|
Post by robespierre on Mar 26, 2014 15:15:05 GMT -5
Missundaztood - I understand that OPM would send you all qualified candidates, but didn't the law (5 CFR 332.404(a)) require you to choose from the three highest scorers? If so, the hiring agency's discretion really is pretty limited and, in the end, OPM's testing pretty much controls the process.
That what concerns me here. If OPM wants to play hardball, they could send SSA a cert with only three names for each vacancy. Which would mean a microscopic cert, since (just our luck), the very highest scorers could have unlimited GALs and would thus bogart all the spots.
I wake up every morning feeling differently about this process. Today, I'm down. I have a median score, so I'm roughly #450 on a 900-person register. SSA only wants to hire about 90. And OPM is trying to box them into considering only the very highest scorers. How can I possibly ever get on a cert, much less get this job, unless SSA ultimately hires 450 people from this register (which won't happen)? Ah well.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 26, 2014 15:18:24 GMT -5
Missundaztood - I understand that OPM would send you all qualified candidates, but didn't the law (5 CFR 332.404(a)) require you to choose from the three highest scorers? If so, the hiring agency's discretion really is pretty limited and, in the end, OPM's testing pretty much controls the process. That what concerns me here. If OPM wants to play hardball, they could send SSA a cert with only three names for each vacancy. Which would mean a microscopic cert, since (just our luck), the very highest scorers could have unlimited GALs and would thus bogart all the spots. I wake up every morning feeling differently about this process. Today, I'm down. I have a median score, so I'm roughly #450 on a 900-person cert. SSA only wants to hire about 90. And OPM is trying to box them into considering only the very highest scorers. How can I possibly ever get on a cert, much less get this job, unless SSA hires 450 people from this register (which won't happen)? Ah well. They will consider, and strike, many high scorers over the life of this register, either because they really don't want them, based on interviews/references, or to get to someone they like more. That's how. I don't think any new process from OPM will be as restricted as you describe, or will change the conclusion in my first sentence, ultimately.
|
|
|
Post by dpageks on Mar 26, 2014 16:02:46 GMT -5
Should your score get you on one or more certificates for SSA, you will receive a request from SSA to identify those cities you would actually accept. The OPM GAL is not the same as the SSA GAL. First, the OPM GAL lists offices in cities where there are no SSA/ODAR offices. Second, the SSA GAL will list offices where there should be an opening (assuming it was not filled by a transfer). It is at this point that the stakes are even higher. You will have to look at your score and decide it is high enough that you can limit your SSA GAL, or do you keep all options open? The unknowns when you do this are (1)where your score actually puts you on the certificates (top 3 or not), (2)the order in which vacancies will be filled, and (2) if there really is a vacancy in every city you picked. My OPM GAL was unlimited, but I limited my SSA GAL. When I did, I knew my score was in the top 10% based on the polls from this board. Had my score been in the large group in the mid-70's I probably would have kept it wide open. At this point, you have your scores and again there is nothing you can do but wait to see what develops next. Rather than focusing on what is to come, try living in the now and enjoying the fact that you made it through the testing process and received a score. You can worry when you get the invitation to interview with an agency. Until then you are spending a lot of time and energy on something over which you have no control. This is the best post I've ever read! Thank you, redryder! This gives me hope, indeed.
