Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2016 17:11:02 GMT -5
or is it that OPM has a number that it thinks it can test, and it invites that number to interview (so 1000 people, who happen to have scores 9-10 and that is the higher tested subgroup. And then if they decide to open it up to another 1000 with scores which happen to be scores 7-8.9that is the lower scoring subgroup)
So the score isn't the really determinative factor, it's if you in the top 1000 or whatever is the number they can accommodate?
Is this all just WAGs?
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Jun 30, 2016 17:54:02 GMT -5
Spider,ram, has it. Just as Gary explained.
Don't get confused by the different ways to be cut.
Phase 1, the initial app, is purely pass or fail. They say you have the requisite experience or not.
Phase 2 no one is actually "cut". Instead, everyone is ranked. Then opm takes the number they want to test in score order. If they only wanted to test 100, the top 100 would be invited as the "higher scoring subgroup." Then, let's say they wanted to test another 1000. That 1000 would then be invited as the "next highest scoring subgroup." Theoretically, opm could ultimately invite everyone that takes the online testing to DC as some subgroup or another. In practice, at least the one time before, they chose to stop shopping in that aisle after two such subgroups and instead refresh the register.
But, you are not "cut" merely ranked. It's just that their needs or plans may never get to your rank to be brought to DC. That solely depends on how many opm wants to test and whether they would rather keep going down the rankings or do another refresh.
Now, phase three has 2 distinct cuts. There are minimum scores on both the WD and SI. Fail to make the minimum and you would be eliminated. That's the score they can't tamper with because to make the minimum lower for 2016 applicants would be unfair and create a cause of action for 2013 and 2015 applicants cut at that phase.
Clear as mud now?
Funk
|
|
|
Post by backtoeden on Jun 30, 2016 18:33:42 GMT -5
I agree with gary and funky. There is no established minimum cut off score for phase 2. The number of people they plan to send through determines the range for the higher scoring subgroup. Of course this analysis could be wrong but seems to make the most sense. OPM doesn't refer to a minimum score for phase two, instead it refers to a range. The range of scores are those top scoring 500 or 1000 or however many individuals.
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Jun 30, 2016 18:57:49 GMT -5
I take some issue, as I believe they do cut people after the on-line testing. Although I was apparently in the next highest scoring sub- group in 2013, that did not stop OPM from sending me a FOAD e-mail and telling me I was done. I was stunned a year later when they sent me another e-mail saying I somehow now qualified to move on to the DC testing and interview! I'm sure the folks who didn't get that e-mail sure feel like they were cut. If he first group had enough survive the DC portion to suit OPM and SSA, I never would have been resurrected. Of course none of it means anything as I sit on the register waiting, and waiting and .... well you get the idea.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Jun 30, 2016 19:11:35 GMT -5
I didn't mean that there are not some that are effectively finished after phase 2. Some will undoubtedly score low enough that opm never reaches their "subgroup".
But it's still not a set cutoff score. The FOAD stevil received is akin to the FOAD you get after certs. It doesn't mean you will never get hired. Or that you aren't on the register anymore. It just means you aren't moving on at that time.
Let's say 3000 took the online testing. Opm wants to test 1000 to ultimately put 750 on the register. So, the highest scoring subgroup group is the top 1000 phase 2 scores. Everyone else gets a letter saying they aren't in the highest group and are not going to DC.
Then, fast forward 2 years and those 750 are now depleted. Opm wants to add some more and decides they want to test another 500. At that point they have a choice, take the next 500 highest scorers or do a refresh (ie reopen the app for all new applicants). That's a PITA when you just want 500 so they just take the next highest scoring group.
Another year passes and they need more on the register. They have the same choice. That can, in theory, continue for as long as there are enough phase 2 folks that still want to be considered. But, in reality, at some point opm would determine they either didn't want to go down any further in online scores (though they could) or that doing so would not result in enough candidates for their needs. Then they would have to refresh.
