|
|
|
|
Post by ssaer on Jan 11, 2010 6:04:10 GMT -5
The laptops provided by OPM have an external mouse and keyboard. It's like typing on a desktop pc.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaime on Jan 11, 2010 9:34:12 GMT -5
Query? This is a taxpayer funded exam, with taxpayer funded monies for a taxpayer funded job.....why all the secrecy about this taxpayer funded exam contents from the taxpayers? (Even Bar and medical exam questions are routinely made available to the public).
|
|
|
|
Post by belgrade on Jan 11, 2010 9:35:16 GMT -5
When I took the WD in summer of 2007 they (OPM in D.C.) provided desktops, not laptops (at least on the day that I and my group took the test). Needless to say, it was quite pathetic, some of the 55-60+ years old candidates did not know how to use them well, in fact, 2-3 did not even know how to save the work done on the disc despite provided written instructions. Well, I guess, they made typical ALJs though...  BTW, you cannot really prepare for it and I don't think any of you should sweat over it cause well-informed long time ago hinted that the least points for your total score come from it. It's easy and fairly straight-forward - they will give you everything you need to write whatever they assigned you to write. The word processor was completely stripped-down - no spell check or any of the usual add-ons that help us write/type. A mouse and a normal size keyboard were provided. After you finish and save your work on a provided disc you also print it on a central printer. You will also sign the paperwork a few times and statements that you will not share the info with anyone, etc. Whatever you wrote and printed will be sealed in a big envelope which, if I remember correctly, you will also sign across... And then you will travel home so you can travel back for an interview after a week or 2 or 3... The SI is MUCH more weird, impersonal, and overall unintelligent then the WD. Again, not something you can prepare for though some people found it useful to read federal ethical rules on judicial conduct. I think the whole point of the 2-part testing of this kind is to make people think on their feet, so to speak, not to study and spit out what they memorized like it is done regrettably at our schools and colleges. I think there's no doubt that most of your score comes from the questionnaire which you already submitted. If you messed it up - well, you already have. It's going to either stops you from progresing further in the process (pretty soon) or it will push you through the hurdle but only temporary 'cause your final score will be mediocre enough to never be hired by any agency (read: SSA). When I say mediocre it seems that people with 50 and below are utterly out of luck and ones between 50-something and 60-something get picked rarely. So here you go - hope for much higher score than these and be very much available to serve ANYWHERE for a few years. If not ready/willing/available, your chances are greatly diminished even with an objectively high score and you're quite possibly wasting your time, efforts, and money. |
|
|
|
Post by chieftain on Jan 11, 2010 10:13:32 GMT -5
Query? This is a taxpayer funded exam, with taxpayer funded monies for a taxpayer funded job.....why all the secrecy about this taxpayer funded exam contents from the taxpayers? (Even Bar and medical exam questions are routinely made available to the public). The secrecy arises because the taxpayer funded agency who administers the examination made the taxpayers who took the exam agree to keep the process confidential so that future taxpayers who take the examination will not have a competitive advantage over taxpayers who had already taken the taxpayer funded examination. Belgrade is spot on. The process may seem daunting, but it is not overly taxing. |
|
|
|
Post by jaime on Jan 11, 2010 10:43:32 GMT -5
Well that does not make much sense as the exam is for a job interview and not a matter of national security. (E.g., The Nation's top Court applicants Bar exam results are of public knowledge and their job interviews are broadcast on National TV.)
So the obvious question would be under what specific regulation or statutory authority does the OPM claim to act to invoke this rule of secrecy for this administrative job. Looking through the regs, I don't find any authority. Also the APA itself does not provide any such authority and in fact requires open disclosure under Sec. 552 et seq.
Just curious as simply saying the OPM says so should not make it so.
(I would presume that if this very same issue were posed as a question on this exam itself, the entirely correct answer would be references to existing rules and regulations and the APA mandating open disclosure and those applicants who answer "secrecy" just "because they were told so" would be deemed to have failed the question?)
|
|
|
|
Post by chieftain on Jan 11, 2010 11:01:18 GMT -5
Jaime, accepting as true your statement the regs and APA do not permit OPM to require confidentiality of ALJ applicants, I would suspect that the regs are also silent as to how OPM proctors and scores the examinations. In short, OPM has leeway in making internal decisions on how best to administer the ALJ program. Some obviously make more sense than others. But with respect to maintaining the secrecy of the actual content of the SI and WD, this makes perfect sense as I totally agree with the concept that a select lucky few should not be entitled to a competitive advantage over others. And if the questions and fact patters are made available to everyone, then the application process becomes nothing more than a contest of who can regurgitate the best and the fastest, which, to my knowledge, is a required skill only in competitive eating. Although members of this board have been generously forthcoming with information regarding logistics and the setting of the exams, we have all honored our commitment to keep the content of the tests confidential for this reason.
