|
Post by Pixie on Jan 30, 2010 12:27:29 GMT -5
A candidate may be re-interviewed if the application is considered to be "out of date." Don't know how many years is considered out of date. Pix.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Jan 31, 2010 10:31:48 GMT -5
Hi Pixie. Can you put us out of our misery? Any idea as to when the November applicants will hear whether they will be allowed to take the test and interview?
|
|
|
Post by tigerfan on Jan 31, 2010 11:17:27 GMT -5
since the SI interviews are scheduled for march and the wd usually comes before the SI then you should hear with the next 2 to 3 weeks unless the schedule gets changed.
|
|
|
Post by beenaround on Feb 3, 2010 15:56:16 GMT -5
There is no one answer. The Agency doesn't select an order of filling vacanies before the act of "running the register." Especially in cases of multiple vacanies for one location. Sometimes the earliest locations used might be specifically selected in order to give three strikes to someone who has a high score, but has given someone great concerns. SSA has to use the scores given by OPM they do not use their own! They will use their interview scores in the context of the OPM score. For example, as indicated above someone could have a great score, but was extremely condescending to the ODAR interview panel and made disparging remarks about the Agency. They would have a very low ODAR score and would likely be stricken as soon as possible. Someone else may have a score at the low end of the cert that came from OPM, but had an outstanding interview. ODAR might try to reach this individual if possible by waiting to later in the selection process to list this individual's prefer cities, such as to eliminate many highe scorer who gave limited GALs.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Feb 3, 2010 19:12:03 GMT -5
There is no one answer. The Agency doesn't select an order of filling vacanies before the act of "running the register." Especially in cases of multiple vacanies for one location. Sometimes the earliest locations used might be specifically selected in order to give three strikes to someone who has a high score, but has given someone great concerns. SSA has to use the scores given by OPM they do not use their own! They will use their interview scores in the context of the OPM score. For example, as indicated above someone could have a great score, but was extremely condescending to the ODAR interview panel and made disparging remarks about the Agency. They would have a very low ODAR score and would likely be stricken as soon as possible. Someone else may have a score at the low end of the cert that came from OPM, but had an outstanding interview. ODAR might try to reach this individual if possible by waiting to later in the selection process to list this individual's prefer cities, such as to eliminate many highe scorer who gave limited GALs. Welcome beenaround! Excellent analysis. Bottom line: Since SSA hires 95% of all ALJs hired off the Register, do well in the SSA interview.
|
|
|
Post by imiram1372 on Feb 3, 2010 20:16:59 GMT -5
PA - When you say "Since SSA hires 95% of all ALJs hired off the Register, do well in the SSA interview" do you mean the SI? I hope this is not a stupid question but I know there is the SI and then there is also the interview with the Agency later on. I am just confused as to what you meant by SSA interview. Please clarify. Thanks a lot.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Feb 3, 2010 21:37:25 GMT -5
PA - When you say "Since SSA hires 95% of all ALJs hired off the Register, do well in the SSA interview" do you mean the SI? I hope this is not a stupid question but I know there is the SI and then there is also the interview with the Agency later on. I am just confused as to what you meant by SSA interview. Please clarify. Thanks a lot. After the SI (OPM Structured Intervew) and you get a score and if you get on a SSA cert you may (with a high enough score) be offered a SSA Interview, paid by them at Puzzle Palace. This is when SSA decides if they want you. They give you a score which you will never see. It is at this point that your OPM score is not nearly as important as the SSA score. And the degree that SSA wants you--and your juice. With me and pf, we were passed over by SSA (three striked actually) but had high enough scores to get picked up by folks who think that OPM scores matter to them. However, they, the small Agencies have a small cert and little leeway. Bottom line, only SSA gets to game the system.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Feb 4, 2010 7:23:28 GMT -5
PA - When you say "Since SSA hires 95% of all ALJs hired off the Register, do well in the SSA interview" do you mean the SI? I hope this is not a stupid question but I know there is the SI and then there is also the interview with the Agency later on. I am just confused as to what you meant by SSA interview. Please clarify. Thanks a lot. After the SI (OPM Structured Intervew) and you get a score and if you get on a SSA cert you may (with a high enough score) be offered a SSA Interview, paid by them at Puzzle Palace. This is when SSA decides if they want you. They give you a score which you will never see. It is at this point that your OPM score is not nearly as important as the SSA score. And the degree that SSA wants you--and your juice. With me and pf, we were passed over by SSA (three striked actually) but had high enough scores to get picked up by folks who think that OPM scores matter to them. However, they, the small Agencies have a small cert and little leeway. Bottom line, only SSA gets to game the system. Oh yes, perish the thought that OPM might just possibly game the system. There were a large number of agency veterans who received ridiculously low OPM scores. More than a few were actually found unqualified with 15 to 20 years of administrative law experience. While I won't say that they were specifically targeted as ODAR or SSA employees, there is a definite case to be made that OPM, despite the change in the application to equally value admin law experience and litigation experience, failed to adequately value those candidates that based their applications on admin law experience. I'm sure that nobody has noticed any lingering animosity between OPM and SSA.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Feb 4, 2010 8:44:07 GMT -5
OPM is not going to give high marks for purely admin law experience. It is likely not co-equal to trial (jury and bench) work and other types of legal experience.
