Basis for hiring decision?

[zero]

Does SSA give to toss about OPMs score? If two candidates come up roughly equal, will SSA let the OPM score count as tie-break? My sense is, "no".

[privateatty]

Pixie told us three years ago that as to ODAR/OCALJ scores didn't matter. I have seen the wisdom of this truth first hand.

If they want you, they will find a way to reach you, provided you made the cert.

[Well]

Despite assertions to the contrary I don't believe the Eeeny Meenie method has been deployed.

[Propmaster]

I think it depends on how the question asked by Zero is interpretted. If the candidates are actually "equal" - for example, there is one slot left and there are two high-producing insiders that SSA wants, neither of which is "better" than the other in any notable way - I would expect they would, in fact defer to the OPM score, if only to make their life easier if someone asked about it.

On the other hand, if they hate OPM so much (or distrust, perhaps) that they want to do the opposite of whatever OPM thinks is best, it could go the other way. But I bet that, at that point, they note the OPM score for some purpose.

[tigerfan]

I am not an expert but I think that any one of the top three opm scores for a given location can be selected unless the high score is a vet, then the vet must be picked or no offer made. if one of the three get picked for a different location then that opens up a position for the fourth highest score and so on and so on. I would think you would need a CRAY computer to do the selections.

[Propmaster]

Jul 4, 2010 9:19:12 GMT -5 ladywordsmith said:

Jul 4, 2010 8:10:17 GMT -5 privateatty said:

Pixie told us three years ago that as to ODAR/OCALJ scores didn't matter. I have seen the wisdom of this truth first hand.

If they want you, they will find a way to reach you, provided you made the cert.

I think Pixie said that SSA will find a way to reach you "if they can" -- but don't quote me quoting Pixie (you get the idea). I think several discussions on several threads have centered around how low a score a person can have and still get an offer. Undoubtly, the answer is (drum round please) ... "it depends" (on a number of factors, most of which has been beaten to death, so I won't repeat them here).

BUT what I think I've figured out (and fellow Forum members please feel free to correct me) is that on each cert there is a "score" that is the lowest one for an offer (that "score" changes from cert to cert). I know that was probably clear as mud, so let me provide an example:

On big cert A that will hire one hundred ALJs, the bottom score for an offer is "57" (but scores to MAKE big cert A went down to 49) -- for argument sake (based on the posts above), let's say candidate "Joe Smith" is so loved by SSA that offices are fighting as to which one will get him. BUT Joe Smith's score is 55. Joe Smith will not get an offer.

Can anyone confirm if I have this right? And, if I don't, where I went off track? I'm asking because I just don't think what has been "generally" said throughout this Forum is completely accurate. The way I see it is that on every cert there will be an offer cut off score and if you fall below that cut-off, you will not get an offer. BUT the reverse does not mirror the previous statement, instead: just because you fall within the scores offer range, doesn't mean that you'll get an offer.

Comments?

Peace and Blessings,

Ladywordsmith

I think your analysis stands up well after a register is first established, but keep in mind that SSA does not have to consider those it has considered thrice before (be they three-striked individuals or not). Thus, after the same high-scoring people have been passed over a few times, the "offer" score and "cert" score approach each other much more closely.

[privateatty]

Jul 4, 2010 9:22:15 GMT -5 Propmaster said:

Jul 4, 2010 9:19:12 GMT -5 ladywordsmith said:

I think Pixie said that SSA will find a way to reach you "if they can" -- but don't quote me quoting Pixie (you get the idea). I think several discussions on several threads have centered around how low a score a person can have and still get an offer. Undoubtly, the answer is (drum round please) ... "it depends" (on a number of factors, most of which has been beaten to death, so I won't repeat them here).

BUT what I think I've figured out (and fellow Forum members please feel free to correct me) is that on each cert there is a "score" that is the lowest one for an offer (that "score" changes from cert to cert). I know that was probably clear as mud, so let me provide an example:

On big cert A that will hire one hundred ALJs, the bottom score for an offer is "57" (but scores to MAKE big cert A went down to 49) -- for argument sake (based on the posts above), let's say candidate "Joe Smith" is so loved by SSA that offices are fighting as to which one will get him. BUT Joe Smith's score is 55. Joe Smith will not get an offer.

Can anyone confirm if I have this right? And, if I don't, where I went off track? I'm asking because I just don't think what has been "generally" said throughout this Forum is completely accurate. The way I see it is that on every cert there will be an offer cut off score and if you fall below that cut-off, you will not get an offer. BUT the reverse does not mirror the previous statement, instead: just because you fall within the scores offer range, doesn't mean that you'll get an offer.

Comments?

