|
|
Post by gunner on May 10, 2013 22:48:54 GMT -5
Without discussing the substance:
SJT: About what I expected, though some fairly tough nuance between responses that are merely bad versus very bad, or on the other hand a fine responses versus a good response. I was surprised that I took almost the whole time (though admittedly I was taking pretty extensive notes for the first half, until I thought that time might be an issue).
Writing sample: Surprised that I used the entire 35 minutes. I mean the entire thing. I was still reviewing my answer when the time expired. Hopefully no typos slipped in. Those last 5 minutes were pretty tight.
Experience Assessment: What, again??? I didn't read closely enough to realize I was going to have to do this. I think my experience merits a 4. Seems to me that nobody with a 5 is applying to be an ALJ but I could be wrong. What about you? How did you rate yourself?
|
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on May 10, 2013 23:07:28 GMT -5
I agree. Everyone I've ever known working at level 5 in most fases has won million dollar judgments (or multi million) doing something they love, or they are in a very prestigious and lucrative position. I don't see them wanting to leave that, but one could have their reasons. I am thinking most folks will probably land in category 3, with some in 4, but most in category 3. I submitted my part 3 of part 2 tonight as well. Had it ready, just letting it sit, since no rush. No tech problems. Wonder where the cut off will be for this second part?
|
|
|
|
Post by gunner on May 10, 2013 23:14:55 GMT -5
I suppose someone might retire and then want to be an ALJ. But still seems like the rare exception. What do you mean by "cut off"? Do we get a numerical score? Does it tell us what percentile we scored in?
|
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on May 11, 2013 0:33:35 GMT -5
There will be an internal "score" or cutoff after the stage we just finished to determine who goes on to do the rest of the testing.
You will not actually receive a numerical score that's disclosed to you until and unless you go all the way through the process through the SI. You will not be told what your score in each part is, or where your score fits with everyone else who gets a score.
|
|
|
|
Post by cafeta on May 11, 2013 1:17:41 GMT -5
I agree. Everyone I've ever known working at level 5 in most fases has won million dollar judgments (or multi million) doing something they love, or they are in a very prestigious and lucrative position. I don't see them wanting to leave that, but one could have their reasons. I am thinking most folks will probably land in category 3, with some in 4, but most in category 3. I submitted my part 3 of part 2 tonight as well. Had it ready, just letting it sit, since no rush. No tech problems. Wonder where the cut off will be for this second part? I ranked myself as a 5, but my position, while I believe prestigious, is not that lucrative at gs-15 (but lucrative is relative; not lucrative vs big firm, but high compared to the average wage earner). The significant part of my work involves highly complex litigation that could and did) set circuit wide precedent, as an appellate attorney at the 9th circuit, the largest circuit court in the nation. I was surprised to find myself at a 5, but I was able to support it in questions 3 and 4. |
|
johnx
Full Member
Enter your message here...
Posts: 65
|
Post by johnx on May 11, 2013 7:00:00 GMT -5
I agree. Everyone I've ever known working at level 5 in most fases has won million dollar judgments (or multi million) doing something they love, or they are in a very prestigious and lucrative position. I don't see them wanting to leave that, but one could have their reasons. I am thinking most folks will probably land in category 3, with some in 4, but most in category 3. I submitted my part 3 of part 2 tonight as well. Had it ready, just letting it sit, since no rush. No tech problems. Wonder where the cut off will be for this second part? I ranked myself as a 5, but my position, while I believe prestigious, is not that lucrative at gs-15 (but lucrative is relative; not lucrative vs big firm, but high compared to the average wage earner). The significant part of my work involves highly complex litigation that could and did) set circuit wide precedent, as an appellate attorney at the 9th circuit, the largest circuit court in the nation. I was surprised to find myself at a 5, but I was able to support it in questions 3 and 4. What is/are questions 3 and 4? |
|
|
|
Post by Orly on May 11, 2013 8:12:02 GMT -5
What is/are questions 3 and 4? If you don't already know what question 3 and 4 are, they probably shouldn't tell you.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2013 9:39:11 GMT -5
What is/are questions 3 and 4?
[/quote]
Johnx, I think she just meant Part three EA question answer and then narrative to describe rating...
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on May 11, 2013 11:58:00 GMT -5
I agree. Everyone I've ever known working at level 5 in most fases has won million dollar judgments (or multi million) doing something they love, or they are in a very prestigious and lucrative position. I don't see them wanting to leave that, but one could have their reasons. I am thinking most folks will probably land in category 3, with some in 4, but most in category 3. I submitted my part 3 of part 2 tonight as well. Had it ready, just letting it sit, since no rush. No tech problems. Wonder where the cut off will be for this second part? I can see a DA applying for an ALJ position, too. I believe murder trials were described as highly complex, and my DA friends have tried numerous such cases on their own. |
|
|
|
Post by cafeta on May 11, 2013 12:52:03 GMT -5
What is/are questions 3 and 4? Johnx, I think she just meant Part three EA question answer and then narrative to describe rating...[/quote] I think that's correct, at least that's what I meant in my response. |
|
gman
Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by gman on May 13, 2013 13:24:56 GMT -5
I don't see the point in having people assign themselves a particular level number AND then justify it with the written description UNLESS there is going to be some automatic filtering based upon the number itself before anyone with a brain actually reviews the written portion to see if the number is justified. I think you're exactly right about this. I had the distinct impression that the purpose was to weed out those candidates without at least complex litigation experience, and to be able to do so in an automated way. |
|
|
|
Post by hal3000 on May 13, 2013 13:35:30 GMT -5
I think the purpose at least partially was to weed out those candidates who grossly overestimate their competence and level of experience.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2013 13:48:03 GMT -5
I think the purpose at least partially was to weed out those candidates who grossly overestimate their competence and level of experience. This new open application period opened up the flood gates for OPM--before they could open the door briefly and then shut it closed and leave a lot of otherwise qualified folks out on the street. To me it looked like the first cut was to lop off the folks that had no business applying at all. Then this second cut was to further lop off those who claim they had litigation experience and the competencies of an ALJ like decisiveness, judicial economy, courtroom management etc., but cannot articulate them in fictional on the job situations and in written format. Obviously they wanted flexibility on the litigation experience--as mentioned in other threads, there probably are few people that truly qualify with experience at the highest levels that who have engaged in the most complex ligigation levels. I am sure they have their algorithims ready to go in determining who will move to the in person testing section. |
|
|
|
Post by marten77 on May 13, 2013 13:57:34 GMT -5
I don't see the point in having people assign themselves a particular level number AND then justify it with the written description UNLESS there is going to be some automatic filtering based upon the number itself before anyone with a brain actually reviews the written portion to see if the number is justified. I think you're exactly right about this. I had the distinct impression that the purpose was to weed out those candidates without at least complex litigation experience, and to be able to do so in an automated way.