And yes OPM can game the system although it is more an issue of negligence with them.
SSA believes that their Congressional mandate allows them to do whatever they want. And they do.
And yes, OPM is trying hard not to look like they are SSA's toadie. So they open the app process when they want to.
|
|
|
Post by imiram1372 on Feb 4, 2010 9:22:25 GMT -5
PA -- Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Feb 4, 2010 9:59:23 GMT -5
OPM is not going to give high marks for purely admin law experience. It is likely not co-equal to trial (jury and bench) work and other types of legal experience. And yes OPM can game the system although it is more an issue of negligence with them. SSA believes that their Congressional mandate allows them to do whatever they want. And they do. And yes, OPM is trying hard not to look like they are SSA's toadie. So they open the app process when they want to. I suppose you can call ignoring the requirements of a legal settlement "negligence."
|
|
|
Post by carjack on Feb 4, 2010 12:57:29 GMT -5
PF said:
"What we have learned is that SSA places great emphasis on the background search. From discovery it is clear that the background search is actually the tool SSA uses to "strike" applicants form the pool. We have seen little evidence that the SSA interview was used in the same manner.
Why a particular person gets bumped remains a point of speculation. Theories abound, of course, and I have my own, but we may never know for sure, except in the cases of the people who have litigated the issue.
I can say, with a degree of relative comfort, that the SSA interview is not likely to be the basis by which you get knocked out for consideration, barring some disaster. It's important, its part of the process, but it is not the end all and be all."
Very interesting. If that is true, and I hope it is, then each background check would start a new cycle for a candidate. If the background check were the basis, primarily, for the 3 strikes, why would they do new ones for each cert?
I wondered why they would rely on an old interview, but insist on rechecking references and background and it makes sense if they are really using the bg to make the decision.
I got info from the agency about my considerations and saw the background checks and the second one was different than the first. This next one should be better yet. The hardest part is that they seem to value 'fresh' judicial references so if a judge gave a good reference last year because you have a trial in his court the year before, but you haven't been in front of him since the trial, it becomes harder for them to give a good reference, especially if you practice in many different courts and don't see the same judges over and over.
The only alt is to use friend/judge references which aren't always easy to come by.
|
|
|
Post by backtoeden on Feb 4, 2010 13:35:34 GMT -5
PF,
You say call all your references and former employers...
Does the applicant get to list their own references? When are they called? Do they call former employers as part of the SSA hiring process, or is that for the BI that is done after being hired?
Please explain more about the SSA background check, when it is done in the process, and what is asked.
|
|
|
Post by roggenbier on Feb 4, 2010 14:52:35 GMT -5
What do you do if you had to file criminal charges against a former employer, acquitted, or had to sue them for back wages?
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Feb 4, 2010 16:13:30 GMT -5
Now, Now PH- heel. It used to be you had a reference check of opposing counsel and judges you had tried cases before (now done of your references by a contractor) and a background check by the FBI. After the agent interviewed me (and I had an SCI clearance for years), he went up and down the street interviewing my neighbors.
|
|
|
Post by beenaround on Feb 4, 2010 17:28:14 GMT -5
PF:
You question how much weigh SSA gives to its interview. While I do not know how the current administration handles this issue. I can speak from experience with the process 15 to 20 years ago. I really doubt that much has really changed. While the majority of people can put forth a good effort in a one hour interview, you would be surprised at how many can't. I certainly was shocked by some of the answers given in interviews. So again I will say the way the selections were made in the past was at least in part directly related to the results of the SSA interviews as well as past experience with some of the people on the register. It is true that the majority of interviews neither helped nor hindered those applicants. But the failures and excellent interviews affected how selections were made. If SSA decided it did not want someone with a very high score, cities may have been selected to quickly get rid of that individual. If someone with a low OPM score had an outstanding interview as well as good references attempts were made to select that person. That may have been to three strike applicants felt capable of becoming good ALJs in order to reach the outstanding candidate with a lesser OPM score. Of course in the early 90s there were frequently many ALJ classes each year so the majority of applicants were eventually selected unless they were in the first category (applicants with terrible interviews or other issues).
There is a current Hearing Office Chief Judge who sued the Agency for discrimination against veterans when he was not selected the first time he was on the cert that came over from OPM. Over 65% of the selectees were veterans! However, he was selected the next go around despite his allegations. So it wasn't held against him and he was not selected to settle his case either.
For those who have been through the process and not been selected, the fact that you were not selected before does not mean you will not be selected the next time around!
