|
Post by moopigsdad on Oct 30, 2013 8:49:04 GMT -5
If you have a score in the 80's, you have a better chance of getting picked up sooner. if it's a low score(and I'm not sure how low makes it, I know it was around 60 and maybe a little lower in the past) I think it bears repeating that all of the new variables can have a significant effect on the scoring range. I think 80s has been considered high in the past, and I'm not sure I've heard of scores in the 90s or 100s (with the maximum supposedly at 110). Certainly in the 70s was considered an "okay" score, and 50s - 60s were at the lower end. But, we have a longer application period, an additional "phase", and 2 additional "objectively" scored portions (SJT and LBMT). Depending on the weight of those and the somewhat altered nature of the applicant pool (much smaller percentage of ODAR insiders), for all we know, a 74 could be a "high" score - or, on the other hand, there could be a decent-sized group in the 90s. As a vet, I would prefer that the scores be lower, as the preference would count for more and give a greater advantage. However, I don't think we will have enough information on just what exactly constitutes a "good" score with this testing methodology until NORs come out and board members start sharing their details - at leas in my humble opinion. I think you are right on Ace. There is no past history with this testing. The scores could be higher or much lower and we won't know until they are released and some people list a range of scores. I tend to think the highest scores should be somewhere in the upper 80's with the vets' preference points. I think anyone over the score of 60 has an eventual chance at an ALJ position depending upon your GAL. Those lower may qualify, but there may also be a refresh of the register prior to SSA getting that low on the register in NOR points. It's all a guessing game. The wild card is the Federal Budget which will hamstring the amount of hiring SSA or other agencies can do. If a Budget gets passed we could see 100% replacement of positions, if not, you may only see a 33% replacement of positions. Your guess is as good as mine on this issue. Good luck to all!
|
|
|
Post by christina on Oct 30, 2013 11:09:12 GMT -5
Good points above. I forgot the new testing could cause the numbers to change. However, bottom line of my point remains. The higher the score, the better. Duh.... just call me Dr. Watson on that ingenious observation That being said, lower score people have been picked up. Yes, the hiring issues will affect anyone getting picked up at all so higher scores may be even more crucial this time around. And re GAL, some have done a very broad GAL only to narrow it down later. In the past, there was a chance to narrow cities I think when openings came up??? Again, not positive how that worked out but at some point, there was one shot and I think only one shot to narrow GAL despite starting off broad. No comment on whether that should or should not be done. I have just "heard" about people going that route so wanted to mention it since I also discussed GAL issues above.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Oct 30, 2013 11:27:54 GMT -5
Good points above. I forgot the new testing could cause the numbers to change. However, bottom line of my point remains. The higher the score, the better. Duh.... just call me Dr. Watson on that ingenious observation That being said, lower score people have been picked up. Yes, the hiring issues will affect anyone getting picked up at all so higher scores may be even more crucial this time around. And re GAL, some have done a very broad GAL only to narrow it down later. In the past, there was a chance to narrow cities I think when openings came up??? Again, not positive how that worked out but at some point, there was one shot and I think only one shot to narrow GAL despite starting off broad. No comment on whether that should or should not be done. I have just "heard" about people going that route so wanted to mention it since I also discussed GAL issues above. Yes, usually when a cert opens up for various cities/locations and you are invited to submit your references and go for an interview with SSA, you can check mark those cities you wish to be considered for and leave the check mark off those cities you no longer wish to be considered for a position. Please know once you strike one or more cities/locations off your GAL, you will no longer be allowed to acquire a position in any of those cities/locations in that cert or any future certs, unless the register is refreshed or a new register is created. Hence, making choices for your GAL is important and may be determinative of whether you are hired for an ALJ position or not.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Oct 30, 2013 11:28:01 GMT -5
Good points above. I forgot the new testing could cause the numbers to change. However, bottom line of my point remains. The higher the score, the better. Duh.... just call me Dr. Watson on that ingenious observation That being said, lower score people have been picked up. Yes, the hiring issues will affect anyone getting picked up at all so higher scores may be even more crucial this time around. And re GAL, some have done a very broad GAL only to narrow it down later. In the past, there was a chance to narrow cities I think when openings came up??? Again, not positive how that worked out but at some point, there was one shot and I think only one shot to narrow GAL despite starting off broad. No comment on whether that should or should not be done. I have just "heard" about people going that route so wanted to mention it since I also discussed GAL issues above. Each time you make a cert, you are sent a list of the cities on your GAL that are on the cert. You can opt out of any (or all) cities on the list at that time, but if you take them off, they stay off your GAL, unless and until OPM allows expansion, either when the register reopens or at some other time OPM deems appropriate, which they have now done once.