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Mar 26, 2014 16:33:55 GMT -5
Missundaztood - I understand that OPM would send you all qualified candidates, but didn't the law (5 CFR 332.404(a)) require you to choose from the three highest scorers? If so, the hiring agency's discretion really is pretty limited and, in the end, OPM's testing pretty much controls the process. That what concerns me here. If OPM wants to play hardball, they could send SSA a cert with only three names for each vacancy. Which would mean a microscopic cert, since (just our luck), the very highest scorers could have unlimited GALs and would thus bogart all the spots. I wake up every morning feeling differently about this process. Today, I'm down. I have a median score, so I'm roughly #450 on a 900-person cert. SSA only wants to hire about 90. And OPM is trying to box them into considering only the very highest scorers. How can I possibly ever get on a cert, much less get this job, unless SSA hires 450 people from this register (which won't happen)? Ah well. They will consider, and strike, many high scorers over the life of this register, either because they really don't want them, based on interviews/references, or to get to someone they like more. That's how. I don't think any new process from OPM will be as restricted as you describe, or will change the conclusion in my first sentence, ultimately. Rob, also ponder Demographic poll #2 in the Puzzle Palace. There are about 173 responses to it, or about 25% of the Register. For reasons discussed ad nauseum let's assume that is statistically representative of the entire Register. If you are in a middlin' range on your score, with a GAL in the 20-41 range or larger, then you are in a decent position. There are in that poll ~66 people with smaller GALs than you (the 1-3 places and 4-20 places folks), but equal or higher scores than you, represented in that poll. Extrapolation would mean that on the entire Register there are ~244 people out of (?) 900 who scored equal or higher to you but have a smaller GAL. Many of those who scored higher than you, therefore, will be stricken just on their relatively narrow GAL alone in the first cert or two. If we add the assumption that the percentage of those not understanding the process and significance of their initial GAL is even higher, and concomitantly they are under-represented in our poll, so much the better for you and others similarly situated. In short your perceived place in line at #450 may actually be significantly better in actual practice, if you have a sufficiently wide* GAL. *I know, Funky has the market cornered on wide GALs.
|
|
|
Post by robespierre on Mar 26, 2014 20:23:18 GMT -5
Thanks Sandifer, very encouraging. Same to O-53.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Mar 28, 2014 11:45:00 GMT -5
Perhaps my experience as a state ALJ helped me squeak through. I would love to hear if any other applicants who received a score also lack significant litigation experience. Unclear what is significant litigation experience, but I selected the administrative option on the application. I have practiced in Administrative Law and now work for the agency. I have argued appeals in Circuit Courts of Appeals, but not 'litigated.' I was scored.
|
|
|
Post by mostlyquiet on Mar 30, 2014 16:17:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 30, 2014 16:20:53 GMT -5
[quote author=" mostlyquiet" source="/post/52312/thread" timestamp="1396214273"[/quote] good source? That is awesome news. Timeline?
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Mar 30, 2014 17:03:59 GMT -5
Beware the informants describing exciting scenarios ("IDES") of March. Especially if it's their first ever post.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 30, 2014 17:09:20 GMT -5
Beware the informants describing exciting scenarios ("IDES") of March. Especially if it's their first ever post. Especially since he or she has now deleted the post, leaving only a smiley behind. The Cheshire Cat lives.
|
|
|
Post by chessparent on Mar 30, 2014 17:29:49 GMT -5
For those of slower on the draw and doing yard work today, what new rumor did mostly post?
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Mar 30, 2014 17:35:22 GMT -5
For those of slower on the draw and doing yard work today, what new rumor did mostly post? OMG first yes yard work from hell. Second.... Not much. Just mostly answering questions about the process which is new and no one really knows. So ....nothing. I got nothing.
|
|
|
Post by chessparent on Mar 30, 2014 17:39:24 GMT -5
For those of slower on the draw and doing yard work today, what new rumor did mostly post? OMG first yes yard work from hell. Second.... Not much. Just mostly answering questions about the process which is new and no one really knows. So ....nothing. I got nothing. Thanks, Sr: back to raking the yard
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Mar 30, 2014 17:41:49 GMT -5
OMG first yes yard work from hell. Second.... Not much. Just mostly answering questions about the process which is new and no one really knows. So ....nothing. I got nothing. Thanks, Sr: back to raking the yard Ugh I raked so much I broke my rake. Had to go to Home Depot. LOL! Happy yard work!
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Mar 30, 2014 17:47:35 GMT -5
For those of slower on the draw and doing yard work today, what new rumor did mostly post? Made a claim the the CALJ is getting 45 certs and expected to interview 350-450 people in this first round. The math didn't add up unless we are hiring an average of two-plus new judges per city.
