|
Post by jagghagg on Jan 25, 2008 15:19:49 GMT -5
Hey, Powerties - I love the quote under your avatar. LOVE Mark Twain stuff. My favorite: "Admit your faults freely; it throws people off and allows you to have more."
But......well, that probably isn't great advice for the interviews!!!!
|
|
|
Post by secondchance on Jan 25, 2008 17:17:04 GMT -5
I agree w/allrise that the system has a great deal of random-ness built into it. However, since there's nothing any of us can do about that, I adhere to the policy of doing the best about what we CAN (the interview, for example) and the chips will fall where they will fall. I DISAGREE w/a25 about the '85 Bears - I'll put my '70s Steelers up against them and anyone else, any time.
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jan 25, 2008 19:40:33 GMT -5
Always acknowledge a fault. This will throw those in authority off their guard and give you an opportunity to commit more. Thank you! I stand happily corrected.
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jan 25, 2008 21:25:32 GMT -5
They want to make sure they do not hire an ALJ who is stupid, lazy or completely lacking in social skills. Oh, dear.....
|
|
|
Post by crazybroad on Jan 26, 2008 22:38:14 GMT -5
I got the chance to meet crazybroad, who was quite pleasant and not a bit crazy as far as I could tell. Thanks Judicature. It was a pleasure meeting you too I thought the interview went well but some of the questions definitely showed the fears of the agency as others had pointed out. One of the judges that interviewed me said that the plan was to have 3 training classes, one in March, one in April and one in May each with 50 judges. He said that by past practice he did not believe the offers would all come out together but nothing about this process is like past practice as far as I can see. Anyway, back to patient, or should I say, impatient waiting with the help of you all!
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 27, 2008 9:06:21 GMT -5
What happened to powerties' response to chris?
Don't tell me we have ANOTHER casualty-decamper, whatever?
Just when I was getting warmed up to bounce off of powerties, poof!
Can we send a search party out?
|
|
|
Post by ALJD on Jan 27, 2008 10:30:48 GMT -5
What happened to powerties' response to chris? Certain posters like to delete their posts after a day or two. Business as usual.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jan 27, 2008 10:47:02 GMT -5
What happened to powerties' response to chris? Certain posters like to delete their posts after a day or two. Business as usual. What? There was a response? I totally missed it. The only reason I haven't responded to Chris is because I really don't feel like playing ping-pong-posts for the next few days. Oh well, I'll put something together and respond later on.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jan 27, 2008 11:25:40 GMT -5
My interview was perfectly pleasant but after about 1 hour and 20 minutes, at 5:50 p.m., the interviewers clearly did not want me to drag out my responses. When I tried to give a second example, a new question was being read to me. I can’t see that these interviews would lead to a big deviation in the applicants’ performance. Additionally, our references are being contacted by what appear to be non-lawyers. This leads me to believe that the selection will be based on the highest overall scores or random. If there was one opening and 2 aljs interviewed 3 applicants and called their references, I think it would lead to a different result. The huge number of candidates may lead to a more arbitrary result. The interview is of very limited weight. As long as you exhibit basic social skills and a good attitude toward work, it doesn't matter whether you are smooth in answering the questions. Through the interview they are trying to identify the very worst candidates and the outstanding candidates. For most of us it isn't going to have much if any impact. They want to make sure they do not hire an ALJ who is stupid, lazy or completely lacking in social skills. They also want to make sure they identify the best candidates. They aren't going to rank us by OPM score nor are they going to do it randomly. They are going to be looking for the qualifications they think are most important. The more of those qualifications you have, the higher you will be ranked. How charming you are in the interview, or how smoothly you answer the questions, is going to count for very little, aside from establishing that you have basic social skills. The references are also going to be of very little importance for most of us. The purpose of the references is to identify bad actors. If you don't fall into that category, they don't mean much at all. As someone recently posted, the interview and references are largely pass/fail and most of us will pass. SSA will be evaluating us on our work experience, with priority being given to those with SSA experience, judicial experience, medical knowledge, writing skills and computer skills. I’ve held off on responding to this post for a few days because, as I’ve posted earlier, I really don’t