So, if you don't get invited to DC with the first group, you will get a letter telling you that. But all is not lost as they may still call up a subgroup containing you. You will continue to have that hope until opm announces they are doing a refresh.
|
|
|
Post by owl on Jun 30, 2016 19:18:45 GMT -5
So what then did OPM do with the relative handfuls of quarterly-testing vets between 2013 and today? There's no space/resources crunch when it comes to testing those folks, right? If there was no need to cut any of those groups to a manageable size, because they were already quite manageable (I assume), did all of those folks just pass straight to DC after the online component then, regardless of their scores? That doesn't seem logical. What would seem logical is that those folks would have to at least surpass the numerical floor that was "in effect" at the time (there was one floor in effect from spring 2013 to summer 2015, and then a lower floor after that).
Or look at it this way: Assume for the sake of argument that at phase 2 in 2013, OPM passed the top 1000 of the remaining applicants on to DC. Fine. Now assume 100 10-point vets applied in January 2014. Assume further they all pass phase 1, and that OPM decided to pass on the top 50 of that group, in line with the gatekeeper theory/model of phase 2. If Vet #51's score was, however, higher than Applicant #1000's score from spring 2013, wouldn't that be treating Vet #51 disparately w/r/t Applicant #1000?
Now change the facts a bit. 50 10-point vets apply in April 2014 and pass phase 1 and OPM, figuring it has the capacity to test all 50, passes them all on to DC. But Vet #50's score if compared to the 2013 applicants would have been equal to, say, Applicant #3000. So Vet #50 goes to DC with the same score as Applicant #3000, who is not invited. Has not Applicant #3000 been treated disparately w/r/t Vet #50?
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Jun 30, 2016 19:27:55 GMT -5
The addition of the online component to the process was, of course, to give opm more insight thru testing. But, I think, it also serves a huge function for them.
In the past, every time opm wanted to add folks to the register they had to do a full refresh. Now, they have a gatekeeper component that let's them cheaply test a ton of folks, rank them and give them a stock they can dip into to replenish the register from time to time without the expense and time of doing a full refresh.
Now the online scores matter beyond ranking. They are part of your overall score. As a result, each lower scoring subgroup they bring up to DC starts from a lower point position than the one before. Thus, each group ultimately added will have a lower average and mean NOR than those that went before. So, naturally, at some point level bringing more from phase 2 up is counterintuitive because their scores will be so low as to ensure they only populate the lower end of the register. When that point is met, which I assume it was after two subgroups were pulled from the 2013 initial pool, they would need to do a refresh. Therefore, people below that last subgroup would effectively be cut. But there is no set score because it depends on how many opm wants to test at any given time.
There are really only 4 times you get "cut" with no hope beyond an appeal. If you were deemed to not have the requisite experience at phase 1. If you score so low on phase 2 that they never call up your subgroup and instead choose to reopen the JOA. If you fail to make the minimum score on the SI or WD in DC. And, if you make the register but are never hired and get officially three struck.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Jun 30, 2016 19:35:51 GMT -5
The 10 pointers are indeed a hole in what we know and speculate. I disagreeumption is they would be subject to what ever the subgroup delineation scores were in the full testing immediately preceding their testing.
IE whatever score was the floor for going to DC in the 2015 testing would apply to those now testing. In 2017 those testing with 10 points would be subject to whatever those delineations end up being for this group.
It's the only thing that makes sense to me. Now, from a practical standpoint I don't think it matters. In truth the number of 10 point veterans that get past phase 1 isn't very large. And, considering they get the 10 points added to their phase 2 score to determine what subgroup they are placed in...I have a hard time believing most wouldn't be in the higher scoring group among any test takers.
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Jun 30, 2016 19:59:25 GMT -5
funky and gary - I'm not sure y'all aren't talking past the point I, Zebra and Owl are trying to make. Both of you keep talking about ranking and the higher scores getting to move on. I think we all agree on that. What neither of you have addressed is the ability of OPM to engage in disparate treatment of applicants based solely on the date of their application.
I think the board is in consensus that OPM can't change any of the testing, process, etc... from what they did in 2013 because this is still the same register and 2016 applicants must be tested in the same manner as the prior applicants for this same register. Why do you not apply that same logic to the scores? It is illogical to strictly hold them to using the same test but then say that the results are treated differently.
