|
Post by sealaw90 on Sept 4, 2013 15:47:25 GMT -5
useorlose, based on history, we should be looking for scores in December/January timeframe.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Sept 4, 2013 17:23:29 GMT -5
Is it just me or do others who've taken the test find themselves checking email compulsively for scores? Does anyone have a real idea when we're likely to get them? To add to what sealaw said, they will for sure not come out until everyone finishes testing in October. Past testing (even though slightly different this time) indicates the NOR will go out all at once. So I imagine everyone will get their scores within a day or so of everyone else. Speculation is a couple of months to finish scoring. I agree with sealaw and haven't seen anything otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Sept 4, 2013 18:45:11 GMT -5
useorlose, based on history, we should be looking for scores in December/January timeframe. I would anticipate scores coming before the end of the year, possibly in November. Of course, that depends on a number if budgetary things as all federal business does. I don't compulsively check my status, but I did have a near panic last week when I thought I had clicked on the ALJ status and actually clicked on another job I had applied to. The status was the dreaded "see details tab," and I temporarily freaked.
|
|
|
Post by justicedog on Sept 4, 2013 20:00:40 GMT -5
HMMM. Do we know if anyone is testing this week? With the holiday on Monday perhaps they took a break for the OPM folks and SI panelist. Nope. Testing tomorrow......
|
|
|
Post by ironmanlawyer on Sept 4, 2013 21:05:35 GMT -5
Thanks! I just saw all the talk about #2 pencils so I thought I'd ask. I am taking the phase 3 exams on September 12 and 13. Are any of you going to be there during that time? Is the WD a paper exam or do you use a word processor? Ironman, I think there are some posts on this (perhaps even early in this thread). The WD is on a laptop, but with a regular keyboard and mouse attached. It has limited word processing features; for example, no spell check.
|
|
|
Post by chessparent on Sept 4, 2013 21:30:09 GMT -5
I know we are not supposed to reveal this, but the pencils go under the fingernails at the conclusion of the exam. It 's part of the opm initiation ritual.
|
|
|
Post by chessparent on Sept 5, 2013 12:14:15 GMT -5
True, very true.
|
|
|
Post by jigjigjig on Sept 5, 2013 16:26:06 GMT -5
The only thing I can add to the excellent trip reports from last week is that if you are super type A and get to OPM at 6:30am (to avoid traffic, etc.), rest assured that there is a Starbucks directly across the street (on the other side of the park) from the OPM entrance with caffeine to keep you going and bathrooms too. It was lovely to meet the Ohioans testing last week. Good luck to you all!
|
|
|
Post by ginger on Sept 5, 2013 18:52:59 GMT -5
That is very useful and comforting information jigjig! Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by lildavey on Sept 6, 2013 19:20:58 GMT -5
Back home after WD/LBMT yesterday and SI today. Much the same experiences to report with one notable exception and some dissents. The Embassy Suites Hotel is fine. My room was fine. The staff very friendly, good at getting cabs. They all know about the tests and interviews and many wished me luck. The doorman said "Going down to E Street?" to me as he hailed me a cab. The breakfasts are fabulous. The cocktail hour is great. (Tip the bartender on your first drink and she'll mix then good and strong for you. A lot of people didn't tip, which I thought was crass. Just because the hotel has worked the price of the drinks into your room rate, it doesn't mean she doesn't still have to make a living.) The ethnic makeup was 99% white with one Asian woman. Most were 40's to 50's with one guy who looked to be in his early 30's. The room WAS NOT cold, so I dragged that jacket around for nothing. DC is hot and humid this time of year. People were mostly from Illinois with a few Michiganders thrown in. Several State ALJs, lots of AG and OGC types, all very sharp people. The OPM cafeteria is fine. Couple of surprises -- everyone I talked to had VERY narrow GALS -- like one and two cities! When I told them I had 98 they looked at me like I was from Mars. And the kicker -- one younger dude came in with all the rest of us yesterday morning, settled into a place at one of the tables and once the confidentiality memos were passed around, he read his copy, packed up and left the room -- didn't even wait to look at the WD booklet. That floored me.
|
|
|
Post by lildavey on Sept 6, 2013 20:38:30 GMT -5
Thanks for the report. So, I assume that most of these folks from Illinois with narrow GALs wanted Chicago? Or the St. Louis office.
|
|
|
Post by lurker/dibs on Sept 7, 2013 4:40:58 GMT -5
Wow. Thanks for the info. That's very surprising. Why go to all of this effort to not even take the test?!? Narrow GALs are surprising too, especially that narrow. Maybe that will help those who have more locations when the hiring begins! I fly out Sunday for the big dance. Getting excited....
