|
Post by Gaidin on Jun 29, 2016 8:16:02 GMT -5
The lower scoring subgroup apparently had a significantly lower pass rate on the WD/SI. So if they are passing both groups through simultaneously then the 30% will not be an accurate number and will be to high.
Also remember they only test 4 days a week not 5. The WD/LBMT is one day and the SI is the second. So they only get 4 groups through at a time.
|
|
|
Post by Mjǿlner on Jun 29, 2016 8:19:59 GMT -5
I am bumping this thread because the discussion of the period of 2013 DC testing and the numbers tested may be of current interest. Thanks for bumping this thread. It shows that Pixie is right when she says that there is a lot of useful info from prior testing cycles.
|
|
|
Post by pubdef on Jun 29, 2016 8:25:52 GMT -5
The lower scoring subgroup apparently had a significantly lower pass rate on the WD/SI. So if they are passing both groups through simultaneously then the 30% will not be an accurate number and will be to high. Also remember they only test 4 days a week not 5. The WD/LBMT is one day and the SI is the second. So they only get 4 groups through at a time. I did it at 4 groups per week, but I did not know the second people onto DC had a lower pass rate on the WD/SI. How many people are cut because of WD/SI is one variable that is difficult to accurately guess. But I think we can confidently say the numbers testing in DC are staggering and the register will likely be larger than it has been on this announcement.
|
|
|
Post by fowlfinder on Jun 29, 2016 10:33:19 GMT -5
Am I reading the numbers right that historically 70-75% of those tested in DC were added to the registry?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 29, 2016 10:52:21 GMT -5
Am I reading the numbers right that historically 70-75% of those tested in DC were added to the registry? That was our estimate for the 2013 testees. There is a line of thinking that the percentage of 2015 testees added to the register was lower.
|
|
momo
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by momo on Jun 29, 2016 12:00:27 GMT -5
Am I reading the numbers right that historically 70-75% of those tested in DC were added to the registry? That was our estimate for the 2013 testees. There is a line of thinking that the percentage of 2015 testees added to the register was lower.
Of the second-highest scoring subgroup that was allowed to test last fall, likely less than half passed.
|
|
|
Post by hopingforalj on Jun 29, 2016 12:17:31 GMT -5
Since I am an oldee on here, I'll ask to Gaidin, how many do you think they will take in the first subgroup out of say 4k that may have tested in second round?
|
|
|
Post by phoenixrisingALJ on Jun 29, 2016 12:21:53 GMT -5
TL;DR: This refresh will add between 1,344 and 2,175 new people to the register. This is based on current intel and historical data. OK with Gary's intel we can plug some new numbers. This is all assuming we are still testing in the same room and they are inviting about 32 people for each day they can test (Monday through Thursday). Last time around it was 9 weeks and the best guess was around 1152 tested in DC (which most agreed was a large guess) and around 25-30% did not meet the minimum to get on the register. This time we are talking about 23 weeks (an additional 14 weeks). At 32 people testing all week of those weeks it would be 2,944 going to DC. Of course, this is really too high. In 2013 it was quite common for the room to not be full, to have people not show up, and for holidays to interrupt testing. That said let's go with just 2,900 to make the numbers a little easier. With these numbers, if they cut 25% of the people (725), OPM would end up with having 2,175 people added to the register. That would be an absolutely staggering amount. If we say they cut 30% of the testers (870) the register would add 2,030. Now I'll try for a more conservative estimate. If they are planning on it testing over a 23 week period let's say they don't do testing the weeks of Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years, MLK, and Presidents Day. Likely it would just be partial weeks, but I will cut the entire week for a conservative number. We would have 1,920. At 25% cut for not meeting the minimum (480) the register would add 1,440 and at 30% (576) it would add 1,344. I am also not saying these numbers are good numbers but instead asking what you guys think of that as a possibility? I think your numbers are on the high end. You all said the room fits 32 and the room was regularly not full. So lets use 28 as the average number of test takers. 28 x 4 =112 x 23 weeks= 2576 (Which I still think is high- but possible) - using history as a predictor and cutting by 25- 30 percent would get you to 1900 give or take making it on to the register. Now will they add the folks from the current register into the mix? I get confused reading threads on refresh as it seems sometimes they have and sometimes they have not. Since 2013 forward was same process as we are going through - it would make sense to me to include them - and that then grows this register by a couple hundred. So a healthy choice for agencies looking to hire. Now let's look at another angle - we had roughly 5000 applicants at the start. We know from the string about folks who did not get invited to the online that there was again this time around a fair number who didn't get the invite to online test. Anyone have a clue as to how many got the invite to the online testing and what percentage will make the cut for the DC testing? I know the board tries to figure these things out based on polls etcs... but I am wondering does OPM ever publish the data? Has anyone ever submitted a FOI request to OPM to get the data? just curious....