want to engage in a ping-pong-post contest with Chris like I have on prior occasions. As nobody else seems to have taken these arguments “on,” however, I think it needs to be done, simply to provide an alternative viewpoint. (O.K., so privateatty’s posts opened my eyes.) Let’s start with a very basic observation: unless Chris is directly involved in the hiring process, no matter how definitively he writes his posts, they are based on hearsay information (regardless of whether or not the hearsay came from this board, or from a source within the SSA hiring Committee). It is extremely unlikely that, given the myriad of personnel regulations involved, the integrity of the process, and the caliber of people at SSA, that Chris has received any direct information from any SSA hiring official. So, take whatever he says with a grain of salt. Chris is a terrific writer, he writes in a very persuasive, authoritative tone. Don’t get fooled by the smoke and mirrors. He doesn’t know anymore than anybody else. He can’t. If he does, then there is a prohibited personnel practice involved and SSA will have none of that. Like all of us, Chris is interpreting the tealeaves according to his own experiences and world-view – one psychic is not better than another (this one included). Stupid, lazy ALJs. Yes, that has got to be SSA’s goal – not to hire stupid, lazy ALJs. Say that out loud. Do you hear how it sounds? Come on. Let’s spend tens of thousands of dollars exclusively to weed out people who are stupid and lazy and NOT concentrate on getting the best people out of the hiring pool. You have to think that SSA is completely inept to believe this – months and months of work, to find people with a beating pulse. Then, you’re not even going to ensure you get the best. It strains credulity. And, again, you have to believe SSA is completely inept. Then, you’re going to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars to a contractor to have THOUSANDS of references checked, background checks performed, etc. You’re going to fly dozens of judges (who need to address a backlog in the 700,000+ area) in from all around the country to meet with individuals to perform a basic-social-graces-check. Come on. You’re opinion of SSA has to be pretty low to believe they’re not looking for more than just to weed out stupid, lazy, ALJs. Are you’re qualifications important? Of course. Was being charming at the interview important? Of course – two candidates can answer a question in similar ways, but the candidate that was charming has the edge. Is this entire response based on my attempt to read the tealeaves? Of course. Remember what I said, one psychic is not better than another. I choose to think, however, that SSA is making a real attempt to hire well-qualified candidates (i.e., the BEST) and will use all the tools available to find them.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 27, 2008 12:00:38 GMT -5
What happened to powerties' response to chris? Certain posters like to delete their posts after a day or two. Business as usual. Thanks, ALJ Discussion.
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jan 27, 2008 12:01:54 GMT -5
....everything. I think I'm in love......
|
|
|
Post by wentwest on Jan 27, 2008 13:09:38 GMT -5
In all these attempts to tease out meaning from whatever has transpired so far, it's possible some have lost sight of the fact that this interview is the ONLY contact SSA has had with you or will have before offering you a job. Everything previously was the work of the Office of Personnel Management, not SSA. They sent a certificate, a list of otherwise unknown names, to SSA, which has this one opportunity to check you out. People from within SSA or ODAR on this board would concur that there are apparently people on the certificate who, while possessing the credentials to have gotten this far, are in reality unsuited to be ALJs. At least that's been the story in the past. There have been, and remain, some ALJs whose personality has been an obstruction to the proper discharge of the duties of an ALJ. So, the interview counts for quite a lot, in ways that are difficult to quantify.
|
|
|
Post by extang on Jan 27, 2008 18:11:21 GMT -5
"Stupid, lazy ALJs. Yes, that has got to be SSA’s goal – not to hire stupid, lazy ALJs. Say that out loud. Do you hear how it sounds? Come on. Let’s spend tens of thousands of dollars exclusively to weed out people who are stupid and lazy and NOT concentrate on getting the best people out of the hiring pool. You have to think that SSA is completely inept to believe this." For those of you who are outsiders, you should not dismiss to quickly the possibility that SSA is "completely inept," or something close to it [largely inept?]. When it comes to hiring and in general managing ALJs, "inept" is probably a relatively kind characterization of SSA's history. Moreover, if you think avoiding hiring stupid and lazy ALJs is not a worthwhile goal, you may not have had a lot of contact with the ALJ corps. It is a very worthwhile goal, and not necessarily all that easy to achieve when people are being hired, e.g., 150 at a time.