|
|
|
Post by wallylaw on Sept 7, 2013 5:44:50 GMT -5
Back home after WD/LBMT yesterday and SI today. Much the same experiences to report with one notable exception and some dissents. The Embassy Suites Hotel is fine. My room was fine. The staff very friendly, good at getting cabs. They all know about the tests and interviews and many wished me luck. The doorman said "Going down to E Street?" to me as he hailed me a cab. The breakfasts are fabulous. The thingytail hour is great. (Tip the bartender on your first drink and she'll mix then good and strong for you. A lot of people didn't tip, which I thought was crass. Just because the hotel has worked the price of the drinks into your room rate, it doesn't mean she doesn't still have to make a living.) The ethnic makeup was 99% white with one Asian woman. Most were 40's to 50's with one guy who looked to be in his early 30's. The room WAS NOT cold, so I dragged that jacket around for nothing. DC is hot and humid this time of year. People were mostly from Illinois with a few Michiganders thrown in. Several State ALJs, lots of AG and OGC types, all very sharp people. The OPM cafeteria is fine. Couple of surprises -- everyone I talked to had VERY narrow GALS -- like one and two cities! When I told them I had 98 they looked at me like I was from Mars. And the kicker -- one younger dude came in with all the rest of us yesterday morning, settled into a place at one of the tables and once the confidentiality memos were passed around, he read his copy, packed up and left the room -- didn't even wait to look at the WD booklet. That floored me.
|
|
|
Post by wallylaw on Sept 7, 2013 6:22:00 GMT -5
Just joined at the suggestion of a fellow test taker. Apparently didn't do this right in responding to lildavey's post, sorry. Will try again. Did the WD and PI this past week. Need to share what I heard along with my Illinois government colleague at breakfast at the Embassy Suites yesterday. We were having breakfast and apparent judge panel members sat two tables away and we could overhear everything. One who at a DC based agency mentioned that a colleague who served the week also did not get to interview any SSA decision writers. The other two DC judges also mentioned that they had not seen any as well. However, he added that the colleague also mentioned that an SSA judge who served on a 2 person panel that week told him that he ONLY saw SSA decision writers AND that they appeared to hit all the buzzwords. I hope that is mere coincidence, but it would be unfortunate if OPM were setting things up that way.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Sept 7, 2013 7:20:15 GMT -5
Welcome to the boards Wally. Its early and I'm on my first coffee, so not sure I completely understand the concern implied in your post.
Based on something you overheard at breakfast, you think opm is funneling all the ssa insiders thru ssa alj led interview panels to give them some advantage? if that is your worry, I think you can relax.
First, given the ssa/opm history and the new testing protocol, I think its evident opm is not interested in helping ssa insiders at all. I won't go so far as saying they are hostile to ssa insiders, but they aren't partial in the least.
Second, several of my insider friends have already taken the tests. Most have no clue or recollection of where their interview panelists came from, but the few that did reported no ssa alj panelists among their group.
Third, the panelists are supposed to be blind to our backgrounds. I suppose they could make pre or post small talk and learn of your insider/outsider status, but they aren't supposed to do so.
Fourth, the ssn theory (which appears proven) indicates opm put effort into ensuring SI Panelists and candidates came from diff regions of the country. I highly doubt they would then assign you someone from the same agency on purpose.
Finally, a good friend and fellow insider has the exact same date and time for his SI as I. So for that to fit with your concern, there would have to be two insider specific panels and there just aren't enough insiders this time to make that plausible.
I don't doubt you heard what you reported, but Iimagine it was speculation on the part of the DC judges who were surprised to not have insiders to interview when in the past their were so many. They just didn't realize that the total number of insiders, as a percentage of all candidates, is drastically lower than in testing past due to the new protocols and emphasis.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Sept 7, 2013 7:48:57 GMT -5
Welcome to the boards Wally. Its early and I'm on my first coffee, so not sure I completely understand the concern implied in your post. Based on something you overheard at breakfast, you think opm is funneling all the ssa insiders thru ssa alj led interview panels to give them some advantage? if that is your worry, I think you can relax. First, given the ssa/opm history and the new testing protocol, I think its evident opm is not interested in helping ssa insiders at all. I won't go so far as saying they are hostile to ssa insiders, but they aren't partial in the least. Second, several of my insider friends have already taken the tests. Most have no clue or recollection of where their interview panelists came from, but the few that did reported no ssa alj panelists among their group. Third, the panelists are supposed to be blind to our backgrounds. I suppose they could make pre or post small talk and learn of your insider/outsider status, but they aren't supposed to do so. Fourth, the ssn theory (which appears proven) indicates opm put effort into ensuring SI Panelists and candidates came from diff regions of the country. I highly doubt they would then assign you someone from the same agency on purpose. Finally, a good friend and fellow insider has the exact same date and time for his SI as I. So for that to fit with your concern, there would have to be two insider specific panels and there just aren't enough insiders this time to make that plausible. I don't doubt you heard what you reported, but Iimagine it was speculation on the part of the DC judges who were surprised to not have insiders to interview when in the past their were so many. They just didn't realize that the total number of insiders, as a percentage of all candidates, is drastically lower than in testing past due to the new protocols and emphasis. I am with you funkyodar and I am an "outsider". I don't believe in the argument of bias by OPM. It is a fair and open testing procedure that allows anyone with the necessary skills, knowledge and experience to pass. I think there is a slight element of luck, too. However, I believe the intent is to have a fair and open process without bias toward or against anyone. I am not so sure the agency hiring will work the same, but OPM's process is set up that way.