I think they can make the cut off higher than they did in '13 for all the reasons y'all have stated. They avoid disparate treatment of the '16 class by saying that a second call will be used just like in '15. However, there is no way for them to excuse taking '16 applicants that score lower than '13 applicants. Again, same test, same process, etc...
Now, perhaps I have misunderstood you. As I was typing it occurs to me that if OPM says we took the top 1000 applicants in '13, expanded to the next 500 in '15 and we are taking the top 1000 applicants this time, I could see an argument that the same process is followed for each and since a minimum score isn't used, there is no disparate treatment. This is more convincing if you consider that the '13 applicants had an opportunity to enter the '16 class.
Geez, I'm arguing with myself.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Jun 30, 2016 20:08:26 GMT -5
Your last paragraph starts to nail it bayou.
There is no minimum score to apply at phase 2. Whether or not you get moved onto DC depends entirely on how many opm ultimately decides to bring there.
A 2013 candidate would have a valid disparate treatment claim if opm lowered the minimum SI or WD score for 2016 and that 2013er would have made it.
But, no such claim exists at phase 2. Opm would simply argue "in 2013 we needed 1000 to test and took the top 1000. In 2015 we needed 500 and we took the highest scoring subgroup to 500. In 2016 we needed 1500 (or 200, whatever) and we took the highest scoring subgroup."
The issue at phase 2 isn't your score but what subgroup you were in. Opm can avoid a disparate treatment argument simply by taking the highest scoring. In 2015 they took the next. They can do that again or not. In the end, this level is merely a ranking and as long as they keep to the same highest first to whatever level we need, it's all good.
|
|
|
Post by owl on Jun 30, 2016 21:12:22 GMT -5
With all due respect, and I love a good theoretical discussion, I am not convinced. I do not think OPM can ratchet the floor back up on the same exam once they've lowered it. This is the same exam to get on the same register. All applicants have to be treated equally. A 2013 en masse applicant has to be treated the same as a 2014 quarterly vet applicant and a 2016 en masse applicant.
OPM worded it without using the term "minimum score" because as of March 2013, they had never administered Phase 2 in a live test. They didn't know how the scoring would distribute itself and they likely wanted to preserve flexibility in how many they brought through to DC. So yes, Phase 2 served a gatekeeping function the very first time. But once they first created a higher-scoring subgroup, there became a de facto minimum score. Yet it still wasn't a true minimum score because they had the flexibility to lower it further in the future...and they did. Now, as I see it, they are bound by that new lower score when creating the higher-scoring subgroup for the current crop of applicants to the same test.
Either that, or they have to pass through to DC in the soon-to-be-created subgroup the total number of people they passed through in the 2013 and 2015 subgroups combined. Anything else would be disparate treatment in my book.
The indication that they are going to conduct 23 weeks of DC testing, while I expressed skepticism about it in the other thread, would certainly support the view that the coming higher-scoring subgroup is going to be quite a bit larger than in 2013.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jun 30, 2016 21:18:15 GMT -5
I think there is a minimum score on phase 2. The next lower scoring subgroup in 2015 was also a smaller group than 2013.
That being said I think opm can adjust the range of highest scoring subgroup and next highest scoring subgroup to fit their needs and otherwise I agree completely with Gary and Funky.
|
|
|
Post by pubdef on Jun 30, 2016 21:23:19 GMT -5
I don't believe the scores matter until you are on the register. As long as the method they use is equal to the 2013 test it does not matter how many are sent on to the DC testing.
I was sent to DC with the first group but my higher sub group score was worth nothing. The same can be said for the other 25-30% of us who didn't meet the minimum. My point being that your score is not anything but a metric until you get on the register.
If federal agencies say they are only going to be hiring 10-15 people over the next couple years, OPM would have no reason to send 2013 numbers to DC. In fact, it would be a waste of most applicants money and resources. They would send maybe 500 with the top scores. That doesn't mean it's unfair because it's a different amount from in 2013.