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Jan 27, 2008 19:54:13 GMT -5
Moreover, if you think avoiding hiring stupid and lazy ALJs is not a worthwhile goal, you may not have had a lot of contact with the ALJ corps. It is a very worthwhile goal, and not necessarily all that easy to achieve when people are being hired, e.g., 150 at a time. As someone with first hand experience, I can tell you that while the majority of ALJs I know are dedicated and hard working, there are always a few rotten apples that give the rest of the ALJ Corps a really bad name. And once they are on board, getting rid of the bad apples is almost impossible. So I wish the agency the best of luck in recruiting the best candidates while weeding out the bad apples. God knows the tax payers, the staff, and the claimants deserve the best ALJs the system can offer.
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jan 27, 2008 20:21:05 GMT -5
For those of you who are outsiders, you should not dismiss to quickly the possibility that SSA is "completely inept," or something close to it [largely inept?]. When it comes to hiring and in general managing ALJs, "inept" is probably a relatively kind characterization of SSA's history. Oh, puh-leese. I've been a federal sector personnel attorney for 24 years and while there are always exceptions (meaning there is always ineptitude and megalomaniacs) in every agency, FOR THE MOST PART, personnel in the federal government - and in HR in specific, - work very, very hard at their job. For the most part, they know their business and they go about it in a competent manner. To those of you who consider yourselves SSA "insiders," I will say this - unless you actually DO personnel law and thus understand its Byzantine machinations and the complex requirements imposed by Congress dating back to 1947, you should not assume the SSA is inept. **** 29 Jan: Man, smote again! If I had a nickel for every.....sensitive, sensitive, sensitive! (I always want my smiter to know he/she had the intended effect!)
|
|
|
Post by extang on Jan 28, 2008 18:21:37 GMT -5
I do not "assume" anything about SSA. What I have is not assumptions but knowledge. Until you have actually worked for this outfit, do not presume to judge what those who actually work here know about it. I have worked in other parts of the federal government. I even had a fair amount of contact with OHA before I came to work here and thought I knew something about it. I had no idea how bad it was. As I said, "inept" is a kind characterization for SSA's handling of ALJs and of the disability program in general. If you have not worked here, you have no idea. I really would like to impress this upon you if there is any chance you are going to end up working here. The staff as a whole and the ALJ corps in particular are severely demoralized, and they [we] have very good reason for feeling this way. I am not saying that people here do not work hard. Some [many, most, who knows?] do. That is not the point. I do not have much of an opinion on how good the HR people at SSA are. I do have an opinion about OCALJ [Office of the Chief ALJ] but expressing it would involve a considerable amount of obscenity. If staff there have been nice to you guys and given you the impression that they are competent, that is truly fantastic. Don't expect that to continue once you are hired.
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jan 28, 2008 20:58:23 GMT -5
We have gotten so far afield from the thread. My apologies - I contributed to the digression. So, for those of you interviewing this last week - How'd It Go ??
|
|
|
Post by secondchance on Jan 28, 2008 21:04:27 GMT -5
I'm FINALLY interviewing Wed. a.m. @ 9:00 - PLEASE identify yourselves if you're w/me - I'll be the little gray-haired lady in the tweed, no gray, oh, heck, I haven't yet decided suit...I feel as if it's been interminable since my call on 12/19, but I guess that's offset by the fact that I won't have to wait as long as some of you to begin to see the offers coming. Thanks AGAIN for this board, it's kept me sane. If I don't chat w/any of you Wed., I'll post then w/my thoughts--even though it will be just about over by then.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 28, 2008 21:32:59 GMT -5
I'm FINALLY interviewing Wed. a.m. @ 9:00 - PLEASE identify yourselves if you're w/me - I'll be the little gray-haired lady in the tweed, no gray, oh, heck, I haven't yet decided suit...I feel as if it's been interminable since my call on 12/19, but I guess that's offset by the fact that I won't have to wait as long as some of you to begin to see the offers coming. Thanks AGAIN for this board, it's kept me sane. If I don't chat w/any of you Wed., I'll post then w/my thoughts--even though it will be just about over by then. Would it be presumptive of me to say WE can relate? You go girl!
|
|
|
Post by tdtksbp on Jan 28, 2008 21:43:50 GMT -5
I just had my interview last Friday. My interview was pretty much as the same as others it seems. The staff at the office was very nice. The interviewers and the note taker were very pleasant to talk with. Like most everyone else, I thought the interview went well. They did tell me that the last interviews are this Friday (or so they were told). They also believed that offers would be made the end of February and in March.
Although I do not post often, I do appreciate everyone's input and the civility that has been shown on this site. Good luck to everyone.
|
|