|
|
Post by ssaogc on Oct 15, 2013 20:26:14 GMT -5
Folks, I wanted to share an old post I found on the board (link is below) that reminded me that this whole process is not only a marathon but also a lottery. I believe Pixie was a person in the know (maybe some old timers can provide more information) but I thought that this was an incredible post to show just how competitive this process is and how you really have to not only come out on top but also get the golden ticket. The numbers are from the mid 90s register and at the time you did not have access to information like we have on this board. I found the numbers below to be indicative of just how lucky you have to get and it puts this whole process into perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by lurker/dibs on Oct 16, 2013 6:11:17 GMT -5
Well if these numbers are indicative of today's numbers, I don't think I have much of a shot to go to any of my 68 ODARs.....ugh.
|
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 16, 2013 6:52:05 GMT -5
Well if these numbers are indicative of today's numbers, I don't think I have much of a shot to go to any of my 68 ODARs.....ugh. I would say that I am in the same boat with lurker, but since I didn't pick 68 cities (I only picked 6 very "popular" cities), I'm afraid I am out in the ocean with no boat in sight. Very elucidating thread, however. Thanks for posting. |
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Oct 16, 2013 7:16:43 GMT -5
Please keep in mind that was when testing was different than now. Also, keep in mind that the Register was close to 2000 then, now we are looking at about 1000-1100 total. Furthermore, many people have stated that they have very limited GALs . You cannot match apples with oranges. Times were different. I am not saying it will be easy to acquire a position, but it will not be impossible. Please look at it realistically. It's the equivalent of going to a Bingo game and winning. You have a chance, but it won't be easy. I still say the odds are about 1 in 6 to 1 in 8 to acquire a position if you have a wider GAL and less if a smaller GAL. Good luck to all!
|
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 16, 2013 8:17:35 GMT -5
I don't think those numbers mean much in terms of this application process. I continue to believe that OPM's practice of holding the application open until a date certain, rather than a specific number of applicants, has resulted in a lot of people who have very limited GAL's. That's based on anecdotal reports from testing, as well as a belief that the extended application period resulted in a lot of low-information applicants. I'm not talking about less intelligent people, of course. I'm talking about people who don't follow this board and don't realize that a five-city GAL is very likely going to leave them SOL, as opposed to a more-dedicated group of 1200-1500 people who were waiting for the announcement to open, knew the best way to make a register/cert, and pounced on it. It's my theory (and it could very well be wrong *and* wishful thinking) that many of the 5500+ applicants this time diluted the applicant pool and will eventually dilute the register in terms of having smaller GAL's. I don't know if I explained that sufficiently. Haven't had coffee yet. whew, superbonbon. I'm so glad you said "dilute" and not "pollute." I didn't have my coffee when I quickly read your post, and had to re-read. I made it a point of asking as many people as I could, when I tested, where there GALs were. Only one person told me he had a wide-open GAL. At least a dozen told me they had 3 or 4 cities or less and that most of the people they knew did the same thing. Of course some could have been pulling my leg but I don't see why they would. Let's assume your theory is right and based on my very limited poll, i tend to agree with you. I am interested in hearing what the board's views are on how ODAR might parlay the selections. If there are 200 people with similar/identical high scores for NY, but two of the candidates listed only NY on their GAL -- while the other 198 had wide open GALs, will ODAR somehow disadvantage the 198, or will they risk losing the 2 high scorers entirely from the pool of applicants? In other words, should a narrow GAL be a tie-breaking factor for the sake of giving high scorers every consideration consistent with fair application of the "rules"? |
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Oct 16, 2013 8:57:35 GMT -5
Please keep in mind that was when testing was different than now. Also, keep in mind that the Register was close to 2000 then, now we are looking at about 1000-1100 total. Furthermore, many people have stated that they have very limited GALs . You cannot match apples with oranges. Times were different. I am not saying it will be easy to acquire a position, but it will not be impossible. Please look at it realistically. It's the equivalent of going to a Bingo game and winning. You have a chance, but it won't be easy. I still say the odds are about 1 in 6 to 1 in 8 to acquire a position if you have a wider GAL and less if a smaller GAL. Good luck to all! This is a great way to look at it. Stay realistic about the prospect of getting this job. It is a 96 hour Bingo Game and we are about 48 hours into it. We need to keep at it and be ready to say Bingo if our numbers are called. I do not know how many SSA insiders and how many board members will make the list but I surmise that a large number of these folks will have wide open GALS and they will be competitive and poised to jump on any vacancy that is offered to them in parts of the country where a lot of folks will not move to--that is my hope. |
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 16, 2013 9:28:57 GMT -5
fair enough, super. someone with a better sense of internal working than I have should start a thread for "the Puzzle Palace," or as I like to call it, "the smoke-filled room." My imagination runs amok. I envision these guys (mostly), in a dark room somewhere in a bunker deep underground, probably not far from Huntington, W.Va., saying "o.k., how can we get around these infernal veterans so we can get to our peeps." Or maybe "o.k. all you HOCALJs -- one for you, two for me, 10 for Huntington, W.Va, none for you, New York . . ." Or what could be more likely: "o.k., we have 1100 on the register and 250 slots to fill this round. we anticipate another 250 to fill next year. we have 500 candidates who scored over 70, with wide-open GALs. Therefore, we don't need to reach down into the 60s or below for this round. Lets take the low 70s scorers and put them in the "less desirable" offices. That leaves 100 spots remaining in the 10 most "popular" cities." I'm sure this is off-base, but I'm just curious about the actual horse-trading that I'm sure goes on. If someone scores 110 with a wide-open GAL, technically, they could be assigned to Huntington, W.Va. If the high scorers with wide-open GALs are placed in the "less-desirable" offices, so that other high scorers with narrow GALs have an improved chance, is that fair to the high scorers who "played the game" by agreeing to a wide open GAL?