|
|
february
Full Member
Posts: 114
Member is Online
|
Post by february on Jun 29, 2016 12:59:58 GMT -5
I think your numbers are on the high end. You all said the room fits 32 and the room was regularly not full. So lets use 28 as the average number of test takers. 28 x 4 =112 x 23 weeks= 2576 (Which I still think is high- but possible) - using history as a predictor and cutting by 25- 30 percent would get you to 1900 give or take making it on to the register. Now will they add the folks from the current register into the mix? I get confused reading threads on refresh as it seems sometimes they have and sometimes they have not. Since 2013 forward was same process as we are going through - it would make sense to me to include them - and that then grows this register by a couple hundred. So a healthy choice for agencies looking to hire. Now let's look at another angle - we had roughly 5000 applicants at the start. We know from the string about folks who did not get invited to the online that there was again this time around a fair number who didn't get the invite to online test. Anyone have a clue as to how many got the invite to the online testing and what percentage will make the cut for the DC testing? I know the board tries to figure these things out based on polls etcs... but I am wondering does OPM ever publish the data? Has anyone ever submitted a FOI request to OPM to get the data? just curious.... The refresh adds new names to the already-existing register. Anyone already on the register will remain on the register until they're hired as an ALJ or OPM closes the register, which isn't likely to happen for at least 3-4 years. I think the best guess is that there are something in the neighborhood of 500 people currently on the register, if you subtract the recent OMHA and ODAR hires.
Also, I'm not sure that the 25-30% cut will be accurate for this bigger group. That was the estimate for the first sub-group that tested in 2013, but most people seem to think that for the second, 2015-tested group, the cut was something closer to 50%. Assuming that this time around OPM is bringing people to DC from both sub-groups at the same time, we might see a cut closer to 35-40%.
|
|
|
Post by pubdef on Jun 29, 2016 13:15:30 GMT -5
Also, I'm not sure that the 25-30% cut will be accurate for this bigger group. That was the estimate for the first sub-group that tested in 2013, but most people seem to think that for the second, 2015-tested group, the cut was something closer to 50%. Assuming that this time around OPM is bringing people to DC from both sub-groups at the same time, we might see a cut closer to 35-40%. I didn't know that second group was that drastically different. Accepting a 40% cut based on WD/SI, the register is still aimed to add from 1,152 on the low end up to 1,740 on the high end.
|
|
|
Post by Baymax on Jun 29, 2016 13:42:01 GMT -5
When I took the WD/LBMT in November, the room was only about ⅓ full. There were three rows of about equal numbers of computers, and we only used two. Best guess is around 20 or less. I'm not sure if that was typical for that time frame, but it's something to keep in mind I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jun 30, 2016 0:14:41 GMT -5
I think the 23 weeks is a red herring. Not a deliberate red herring but instead an opportunity for OPM to give themselves time to deal the unexpected. Remember OPM had to begin scheduling rooms and staff before they even knew how many people would be invited to Phase 2.
They have to anticipate people who need to reschedule.
My SWAG is that they still only invite about 1,200 people to test. If they truly try to test almost 2,000 people you guys will be waiting a long time for your NOR results.
