|
Post by aqua96 on Mar 14, 2014 12:28:45 GMT -5
I don't have the answers to your questions, but wanted you to know that I am in exactly the same boat. I expected to have not met the minimum score on the SI, but I apparently did fine. And I thought the WD went fairly well, especially since I am a writer. I intend to appeal because I don't see the downside. I also want to make sure there was not a technical error because my computer did not save to the CD and a tech had to get involved.
|
|
|
Post by 17 on Mar 16, 2014 13:27:42 GMT -5
IMWD. Same boat; same thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by MoStateALJ on Mar 16, 2014 20:28:28 GMT -5
I don't have the answers to your questions, but wanted you to know that I am in exactly the same boat. I expected to have not met the minimum score on the SI, but I apparently did fine. And I thought the WD went fairly well, especially since I am a writer. I intend to appeal because I don't see the downside. I also want to make sure there was not a technical error because my computer did not save to the CD and a tech had to get involved. Did you test the day of the fire (in September)? Our entire group that day was unable to save our WD and I found that troublesome.
|
|
harry
Full Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by harry on Mar 16, 2014 22:39:46 GMT -5
I'm very confident that I wrote a very well reasoned and written opinion but I suspect that I left out a piece of it and did not follow the directions thoroughly. I remember a little red flag. Lesson learned. It was a very interesting experience.
|
|
|
Post by pubdef on Mar 17, 2014 4:32:02 GMT -5
I'm very confident that I wrote a very well reasoned and written opinion but I suspect that I left out a piece of it and did not follow the directions thoroughly. I remember a little red flag. Lesson learned. It was a very interesting experience. I'm of the same mind. When the status changed to See Details, I maintained that I did very well on the SI but probably so-so on the WD. Who knows about the SI but it was at least good enough. In my career, I have written briefs on a handful of appeals but irregularly. I frequently draft motions to give to a Judge but in those the writing isn't intensive in that the facts and the law are fairly straightforward. I wouldn't be surprised if I left out something or, probably more likely, I got too excited about getting a chance to write and didn't follow directions as well as required. Anyhow, I plan to appeal it just because I am given the privilege to do so. I don't expect anything to come of it, but the only way to know for sure it won't be successful is to not try. I'll share some more thoughts on how I plan to appeal it once I see the instructions.
|
|
|
Post by gunner on Mar 18, 2014 1:09:22 GMT -5
My thoughts:
I am a master of the 3-hour written exam. In my (top ten) law school career my lowest exam grade was B+, and I got exactly one of those. What I wrote was well organized, well reasoned, and well written. I did not run out of time because I had budgeted my time well. I followed the directions. As I was reading through my answer at the end (I budgeted for that too), I realized that there was one minor, non-meritorious side issue that I could have raised and rejected, but hadn't. But I viewed that issue as above and beyond what was called for, so it did not worry me. I've been in that position before and my instincts turned out to be correct. In short, I destroyed the WD.
Now it's possible that I'm completely delusional. It could be I missed a "not" somewhere in the instructions and did exactly what I was asked not to do. It's also possible I'll pick a perfect bracket for March Madness. But I don't see any of those as very likely.
I'm undecided on whether to appeal, though if it's as simple as saying "WTF?" I'll probably do it.