I think it also fails of you are saying that last time they took everyone who was scored 8.5 to 10 in the first group so they have to do that again. What if this is just an amazing group and 5500 people score that high this time? They would simply change the threshold to get the number to what they believe needs to be sent to DC to make the register filled to meet hiring demand.
Until you get on the register the score you have really only worth the paper it's printed on.
|
|
dwfl
Full Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by dwfl on Jun 30, 2016 21:29:17 GMT -5
I think OPM plans to significantly lower the phase 2 cutoff scores that were used for the second subgroup from 2013. The second subgroup appears to be a reaction to producing too few candidates and being scolded by Congress. There was never any indication that they would do a second subgroup, but the unconventional action of resurrecting testers filled an immediate need when under fire. I do not think they are going to do multiple subgroups from 2016 testing and will instead do much more testing in the very beginning. A large amount of testing up front should be easier and cheaper than rehiring contractors for subsequent subgroups. Testing people upfront will also produce more high scores. As mentioned elsewhere in the forum, there are ALJs in the second subgroup that scored as high as those in the first subgroup.
Regarding the need for 23 weeks of testing, I think OPM is completely serious. To produce a sufficient number of ALJ candidates, OPM will need to do 2.5 times the amount of original testing in DC, which was nine weeks. The original subgroup from 2013 produced hiring of 196 ALJS in FY 2015 and 52 ALJs through June 2016, which is approximately 250 ALJs. Some additional hiring from the first subgroup has taken place since these numbers were announced to Congress by D.C. Gruber, but I would estimate that it was approximately 50 more. Thus, nine weeks of testing in DC produced approximately 300 ALJs.
SSA has stated that they want to hire approximately 250 ALJs a year. If OPM wants to provide sufficient ALJs for the next three years of hiring, they need to do enough testing to produce 750 ALJs. 750 dived by 300, is 2.5. If you multiply nine weeks by 2.5, you have 22.5 weeks.
SSA complained so much about the number of ALJ candidates produced from nine weeks of testing in DC that Congress got involved. Congress provided OPM with a testing ultimatum, which is really embarrassing. OPM will now use all of its knowledge and power regarding the process to produce sufficient results to avoid further embarrassment.
In terms of politics, the request for 23 weeks of testing may be setting up blame for SSA to avoid embarrassment. OPM has notice that they need to help SSA hire 750 ALJs in the next three years. OPM has now put the ball back in SSA’s court and stated that they will need sufficient ALJs to do 23 weeks of testing. This request may be hard to fill, especially since SSA needs all the ALJs it has to reduce the backlog. If SSA does not provide sufficient ALJs to help with testing, then OPM can blame SSA for failure to reach hiring goals. Alternatively, OPM may actually want to help SSA reach its hiring goal in earnest.
To provide sufficient testing to meet the number of ALJs needed by SSA over the next three years, OPM will probably need to do 23 weeks of testing in DC. While it may seem unfair to 2013 testers, I think OPM is going to significantly reduce the threshold to get to DC testing. Is this disparate treatment between 2013 testers and 2016 testers? I think so, but it appears to be allowable and is based upon need. The need for ALJs will fluctuate, and OPM is under pressure to produce more suitable candidates. Other than testing more people, how else can OPM respond to the demand of SSA and Congress to produce more ALJ candidates?
|
|
|
Post by pubdef on Jun 30, 2016 21:46:44 GMT -5
Regarding the need for 23 weeks of testing, I think OPM is completely serious. To produce a sufficient number of ALJ candidates, OPM will need to do 2.5 times the amount of original testing in DC, which was nine weeks. The original subgroup from 2013 produced hiring of 196 ALJS in FY 2015 and 52 ALJs through June 2016, which is approximately 250 ALJs. Some additional hiring from the first subgroup has taken place since these numbers were announced to Congress by D.C. Gruber, but I would estimate that it was approximately 50 more. Thus, nine weeks of testing in DC produced approximately 300 ALJs. SSA has stated that they want to hire approximately 250 ALJs a year. If OPM wants to provide sufficient ALJs for the next three years of hiring, they need to do enough testing to produce 750 ALJs. 750 dived by 300, is 2.5. If you multiply nine weeks by 2.5, you have 22.5 weeks. Thank you for bringing the math back to the thread. I agree completely with your analysis. As far as disparate treatment, I don't think there is a strong argument for it from anyone on the 2013 test who didn't move on. But they can always try to litigate it but I don't think it would go far.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Jun 30, 2016 22:25:34 GMT -5
I agree completely that the DC testing this time will be vastly larger than 2013. For the reasons so well stated. And I like that the math works...lol.
