|
Post by factfinder on May 12, 2010 11:31:37 GMT -5
My NOR says:
Veteran Preference: 0 Points - NV (adjudicated)
I think that means non-veteran unless someone can correct me.
Said nothing in 2007, but they sent me e-mails saying I got the 5 points and the preference after I sent by DD 214, etc. - the preference is a big deal. This leaves me spinning a bit because while 5 more points would be nice, the status is more important. I figure this is one of the rare cases they may fix it and be nice, if it needs to be fixed.
|
|
|
Post by issuegirl on May 12, 2010 11:32:06 GMT -5
My score went up 25 points since last year. The perplexing part is that I actually felt worse abou the WD this time. I felt a little better about the SI though. I submitted the same application as the time prior because I did not have time to revise it. So who knows, once again, the whole thing is a mystery. I am hoping my new score will get me an interview.....
|
|
|
Post by milagros on May 12, 2010 11:31:43 GMT -5
Read the "ALJ Hiring FAQ Part 1" on this board. That should answer some of your questions.
|
|
|
Post by organizized on May 12, 2010 11:35:03 GMT -5
Woo hoo! I made it! Hopefully we should hear if/when we get an interview soon since SSA has scheduled them for June 7th-18th.
|
|
|
Post by carjack on May 12, 2010 11:35:56 GMT -5
If an agency, lets say SSA, needs some ALJs, they'll put in their request to OPM which will configure the highest three scores for each of the locations SSA needs an ALJ. Without belaboring the point (lots of old threads about the cross-over of candidates) OPM will send them a cert of names approximately 3 times the number of ALJs they need. If your score and GAL are in play you'll be included and will be notified that your name was submitted to the agency which will then start the interview/culling process. You have to send a written response telling OPM you still want to be on the list.
It gets a little theoretical when you consider that almost everybody has listed numerous cities and so you won't know whether you were chosen for Charlotte, St. Pete, or W.LA, but ostensibly you could be in the running for each of the cities on their list and your list. If you put down 25 cities but only one is on the Agency's list, you'll only be considered for that one, in theory.
Again, lots of old threads about consideration, and reconsideration on a particular cert.
|
|
|
Post by govtgirl on May 12, 2010 11:37:32 GMT -5
I got a high 77. Feel pretty lucky. My geographical prefs are limited, however.
|
|
|
Post by mushroom on May 12, 2010 11:41:26 GMT -5
up 7 points, but still crummy....now it's more wait & see!
|
|
|
Post by justalawyer on May 12, 2010 11:43:40 GMT -5
I am suprised by my dismally low score. How do you appeal your score? I agree that it might not do any good ... but, for me, it certainly can't hurt. Can someone please let us know the appeal/review process for the scores? Thanks...
|
|
footballer
Member
I lurk therefore I am...maybe. You wouldn't know in any event....
Posts: 26
|
Post by footballer on May 12, 2010 11:54:03 GMT -5
80.71
Feel like I'm in pretty good shape...good luck to those pursuing the dream.
|
|
|
Post by hherman on May 12, 2010 11:56:23 GMT -5
What would a score of 67 be considered? Average?
|
|
|
Post by govtgirl on May 12, 2010 11:59:00 GMT -5
|
|
henry
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by henry on May 12, 2010 12:02:07 GMT -5
Not to be the downer here, but keep in mind, just because you have a high score does not necessarily mean that you will become an ALJ nor does it mean you could get on the "list to go anywhere". Lots of well-qualified people, with and without VP, scored well in the past and did not get the job. Therre are many factors which make that determination (i.e.: what color tie or lipstick you wear to your interview, whether or not the interviewers like your hair style, if your references say nice things about you, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by packersfan on May 12, 2010 12:29:53 GMT -5
The following yielded a score around 61:
1. top-5-law-school graduate 2. top 1% of top-20-school undergraduate class 3. 20 years of litigation experience 4. big firm experience 5. federal government litigation experience 6. highly successful practice in federal court 7. excellent appraisals throughout career 8. extensive knowledge and experience with disability issues 9. extensive administrative law experience 10. no sitting judge experience 11. not SSA employee 12. felt did well on WD 13. felt did well on SI
|
|
kam
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by kam on May 12, 2010 12:32:24 GMT -5
New to this board & first time taking it. Hoping for a curve grade too. 53.56 sucks.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on May 12, 2010 12:37:11 GMT -5
Packers' Fan, Ive been on this board since 2007, and the one lesson that comes through loud and clear is that there is no rhyme nor reason for any of this. I also have extensive litigation experience, which is supposed to be important at the OPM level, and I also felt that I did well on the WD and SI. And I got a 58. Go back and read the old posts from people who were flummoxed by the scores they got. You are in good company. I just pm'ed California Girl that I thought I would go out at lunch time and do shopping therapy. I recommend it.
