|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Feb 18, 2014 22:46:55 GMT -5
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. Thanks for clarifying, I was referring to the first round of testing as round one.
|
|
harry
Full Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by harry on Feb 19, 2014 0:08:14 GMT -5
This is interesting about no 30% cut but as an SD I am fairly resigned. Why else would there be that classification status? I think I may not have met the minimum score on the SI--I don't think I answered in such a way as to chalk up points.
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Feb 19, 2014 3:59:57 GMT -5
When you interview in Falls Church, if an interviewer says "offers will be going out in two months" instead of "thank you for coming in to interview"
...that's a good sign
...at least it was for me.
|
|
|
Post by pubdef on Feb 19, 2014 6:31:31 GMT -5
This is interesting about no 30% cut but as an SD I am fairly resigned. Why else would there be that classification status? I think I may not have met the minimum score on the SI--I don't think I answered in such a way as to chalk up points. I'm with you in that I anticipate I won't make the register but I'll let OPM surprise me if they want. Thinking back on the WD/SI, I know there were things I could have done on the WD that would have helped. But I would guess that regardless of being in SD or Complete there are people second guessing their performances in DC. The test and interview were difficult in large part because of time constraints. If there were things you realize you left out or could have added, and it was because there wasn't enough time, my guess is that's a sign you were doing well. I'd be more worried if I felt like I did everything perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Feb 19, 2014 8:44:46 GMT -5
If See Details group doesn't equate to a cut at this stage, then perhaps it means those individuals either scored higher or lower than the Complete group, in terms of NOR scoring. Only time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Feb 19, 2014 10:05:07 GMT -5
When you interview in Falls Church, if an interviewer says "offers will be going out in two months" instead of "thank you for coming in to interview" ...that's a good sign ...at least it was for me. This has always been my "tell", too, when interviewing job applicants.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Feb 19, 2014 10:11:14 GMT -5
If See Details group doesn't equate to a cut at this stage, then perhaps it means those individuals either scored higher or lower than the Complete group, in terms of NOR scoring. Only time will tell. Or, it means absolutely nothing and is some sort of glitch. As you say, only time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Feb 19, 2014 10:47:17 GMT -5
Or it means those candidates are missing something (like app manager says SD means).
Or maybe it means those folks tests haven't been fully graded yet, thus explaining the perceived delay.
Or maybe our poll that indicates 30% in SD is worthless because not enough "complete" folks responded to give an accurate percentage or our participants on the board don't mirror the mass of lurkers and those that don't know of the board. IE 30% of us may be SD but only 3% of the total.
Or maybe opm only wanted to cut 3% but set an arbitrary minimum that, if enforced, would cut 30%. Now the delay is necessary to recalibrate.
Unfortunately, we may never know unless we see changes from SD to complete start happening or when cut notices start going out.
|
|
leo68
Full Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by leo68 on Feb 19, 2014 10:50:58 GMT -5
Thanks for compiling this summary Funky. I admit that my nerves are frazzled at this point and that is due in part to having no idea what to expect. The information you provided makes me feel a little more prepared than I have in months.
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Feb 19, 2014 10:52:36 GMT -5
Or maybe the highly reliable forum member is mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Feb 19, 2014 10:59:49 GMT -5
Or maybe the highly reliable forum member is mistaken. And your point is? Sounds like a better source than the rank speculation that goes on here/.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Feb 19, 2014 11:24:08 GMT -5
How is it that a person can get away with accomplishit but not assumption? I LOVE it.
BTW Funky - excellent post. The size of some people's egos can be truly astounding - they are a legend in their own mind. I made the same assumption as you on the scoring/rank, based on hours of reading through old posts, it seems the most liely scenario.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Feb 19, 2014 13:23:23 GMT -5
Wait we can use assumption now?
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Feb 19, 2014 13:55:44 GMT -5
Looks like it - that's two posts and no edit. Wow - the IT gods who run ProBoards found a dictionary and realized it is not a dirty word. But funky is pushing the limits with his description of my resume...accomplishit, you betcha!
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Feb 19, 2014 17:32:55 GMT -5
Trying to put a little more together.
The following is my own opinion based on the sage wisdom of those that have fought this dragon before and from advice and info passed to me by people I trust to know of that which they speak.
