|
Post by funkyodar on Feb 18, 2014 16:27:24 GMT -5
So, last evening amongst the tirade on the locked thread, I was invited to go read all of someone's posts. I did so and I will keep my ultimate opinion to myself to keep this thread from similar devolution.
In doing so, I also reread quite a few other posts cotaining theories, insights and tidbits of inside info. Then,it occurred to me that no one has dispelled certain of these speculations and no one has put them all together to form any "grand theory" on the whole darn thing. This is my attempt at that goal.
NOR timing:
Bart and a few others posted they heard from someone that opm wouldn't be releasing NORs till the first week of March. As we are more than half thru February and no one has offered any counter intelligence, I have accepted that theory.
#s of hiring:
DC Sklar has definitively stated that ssa has hiring authority for 90 aljs this fiscal year. There are also reports that they want to hire a total of 150 to 200, but anymore than 90 will come later, maybe next fiscal year on a second cert. It has also been reported that medicare has requested and received funding for 7 more alj teams (this apparently means 7 judges and support staff). So, our best intel is there will be 97 hires this fiscal year (since it is unlikely any other agency will hire directly from the register).
Register size:
Based on multiple poll results at the different phases and some excellent math theory in other threads, it looks like the best bet is this register will be between 900 and 1100 folks. This doesn't account for any "minimum score" cut after phase 3, but I continue to disbelieve the theory that our current SD group have all been cut. A near 30% cut at this phaseis just nonsensical.
The math:
Simple arithmetic would indicate you would need to be in the top 33% of the reg to make these first certs and only 10% will get a job. But with different gals in play, one may not be in top 33% of the reg but still in top 3 for a specific city. Another issue is vet pref. Based on our polling, this register could be 25% vets. This will undoubtedly lead to a large percentage of vets at the top and thus on the first cert. They will then secure a High percentage of the first cert jobs. That will also mean more vet on vet strikes. So the second cert, sometime next fiscal year, may be the sweet spot for nonvets with middling scores. Also, from this board and the old board, it appears that those hired from the first cert off a new register have scores that generally average in the mid 60s or higher. There are exceptions, but from my interpretation of the poll results it appears if your score is lower 60s or below you will probably be waiting for the higher scorers to go thru the first cert. Note though that scoring may be quite different on this new process.
Timing:
I've heard that the expressed goal is to not just hire before the end of fiscal 14, but to have training done and judges in place by Oct 1. With 90 new hires, that would mean 2 training classes. The last would have to be completed by Sept 30. If we go from March first week NORs and an immediate cert, it appears it take about 3 months for interviews before offers (based on past practices). Historically, the first groups report date would be 3 weeks after the offer. So, say third week of June. They do 2 weeks at the office then 4 weeks training. So they are trained and in office by second week of August. Second group starts then and finsihes training by end of September. Opm could delay a week or two longer than first week of March for NORs, but not much more and ssa still accomplishits goal.
All of this comes together to make me (a nonvet that expects no better than a middle reg score) think I'm gonna be waiting for a second or third cert. That realization sort of eases some stress on when we get our scores.
|
|
|
Post by pubdef on Feb 18, 2014 16:34:27 GMT -5
Thanks for putting this all together. There are still quite a few puzzles out there that only time will shed a little light on. For instance: how will GAL work this time around?
As an outsider, I was lucky that I included a lot of cities that I'd be willing to accept for placement. That didn't seem to be the norm on my day of testing. I'd guess that about 2/3 of the people had a small GAL and many people only listed a few cities. One person put only one city.
I have read on here similar statements about people having small GAL. I attribute this to OPM keeping the posting open longer and focusing so much on litigation which has brought in a lot of outsiders. Either people didn't know to put a lot of locations or really didn't care to move cross-country for an ALJ job.
