|
Post by privateatty on Mar 15, 2014 13:14:51 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. As what happened in the bar status denials, the applicant did not give the grader what he or she wanted. Now in the other thread I did not make clear that a mistake as to bar status has been amended successfully in the past. However, as chinook as I have stated, the burden is upon you (as strictly construed) that you have been an active Member of the Bar for seven years. I doubt that the folks who decide this are armed with the knowledge base that you may assume they are. IOW, if they think you are on the chalk line you're out. As to the SI, its really subjective, how could it not be? And to that degree, I think any appeal would be really uphill. As to the WD, did you give them what they wanted? Did they ask for FoF, CoL? Did they ask for a brief of a point of view or a judicial opinion? I suspect that more than a few gave them what they THOUGHT they wanted rather what was asked.
|
|
harry
Full Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by harry on Mar 15, 2014 13:27:49 GMT -5
"As to the WD, did you give them what they wanted? Did they ask for FoF, CoL? Did they ask for a brief of a point of view or a judicial opinion? I suspect that more than a few gave them what they THOUGHT they wanted rather what was asked."
You may be correct about this.
|
|
|
Post by aljwishful on Mar 15, 2014 16:59:39 GMT -5
Has anyone FOIL'd OPM for their test scores? I have and have not received a response yet.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Mar 15, 2014 17:45:55 GMT -5
I disagree with the comment that the SI is really subjective. I think this is a test of your decision-making abilities as much as the WD. You need to demonstrate you are thinking like a judge who is applying the law to the situation and not just shooting from the lip.
|
|
|
Post by 17 on Mar 16, 2014 13:21:16 GMT -5
SD ---> notice said WD was my downfall. surprised -- thought it would be SI, if anything.
bummed, but have great job -- also, "things happen for a reason."
first time applicant. might appeal, if one can appeal a WD score.
I have seen a lot of emotion poured into this board. I wish the very best in life to all!!
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 17, 2014 10:39:32 GMT -5
I disagree with the comment that the SI is really subjective. I think this is a test of your decision-making abilities as much as the WD. You need to demonstrate you are thinking like a judge who is applying the law to the situation and not just shooting from the lip. Reasonable minds can disagree. While I agree with the above and certainly expect that is how folks were graded, I think it is human nature to judge on impressions and non-verbal cues. While the graders may not say that is what they are doing, does that not factor in? If an interviewee comes to the table full of pomp and circumstance yet answer the questions with acumen and reasoned legal analysis, will they get the same score as one who is a cut below on the latter, yet displays a more even judicial demeanor?
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 17, 2014 10:46:34 GMT -5
I disagree with the comment that the SI is really subjective. I think this is a test of your decision-making abilities as much as the WD. You need to demonstrate you are thinking like a judge who is applying the law to the situation and not just shooting from the lip. Reasonable minds can disagree. While I agree with the above and certainly expect that is how folks were graded, I think it is human nature to judge on impressions and non-verbal cues. While the graders may not say that is what they are doing, does that not factor in? If an interviewee comes to the table full of pomp and circumstance yet answer the questions with acumen and reasoned legal analysis, will they get the same score as one who is a cut below on the latter, yet displays a more even judicial demeanor? Makes sense to me... which is why I can't quite figure out the whole concept of appealing an SI score. You can't reproduce what the interviewers saw in front of them nonverbally. They may have made notes about the nonverbal information, or not.
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Mar 17, 2014 11:22:59 GMT -5
Reasonable minds can disagree. While I agree with the above and certainly expect that is how folks were graded, I think it is human nature to judge on impressions and non-verbal cues. While the graders may not say that is what they are doing, does that not factor in? If an interviewee comes to the table full of pomp and circumstance yet answer the questions with acumen and reasoned legal analysis, will they get the same score as one who is a cut below on the latter, yet displays a more even judicial demeanor? Makes sense to me... which is why I can't quite figure out the whole concept of appealing an SI score. You can't reproduce what the interviewers saw in front of them nonverbally. They may have made notes about the nonverbal information, or not. ...or mental notes, or not.
|
|
|
Post by FlaTreeFarm on Mar 17, 2014 11:51:53 GMT -5
I would throw in the issue about the clock as well. Some might say that is a minor detail, but it was one of the variables they could have controlled and apparently did not.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Mar 17, 2014 12:42:17 GMT -5
I'm a new member and am looking for other people's experience. I, too, seem to have missed the cut and plan to appeal. My notice said I would receive a separate email regarding that but nothing's arrived. Has anyone else gotten this follow-up message?