Peace and Blessings,

Ladywordsmith

I think your analysis stands up well after a register is first established, but keep in mind that SSA does not have to consider those it has considered thrice before (be they three-striked individuals or not). Thus, after the same high-scoring people have been passed over a few times, the "offer" score and "cert" score approach each other much more closely.

lws' analysis stands up. Propman's cautionary remark regarding the three strike rule is a nasty reality many high scorers must face.

[bowser]

Jul 4, 2010 9:19:44 GMT -5 tigerfan said:

I am not an expert but I think that any one of the top three opm scores for a given location can be selected unless the high score is a vet, then the vet must be picked or no offer made. if one of the three get picked for a different location then that opens up a position for the fourth highest score and so on and so on. I would think you would need a CRAY computer to do the selections.

Yeah my understanding was that the only situation where the OPM score mattered was if a vet was involved. I thought the Agency could elect to not select a vet, but would have to defend its nonselection or somesuch. But what you describe sounds just as reasonable.

Would be interesting to hear the discussions going on, and to see exactly how the process transpires. Probably just as ugly and confusing as composing the brackets for March Madness!

[71stretch]

It's never been my understanding that they can only be looking at the top three scorers for a particular location, but that the rule of three only came in at the beginning, which is why there are so many on the cert. If I'm wrong, then I'm glad I like the job I have.

[barkley]

Jul 4, 2010 6:09:43 GMT -5 zero said:

Does SSA give to toss about OPMs score? If two candidates come up roughly equal, will SSA let the OPM score count as tie-break? My sense is, "no".

All things roughly equal, I think it would be more likely that the source of your recommendations would be a tie breaker before an OPM score would be.

As to some of the other comments made, it is my understanding that the top three scorers are considered for each slot. That being said, if an "unfavorable" candidate just has to be considered three times, you can get pretty far down the list. I think one of the criticisms of the process is the amount of wiggle room that is there, with the larger the cert, the more room to wiggle. The order that cities are considered would greatly vary who is considered first or who is stacked against which other candidates. ALso, some folks are considered only three times, He-Who-is-No-Longer-Named indicated that other folks were considered as much as a dozen times, some getting picked some not. It is all a mystery and frustrating with all the uncertainty.

[hal3000]

If only the top three scorers are considered for each slot, what it the impact of the agency interview and the contacts with the references? Do these impact the score or the rankings? Do they only serve to either confirm that a high scorer might be offered a position or disqualified from consideration because of a bad interview or a bad reference? Can someone not in the top three move up based on the quality of their interview or references? Does anybody really know how all this works?

[bowser]

Jul 5, 2010 8:00:11 GMT -5 hal3000 said:

If only the top three scorers are considered for each slot, what it the impact of the agency interview and the contacts with the references? ... Does anybody really know how all this works?

Whether or not anyone really "knows" how all this works is a matter for debate. But it is a pretty sure bet that if any such creature exists, they are keeping mighty mum about it (and certainly not posting about it on these boards!) So, they only answer to your first several questions is the same as for just about every other step in this process - namely - your guess is as good as mine.

My WAG is that the interviews should be the strongest factor at this point, but who knows? Who isn't going to list references who will do anything other than sing the candidate's praises? And at this point, we'v all gone through enough vetting and testing that it is likely just about any of us would be able to do the job. I didn't see anyone with 2 heads waiting for an interview when I was there. (I hope they can say the same about me!) The interview is the only thing to date that allows the clearest show of your personality - what you would like to work with, how you handle yourself with your prospective peers. And the ODAR culture generally gives A LOT of deference to the HOCALJs and RCALJs who were doing the interviewing.

My firm belief is that there is enough wiggle room in the process for the Agency to reach just about any result it wants. Exactly what result the Agency wants (or whether the Agency has a consistent goal and KNOWS exactly what it wants) is another question.

Based on my not inconsiderable gov't experience, I have a couple of suspicions, however. If there is one specific approach that is the only one that makes any sense to you, you can pretty much bet that that is not the approach that will be followed. Also, it is most likely that decent people are trying to make decent decisions in this process, and the majority of shortcomings are likely to be attributable to error, oversight, poor communication, or countless other factors than ill-will towards any individual.

Gonna be an interesting couple of weeks...

[george007]

I posted this on one of the polling place polls too... an interesting note: I know of four candidates and this is what they did... two listed only City A. The other two listed City A & B, but when they got on the cert, they chose to not be considered for City B. So, here is a case where 4 candidates have only City A listed and are all competing for that one location.

[71stretch]

That can happen with those who have very limited GALs. I had a fairly limited GAL to start with, and with the actual vacancies it got taken down to two cities. Popular ones, too, based on the data on this board. So, my chickens are not getting counted.