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Oct 30, 2013 11:32:17 GMT -5
Another indicator that will become important for both timing and identifying vacancies will be the next time the transfer list is worked. After the dust settles from that, there will at least be the broad picture of the universe of "likely to be filled" vacancies are. The working of the transfer list itself is almost guaranteed to suggest hiring in the near future.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Oct 30, 2013 11:38:52 GMT -5
Another indicator that will become important for both timing and identifying vacancies will be the next time the transfer list is worked. After the dust settles from that, there will at least be the broad picture of the universe of "likely to be filled" vacancies are. The working of the transfer list itself is almost guaranteed to suggest hiring in the near future. You are correct in that regard and hopefully we have some sitting ALJs and union members let us know when transfers are occurring.
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Oct 30, 2013 11:39:53 GMT -5
Good points above. I forgot the new testing could cause the numbers to change. However, bottom line of my point remains. The higher the score, the better. Duh.... just call me Dr. Watson on that ingenious observation That being said, lower score people have been picked up. Yes, the hiring issues will affect anyone getting picked up at all so higher scores may be even more crucial this time around. And re GAL, some have done a very broad GAL only to narrow it down later. In the past, there was a chance to narrow cities I think when openings came up??? Again, not positive how that worked out but at some point, there was one shot and I think only one shot to narrow GAL despite starting off broad. No comment on whether that should or should not be done. I have just "heard" about people going that route so wanted to mention it since I also discussed GAL issues above. Each time you make a cert, you are sent a list of the cities on your GAL that are on the cert. You can opt out of any (or all) cities on the list at that time, but if you take them off, they stay off your GAL, unless and until OPM allows expansion, either when the register reopens or at some other time OPM deems appropriate, which they have now done once. Observer53, I believe I saw an earlier post from you on the cert. If I recall correctly you can make the cert more than once, many times in fact but you will only get one interview with SSA. If for whatever reason you are not chosen and not three struck you may make numerous certs but if you have had an interview already you should not expect to be called for another agency interview. Am I on track with this?
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Oct 30, 2013 12:02:02 GMT -5
Each time you make a cert, you are sent a list of the cities on your GAL that are on the cert. You can opt out of any (or all) cities on the list at that time, but if you take them off, they stay off your GAL, unless and until OPM allows expansion, either when the register reopens or at some other time OPM deems appropriate, which they have now done once. Observer53, I believe I saw an earlier post from you on the cert. If I recall correctly you can make the cert more than once, many times in fact but you will only get one interview with SSA. If for whatever reason you are not chosen and not three struck you may make numerous certs but if you have had an interview already you should not expect to be called for another agency interview. Am I on track with this? You are correct as you only get one interview with SSA, no matter how many certs you make. If you are three struck you will not even make future certs. Hence, first impressions really count with the SSA interview.
|
|
|
Post by bhappy on Oct 30, 2013 15:01:33 GMT -5
Can I get clarification on the SSA interview as to an expired registry and cert? If a candidate made a prior registry, then the cert, and was interviewed by SSA and not chosen, will that candidate not be re-interviewed if he/she makes a second registry, cert, etc.? In other words, only one SSA interview no matter how many registries and certs the candidate makes?
Example: Candidate makes registry after 2009 testing, makes several certs and is interviewed by SSA in 2011 but not chosen. Candidate takes the 2013 testing, makes the registry and cert. In such case, will SSA go by its interview in 2011 and not re-interview the candidate?
|
|
|
Post by grandparay1 on Oct 30, 2013 15:12:57 GMT -5
bhappy, It is one interview per register per agency. If a candidate from the pending register makes a cert for SSA and was previously interviewed by SSA from a prior register, the candidate will have to interview again.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Oct 30, 2013 16:17:25 GMT -5
I think we are all of the mind that they will reinterview everyone on this register who makes a cert. The other burning question, after everyone has been retested under a system that ODAR wanted, is whether those who were three struck on the current register will get true reconsideration.
|
|
|
Post by chessparent on Oct 30, 2013 20:55:40 GMT -5
I can confirm at least 4 retirements in my office alone beginning Dec 2013 through May 2014. There is talk of 2 more. This is not uncommon at all, and I know of people in other cities who have the same thing happening. This is why I said many months ago that there will be a large number of retirements in 2014 since these folks have been waiting on the application of sick leave which as of 2014 will be 100%. I think this was known and why OPM wanted to have a large register in place in preparation. It bodes well for those in the current process. Timing is everything! Sounds good. Give them a certificate and a plaque, change the passcode, and keep the seat warm for me. Icky, I hate warm seats. Especially warm toilet seats. When I get hired, I want a new seat.