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Feb 4, 2010 17:53:31 GMT -5
Now, Now PH- heel. It used to be you had a reference check of opposing counsel and judges you had tried cases before (now done of your references by a contractor) and a background check by the FBI. After the agent interviewed me (and I had an SCI clearance for years), he went up and down the street interviewing my neighbors. The application process changed in 2007 regarding references and the opposing counsel requirement. That fact has been well documented. And it wasn't the FBI who queried my neighbors (and me), it was an OPM contractor with a CID background, probably retired. He and his partner were a hoot. He gets to my door, sees a plate and wants to know what an ALJ is. If there are dead bodies or any stink in your past, they will probably find it. As to pf's point about SSA, he knows more than I do about how they use the reference check to take out folks.
|
|
|
Post by backtoeden on Feb 4, 2010 18:31:12 GMT -5
I really appreciate all of the info provided by members of this board - it can only help us be better candidates when the time comes.
I agree about interviews. I had an interview last summer and when I think back on it all I can say is "what in the world was I thinking!" I had not had much practice interviewing as I had been at one job for a long time, went somewhere else, and was laid off a short time later. So I had a lot going on; I was nervous and I felt kind of desperate to get the job. So I ended up doing a head game on myself and I did not do my best. I definitely believe the interview is the only thing that kept me from being considered further because my background qualifications were a perfect fit. So I took it as a learning experience and have continued to improve my interviewing skills and demeanor. Even when you are confident of yourself and qualifications, interviews are stressful and it can be hard to articulately express yourself.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Feb 4, 2010 19:41:12 GMT -5
I really appreciate all of the info provided by members of this board - it can only help us be better candidates when the time comes. I agree about interviews. I had an interview last summer and when I think back on it all I can say is "what in the world was I thinking!" I had not had much practice interviewing as I had been at one job for a long time, went somewhere else, and was laid off a short time later. So I had a lot going on; I was nervous and I felt kind of desperate to get the job. So I ended up doing a head game on myself and I did not do my best. I definitely believe the interview is the only thing that kept me from being considered further because my background qualifications were a perfect fit. So I took it as a learning experience and have continued to improve my interviewing skills and demeanor. Even when you are confident of yourself and qualifications, interviews are stressful and it can be hard to articulately express yourself. I practiced interviewing with my wife. God bless her, she pushed me...but lets face it folks, you are liable to forget which foot to put forward. My second interview as a lawyer was my first at OPM. Shop for a killer odor-less deodorant.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Feb 5, 2010 9:01:23 GMT -5
I want to clarify my earlier posts. I definitely did not mean to suggest that the interview had no impact on the selection process. I do believe that you are fully capable of blowing the interview and not moving further in the process. I am more skeptical that a fabulous interview will land you a job if you are not an SSA insider, but I do not have any evidence to support that opinion, so take it at face value. What I was explaining was that based upon information obtained in lawsuits and through FOIA, we have not seen a situation in which a person non-selected for an ALJ position had a bad interview. In each case, the interviews have all been positive and ended with a recommendation to hire. It is based on that information that I have emphasized to candidates the importance of the background check, and in particular contact with former employers and references. It is from these contacts that we have seen SSA base a non-selection, and on rather specious grounds at that. That is why I have cautioned folks that references and former employers need to speak ONLY IN POSITIVE TONES. Any negative comment, or any comment that might be perceived as negative, will be used by SSA to knock you out of the running (unless you are a favored pre-selected candidate, for whom these rules do not apply.) I think both of the above posts are very helpful in reminding us of the importance of ANY interview for a job, if we are not already cognizant of that fact. And at the risk of inviting additional commentary (and I swear I'm not looking for it), the old way of doing things (pre-2007) is not helpful to the current process due to the change that permits Adlaw experience in place of real litigation experience, thus loading the register with current ODAR attorneys. That change invited the favoritism and other allegations of violations that have been discussed ad nauseam here. In the "old days" you had a register that was overwhelmingly what we call "outsiders" due to the litigation requirement. With that gone, you know have a register that has tilted heavily in favor of insider (read SSA) candidates, and you have an agency that has made it clear these candidates are preferred over long time litigators, and will do whatever necessary to fulfill that goal. Thus the interview and background check process are less about finding a good candidate, as they are about eliminating disfavored candidates who lack the ODAR credential that SSA values for these positions. pf is right, this subject has been debated ad nauseum and resurrecting it now would be counter-productive. However, in my case I would tell my "rabbi" or mentor ALJ who became one pre-Azdell what was happening and he would just shake his head. He personally knew of a candidate who was hired who had no litigation experience and that made him and his counterparts upset. I will emphasize what has already been said. This is an ego-deflating, arbitrary, somewhat nasty business. Many of you have only been successful in your professional lives and are not prepared for the interminable waiting and cursory kiss-offs. People give up (I did) and say no thank you. Others have divine like patience and are not rewarded. At offer time there will be a whole slew of folks appear on this Board to announce they got the job and you will say, WTF, who are they? What do they have? Some will have an "in" with SSA and OCALJ, some will just be outsiders with no SSA experience who will fit someone's profile. Everyone who gets on the Register is qualified to be an ALJ. Please try to remember that.
|
|