Because of this, I would bet that people on the register with a large GAL will have better luck this time around than in years past.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Feb 18, 2014 16:37:55 GMT -5
I hope you are right pubdef. Thatis my best shot at the first cert.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Feb 18, 2014 17:02:13 GMT -5
Great summary funky. The wild card for me is still the LBMT. Every other part of the process was pretty much as I expected, but I will admit a little cranial soreness as I walked out of the LBMT, and I will admit a bit of schadenfreude when I hear others lament it as well. I am interested to see how it affects scores. And you will still be curious after you get your score, as you will have no idea how you scored on any part of the testing. Ir's yet another of the frustrating parts of this process.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Feb 18, 2014 17:29:16 GMT -5
I didn't mean to offend you; I should have, and now have, taken a bit more time to word my post differently. We are all curious about the components of our score and how they are put together (just like those of us who went through this before were, but even more so this time with the different process), but that curiosity never gets satisfied. We know that the LBMT isn't s deal breaker, which makes how it factors in even more mysterious.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Feb 18, 2014 17:34:28 GMT -5
I hate to be a broken record, but there are alot of folks who were passed over by being thrice struck who had relatively high scores and very high scores. The SSA Interview will be much more decisive than your score. This I can state with my right hand raised.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Feb 18, 2014 17:43:43 GMT -5
I didn't mean to offend you; I should have, and now have, taken a bit more time to word my post differently. We are all curious about the components of our score (just like those of us who went through this before were, but even more so this time with the different process), but that curiosity never gets satisfied. We know that the LBMT isn't s deal breaker, which makes how it factors in even more mysterious. One can always dream that OPM has decided to include our scoring on each section as part of the new application. Probably only slightly less realistic than the dream of obtaining an ALJ position. Funky, while I understand the sentiment, I don't think a 30% cut at this stage is nonsensical. At least it's no more nonsensical than a near 50% cut after the second phase, in my humble opinion. It may be a proverbial "d*ck move" to have people travel to DC on their own dime and then keep them off the register, but I'm not sure it's nonsensical to apply a cutoff. Of course, as has been discussed, the distinction may not mean anything. The only thing that I've construed to be nonsensical this far is the large number of cuts at phase 1 of so many folks with well over 7 years of experience. While I can speak OPM, I think it's absurd to require people with over 20 years of complex litigation experience to justify that experience to a layperson or be barred from further participation. I'm interested to see how many of those folks appeal and how many are successful in their appeals.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Feb 18, 2014 17:48:23 GMT -5
I agree private. The ssa interview will be the primary factor. But it will be the factor that leads to a decision between you and the other two on ther cert for the same position as you. And for the 3 strike rule that may end ones hopes early on.
But before you ever get to that point, you gotta make a cert and that appears to be all score driven.
My biggest concern is not making a cert. Once there, I think I interview well and I hope insider status (which appears to be less common than in the past) aids me along.
But none of that helps me get on the cert in the first place. I have a wide open gal and that may help. Still, unlike some who seem almost narcissistically confident, I know there are better writers, interviewees and more logical among you guys than I. Thus, a middle range score is all I can bring myself to expect. Given the high number of vets and this being the first cert off a new register, I'd be quite surprised to make the first cert.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Feb 18, 2014 17:54:32 GMT -5
I didn't mean to offend you; I should have, and now have, taken a bit more time to word my post differently. We are all curious about the components of our score (just like those of us who went through this before were, but even more so this time with the different process), but that curiosity never gets satisfied. We know that the LBMT isn't s deal breaker, which makes how it factors in even more mysterious. One can always dream that OPM has decided to include our scoring on each section as part of the new application. Probably only slightly less realistic than the dream of obtaining an ALJ position. Funky, while I understand the sentiment, I don't think a 30% cut at this stage is nonsensical. At least it's no more nonsensical than a near 50% cut after the second phase, in my humble opinion. It may be a proverbial "d*ck move" to have people travel to DC on their own dime and then keep them off the register, but I'm not sure it's nonsensical to apply a cutoff. Of course, as has been discussed, the distinction may not mean anything. The only thing that I've construed to be nonsensical this far is the large number of cuts at phase 1 of so many folks with well over 7 years of experience. While I can speak OPM, I think it's absurd to require people with over 20 years of complex litigation experience to justify that experience to a layperson or be barred from further participation. I'm interested to see how many of those folks appeal and how many are successful in their appeals. A 30% cut is certainly within the realm of possible. And opm doing such a richard move wouldn't be surprising. But, when this whole thing started all indications were that opm wanted a large reg designed to last a while. It was estimated this would be the largest reg ever. without cuts at this phase it appears this reg will only be 900 to 1100. Hardly what was put out as expected. To cut 30% of that now? I just can't see 700 person reg being what opm or anyone wants.