But...there is no minimum score at phase 2. The purpose of the phase is to rank everyone and opm can take as many or as few as it wants going to wherever they need on the score scale to get that number.
That would not create a disparate treatment cause.
To mandate opm take every score above where they stopped in 2015 would remove opm's ability to control the testing process. Let's say they wanted to test 1000 in 2013. Let's say that took them to a hypothetical score of 50. Now, let's say in 2016 they want to test 1000. But let's say that twice as many people were allowed to test in 2016. So now the top 1000 have scores of 75 or higher. They will only have to go to 75.
That isn't disparate treatment. They still took the higher scoring subgroup. To make them go to 50 means they have to test more than twice the number they need, want and can handle.
It doesn't work that way.
No one is entitled to get this job because they make the register. You weren't entitled to get past phase 1 in 2016 because you did in 2013. And just because opm needed to test 1000 in 2013 and needed to go to a score of 50 to get them doesn't mean making a 50 this time entitles you to go to DC.
THE JOA very clearly states there is a pass or fail at phase 1 and their are minimum scores at phase 3. In regard to phase 2, it equally clearly states you will pass on to phase 3 if you are in the higher scoring subgroup. Period. Doesn't say a score, doesn't say a number. That's because they have to have the ability to decide how many they need to test and can test. That's defeated by a minimum score scenario and that's the illogical position.
There is no disparate treatment if opm does take the higher scoring group.
Anyone's welcome to try and litigate that. But I am supremely confident opm takes that position from what I have heard and am very confident you would lose.
But it's an Internet message board and opinions are free.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jul 3, 2016 13:07:29 GMT -5
With all due respect, and I love a good theoretical discussion, I am not convinced. I do not think OPM can ratchet the floor back up on the same exam once they've lowered it. This is the same exam to get on the same register. All applicants have to be treated equally. A 2013 en masse applicant has to be treated the same as a 2014 quarterly vet applicant and a 2016 en masse applicant. OPM worded it without using the term "minimum score" because as of March 2013, they had never administered Phase 2 in a live test. They didn't know how the scoring would distribute itself and they likely wanted to preserve flexibility in how many they brought through to DC. So yes, Phase 2 served a gatekeeping function the very first time. But once they first created a higher-scoring subgroup, there became a de facto minimum score. Yet it still wasn't a true minimum score because they had the flexibility to lower it further in the future...and they did. Now, as I see it, they are bound by that new lower score when creating the higher-scoring subgroup for the current crop of applicants to the same test. Either that, or they have to pass through to DC in the soon-to-be-created subgroup the total number of people they passed through in the 2013 and 2015 subgroups combined. Anything else would be disparate treatment in my book. The indication that they are going to conduct 23 weeks of DC testing, while I expressed skepticism about it in the other thread, would certainly support the view that the coming higher-scoring subgroup is going to be quite a bit larger than in 2013. Agree with this.
|
|
|
Post by judgymcjudgypants on Jul 5, 2016 9:29:33 GMT -5
Long story short, do you think they will send 2,000 people out of the Class of 2016 to DC in one big cattle call? That number is probably half or better of everyone who participated in the online testing. If so, and should I get an invite, I am not going to feel like the special snowflake that I actually am. Judgymcjudgypants
|
|
|
Post by weisstho on Jul 5, 2016 9:44:37 GMT -5
If so, and should I get an invite, I am not going to feel like the special snowflake that I actually am. And, Truly Are!
|
|
|
Post by judgymcjudgypants on Jul 5, 2016 10:00:22 GMT -5
From your keyboard to OPM's ear!
J
|
|