|
|
|
Post by wacokid on Jun 30, 2016 5:51:28 GMT -5
newbie lurker. My $0.02: I think this 23 week plan is a result of the separate groups invited for DC testing in 2013 and 2015. I will bet that what OPM learned is by dropping the online threshold and allowing the second set of DC testers in, certain testers who did not do well on the online components made up ground with the DC components. Thus, some fall 2015 scores from people who did not make the required online score in 2013 were HIGHER than many of those who performed well on the online portion but less well in DC in 2013. I know two ALJs--one hired in 2014 and one who didn't initially pass the online portion but went to DC in fall 2015 and was hired in most recent class--their scores are identical. My guess is that OPM, upon seeing the scores of the fall 2015 testers, realized that by having an initial "minimal score," they were precluding people who might eventually acquire NORs in the 70s from making the register. Thus, by lowering the online threshold to where it included the Fall 2015 testing numbers and letting all those folks test in DC, they can potentially get a larger pool of higher scores for the overall process on a faster timetable, despite what were previously unacceptably low online scores. I don't know the numbers, but I bet that the percentage of TOTAL 2013-2015 testers compared to total 2013 applicants is proportional to the number of people they think they can test in 23 weeks as compared to total 2016 applicants. If this really is the reason and represents the logic that OPM is following, then what it tells me is that they have determined that the online portion of their own examination is basically useless. In fact, it's worse than that; it has negative value if it really is effectively screening out a material number of applicants who are later determined to be highly qualified.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 30, 2016 9:15:49 GMT -5
1. The online score cutoff is a gatekeeper. It is set to allow however many applicants through as OPM wishes to test in DC. It can be set higher one time, lower the next, and higher again after that if need be to allow the right number through to DC.
2. The online components are a part of the final numerical rating. The SJT, WS, and EA are combined with the LBMT, WD, and SI for scores on 13 competencies. The 13 competencies are given equal weight and then combined. The combined score is put on the scale for ALJ numerical ratings. Vets points are then added in and everyone has their final numerical ratings.
3. OPM has to either give the identical components or has to insure that any changes to components yields identical results. I expect they just give the same components each time, but do not know that for a fact.
4. OPM has to score and combine everything the same as they did in 2013-14, 2015-16, and for every administration of the testing for veterans. This is because at the end of the day everyone who lands on the register receives a final numerical rating which will be stacked up against all the other numerical ratings in determining who's on certs and who's in top 3s.
|
|
|
Post by zebra51 on Jun 30, 2016 10:48:09 GMT -5
1. The online score cutoff is a gatekeeper. It is set to allow however many applicants through as OPM wishes to test in DC. It can be set higher one time, lower the next, and higher again after that if need be to allow the right number through to DC. 2. The online components are a part of the final numerical rating. The SJT, WS, and EA are combined with the LBMT, WD, and SI for scores on 13 competencies. The 13 competencies are given equal weight and then combined. The combined score is put on the scale for ALJ numerical ratings. Vets points are then added in and everyone has their final numerical ratings. 3. OPM has to either give the identical components or has to insure that any changes to components yields identical results. I expect they just give the same components each time, but do not know that for a fact. 4. OPM has to score and combine everything the same as they did in 2013-14, 2015-16, and for every administration of the testing for veterans. This is because at the end of the day everyone who lands on the register receives a final numerical rating which will be stacked up against all the other numerical ratings in determining who's on certs and who's in top 3s. 1. Yes online score is cutoff/gatekeeper. I agree it can be manipulated but disagree that it can be manipulated for each time testing is done. I think once the bottom is set (Bottom was lowered to add more folks in 2015) that is the bottom for all testing on that register. It remains the bottom until a new register (not refresh) or a new bottom. Also think if online bottom is lowered for this testing they would have to go back and pick up those from 2013 that would make it by the new bottom. I do not think they want to do that. 2. Just a note that LBMT is not part of the score. 3-4. Yep. Kinda what I am saying in #1 above.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 30, 2016 10:53:45 GMT -5
1. We'll just have to disagree on that one.
2. The LBMT is part of the score. Unlike the WD and SI there is not a minimum LBMT score required to get on the register.
3-4. Use of the online score cutoff as a gatekeeper for DC testing is distinct from, and not inconsistent with, including the online components in the final numerical rating.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jun 30, 2016 12:22:09 GMT -5
TL;DR: This refresh will add between 1,344 and 2,175 new people to the register. This is based on current intel and historical data. OK with Gary's intel we can plug some new numbers. This is all assuming we are still testing in the same room and they are inviting about 32 people for each day they can test (Monday through Thursday). Last time around it was 9 weeks and the best guess was around 1152 tested in DC (which most agreed was a large guess) and around 25-30% did not meet the minimum to get on the register. This time we are talking about 23 weeks (an additional 14 weeks). At 32 people testing all week of those weeks it would be 2,944 going to DC. Of course, this is really too high. In 2013 it was quite common for the room to not be full, to have people not show up, and for holidays to interrupt testing. That said let's go with just 2,900 to make the numbers a little easier. With these numbers, if they cut 25% of the people (725), OPM would end up with having 2,175 people added to the register. That would be an absolutely staggering amount. If we say they cut 30% of the testers (870) the register would add 2,030. Now I'll try for a more conservative estimate. If they are planning on it testing over a 23 week period let's say they don't do testing the weeks of Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years, MLK, and Presidents Day. Likely it would just be partial weeks, but I will cut the entire week for a conservative number. We would have 1,920. At 25% cut for not meeting the minimum (480) the register would add 1,440 and at 30% (576) it would add 1,344. I am also not saying these numbers are good numbers but instead asking what you guys think of that as a possibility? Now will they add the folks from the current register into the mix? I get confused reading threads on refresh as it seems sometimes they have and sometimes they have not. Since 2013 forward was same process as we are going through - it would make sense to me to include them - and that then grows this register by a couple hundred. So a healthy choice for agencies looking to hire. Those who were on the register when the refresh started and chose not to refresh remain on the register and are ALWAYS "still in the mix". No question about that.