|
|
|
Post by zebra51 on Feb 18, 2014 18:09:29 GMT -5
Perhaps OPM is thinking that 30% cut at this stage (250-300 folks) will be made up by those that successfully appeal the 7 year experience fiasco that occurred in the initial application review (phase 1).
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Feb 18, 2014 18:42:24 GMT -5
I'm kind of surprised at the relatively strong feelings expressed here about the depth of the round 1 cuts of people who had the requisite 7 years experience.
I know several people who are experienced litigators and some disability attorneys. The sad fact is that some of them are not fit to judge a pie eating contest, much less a SS appeal. I thought the purpose of the round 1 testing was to get a rough gauge on "judicial temperament" and thought process? Did it not work as intended?
It may be that some of you know personally some individuals who were 7 years experienced, and were cut at round 1, and you feel that was unfair/inappropriate given what you know about that person's abilities. I don't know (that I'm aware of) anyone else who applied for this position and was cut, so you may have more pertinent information about those specific cases. I am sympathetic to anyone who really wanted this position and was cut so early, and will be even more so for those of (gulp) us who may get the axe at the next level after waiting all this time. The harshness is exacerbated by this interminable wait for NORs.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Feb 18, 2014 18:52:48 GMT -5
I'm kind of surprised at the relatively strong feelings expressed here about the depth of the round 1 cuts of people who had the requisite 7 years experience. I know several people who are experienced litigators and some disability attorneys. The sad fact is that some of them are not fit to judge a pie eating contest, much less a SS appeal. I thought the purpose of the round 1 testing was to get a rough gauge on "judicial temperament" and thought process? Did it not work as intended? It may be that some of you know personally some individuals who were 7 years experienced, and were cut at round 1, and you feel that was unfair/inappropriate given what you know about that person's abilities. I don't know (that I'm aware of) anyone else who applied for this position and was cut, so you may have more pertinent information about those specific cases. I am sympathetic to anyone who really wanted this position and was cut so early, and will be even more so for those of (gulp) us who may get the axe at the next level after waiting all this time. The harshness is exacerbated by this interminable wait for NORs. Round one was simply to demonstrate that you had seven years of experience. Which aspect of that part do you feel tested judicial temperament? Unless you're talking about phase II aka the SJT, writing test, and experience assessment. Then I agree with you. But I don't think it's fair that a person with 7+ years of applicable experience didn't get the chance to take the phase II testing.
|
|
|
Post by ALJD on Feb 18, 2014 18:55:17 GMT -5
A 30% cut is certainly within the realm of possible. And opm doing such a richard move wouldn't be surprising. But, when this whole thing started all indications were that opm wanted a large reg designed to last a while. It was estimated this would be the largest reg ever. without cuts at this phase it appears this reg will only be 900 to 1100. Hardly what was put out as expected. To cut 30% of that now? I just can't see 700 person reg being what opm or anyone wants. A highly reliable forum regular who didn't want to post this under his/her handle pm me the following: "I am familiar with some of the working groups that led up to this new ALJ exam. Without going into any details, I will say that a 30% cut at this point is not going to happen. The disqualification standards are tight enough that it's not going to affect 30% of the candidates that went to WD/SI, probably only a small percentage in the very low single digit range" That's all I got and the source made it clear that he/she is not providing any additional info. So don't pm me about this as it will just get deleted without response. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by dudeabides on Feb 18, 2014 19:02:47 GMT -5
30% or 3 %. We did our best and what will be will be:
Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might. For there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave, whither thou goest.
I returned and saw under the sun that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill, but time and chance happeneth to them all.