|
|
|
Post by maxlaw on May 12, 2010 12:39:38 GMT -5
First, well done to all you high scorers out there. For those who are disappointed (and I'm not in either camp) hang in there, it may be a whole new ball game next time around. In any event, consider your appeal rights keeping in mind that others have reported that there are some challenges to the process winding through various tribunals. My understanding is that past large certs have generally reached down into the 59-60 range if, and this cannot be emphasized enough, if the candidate has a very large GAL. With a restricted GAL things become more difficult. Of course, past performance is no guarantee of future results. If you haven't done so before, or recently, it's probably a good time to read the newbie FAQ re: just how slim our chances still are. I find the perspective has helped to keep things bearable.
|
|
|
Post by MerelyForTheAsking on May 12, 2010 12:41:42 GMT -5
Has anyone in the history of this racketeered process ever gotten lower than a 50? I'm being serious. Has that ever happened to anyone who went through the entire process? I'm very self-critical, but I really thought I did well on both the WD and the SI, and if my application were deplorable you'd think I would've been among the 1/3 (or whatever fraction it was) of applicants who weren't invited at all.
|
|
|
Post by justalawyer on May 12, 2010 12:43:52 GMT -5
Packers' Fan, Ive been on this board since 2007, and the one lesson that comes through loud and clear is that there is no rhyme nor reason for any of this. I also have extensive litigation experience, which is supposed to be important at the OPM level, and I also felt that I did well on the WD and SI. And I got a 58. Go back and read the old posts from people who were flummoxed by the scores they got. You are in good company. I just pm'ed California Girl that I thought I would go out at lunch time and do shopping therapy. I recommend it. As I think I posted before - my score went down 6 points from 2007 - "flummoxed" is definitely the word. None of this makes sense. Sorry Packers Fan - for some reason OPM just doesn't like some of us. Instead of shopping therapy, I'm thinking of breaking the seal on the Patron Silver we got for the Holidays. If I can't celebrate, might as well lubricate!
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on May 12, 2010 12:47:00 GMT -5
The following yielded a score around 61: 1. top-5-law-school graduate 2. top 1% of top-20-school undergraduate class 3. 20 years of litigation experience 4. big firm experience 5. federal government litigation experience 6. highly successful practice in federal court 7. excellent appraisals throughout career 8. extensive knowledge and experience with disability issues 9. extensive administrative law experience 10. no sitting judge experience 11. not SSA employee 12. felt did well on WD 13. felt did well on SI Remember to thank the "professionals" at OPM. If it makes you feel any better, OPM probably would have given you one of the highest scores for the GS-15 DOD Anthropology Program Manager Specialist position.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2010 12:49:33 GMT -5
Well, here's another candidate shocked by my score! It is very low -- 57.4. I"ve been litigating in the government (not SSA) for 17 years, have been published writer in professional pubications, good appraisals, law journal in law school. I felt I did ok on the WD and on the SI (to the extent it was possible to tell anything after the strange SI expereince.) So, I am quite surprised and disappointed to have done so poorly. I have read the Board for awhille and realize this is not rare, but still, this experience is very disappointing and so mysterious that I just feel flabbergasted. This certainly is an odd way to select ALJs. Congrats to those who scored well, and for those of us who did not, I'm glad to know I'm not alone is feeling dismayed.
|
|