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Jun 30, 2016 16:20:50 GMT -5
1. We'll just have to disagree on that one. So are you saying that you think that for 2016 applicants, OPM can set a minimum score that is lower than the lower score for the 2015 group and not go back to capture all of those 2013 applicants that would have made the cut? In short, would not there have to also be a 3rd group form the 2013 applicants lumped in with the 2016 applicants?
Using arbitrary numbers: Scores on 1-10 scale.
2013: Applicants with scores of 8-10 are invited. 2015: Applicants with scores of 6-8 are invited. 2016: Applicants with scores of 5-10 are invited. OPM also has to invited everybody from 2013 with a score of 5, correct?
|
|
|
Post by zebra51 on Jun 30, 2016 16:41:22 GMT -5
1. We'll just have to disagree on that one. So are you saying that you think that for 2016 applicants, OPM can set a minimum score that is lower than the lower score for the 2015 group and not go back to capture all of those 2013 applicants that would have made the cut? In short, would not there have to also be a 3rd group form the 2013 applicants lumped in with the 2016 applicants?
Using arbitrary numbers: Scores on 1-10 scale.
2013: Applicants with scores of 8-10 are invited. 2015: Applicants with scores of 6-8 are invited. 2016: Applicants with scores of 5-10 are invited. OPM also has to invited everybody from 2013 with a score of 5, correct?
Using your arbitrary number scale and description is what I believe is the way it is done (I agree with you). If I understand what Gary is saying they can set a score higher or lower than the lowest bottom. Some thing like this. 2013: 8-10 invited 2015: 6-8 invited 2016: OPM can resets the minimum with no regard to past bottom (even though the 2013 test takers and 2016 test takers are taking the exact same test). By Gary's method if in 2016 they chose 5-10 they don't have to go back and get the lower 5-6s from 2013. Or if they choose 7-10 in 2016 - the folks that took the same test in 2013 and scored between 6-7 get in with a lower score than the 2016ers
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 30, 2016 17:09:01 GMT -5
1. We'll just have to disagree on that one. So are you saying that you think that for 2016 applicants, OPM can set a minimum score that is lower than the lower score for the 2015 group and not go back to capture all of those 2013 applicants that would have made the cut? In short, would not there have to also be a 3rd group form the 2013 applicants lumped in with the 2016 applicants?
Using arbitrary numbers: Scores on 1-10 scale.
2013: Applicants with scores of 8-10 are invited. 2015: Applicants with scores of 6-8 are invited. 2016: Applicants with scores of 5-10 are invited. OPM also has to invited everybody from 2013 with a score of 5, correct?
I am. OPM doesn't refer to it as an online cutoff score. Instead it refers to being "within the range for the higher-scored sub-group of all the eligible applicants." Look at it this way: Hypothetically say 5000 applicants want to test in DC. OPM does not have the capacity or need to test that many applicants. Instead, let's say OPM wants to test 1000. How does OPM limit the number of candidates going to DC? What they've done on this register is to give a portion of the exam--the online component--and invited the top 1000 scorers on that portion to test in DC. In the past OPM accomplished this by accepting only the first 1000 applications and then closing the JOA. Given that it's necessary to have some sort of gatekeeper to control the number testing in DC, I can't see the fault with sending the top 1000 scorers--the "higher-scored sub-group of all the eligible applicants"--on. I certainly think it's superior to only accepting a set number of applications and just sending all of those applicants (so long as they met the basic qualifications) to DC.
|
|