|
|
|
Post by ncatty007 on Mar 18, 2014 13:50:54 GMT -5
My thoughts: I am a master of the 3-hour written exam. In my (top ten) law school career my lowest exam grade was B+, and I got exactly one of those. What I wrote was well organized, well reasoned, and well written. I did not run out of time because I had budgeted my time well. I followed the directions. As I was reading through my answer at the end (I budgeted for that too), I realized that there was one minor, non-meritorious side issue that I could have raised and rejected, but hadn't. But I viewed that issue as above and beyond what was called for, so it did not worry me. I've been in that position before and my instincts turned out to be correct. In short, I destroyed the WD. Now it's possible that I'm completely delusional. It could be I missed a "not" somewhere in the instructions and did exactly what I was asked not to do. It's also possible I'll pick a perfect bracket for March Madness. But I don't see any of those as very likely. I'm undecided on whether to appeal, though if it's as simple as saying "WTF?" I'll probably do it. Gunner, I think my personal experience with the written demonstration is very similar to yours. I have written numerous appellate briefs over the years (last check I have over two dozen cases attached to my name in Westlaw). Beyond that, I'm writing some form of litigation report, memo or brief at least weekly. I have always been comfortable with my legal writing and have been told by both judges and opposing counsel that I've produced well written work product. Like you, I was surprised that I got dinged in my NOR for failure to score the minimum on my written demonstration because I did not feel rushed, overwhelmed or otherwise uncomfortable with the task. As I recall, I believe I had enough time at the end to review my final copy at least twice before time was up. Perhaps I also did a "not" in my paper. One possibility comes to mind, but I honestly cannot recall enough about the instructions to be sure at this point. In any event, I am also undecided about whether to appeal or not. Since going down the ALJ path, I've started to rethink whether an ALJ position with ODAR is for me given what I have read on this board about the position. I've also interviewed for another position in-house that I think I would prefer and have received a call-back for a final interview. If I do appeal my NOR, I think it will be driven out of wanting to learn why I didn't meet the minimum score as much as anything else.
|
|
|
Post by gunner on Mar 18, 2014 14:31:39 GMT -5
Just got my appeal email. It appears something along the line of "WTF?" is enough, so I'll be sending that out fairly soon.
Ncatt007: You and I sound very similar. Like you, I'm fairly certain at this point I do not want to be an ALJ with ODAR, even if I would like the job at another agency. But I do perversely want my score. Now if they say that my electronic test was lost and give me the opportunity to take it again, I'll probably pass.
If they say that my sub-minimum score was correct I'll have to assume I neglected to read the last sentence of the question, and that the sentence was: "For your response, ignore all the rest of the packet; your essay should address the following question: The Beatles or the Rolling Stones, and why?"
Edit: If this post is deleted, you know why.
|
|
|
Post by thankful1 on Mar 18, 2014 14:35:41 GMT -5
My thoughts: I am a master of the 3-hour written exam. In my (top ten) law school career my lowest exam grade was B+, and I got exactly one of those. What I wrote was well organized, well reasoned, and well written. I did not run out of time because I had budgeted my time well. I followed the directions. As I was reading through my answer at the end (I budgeted for that too), I realized that there was one minor, non-meritorious side issue that I could have raised and rejected, but hadn't. But I viewed that issue as above and beyond what was called for, so it did not worry me. I've been in that position before and my instincts turned out to be correct. In short, I destroyed the WD. Now it's possible that I'm completely delusional. It could be I missed a "not" somewhere in the instructions and did exactly what I was asked not to do. It's also possible I'll pick a perfect bracket for March Madness. But I don't see any of those as very likely. I'm undecided on whether to appeal, though if it's as simple as saying "WTF?" I'll probably do it. Its inevitable that those of us who got a low score (the functional equivalent of getting dinged) or actually dinged, will search for answers as to why, and as part of that process, we will inevitably review our cumulative successes over the years, the things that we think set ourselves apart from the masses. Additionally, everyone here is "accomplished" to some degree or another, so we are not used to falling short of a goal, or even ending up in those masses. Further complicating the process is that there is no effective way to self-evaluate the performance. We have no idea what OPM was looking for, and so there is no way to try to figure out how we can tailor our performance to meet those expectations. I choose the word "tailor" as opposed to "improve" because I don't think that "failing" the WD (or scoring low on it) suggests that the person obtaining those results is a poor writer, I think it just means that the product produced did not meet the expectations desired. Again, no one can no this for sure because we are all shooting at a target in the dark, despite our best efforts here on the forum to elucidate that target. We have no idea what constitutes a good writing sample or a bad one. We may intellectually know this, and therefore know that we shouldn't put much, if any stock in a score or lack of one, but we all have an ego, and are all used to success at one level or another, and so it is hard to reconcile. Its also hard (though for some it may be easy) to dismiss a bad score as just a random number that doesn't reflect true ability or reality. We want to believe that a score has meaning, and if it does have meaning, a poor score should reflect something. If we simply dismiss the score, we essentially dismiss the process as meaningless. So how do we reconcile "poor" scores by smart, accomplished writers? My answer was that I did not produce the type of product they were looking for. Upon reflection, I beleive the only thing I could have done differently is work harder at trying to understand what was expected and produce what they wanted. Maybe I'm kidding myself. I have my own personal list of life-long successful writing accomplishments that would suggest it would be unlikely that I scored poorly on the Written Demonstration, but of course, none of that matters: I wasn't being scored on my previous work--I was being scored on what i handed in that day, in a vacuum. The fact is (as best i can tell, because of course i have no reall idea) is that I did score poorly. I would think an appeal would be a no-brainer if it could get you some insight into why the score was considered deficient. Heck, it's probably a no brainer under any circumstance just to make sure their math is right. From what I've seen, though, an appeal only gets you an up or down, with no real particiation in the process. Of course if you have no interest in the job, perhaps an appeal would be a waste of time I include the smiley emoticon because there is no intent to inflame or deride. Everyone here has invested a great deal of time and effort, and there is no joy in anyone's missing the mark. Any person who would take pleasure in another's misfortune has a far, far greater problem than a big ego.
