|
Post by downbutnotout on Mar 13, 2014 23:48:25 GMT -5
Folks,
I have started a separate thread ("Bar Membership") for us who have been DQ'd for bar membership. It might be a good way to make some sense of it and share strategies for appeals. I know I am calling my state bar tomorrow first thing!
|
|
|
Post by DreamNalj on Mar 14, 2014 5:37:34 GMT -5
Mine indicated DQ'd due to judicial status and not meeting the req'd minimum on the WD also! I mean really? I've been a judge for nearly 8 years and am frequently complemented on my writing by the appellate court judges in their appellate decisions and occasionally in public forums as a writer to be emulated.
I'm certainly going to appeal on both bases!
Thanks to all for the camaraderie over the past year!!!!
Best wishes to all going onto the register:)
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Mar 14, 2014 8:36:28 GMT -5
Response to Murphyslaw re: scoring the structured interview:
ALJ in my office served on panels in the past and I am assuming the scoring process did not change. Each question has a potential score of 0-5. Each interviewer scores your responses. Then after the interview, the scorers must reconcile their scores and agree on the final score you receive on each question. They don't average their results. If Panel Member A gives you a "3" and Member B gives you a "5," they do not give you an arbitrary "4." If you did not answer a question at all because you ran out of time or passed on it, you receive "0" for sure for that question.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Mar 14, 2014 9:17:38 GMT -5
Let me offer my condolences to all. I have met some special people on this Board since this new qualification process began. I know I often sound negative, but I have seen so many things that don't make sense. I personally was bounced in the first go around on my application. I was told I did not meet the minimum experience requirement of seven years. At that time I had been licensed to practice law for many years. Twelve as a private attorney and then twelve as an attorney with the Agency. My status was "active" and is to this day. Another Judge had 25 years private practice all in "active" status. We both appealed, which I believe was a short e-mail essentially saying WTF. We were placed on the Register after the first Cert had been picked. We were placed on the next Cert and hired. By the way don't expect an apology or an explanation. This is Bizzarro World. Anyhow, I feel for you, I appreciate the blood, sweat and tears along with the angst. This isn't the end, don't lose hope. Remember very few of those celebrating now will ever receive the call. Stay active on the Board because that is the only way you will be able to follow along. And stay strong my friends and stay thirsty. I pray for you all.
|
|
|
Post by robespierre on Mar 14, 2014 10:11:17 GMT -5
I will skip to the punchline: I apologize to any SD folks to whom I gave false hope. I honestly cannot fathom how my WD score did not meet the minimum, though I'm glad they told me outright and didn't leave it up in the air between the WD and SI. Perhaps I have an overinflated sense of my own abilities. Maybe, not having written the particular type of thing before, what I gave them was not what was expected. Perhaps I needed to be taken down a notch and the universe served up this golden opportunity to eat crow in public, yet anonymously, with no actual consequences other than to my ego. Or maybe they did mess up the scoring somehow. Like the number of licks to get to the center of a tootsie pop, the world may never know. Cheers and congrats folks. Gunner, I was going to gloatingly mock your use of "inconceivable," but that's a very gracious post you wrote. Sorry to hear your result, and best of luck next time around.
|
|
|
Post by lildavey on Mar 14, 2014 10:55:04 GMT -5
I failed the structured interview. I have no idea how or why. I know that there were only 2 people in the room, one from OPM and a younger attorney. There was not an ALJ. They asked me to sign a waiver or I would have to reschedule the interview for another day. This was kind of unfair since I would have had to buy another plane ticket. How does the appeals process work? What is the likelihood that we can succeed? How did they score the structured interview? Completely Bummed. I likewise did not get the minimum score on the SI to advance, which is just bewildering to me. I thought the interview went very well. I agree that it was bordeline coercive to have the choice between being interviewed by two people and taking more time off and the expense of another hotel stay and airfare to come back for an interview with a larger panel. It would be easier to accept failing the WD. Very depressed, but thinking about an appeal. Good luck to all who advanced to the register.
|
|
|
Post by gunner on Mar 14, 2014 10:56:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Mar 14, 2014 11:12:14 GMT -5
I failed the structured interview. I have no idea how or why. I know that there were only 2 people in the room, one from OPM and a younger attorney. There was not an ALJ. They asked me to sign a waiver or I would have to reschedule the interview for another day. This was kind of unfair since I would have had to buy another plane ticket. How does the appeals process work? What is the likelihood that we can succeed? How did they score the structured interview? Completely Bummed. I likewise did not get the minimum score on the SI to advance, which is just bewildering to me. I thought the interview went very well. I agree that it was bordeline coercive to have the choice between being interviewed by two people and taking more time off and the expense of another hotel stay and airfare to come back for an interview with a larger panel. It would be easier to accept failing the WD. Very depressed, but thinking about an appeal. Good luck to all who advanced to the register. This is pretty confusing, because one would think the interviewee would have had an idea if something went horribly wrong. Perhaps everyone did really well, and the need (??) for a cutoff meant people with 47 points out of 50 got cu because so many had 48, 49, or 50 out of 50?