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Oct 16, 2013 10:30:27 GMT -5
Epic, from what I've read in past posts, if they want you, they will get you. In your hypothetical, if they want one or both of the two people with only NY listed, those one or two will go to NY and the other candidates they want will go elsewhere. If they don't want those two with NY, someone else with a wide-open GAL will get the call. In my opinion, a more narrow GAL simply means that if/when you get the call, you will go somewhere that you really want to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Oct 16, 2013 10:34:02 GMT -5
I still say the odds are about 1 in 6 to 1 in 8 to acquire a position if you have a wider GAL and less if a smaller GAL. I agree with the rest of your post, but I think your odds analysis may be off a bit - I think, perhaps if you go back to the beginning of the thing - March, in other words, I think 1 in 8 or 1 in 9 might have been accurate. But, now, all the way to NOR and register - I think that is much closer to a 1 in 4 proposition if you have a broad GAL (and, perhaps even 1 in 3 if this lasts 3 years) - without even knowing your score. Look at the number of hires off the previous register. Much of this will be dependent on budget and if/when any sort of ODAR contraction or Judge RIF occurs (which they will do by attrition, of course) - but, if they are allowed to get to nearly full strength before this register expires, wide GAL candidates have very good chances of receiving an offer. |
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Oct 16, 2013 13:45:30 GMT -5
Assuming 400 hires over three years you are looking at a 1 in 3 shot. Obviously that assumes all things are equal. Which they are not.
The wider your GAL the more opportunities you have to get a place on the Cert.
The higher your NOR the more opportunities to get on a cert.
I still think the odds are better now than then and are pretty close to 1 in 4.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Oct 16, 2013 14:18:48 GMT -5
Here are the hires from 2008-2012
2008--189
2009--145
2010--229
2011--143
2012--146
Total 852 (includes 11 transfers and two reinstatements)
Total number of applicants 2007, 2008 and 2009 was ~ 2750 have no idea how many got onto the actual register (and there is a sprinkle of some vets who can apply at any time). Say 500 got cut and there were ~2250 on the register, that was about a +/-30% shot of landing the job--better percentage if roster was actually smaller than 2250!
|
|
|
|
Post by zebra51 on Oct 16, 2013 14:25:26 GMT -5
Under the old process that would close within a day or so you had more folks monitoring and waiting for the starting gate to open. Under that system I would assume those applying and making it to the register would be more knowledgeable of the impact of an open GAL than those the found the two week announcement with minimal knowledge of what they were applying for.
|
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 16, 2013 14:34:42 GMT -5
Epic, from what I've read in past posts, if they want you, they will get you. In your hypothetical, if they want one or both of the two people with only NY listed, those one or two will go to NY and the other candidates they want will go elsewhere. If they don't want those two with NY, someone else with a wide-open GAL will get the call. In my opinion, a more narrow GAL simply means that if/when you get the call, you will go somewhere that you really want to go. I wonder if we could have clarification on the "if they want you" part. Do you have to be an insider for them to "want" you? Can they want you because you went to a top law school or had experience with the U.S. attorney's office? how about if you used to be a rock star - would that count? And without getting into confidential structured interview or ODAR interview issues, might they "want" you because you were funny and impressive during those interviews? In a parallel thread, we are discussing similar issues where it was observed that if you bomb the ODAR interview, you basically have no hope no matter how well you score on the tests. My question is, if you can kill your chances in the interview, can you also improve your chances to have them "like" you or "want" you as well? Again, we have to be careful not to violate confidentiality here. by the way, the parallel thread is "the NOR Countdown." The burning question I keep asking myself is, if they reopen the GAL selections before next summer, would I expand my GAL? And if so, could I really get used to living in Crapland? |
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Oct 16, 2013 14:41:36 GMT -5
The usual number of suspects who were waiting to pounce on the job announcement pounced on it as in prior years. The only difference is that this time they have additional company. The usual suspects should be well represented in the resulting register and the majority of these individuals should have wide GALs as in prior years/registers.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Oct 16, 2013 14:46:34 GMT -5