This is possible. Although it would bring into play the old theme of SSA wants insiders.
My read of the definitions provided of the types of litigation experience would have likely precluded a rating higher than three for a decision writer or SAA. I suppose one could have made the argument that the writing of an SSA decision consitutes invlovement in a matter affecting significant monetary interests since even an SSI claim, if approved, would be worth at least approximately $300,000 over the course of thirty years at a rate of $700 per month. I think it is a stretch to say that, but perhaps not unreasonable. I thought the operative language in the routine, complex and highly complex ratings were lead counsel for routine, complex or highly complex cases or a presiding judge over such litigation or appeallate judge. As a decision writer myself, I would never claim to be adjudicating anything complex or highly complex since I am performing a task for the judge and not signing off on my actions. I also do not think that decision writing falls within complex or highly complex as it was defined, but that is just my humble opinion and I'm open to persuasion. I don't mean to sound like I'm crapping all over my job, because I do actually happen to like it, but for myself at least, I have dealt with more complex issues and cases during my time at the Attorney General's Office and U.S. Attorney's Office than I ever have as a writer. |
|
|
|
Post by marten77 on May 13, 2013 13:58:47 GMT -5
I don't see the point in having people assign themselves a particular level number AND then justify it with the written description UNLESS there is going to be some automatic filtering based upon the number itself before anyone with a brain actually reviews the written portion to see if the number is justified. I think you're exactly right about this. I had the distinct impression that the purpose was to weed out those candidates without at least complex litigation experience, and to be able to do so in an automated way.
This is possible. Although it would bring into play the old theme of SSA wants insiders.
|
|
johnx
Full Member
Enter your message here...
Posts: 65
|
Post by johnx on May 13, 2013 14:02:46 GMT -5
I think you're exactly right about this. I had the distinct impression that the purpose was to weed out those candidates without at least complex litigation experience, and to be able to do so in an automated way.
My read of the definitions provided of the types of litigation experience would have likely precluded a rating higher than three for a decision writer or SAA. I suppose one could have made the argument that the writing of an SSA decision consitutes invlovement in a matter affecting significant monetary interests since even an SSI claim, if approved, would be worth at least approximately $300,000 over the course of thirty years at a rate of $700 per month. I think it is a stretch to say that, but perhaps not unreasonable. I thought the operative language in the routine, complex and highly complex ratings were lead counsel for routine, complex or highly complex cases or a presiding judge over such litigation or appeallate judge. As a decision writer myself, I would never claim to be adjudicating anything complex or highly complex since I am performing a task for the judge and not signing off on my actions. I also do not think that decision writing falls within complex or highly complex as it was defined, but that is just my humble opinion and I'm open to persuasion. I don't mean to sound like I'm crapping all over my job, because I do actually happen to like it, but for myself at least, I have dealt with more complex issues and cases during my time at the Attorney General's Office and U.S. Attorney's Office than I ever have as a writer.FYI. There are actually some people still working on their answer. I know someone whose deadline is tomorrow, for reasons i wont go into. |
|
|
|
Post by chinook on May 13, 2013 14:32:19 GMT -5
I think some of the discussions on this and other threads have given too much info about the exam. Remember you signed a confidentiality agreement.
|
|
|
|
Post by chinook on May 13, 2013 15:34:05 GMT -5
I think that when somebody says "I suppose one could have made the argument that the writing of an SSA decision consitutes invlovement in a matter affecting significant monetary interests since even an SSI claim, if approved, would be worth at least approximately $300,000 over the course of thirty years at a rate of $700 per month. I think it is a stretch to say that, but perhaps not unreasonable" is giving more of a discussion than appropriate. But that is only my thought on the issue and I didn't take the test, so what do I know. We each set our own bar and to me that statement (and others) crosses it.
|
|
|
|
Post by cafeta on May 13, 2013 15:37:48 GMT -5
I think that when somebody says "I suppose one could have made the argument that the writing of an SSA decision consitutes invlovement in a matter affecting significant monetary interests since even an SSI claim, if approved, would be worth at least approximately $300,000 over the course of thirty years at a rate of $700 per month. I think it is a stretch to say that, but perhaps not unreasonable" is giving more of a discussion than appropriate. But that is only my thought on the issue and I didn't take the test, so what do I know. We each set our own bar and to me that statement (and others) crosses it. I think to err on the side of caution is good counsel.  |
|