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 14, 2014 11:23:09 GMT -5
The easy way to get hung up on the SI is to not listen to the question. I could see where a panel might just let you go on with your answer, even if that's not the question they asked.
I have a hard time envisioning how an appeal based on not passing the SI would work. You have the interviewer's notes, and their scores. Unlike the WD, you don't have the candidate's actual "work product" in front of you to reevaluate, or see if it was fairly evaluated the first time. I feel badly for those who have to appeal that process, or any other aspect not related to bar membership.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 14, 2014 11:46:57 GMT -5
When I received the SD, I thought that I must have failed the SI and reviewed the material again. I thought that I may not have answered the questions in such a way to gain maximum points. I could see how I could flunk the SI since some of the questions were no brainers and I did not elaborate. Instead, I flunked the WD, which I thougt went extremely well. At this point, I am more than curious. I wonder if a FOIA request would allow me to see the grading format as well as any notes made by the evaluator(s)? My guess would be no, but I have no specific experience or knowledge, only what's been posted here about the very unhelpful and heavily redacted responses to FOIA requests on other issues.
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Mar 14, 2014 16:16:26 GMT -5
The first two times I applied ('07 & '08) I didn't make it past the AR round. In '09, I made it past the AR round and took the WD & SI. In May 2010, I received an email titled Notice of Results (NORs) Vacancy ID: 134575, which stated:
You have successfully completed all parts of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) examination [Experience and Licensure Requirements, Accomplishment Record (AR), Written Demonstration (WD), and Structured Interview(SI)]. Accordingly, your name (with your final numerical rating) will be placed on the register to be used as a source of names to make referral to agencies for employment consideration.
---------
There was no breakdown of the AR, WD or SI, just my rating (score). Do they only breakdown the rating if you're not being placed on the register, or are they now breaking down the AR, WD and SI for all folks receiving NORs. Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 14, 2014 16:21:41 GMT -5
The first two times I applied ('07 & '08) I didn't make it past the AR round. In '09, I made it past the AR round and took the WD & SI. In May 2010, I received an email titled Notice of Results (NORs) Vacancy ID: 134575, which stated: You have successfully completed all parts of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) examination [Experience and Licensure Requirements, Accomplishment Record (AR), Written Demonstration (WD), and Structured Interview(SI)]. Accordingly, your name (with your final numerical rating) will be placed on the register to be used as a source of names to make referral to agencies for employment consideration. --------- There was no breakdown of the AR, WD or SI, just my rating (score). Do they only breakdown the rating if you're not being placed on the register, or are they now breaking down the AR, WD and SI for all folks receiving NORs. Just curious. They never break down the score, whether you are on the register or not. They are just telling those who didn't make the register which parts (WD, SI, or both, and/or bar membership) made them fall off the list.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Mar 14, 2014 16:24:21 GMT -5
The first two times I applied ('07 & '08) I didn't make it past the AR round. In '09, I made it past the AR round and took the WD & SI. In May 2010, I received an email titled Notice of Results (NORs) Vacancy ID: 134575, which stated: You have successfully completed all parts of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) examination [Experience and Licensure Requirements, Accomplishment Record (AR), Written Demonstration (WD), and Structured Interview(SI)]. Accordingly, your name (with your final numerical rating) will be placed on the register to be used as a source of names to make referral to agencies for employment consideration. --------- There was no breakdown of the AR, WD or SI, just my rating (score). Do they only breakdown the rating if you're not being placed on the register, or are they now breaking down the AR, WD and SI for all folks receiving NORs. Just curious. They're not exactly breaking down any of the scores. The current exam is different from years past because there was a minimum score needed on the WD and the SI, meaning a trip to DC didn't automatically get you on the register. The folks that did not make the cut have apparently been told they did not score high enough on the WD and/or the SI as the case may be. The folks that made it through have a similar paragraph to yours.
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Mar 14, 2014 16:24:52 GMT -5
They never break down the score, whether you are on the register or not. They are just telling those who didn't make the register which parts (WD, SI, or both, and/or bar membership) made them fall off the list. Yeah, that's what I meant. Glad I'm not being graded on this.