|
|
|
Post by chessparent on Mar 30, 2014 17:53:19 GMT -5
For those of slower on the draw and doing yard work today, what new rumor did mostly post? Made a claim the the CALJ is getting 45 certs and expected to interview 350-450 people in this first round. The math didn't add up unless we are hiring an average of two-plus new judges per city. Much as I'd like to believe it, I can't make it work either. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 30, 2014 20:07:15 GMT -5
Much as I'd like to believe it, I can't make it work either. Thanks The math doesn't have to work out. If the CALJ's Office (Puzzle Palace) is getting 45 certs they are just trying how they can make this new requirement imposed by OPM work best for them. The interviews reflect how many they can do now, logistically. I agree with private. I, and others, have heard thru theinsider grapevine that odar wanted to hire between 150 to 200 but opms delay meant they could do no more than 90 this fiscal leaving the balance for next year. On reflection, there was never any justification for believing that 90 slots meant 90 cities. In fact, of the handful of offices I have personal knowledge of, they all have multiple vacant offices/openings. I originally assumed they'd spread out the hires this year. Probably preferring to put one new judge in an office this year, then filling another slot in that office next year. That way they wouldn't have two judges on the learning curve at the same time. But the single city cert process may have changed that. Think about it like this: If they requested 90 certs, then 400 would be around 5 (4.5) people per slot to consider. And just those 5 because that's all that are certed for that city. But if you tell opm you are wanting (not definitely gonna, but want to) hire 90 judges in 45 cities...well, then you get like 9 names per city. Thus, more to choose from and maneuver with. So instead of planning 90 hires spread all over, then 90 more next year spread all over, why not do all hiring for cities one thru 45 this year then cities 46 thru 90 next? That way you get more choices per slot.
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Mar 30, 2014 20:24:04 GMT -5
Thanks, Sr: back to raking the yard Ugh I raked so much I broke my rake. Had to go to Home Depot. LOL! Happy yard work! Yeah, um, I shoveled snow in Ohio today. As in 6". Seriously already.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Mar 30, 2014 20:30:01 GMT -5
The math doesn't have to work out. If the CALJ's Office (Puzzle Palace) is getting 45 certs they are just trying how they can make this new requirement imposed by OPM work best for them. The interviews reflect how many they can do now, logistically. I agree with private. I, and others, have heard thru theinsider grapevine that odar wanted to hire between 150 to 200 but opms delay meant they could do no more than 90 this fiscal leaving the balance for next year. On reflection, there was never any justification for believing that 90 slots meant 90 cities. In fact, of the handful of offices I have personal knowledge of, they all have multiple vacant offices/openings. I originally assumed they'd spread out the hires this year. Probably preferring to put one new judge in an office this year, then filling another slot in that office next year. That way they wouldn't have two judges on the learning curve at the same time. But the single city cert process may have changed that. Think about it like this: If they requested 90 certs, then 400 would be around 5 (4.5) people per slot to consider. And just those 5 because that's all that are certed for that city. But if you tell opm you are wanting (not definitely gonna, but want to) hire 90 judges in 45 cities...well, then you get like 9 names per city. Thus, more to choose from and maneuver with. So instead of planning 90 hires spread all over, then 90 more next year spread all over, why not do all hiring for cities one thru 45 this year then cities 46 thru 90 next? That way you get more choices per slot. Why would you get 9 names per city when you might only hire two names from those nine? I don't doubt that there will be multiple hires in multiple cities simply because there have been multiple transfers from places like Mount Pleasant or Shreveport without transfers moving in. It'll be interesting to see what offices are on the cert/certs in the first hiring. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe SSA can only interview the names provided by OPM on the cert. They can't reach people that they're never given. In that past, there have been roughly 3 applicants on a cert for every opening. So to me, there are one of three possibilities: (1) if SSA is hiring 90 people in the first hire, there will "only" be 270-300 candidates provided rather than 350-400; (2) SSA is actually looking at hiring 120-130 judges this year, requiring 350-400 interviews; or (3) the new certification process may actually give SSA more flexibility in hiring who they want because they'll have 3.5 to 4 names per opening rather than 3 names per opening when they request a cert.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 30, 2014 20:30:39 GMT -5
Extending my thoughts to bad ends.....
Lets say you are #1 on the cert for Big City in which odar plans to hire 3 judges. There are say 10 names on the cert for Big City.
But you have a problem. Ssa doesn't like you. At least not as much as they like otherson the cert.
So, for Big City slot 1: you, #2 and #3 are considered and they pick #2.
Slot 2: you, #3 and #4 are considered and they pick #3.
Slot 3: you, #4 and #5 are considered and they pick #5.
So, all slots for Big City are filled and you had 3 considerations. You could get 3 struck on one city...right?
|
|