[privateatty]

Jul 5, 2010 8:00:11 GMT -5 hal3000 said:

If only the top three scorers are considered for each slot, what it the impact of the agency interview and the contacts with the references? Do these impact the score or the rankings? Do they only serve to either confirm that a high scorer might be offered a position or disqualified from consideration because of a bad interview or a bad reference? Can someone not in the top three move up based on the quality of their interview or references? Does anybody really know how all this works?

Again, the Rule of Three applies to each position. Some cities have multiple positions. barkley has done a bang up analysis.

SSA knows whom they want--maybe one-half to two-thirds of the folks on this cert, IMO. They will use the three strike rule to get to them. There will be alot of collateral damage as high and middlin' scorers become road kill.

As to the remaining one third or more they are taking a chance on (as they see), they will use any negative reference, any throw away remark at the interview to hit the buzzer on them. This is the exercise that takes time. Some of you think you have a stellar reference and the person says something that the Puzzle Palace can draw a negative inference from. The One Whose Name Cannot Be Spoken had concrete examples. They have their own score they assigned after the Interview. The OPM score is a "placement" score and they give it no credence beyond that.

This is where the rubber meets the road. Chill the champagne or stock up on the Kleenex--depending on how much you believe. Good luck!

[hal3000]

thanks, this all makes sense-- is there any way to find out how many openings there are in each city? If SSA wants someone, and they only have one or two cities on their GAL, will they give that opening to that person, and give a different opening in a different city to someone else who has many more cities on their GAL and maybe even has a higher score because that person is able to go elsewhere? In other words, do they pick who they want first, and then figure out where to fit them, like a puzzle, or are the openings in each city filled in a vacuum, without any coordination with any other cities? Does anybody know?

[71stretch]

Jul 5, 2010 10:54:42 GMT -5 hal3000 said:

thanks, this all makes sense-- is there any way to find out how many openings there are in each city? If SSA wants someone, and they only have one or two cities on their GAL, will they give that opening to that person, and give a different opening in a different city to someone else who has many more cities on their GAL and maybe even has a higher score because that person is able to go elsewhere? In other words, do they pick who they want first, and then figure out where to fit them, like a puzzle, or are the openings in each city filled in a vacuum, without any coordination with any other cities? Does anybody know?

I asked a similar question here somewhere. It would seem logical that if they really want someone (or someones) with limited GAL(s), they will plug those folks in where they will fit, leaving those with wider open GALs to put in other cities. But, because it seems logical, that may NOT be what happens here.

[hal3000]

This process may take a long time and be somewhat mysterious and frustrating, but has anybody experinced what it's like nowadays to run for a local judgeship? The political process of running for election makes this look like a breeze.

[roggenbier]

I got my background results from FOIA. The point is beyond a thumbs up from your references. They match up what you say in your interview with what the contents of the background check say-that's OK. If they want to disqualify you, They cherry pick. Mine had surprising checks and underlinings. I got the impression that they seek to undo a positive interview and reference check to reach a result.

[iapplied]

Jul 6, 2010 15:53:22 GMT -5 roggenbier said:

I got my background results from FOIA. The point is beyond a thumbs up from your references. They match up what you say in your interview with what the contents of the background check say-that's OK. If they want to disqualify you, They cherry pick. Mine had surprising checks and underlinings. I got the impression that they seek to undo a positive interview and reference check to reach a result.

That's possible as they could cross-check your responses to interview questions by asking your supervisor to confirm or deny your interview responses.

Matching statements from the interview with a person's background check is why I was surprised to hear that a few people's background checks had been done before their interviews this time around. I thought that SSA would do the background checks first before interviewing so that they could ask you about something positive or negative that they found out. If the background checks are done afterward, then they can simply confirm your interview responses with your references.

Considering some of the older posts that indicate certain negative things like back child support payments won't disqualify you, I tend to believe that something else is at play as to whether they will use negative information against you. I think if they really need to fill positions, and all other things being equal, they may not let something negative but minor be the deciding factor. Further, if a candidate is forthcoming about a negative, depending on the negative, that too may or may not help. However, where they can be picky, in situations where they have plenty of ALJs, plenty of candidates, and few spots to fill, a negative can become the deciding factor. That's just a theory, of course, without any insider information or facts.

I don't fault the agency in ascertaining credibility in an interview before hiring that person as an ALJ. I also see the upside in finding out negatives before hiring the person both for the candidate's sake and SSA's. Who wants to get a position and then be immediately canned for something that could have been discovered in a background check? And what company wants to be guilty of negligent hiring? Sometimes not hiring or getting hired can be a good thing.