|
|
|
Post by pubdef on Mar 18, 2014 14:37:16 GMT -5
Just got my appeal email. It appears something along the line of "WTF?" is enough, so I'll be sending that out fairly soon. Ncatt007: You and I sound very similar. Like you, I'm fairly certain at this point I do not want to be an ALJ with ODAR, even if I would like the job at another agency. But I do perversely want my score. Now if they say that my electronic test was lost and give me the opportunity to take it again, I'll probably pass. If they say that my sub-minimum score was correct I'll have to assume I neglected to read the last sentence of the question, and that the sentence was: "For your response, ignore all the rest of the packet; your essay should address the following question: The Beatles or the Rolling Stones, and why?" Edit: If this post is deleted, you know why.I am also sending in my appeal email. I know that the decision that I wrote about why the Rolling Stones are superior might have been a little prickly, but I didn't think it would get me cut.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Mar 18, 2014 14:45:45 GMT -5
"Let's Spend The Night Together"
My, My, My, My Don't you worry 'bout what's on your mind (Oh my) I'm in no hurry I can take my time (Oh my) I'm going red and my tongue's getting tied (tongues's getting tied) I'm off my head and my mouth's getting dry. I'm high, But I try, try, try (Oh my) Let's spend the night together Now I need you more than ever Let's spend the night together now I feel so strong that I can't disguise (oh my) Let's spend the night together But I just can't apologize (oh no) Let's spend the night together Don't hang me up just to let me down (don't let me down) We could have fun just groovin' around around and around Let's spend the night together Now I need you more than ever Let's spend the night together Let's spend the night together Now I need you more than ever You know I'm smiling baby You need some guiding baby Now I need you more than ever Let's spend the night together Let's spend the night together now This doesn't happen to me ev'ryday (oh my) Let's spend the night together No excuses offered anyway (oh my) Let's spend the night together I'll satisfy your every need (every need) And I now know you will satisfy me Let's spend the night together Now I need you more than ever Let's spend the night together now
Sorry, couldn't help myself... Another time another place and I never would have believed where I would find myself today..
|
|
|
Post by thankful1 on Mar 18, 2014 14:46:18 GMT -5
In short, I destroyed the WD. Now it's possible that I'm completely delusional. You realize that you did not obtain the minimum score on the WD, right?
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 18, 2014 18:56:43 GMT -5
I don't know much, but I have it on more than just one person hearsay that the WD is graded by one retired ALJ. That being the case, that ALJ is likely going to have a good idea of what he or she is looking for. While we all would like to think its like the essay part of the bar exam generally (su generis?), I have little faith that it is. IOW, decadealj may grade differently than deltajudge.