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Mar 14, 2014 16:37:09 GMT -5
They're not exactly breaking down any of the scores. The current exam is different from years past because there was a minimum score needed on the WD and the SI, meaning a trip to DC didn't automatically get you on the register. The folks that did not make the cut have apparently been told they did not score high enough on the WD and/or the SI as the case may be. The folks that made it through have a similar paragraph to yours. I thought there were folks when I interviewed in June 2010 that received a rating in May 2010 and weren't invited to interview in Falls Church because their rating was too low. Or maybe thay made the register and weren't invited to the first set of Falls Church interviews in June 2010 (but interviewed on a later cert off the same register or there was the possibility of an interview down the road, as opposed to being completely elimnated, as apparently (and sadly), some folks were today? ). I know there were DQs RE: incomplete or inaccurate bar membership information (but perhaps that happened after the AR round? ).
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Mar 14, 2014 16:45:47 GMT -5
They're not exactly breaking down any of the scores. The current exam is different from years past because there was a minimum score needed on the WD and the SI, meaning a trip to DC didn't automatically get you on the register. The folks that did not make the cut have apparently been told they did not score high enough on the WD and/or the SI as the case may be. The folks that made it through have a similar paragraph to yours. I thought there were folks when I interviewed that made the register, but weren't invited to Falls Church because their rating was too low. At least, the first set of Falls Church interviews in June 2010 (maybe they were invited to interview on a later cert off the same register, as opposed to folks being completely eliminated today, or there was the possibility of an interview down the road, as opposed to being completely elimnated, as apparently (and sadly), some folks were today? ). I know there were DQs RE: incomplete or inaccurate bar membership information in May 2010. That's the difference to me. At least in the old days, if you spent the money to get to DC and stay a night or two, you were at least put on the register with the possibility, no matter how remote, of being interviewed and/or hired. And given the last cert off the last register, that hope wasn't wholly unfounded. In this round of testing, people are being shut out of any such hope (pending appeal, of course).
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 14, 2014 16:50:18 GMT -5
They're not exactly breaking down any of the scores. The current exam is different from years past because there was a minimum score needed on the WD and the SI, meaning a trip to DC didn't automatically get you on the register. The folks that did not make the cut have apparently been told they did not score high enough on the WD and/or the SI as the case may be. The folks that made it through have a similar paragraph to yours. I thought there were folks when I interviewed in June 2010 that received a rating in May 2010 and weren't invited to interview in Falls Church because their rating was too low. Or maybe thay made the register and weren't invited to the first set of Falls Church interviews in June 2010 (but interviewed on a later cert off the same register or there was the possibility of an interview down the road, as opposed to being completely elimnated, as apparently (and sadly), some folks were today?). I know there were DQs RE: incomplete or inaccurate bar membership information (but perhaps that happened after the AR round? ). There were several who didn't go to FC in that first round of ODAR interviews in June 2010, as their scores weren't high enough or their GALs were narrow and didn't include any cities on the cert. As more certs were issued, some of those who hadn't made prior certs got interviewed. As they kept dipping into lower scores (and kept three strikers off the certs altogether) there were interviews with each cert, but not very many, as most had already been interviewed once by that time. I don't remember at what stage the bar membership issue came up before. I can't understand why it didn't come up earlier this time, given how much time has gone by.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 14, 2014 20:34:46 GMT -5
I don't think having two interviewers instead of three in the SI had anything to do with the below minimum scores some people got. Two is more the rule than the exception, as they don't seem to be able to get private attorneys to participate. I only had two in 2010, and this time as well.
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Mar 14, 2014 23:09:04 GMT -5
I don't think having two interviewers instead of three in the SI had anything to do with the below minimum scores some people got. Two is more the rule than the exception, as they don't seem to be able to get private attorneys to participate. I only had two in 2010, and this time as well. Even though I had agreed to two interviewers, I was told the private attorney originally scheduled wasn't available, when I walked in to the room there were three interviewers. I just went with it.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 15, 2014 1:18:48 GMT -5
I don't think having two interviewers instead of three in the SI had anything to do with the below minimum scores some people got. Two is more the rule than the exception, as they don't seem to be able to get private attorneys to participate. I only had two in 2010, and this time as well. Even though I had agreed to two interviewers, I was told the private attorney originally scheduled wasn't available, when I walked in to the room there were three interviewers. I just went with it. I would have, too. You may have ended up with two OPM people, or two ALJs, as part of that three person panel.
|
|