Epic, from what I've read in past posts, if they want you, they will get you. In your hypothetical, if they want one or both of the two people with only NY listed, those one or two will go to NY and the other candidates they want will go elsewhere. If they don't want those two with NY, someone else with a wide-open GAL will get the call. In my opinion, a more narrow GAL simply means that if/when you get the call, you will go somewhere that you really want to go. I wonder if we could have clarification on the "if they want you" part. Do you have to be an insider for them to "want" you? Can they want you because you went to a top law school or had experience with the U.S. attorney's office? how about if you used to be a rock star - would that count? And without getting into confidential structured interview or ODAR interview issues, might they "want" you because you were funny and impressive during those interviews? In a parallel thread, we are discussing similar issues where it was observed that if you bomb the ODAR interview, you basically have no hope no matter how well you score on the tests. My question is, if you can kill your chances in the interview, can you also improve your chances to have them "like" you or "want" you as well? Again, we have to be careful not to violate confidentiality here. by the way, the parallel thread is "the NOR Countdown." The burning question I keep asking myself is, if they reopen the GAL selections before next summer, would I expand my GAL? And if so, could I really get used to living in Crapland? Epic if you get an opportunity, blow your GAL up as much as you can. Any place that you would consider moving to should be listed. If you make a cert and have changed your mind you can state that you are no longer available for that specific location. The risk is this, if you are not in the first couple of hirings you may get stuck in crapland for a while longer than you ever imagined. Those folks that were hired in 2008 and 2009 benefited greatly from classes that were hired after them and it allowed most of them those folks to move to places they wanted to be in. |
|
|
|
Post by zebra51 on Oct 16, 2013 14:53:36 GMT -5
The usual number of suspects who were waiting to pounce on the job announcement pounced on it as in prior years. The only difference is that this time they have additional company. The usual suspects should be well represented in the resulting register and the majority of these individuals should have wide GALs as in prior years/registers. Yes the pouncers would most likely have a wide GAL (say 2500). But in two weeks open there were 6000+. A number of those 3500 extra made it to DC with no knowledge of the importance of a wide open GAL. |
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Oct 16, 2013 14:54:24 GMT -5
Epic, from what I've read in past posts, if they want you, they will get you. In your hypothetical, if they want one or both of the two people with only NY listed, those one or two will go to NY and the other candidates they want will go elsewhere. If they don't want those two with NY, someone else with a wide-open GAL will get the call. In my opinion, a more narrow GAL simply means that if/when you get the call, you will go somewhere that you really want to go. I wonder if we could have clarification on the "if they want you" part. Do you have to be an insider for them to "want" you? Can they want you because you went to a top law school or had experience with the U.S. attorney's office? how about if you used to be a rock star - would that count? And without getting into confidential structured interview or ODAR interview issues, might they "want" you because you were funny and impressive during those interviews? In a parallel thread, we are discussing similar issues where it was observed that if you bomb the ODAR interview, you basically have no hope no matter how well you score on the tests. My question is, if you can kill your chances in the interview, can you also improve your chances to have them "like" you or "want" you as well? Again, we have to be careful not to violate confidentiality here. by the way, the parallel thread is "the NOR Countdown." The burning question I keep asking myself is, if they reopen the GAL selections before next summer, would I expand my GAL? And if so, could I really get used to living in Crapland? Even thinking of having the GALs open again before next summer is a waste of time, IMO. But, we had that discussion on another thread. An impressive ODAR interview, I'd think, would certainly get you on the "want you" list. What makes you impressive can be any number of qualities you show in the interview. The SI, not so much. I don't think SSA/ODAR has access to the specifics of that or how you were scored. It's all about "fit" for the agency. There are folks that "fit" on the inside and the outside of ODAR or the Fed generally. If you've got an impressive resume of work that fits what an agency wants, I don't think the law school you went to 25 or 30 years ago matters much. |
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 16, 2013 14:59:30 GMT -5
good advice ssaogc, that can apply across the board. hope everyone is paying attention - its why we come on this board.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Oct 16, 2013 15:00:38 GMT -5
The usual number of suspects who were waiting to pounce on the job announcement pounced on it as in prior years. The only difference is that this time they have additional company. The usual suspects should be well represented in the resulting register and the majority of these individuals should have wide GALs as in prior years/registers. Yes the pouncers would most likely have a wide GAL (say 2500). But in two weeks open there were 6000+. A number of those 3500 extra made it to DC with no knowledge of the importance of a wide open GAL. 6K? wow, the last number I read on this board was in vicinity of a little over 4k. I met a lot of the pouncers at DC myself included. I do not have a wide open GAL but I do have a fair share of crap land cities where I anticipate there is a good chance of some openings should I make the register and then successfully navigate the remaining hurdles. |
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 16, 2013 15:04:48 GMT -5
observer, you're right that we don't know if or when they will reopen the GAL selections. But since they just did that last year, I will at least consider the possibility. I am glad to know that ODAR "liking" or "wanting" you can derive from the ODAR interview itself or from your qualifications, in general. Good to know that its possible for non-ODAR insiders to achieve that.
|
|