|
|
|
Post by aintgottaclue on Mar 19, 2014 3:06:06 GMT -5
No offense to anybody gang but am I the only one who feels that being DQd on the WD is absurd? If one wrote a clear concise and cogent decision and stayed within the parameters of the question presented...how does one "downgrade" or "score" the particular findings of fact and conclusions? The facts were finite and there was no "right or wrong" conclusion. Wouldn't that be the very definition of an arbitrary and capricious move by OPM? Just spitballing.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Mar 19, 2014 6:29:41 GMT -5
No offense to anybody gang but am I the only one who feels that being DQd on the WD is absurd? If one wrote a clear concise and cogent decision and stayed within the parameters of the question presented...how does one "downgrade" or "score" the particular findings of fact and conclusions? The facts were finite and there was no "right or wrong" conclusion. Wouldn't that be the very definition of an arbitrary and capricious move by OPM? Just spitballing. My only suggestion is for you to file your appeal and find out if you are correct. I am not saying I agree with your analysis or conclusions, but I am saying you have nothing to lose by appealing (except if you were a 10-point vet, then I would probably just start the process over and likely receive a decision prior to your appeal decision).
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Mar 19, 2014 8:27:36 GMT -5
I don't know much, but I have it on more than just one person hearsay that the WD is graded by one retired ALJ. That being the case, that ALJ is likely going to have a good idea of what he or she is looking for. While we all would like to think its like the essay part of the bar exam generally (su generis?), I have little faith that it is. IOW, decadealj may grade differently than deltajudge. privateatty, I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head. This is not a situation of 'arbitrary and capricious OPM folks' dinging very intelligent, experienced writers. This is a seasoned/retired ALJ who was (hopefully) selected for their ability to discern a good decision from a bad one. So far, no one on this thread has admitted to the possibility of numerous grammatical and spelling errors. Not flaming anyone, but if your posts here, written quickly and on the fly, have been replete with spelling errors and poor grammar, what makes you think you weren't stressed out and time pressured into writing something less than your usual stellar product? I don't know about you folks, but there are some days when I cannot write! I get a total 'brain fart', if you will, and can barely write a complete sentence without a heavy rewrite (too much situational bourbon??) I know that I prayed and prayed the night before the WD that I was NOT going to have one of those days - fortunately I didn't, but I could've easily been in your situation. In all, I say appeal it as you have nothing to lose. Unfortunately I don't think you will get a clear answer from OPM on what you did wrong, so that you can improve your score next time. There will be a next time, because you are all accomplished, experienced and are able to pass this exam.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Mar 19, 2014 8:35:56 GMT -5
Just to share an e-mail we got today:
A Message To All SSA And DDS Employees
Subject: Annual Sunshine Week
As you may know, the Office of Open Government recently joined my team. We look forward to advancing the agency’s open government initiatives. We are also pleased to work with the Office of the General Counsel on transparency efforts.
Each year we recognize Sunshine Week, a national initiative promoting increased transparency and openness in government. This year’s theme is “Your Right to Know.” We, at SSA, embrace the importance of open government.
This year also marks the fifth anniversary of Attorney General Holder’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Guidelines. FOIA allows members of the public to request records from Federal agencies, promotes transparency, and prevents agencies from having secret policies.
As a result of our efforts, we were recognized by the Center for Effective Government as a leader in implementing the FOIA. We received the highest score in government for our handling of FOIA requests.
For more information about our FOIA program, please see our FOIA website. You may also view the datasets we make available to the public on the data page of our open government website.
In the spirit of transparency and openness, we are currently running two public engagements, in which I encourage you to participate:
- To share your ideas for future data releases, visit our data engagement forum.
- To share your ideas for refreshing our Open Government Plan with new initiatives and commitments for the next two years, visit our open government plan forum.
Thank you for all you do to support open government and transparency while serving the American public.