Good luck on the NOR and everything thereafter.
|
|
davef
Full Member
Posts: 87
|
Post by davef on Feb 18, 2014 19:04:43 GMT -5
A 30% cut is certainly within the realm of possible. And opm doing such a richard move wouldn't be surprising. But, when this whole thing started all indications were that opm wanted a large reg designed to last a while. It was estimated this would be the largest reg ever. without cuts at this phase it appears this reg will only be 900 to 1100. Hardly what was put out as expected. To cut 30% of that now? I just can't see 700 person reg being what opm or anyone wants. A highly reliable forum regular who didn't want to post this under his/her handle pm me the following: "I am familiar with some of the working groups that led up to this new ALJ exam. Without going into any details, I will say that a 30% cut at this point is not going to happen. The disqualification standards are tight enough that it's not going to affect 30% of the candidates that went to WD/SI, probably only a small percentage in the very low single digit range" That's all I got and the source made it clear that he/she is not providing any additional info. So don't pm me about this as it will just get deleted without response. Thanks. Thanks for passing this along ALJD. It gives us SDs a little hope. Although, "hope is a dangerous thing. It can drive a man insane." I was just coming to terms with being cut. I guess it's back to checking this board and my email every hour.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Feb 18, 2014 19:24:30 GMT -5
A highly reliable forum regular who didn't want to post this under his/her handle pm me the following: "I am familiar with some of the working groups that led up to this new ALJ exam. Without going into any details, I will say that a 30% cut at this point is not going to happen. The disqualification standards are tight enough that it's not going to affect 30% of the candidates that went to WD/SI, probably only a small percentage in the very low single digit range" That's all I got and the source made it clear that he/she is not providing any additional info. So don't pm me about this as it will just get deleted without response. Thanks. Thanks for passing this along ALJD. It gives us SDs a little hope. Although, "hope is a dangerous thing. It can drive a man insane." I was just coming to terms with being cut. I guess it's back to checking this board and my email every hour. Remember davef, hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies.
|
|
|
Post by chessparent on Feb 18, 2014 19:52:38 GMT -5
My favorite part of Funky's post is "accomplishits"-tee hee hee
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Feb 18, 2014 20:39:04 GMT -5
I agree private. The ssa interview will be the primary factor. But it will be the factor that leads to a decision between you and the other two on ther cert for the same position as you. And for the 3 strike rule that may end ones hopes early on. But before you ever get to that point, you gotta make a cert and that appears to be all score driven. My biggest concern is not making a cert. Once there, I think I interview well and I hope insider status (which appears to be less common than in the past) aids me along. But none of that helps me get on the cert in the first place. I have a wide open gal and that may help. Still, unlike some who seem almost narcissistically confident, I know there are better writers, interviewees and more logical among you guys than I. Thus, a middle range score is all I can bring myself to expect. Given the high number of vets and this being the first cert off a new register, I'd be quite surprised to make the first cert. I'd be surprised if you didn't. Y'all won't know what the cutoff is for the Cert until well after the fact and then there likely will be a supplemental cert (albbeit much smaller) if history repeats itself, which I would bet that it will. Then your score can be a lot lower and you can still get the call. I think the most interesting question now is how many will ODAR hire off of this Register? With two big hires and two small ones the number would be 250 to 300 spead over three years, but that is sheer guesswork and is dependent upon political star-gazing. Under the old 100 point scoring system, a 60-65 got you on the Big Cert and 45-60 on the smaller one--but this is just off the top of my head and requires research here to verify. That having been said, I think that your score won't have any real validity for comparison purposes unless folks come out of the woodwork and participate in the poll on scores. In the past we had been pretty accurate, but this crowd is much more reticent in terms of # of posters than in the past...
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Feb 18, 2014 21:20:47 GMT -5
My favorite part of Funky's post is "accomplishits"-tee hee hee Too true. A few posters may act as if they have never dropped a fragrant feces, but I challenge any to top my accomplishits.
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Feb 18, 2014 22:44:20 GMT -5
Thanks for clarifying, I was referring to the first round of testing as round one.
|
|