And if you are fortunate enough to be selected, the agency will perform a background check on you, which is in some ways similar to the confirmation hearings of a justice, but without all of the gory detail.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaime on Jan 11, 2010 11:07:14 GMT -5
Sorry Patriots, but you have misunderstood. Neither I nor anyone else have raised any issue about getting "advance" notice of questions, but only question is under what rule/regulation does the OPM impose its secrecy requirement regarding these exams; logically ones that are past.
As you yourself noted, "past" Bar exams questions etc are universally available.
Simply again saying that if OPM wanted to do so they would is a legal bootstrap as the OPM answers to law, the APA as far as I can tell "requires" full disclosure; not a discretionary function.
Just asking a simple legal research question as to administrative law, nothing more.
|
|
|
|
Post by chinook on Jan 11, 2010 11:57:29 GMT -5
Jamie, this is a personnel matter. There are statutes and regulations that deal with personnel matters (not the APA). I suspect that these regs give OPM great latitude in imposing requirements on applicants. As long as OPM applies the rules for everybody, I doesn't matter. If you see a great injustice because OPM doesn't release the question, sue them. If you just want to know the question FOIA it. I just don't see the problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by deminimis on Jan 11, 2010 12:48:57 GMT -5
The FOIA specifically exempts disclosure of "matters related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency," (552(b)(2)) as well as matters specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (552(b)(3)). I suspect that a FOIA challenge to the confidentiality of test questions would fail.
|
|
|
|
Post by reapplicant on Jan 11, 2010 13:06:14 GMT -5
To the best of my knowledge, most bar exams are not released as public records, but instead bar review companies pay applicants to take the test and memorize the questions to the best of the applicants ability. This information is then gathered by the bar review company to prepare sample tests for future students.
The differences here are: 1) The OPM secrecy agreement (whether or not OPM's position has merit) is likely to chill any potential applicant from simply taking the test in order to report the questions to a company, and 2) Despite the apparent desirability of the ALJ position, the test is not frequent enough or given to enough takers to interest private companies in preparing applicants for the test. Not enough potential applicants.
It goes double that nobody who has taken the test is going to be foolish enough to discuss it here.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaime on Jan 11, 2010 13:08:10 GMT -5
OMG...LOL... I must admit I have never seen such paranoia expressed on a forum! I merely asked "where" in the regs the nondisclosure requirement of OPM action is based (e.g. "Here you go, in answer to your question, please look here" at reg xxxx was all that was being requested).
I have no "problems", no "objections" to the OPM, I have no plans to sue, I have no complaints, I have no claims of injustice....where those assertions comes from, I have no idea but certainly not from myself.
My simple query obviously hit a forum taboo......as I have now heard on the side from multiple others on here, it is much better to fade away and quietly observe only in the background and not ask questions. My humble apologies to all for my ignorance, lesson learned and taken. I shall fade away now.
|
|
|
|
Post by McLovin' on Jan 11, 2010 14:09:20 GMT -5
Is there just one fact pattern on the exam? My sense is that this question might tend toward TMI from the folks who have already taken the exam. Everything you need to know has already been posted. Bottom line is that you should be able to type, spell, and reason. You can't study for this, but you can prepare. Your point is well taken. I'm not here to argue about whether you should or should not be able to provide substantive information about the exam. I come to these boards because I want whatever information I can ethically have. I'm actually glad that applicants who may know more people who have taken the test should not really have an advantage just by virtue of having access to more people to ask. |
|
|
|
Post by carjack on Jan 11, 2010 14:49:20 GMT -5
I did not discover this forum until after I'd applied and taken the exam but I can't help but feel it would have been useful in preparing. If you haven't or don't guess correctly about the testing format or types of questions before you take the test, there is a good chance that after you take the written you'll be like "yeah, that makes sense, I should have anticipated this." Regardless, if you've been paying attention here, you'll likely be prepared, at least for the type of test.
Just to be safe you may want to refresh about riparian water rights, the Palsgraf test, best interests of the child, interstate commerce code, consideration, fruit from the poison tree, interpleader, the Kentucky penal code, and oh yeah, and having a sense of humor.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadow on Jan 11, 2010 15:02:20 GMT -5
Oh, and don't forget to bone up on the Rule Against Perpetuities. . . |
|