|
|
|
Post by lildavey on Sept 7, 2013 10:35:19 GMT -5
Welcome to the boards Wally. Its early and I'm on my first coffee, so not sure I completely understand the concern implied in your post. Based on something you overheard at breakfast, you think opm is funneling all the ssa insiders thru ssa alj led interview panels to give them some advantage? if that is your worry, I think you can relax. First, given the ssa/opm history and the new testing protocol, I think its evident opm is not interested in helping ssa insiders at all. I won't go so far as saying they are hostile to ssa insiders, but they aren't partial in the least. Second, several of my insider friends have already taken the tests. Most have no clue or recollection of where their interview panelists came from, but the few that did reported no ssa alj panelists among their group. Third, the panelists are supposed to be blind to our backgrounds. I suppose they could make pre or post small talk and learn of your insider/outsider status, but they aren't supposed to do so. Fourth, the ssn theory (which appears proven) indicates opm put effort into ensuring SI Panelists and candidates came from diff regions of the country. I highly doubt they would then assign you someone from the same agency on purpose. Finally, a good friend and fellow insider has the exact same date and time for his SI as I. So for that to fit with your concern, there would have to be two insider specific panels and there just aren't enough insiders this time to make that plausible. I don't doubt you heard what you reported, but Iimagine it was speculation on the part of the DC judges who were surprised to not have insiders to interview when in the past their were so many. They just didn't realize that the total number of insiders, as a percentage of all candidates, is drastically lower than in testing past due to the new protocols and emphasis. I am with you funkyodar and I am an "outsider". I don't believe in the argument of bias by OPM. It is a fair and open testing procedure that allows anyone with the necessary skills, knowledge and experience to pass. I think there is a slight element of luck, too. However, I believe the intent is to have a fair and open process without bias toward or against anyone. I am not so sure the agency hiring iwill work the same, but OPM's process is set up that way. Moopigsdad you are correct! I spoke with one of the guys who administered the WD/LBMT in the lobby at the Embassy Suites to compliment him on the professionalism of his team and commented to him the consensus at lunch among the candidates that the process prevented any "political" influence. He said it was "virtually impossible" because of all of the "double-blind" elements built in. I've never thought much of this "insider vs. outsider" discussion. If it has an impact, it may be at the SSA "fit" interview stage -- and then might work against an insider.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Sept 7, 2013 21:09:02 GMT -5
The lack of concern that you have for the "insider" v. "outsider" is based upon the present--and rightly so. Those of us from the past can only report on what we know. That this is no longer a hot button item is a very, very good thing, IMHO.
And as has been reported, the fact that there are far fewer "insiders" in this current crop is a by-product of the new testing procedures and requirements.
Overhearing a conversation on this topic points to a deep concern ALJs had on this subject and the fact that SSA was leading OPM in the past and not the other way around. OPM has tried to find a middle ground with SSA and the other agencies. Frequent readers of this Board get that.
I can report that OPM made a concerted effort this time around to get ALJs from outside the beltway. They mostly succeeded in this regard and ALJs came in from all over the continent.
Finally, once again funk-man has demonstrated his logical/analytical abilities. Well done.
|
|
|
Post by lildavey on Sept 7, 2013 21:18:57 GMT -5
The lack of concern that you have for the "insider" v. "outsider" is based upon the present--and rightly so. Those of us from the past can only report on what we know. That this is no longer a hot button item is a very, very good thing, IMHO. And as has been reported, the fact that there are far fewer "insiders" in this current crop is a by-product of the new testing procedures and requirements. Overhearing a conversation on this topic points to a deep concern ALJs had on this subject and the fact that SSA was leading OPM in the past and not the other way around. OPM has tried to find a middle ground with SSA and the other agencies. Frequent readers of this Board get that. I can report that OPM made a concerted effort this time around to get ALJs from outside the beltway. They mostly succeeded in this regard and ALJs came in from all over the continent. Finally, once again funk-man has demonstrated his logical/analytical abilities. Well done. Have I said I "overheard" a conversation?
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Sept 8, 2013 10:19:56 GMT -5
I think privateatty was referring to wallylaw's post.
|
|