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 31, 2013 17:08:32 GMT -5
I am not a pessimist. truly, i am not. but i am nothing if not a realist. ssaogc has not reposted the information below in a while, but i think it is relevant. the numbers are not what they purport to represent for all the reasons we have discussed, but they will provide perspective for some: here is ssaogc's former post: Oct 15, 2013 at 9:26pm ReplyQuotePost Options Post by ssaogc on Oct 15, 2013 at 9:26pm 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. Mar 7, 2009 0:09:21 GMT -5 Pixie said: NyLawyer, your had a question about the number of candidates who were flexible in their geographic preferences. Below is some information I posted back in 2007. You might find it interesting. Pix. *************** "Earlier in another thread we were discussing the number of candidates who expressed a willingness to go to some of what we considered to be the less desirable locations. I told you that you would be surprised at the number of candidates who had indicated their willingness to go to these locations. I have now located that information. The list was prepared back in the mid to late 90's before the register was closed for a number of years. I don't remember how many names were on the register at that time, but there may have been around 1500 to 2000. I know that at some point around 2005 there were about 1400 names on the old register. I went back to the Other Board to try and locate my posts that gave the exact number on the register back then, but was unable to do a successful search of my old posts. So the number above is my best guess. I think I will break it down into city, total number, and the number with a score over 90. Back then only scores of 92 or 93 or better had a realistic chance of receiving an offer. So, the last number will be for the scores between 90 and 110 (which is the maximum score obtainable). I don't have access to the number of scores over 92. Fargo, ND 607 248 Billings, MT 537 224 Minneapolis, MN 523 211 Middlesboro, KY 642 255 Albany, NY 589 230 Boston, MA 652 269 (For Patriotsfan) Baltimore, MD 504 201 Washington, DC 677 275 New York, NY 530 212 Chicago, IL 626 254 Cincinnati, OH 505 206 Cleveland, OH 529 217 San Fran., CA 514 212 Seattle, WA 565 219 Atlanta, GA 618 244 Montgomery, AL 588 241 Nashville, TN 574 229 Birmingham, AL 382 261 I decided to go ahead and throw in some representative locations in addition to the ones we had discussed earlier. What struck me was the number of candidates willing to go to so many locations, and the fact that there were about the same number willing to go to all of the locations. This is before candidates were given an opportunity by the agencies to limit their geographic locations. The list is straight from the register. Hope this is helpful. Pix." aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/755
|
|
|
Post by gottabeme on Oct 31, 2013 21:09:34 GMT -5
Thanks for the numbers above but I guess I'm a little confused. Do the numbers above (ie...Fargo, ND 607 248) mean that 607 people on the cert list said they would go to Fargo and 248 of them had scores between 90-110? I guess I haven't figured out the whole hiring thing yet. And I thought the hard part was over. LOL
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Oct 31, 2013 22:02:32 GMT -5
That's what it sounds like to me.
|
|
|
Post by gottabeme on Nov 1, 2013 0:00:50 GMT -5
hmmm, I know several people who have been picked up from the last cert but the highest score I am aware of was an 87, She was picked up in the first hiring group and had only 2 cities on her GAL. I hope that will hold this time.
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Nov 1, 2013 1:19:50 GMT -5
yes, the numbers do show total on cert vs scores over 90. but these go back to the 2006/2007 register which were undoubtedly skewed much differently. I know people who were picked up with lower scores and a not-so-open GAL as well. So I hope that trend continues. I am a veteran with a score in the 80s and a narrow GAL who was not picked up in the last two rounds. So I was either 3 struck, blew the interview, or just didn't score as high as the ones who were picked. I was also told that there were people with wide open GALs who had scores in the 40s who were picked in this latest round. More power to them and I'm glad they made it, but I think it shows the power of the GAL selection.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Nov 1, 2013 9:50:23 GMT -5
I'm just not so sure how much weight we can give to past practices regarding scoring, timing, striking, vet on vet striking or any of the other conspiracies we have read about.
Undoubtedly there will be some maneuvering by odar to get who they want where they want them. Butit just seems the process has undergone too many changes to have any faith or worry that things that happened in the past will hold true again.
We have a whole new testing process. That alone means the scores of past candidates will be different than the scores we see.
The app period was left open longer meaning more initial candidates and possibly more candidates with narrow gals.
With Iraq and Afghanistan winding down I would think there are more vets than in recent registers.
The new emphasis on litigation left many insiders out so there will be less for odar to go after at the expense of others even if they still want to do so.
With the budget hiring is likely to be much more limited meaning much more competitive.
Finally, an insider I trust told me that they once knew a couple people on the selection committee but that the committee was completely refreshed with new folks just recently. if that's true, there may be a Whole new perspective.
I'm afraid we are true guinea pigs. I will take no solace in past practices, but won't overly worry about them either.
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Nov 1, 2013 13:17:11 GMT -5
I'm afraid we are true guinea pigs. I will take no solace in past practices, but won't overly worry about them either. This is no doubt true and I concur in your stance of not overly worrying about it. Worry adds nothing to the process. I accept a minimal amount of it because I am, after all, only human. However, not only does worry not add to, it can detract from performance and just general enjoyment of life. Life imposes enough stress on us, as it is. Self-imposed stress (and I guess I should add, self-imposed stress which is unnecessary or counterproductive - some stress is good) is a luxury we cannot really afford in the 21st Century.
|
|
|
Post by gottabeme on Nov 1, 2013 13:53:21 GMT -5
Yes, epic0ego, I also have heard that people in the 40's were being picked up. Hopefully they will put the next hire on hold until all the new scores are in and they can pull from the top of the barrel.
|
|