Ruby Burrell Chief Strategic Officer
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Mar 19, 2014 9:26:56 GMT -5
Not sure if OPM is holding any engagement forums in the next few weeks...
|
|
|
Post by gunner on Mar 19, 2014 10:38:46 GMT -5
*** Further complicating the process is that there is no effective way to self-evaluate the performance. We have no idea what OPM was looking for, and so there is no way to try to figure out how we can tailor our performance to meet those expectations. I choose the word "tailor" as opposed to "improve" because I don't think that "failing" the WD (or scoring low on it) suggests that the person obtaining those results is a poor writer, I think it just means that the product produced did not meet the expectations desired. Again, no one can no this for sure because we are all shooting at a target in the dark, despite our best efforts here on the forum to elucidate that target. We have no idea what constitutes a good writing sample or a bad one. We may intellectually know this, and therefore know that we shouldn't put much, if any stock in a score or lack of one, but we all have an ego, and are all used to success at one level or another, and so it is hard to reconcile. I appreciate your point of view, but I disagree with the bold statements above. Grading a writing sample is not some subjective exercise where it is impossible to know what is expected or to evaluate your own performance. If it were, there would be no point in having a WD. I would agree with you if we were asked to write four verses of free-form modernist existential poetry, but that's not what we were asked. I know what constitutes a good writing sample for a legal brief or judicial opinion. You and everyone else on this board does too. There's certainly some element of subjectivity at the margins, so we could debate whether a certain answer is a B+ or an A-, or even whether another is a D or an F. But there's not usually room for debate whether a given writing is a B or an F. It's true that we do not know what exactly is on the grading sheet. We don't know whether factors like spelling, grammar, logical organization, issue spotting, use of citations, use of facts, decisiveness, persuasiveness, etc. are considered or the weight given to those factors. And we are hampered by not having either the test materials or our answers. But from memory we know enough about what was asked and the materials provided to have a general sense of how we did. I suppose it could be that the "minimum score" was "in the top two thirds of applicant scores." Given the caliber of applicants, the line between bottom third and top two thirds could well be the subjective A-/B+ line. But I have a hard time believing that anyone would design the test that way. It would also be inconsistent with the idea of a "minimum score" since it would be based on the scores of other applicants. (Compare, for example, the round 3 notices, which said something like "you were/were not among the group of higher-scored applicants"). And it would cut off qualified applicants arbitrarily. In response to your other comment, yes, it appears that I did not get the minimum score on the WD. That doesn't change the fact that I (and apparently others who didn't get the minimum score) rocked it. So either the scores are a mistake or there's a big problem with the test. If you're right that it's a shot in the dark and there's no way to know what they are looking for, that is a big problem with the test.
|
|
|
Post by owl on Mar 19, 2014 17:28:58 GMT -5
If one wrote a clear concise and cogent decision and stayed within the parameters of the question presented...how does one "downgrade" or "score" the particular findings of fact and conclusions? The facts were finite and there was no "right or wrong" conclusion. Actually, do we know that there was not, in fact, a "right" conclusion to be reached? Given the generally high quality and lucidity of the postings on this board - maybe even especially amongst those who unfortunately were DQ'd on the WD - I find it inconceivable that anyone here could have "failed" based on sheer quality of writing. I am inclined to think Occam's Razor applies, and IMO the two simplest explanations for a "failure to achieve minimum score" are: (1) technical snafu with the laptop, CD, etc., or (2) there was indeed a "right" answer (in OPM's eyes, anyway), and some people got it wrong (again, in OPM's eyes). I say this because I got a score (albeit below average for this board) and I'm pretty sure I was still typing as the 4 hours ran out. So there was at least one unfinished sentence in my submission. Even more importantly, I really wasn't "done" with what I was writing. Trying to keep this vague because of the confidentiality agreement, but let's just say what I wrote had an intro, a middle, and a conclusion, and let's further say my "middle" consisted of points A, B, C, and D (I don't even remember the number - this is just for illustration purposes) with explanations for each point. I remember "finishing" (to my satisfaction, anyway) the intro, the conclusion, and points A & B, but I'm pretty sure I hadn't written all I wanted for point C, and had only cursorily explained point D. Heck, there may even have been a point E that I could/should have made. My point is, I turned in what I considered at the time to be a somewhat unfinished product, although I felt I at least had organized it properly, written it well, and kept it as free as possible of spelling/punctuation/grammar errors. But I would bet that at least some and maybe all of the people who've reported not meeting the minimum WD score did the same, and "finished" their submissions to boot. So what would be left to distinguish me from them? Long time lurker, first time poster (and first time applicant). I wish all the best of luck with their appeals.
|
|