Scores:
It's been oft repeated that "scores don't matter" and if ssa wants you they will come get you. That certainly seems to be the case, what with those that eventually land jobs reporting scores all over the range. Its equally clear though, that scores dramaticallyimpact when you may get the call.
You won't even come into ssa's purview unless you attain a score that is within the top 3 (or very close as its not always a perfect 3x the slots). So, the higher the score, the better chance you have to make a cert for a particular slot. And first certs from new registers will logically have the highest scorers, subject to gal of course.
It is also repeatedly noted that the agency interview is the most important factor. That appears the consensus. One alj friend that has been on working groups and the like told me "if you bomb the interview it doesn't matter if you scored 110."
Similarly, if you score really low, like 30s down, you will probably never make a cert and if you do, its unlikely ssa could justify hiring you even if the interview goes well. Polling data suggests at least one exception to that general rule.
From some great posts, it appears the ssa interview will result in a "highly recommend," a "recommend," or a "not recommended." A no recc is the kiss of death irregardless of score. Here is what I have read or been told about the other two:
Highly recommend:
You are probably golden no matter your score. If you attain this, you only lose out if your GAL is really limited and their is another HR candidate they like a smidge better in the few GALs you have.
recommended:
This is logically where most folks land. Thus competition is more fierce and ssa needs more data points to differentiate between us. GAL is hugely important. The more cities you are competing for the less likley your competition is an HR candidate. References are also massively important. Where an HR candidate might overcome a bad ref, an R candidate likely won't. Things like insider status or being an outsider with mucho ssa experience can help or hurt here too. Scores, I have been told, also come into play here. If the competition is between 2 insiders or 2 outsiders thaT are both R candidates and both have good references, they have to have some reason to choose one over the other. In those casesit is generally better to be the higher scored candidate.
So, while its generally true that scores don't matter and the primary issue is the interview, you need the higher score to get to the interview and maybe again if you don't have them all bowing down after the interview.
Again, this is just my own opinion based on reading the old posts and getting generic advice from friends.
Doesn't really tell us more than what we all know to be true. Higher scores are better, you need to ace your interview, GAL will often be the deciding factor and make real nice with your references.
|
|
|
Post by burghbum on Feb 20, 2014 20:28:02 GMT -5
I rarely post, but has anyone pondered that perhaps this delay is ODAR "working" the register before it is even released? ODAR gets a peak at scores, knows GALs, then works the transfer list to get the precise cert they want to get the candidate pool they want before any appeals? Too nefarious?
|
|
|
Post by chessparent on Feb 20, 2014 20:33:33 GMT -5
I rarely post, but has anyone pondered that perhaps this delay is ODAR "working" the register before it is even released? ODAR gets a peak at scores, knows GALs, then works the transfer list to get the precise cert they want to get the candidate pool they want before any appeals? Too nefarious? Sounds good to me.
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Feb 20, 2014 20:38:27 GMT -5
I rarely post, but has anyone pondered that perhaps this delay is ODAR "working" the register before it is even released? ODAR gets a peak at scores, knows GALs, then works the transfer list to get the precise cert they want to get the candidate pool they want before any appeals? Too nefarious? I've been thinking the same thing, burg. I think there is a method to their madness--and a blitzkrieg mentality. They are getting everything in place and will hit the ground running, hard, to place who they want where they want. As a corollary, I suspect that the revised testing format will be given more weight and deference, at the expense of the references' opinions, which is a time-consuming and highly subjective (IMHO) way to gather information about someone.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Feb 20, 2014 22:34:47 GMT -5
I rarely post, but has anyone pondered that perhaps this delay is ODAR "working" the register before it is even released? ODAR gets a peak at scores, knows GALs, then works the transfer list to get the precise cert they want to get the candidate pool they want before any appeals? Too nefarious? On one hand, I feel such a devious ploy would be right in line with what we could expect. On the other hand, I work for them and know such a multifaceted plan could never be pulled off. Especially without leaks.
|
|
|
Post by eyre44 on Feb 21, 2014 2:56:45 GMT -5
I rarely post, but has anyone pondered that perhaps this delay is ODAR "working" the register before it is even released? ODAR gets a peak at scores, knows GALs, then works the transfer list to get the precise cert they want to get the candidate pool they want before any appeals? Too nefarious? Well ODAR is denying this. Just last week they reported in a management call that they are ready to hire, but are still waiting anxiously for OPM to get out the register. They could be lying, but that's what was passed on.
|
|