|
|
|
Post by FlaTreeFarm on Mar 17, 2014 12:46:45 GMT -5
I have not.
|
|
rock
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by rock on Mar 17, 2014 19:47:14 GMT -5
There seems to be a more significant number of people who did not make the register because of their WD. I thought i would miss it on the SI because that is my weakest link. However, I was told it was the WD. I remember having problems with the laptop I used, but thought with the help of the OPM people this came out OK. Now I am beginning to wonder if the lateness of the NORs was due to loss of testing data or some other technological problem. I have not received and email telling me how to appeal.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Mar 17, 2014 20:13:39 GMT -5
There seems to be a more significant number of people who did not make the register because of their WD. I thought i would miss it on the SI because that is my weakest link. However, I was told it was the WD. I remember having problems with the laptop I used, but thought with the help of the OPM people this came out OK. Now I am beginning to wonder if the lateness of the NORs was due to loss of testing data or some other technological problem. I have not received and email telling me how to appeal. No one has received the appeal email yet.
|
|
|
Post by pubdef on Mar 17, 2014 21:54:06 GMT -5
There seems to be a more significant number of people who did not make the register because of their WD. I thought i would miss it on the SI because that is my weakest link. However, I was told it was the WD. I remember having problems with the laptop I used, but thought with the help of the OPM people this came out OK. Now I am beginning to wonder if the lateness of the NORs was due to loss of testing data or some other technological problem. I have not received and email telling me how to appeal. No one has received the appeal email yet. I could be wrong, but I suspect the appeal email will be sent around the time the first cert is made. There has been worry that once appeals begin it could rise to the level of federal injunctions. Although I doubt there will be an injunction, there will be lawsuits. SSA and OPM want to have a hire before anything stops the hiring process.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Mar 18, 2014 6:29:37 GMT -5
No one has received the appeal email yet. I could be wrong, but I suspect the appeal email will be sent around the time the first cert is made. There has been worry that once appeals begin it could rise to the level of federal injunctions. Although I doubt there will be an injunction, there will be lawsuits. SSA and OPM want to have a hire before anything stops the hiring process. I think you are very astute in your observation pubdef. There is little doubt based upon what has happened in the past that the appeal email will not come out from OPM until the first cert is issued.
|
|
|
Post by murphyslaw on Mar 18, 2014 11:15:45 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. My issue was that there was no administrative law judge present at the interview. I was told just minutes before entering that they did not have three and I had to make a decision right there of whether to go into the interview or postpone it and have to then, incur the costs of flying back. One person in the room was not an attorney and was from OPM. The other, was a private attorney and who knows what experience she had. The administrative law judge would be the one that had the substantial litigation experience. It felt like a bate and switch. It is not like they did not have ALJ's interviewing people. They could have easily told you in advance prior to going to DC or when you arrived in DC of the scenerio. At that time, they could have attempted to change the schedule so that there would be three or at least an ALJ present.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Mar 18, 2014 11:50:23 GMT -5
There is never three ALJ's, There sometimes is one ALJ, one OPM and one local attorney who may or may not know anything about SSA. Sometimes, when it is two it is the ALJ and the OPM as they have a hard time convincing local attorneys to donate their time for this.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 18, 2014 11:55:43 GMT -5
When they called me from the waiting area the guy had the waiver form ready. From reading here, I expectedit to say no private attorney and I would just have the opmer and an alj. It did say no private attorney, but they had found a retired alj so I ended up having 3 interviewers, a sitting alj, a retired alj and the opm rep.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 18, 2014 11:59:19 GMT -5
When they called me from the waiting area the guy had the waiver form ready. From reading here, I expectedit to say no private attorney and I would just have the opmer and an alj. It did say no private attorney, but they had found a retired alj so I ended up having 3 interviewers, a sitting alj, a retired alj and the opm rep. Oh, and there was a large digital clock at the end of the table for all to see.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Mar 18, 2014 12:00:30 GMT -5
When they called me from the waiting area the guy had the waiver form ready. From reading here, I expectedit to say no private attorney and I would just have the opmer and an alj. It did say no private attorney, but they had found a retired alj so I ended up having 3 interviewers, a sitting alj, a retired alj and the opm rep. Me too. I guess we were lucky, even if we tested about a month apart. I would not want to be interviewed unless there was an ALJ as part of the panel, be it a panel of 2 or 3. Not sure why, but it seems counterintuitive to get scored on a ALJ test by someone who isn't an ALJ.
|
|