|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 18, 2014 22:31:26 GMT -5
Anyone married to a social science researcher? I'm thinking that there may be a self-reporting bias affecting the reporting of NOR scores. A tendency for those of us who are keenly interested in this position, and thus perhaps the higher scorers (that doesn't describe me), to report our scores, whereas those who are discouraged by their scores may report less frequently. I'd guesstimate a 10% skewing upward of scores reported, but I'm really only guessing. Curious if someone knows this stuff. I think there is knowledge out there to be had on this, but I've only brushed up against it. Anonymously reporting them in the polls is one thing. Disclosing them in a discussion thread is something else again.
|
|
|
Post by minny on Mar 19, 2014 8:29:15 GMT -5
I apologize in advance if this question has been asked and answered. This Board has been the source of much helpful information, some reassurance, and on occasion, some alarm. So I have not always followed it very closely. (Hence, for example, my limited GAL.) But my question is: does the Agency interview everyone on the cert, even those with relatively low scores? Yes. And, you get only one interview per register, regardless of how many times you make a cert from that register. I will add one point just to make it clear. You may be on the register and not get an interview. The cert is pulled from the register at the hiring agency's request and all of those folks (at least the ones on an SSA cert) get interviewed.
|
|
|
Post by peacemaker on Mar 19, 2014 9:36:58 GMT -5
Thanks for the prompt response to my ignorant question. Guess I'll keep stumbling along through this very arcane process...
|
|
|
Post by uclabruin on Mar 19, 2014 10:26:33 GMT -5
Is fluency in Spanish a factor in making a cert for Puerto Rico? Anyone know?
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Mar 19, 2014 10:38:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Mar 19, 2014 11:41:45 GMT -5
Is fluency in Spanish a factor in making a cert for Puerto Rico? Anyone know? Yes. I speak Spanish. I spent a year in Puerto Rico (PR), in the late 80s, studying Spanish at Universidad Interamerica de Puerto Rico and la isla bonita was on my GAL. My interview in Falls Church in June 2010 was going to be in Spanish. However, I demurred when my wife informed me that she did not want to move to PR (We live on the Left Coast and her parents are 90 and 83). I contacted the Agency and told them I was no longer interested in PR (I believe that we were allowed to refine our GAL and I took PR sites off my list). Anyway, they agreed to let me interivew in English, though the interview was originally to be conducted in Spanish.
|
|
|
Post by futuressaalj on Mar 19, 2014 11:54:28 GMT -5
Is fluency in Spanish a factor in making a cert for Puerto Rico? Anyone know? Yes. I speak Spanish. I spent a year in Puerto Rico (PR), in the late 80s, studying Spanish at Universidad Interamerica de Puerto Rico and la isla bonita was on my GAL. My interview in Falls Church in June 2010 was going to be in Spanish. However, I demurred when my wife informed me that she did not want to move to PR (We live on the Left Coast and her parents are 90 and 83). I contacted the Agency and told them I was no longer interested in PR (I believe that we were allowed to refine our GAL and I took PR sites off my list). Anyway, they agreed to let me interivew in English, though the interview was originally to be conducted in Spanish. Thank you mcb. I am in same boat. Will need to take all PR cities off my GAL because the wife said if u get a job there you are going alone
|
|
|
Post by peb239 on Mar 19, 2014 19:23:01 GMT -5
My gut feeling is that those on this board are much better informed than others involved in the process (at least as far as outsiders go), so the average scores reported here are probably skewed a little higher than the actual mean. How much higher is anyone's guess. What we do know is that everyone who made the register made a passing score on every component of the evaluation, so there aren't any dummies. Personally, I think this testing process was the hardest I've ever been through. Like all of you, I have typically aced tests of any description. I think I did well, and have a good (but far from great)score, but I didn't "ace" this one. I attribute that to the quality of the competition and wish everyone the best (unless you end up on a cert with me for the same job, of course! I do want a job, or I wouldn't have put myself through this gauntlet). Like many of you, I'm hoping to make the first cert but think the second cert may be more realistic for me. I'm just going to keep taking it one step at a time, and enjoy the feeling of accomplishment from passing and making the register.
However, on an important note, since I am FROM East Crapistan and would very much like to stay and work here, I would appreciate all of you more than one standard deviation above the mean to remove East Crapistan from your GAL. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good luck to everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Mar 27, 2014 17:55:50 GMT -5
Anyone married to a social science researcher? I'm thinking that there may be a self-reporting bias affecting the reporting of NOR scores. A tendency for those of us who are keenly interested in this position, and thus perhaps the higher scorers (that doesn't describe me), to report our scores, whereas those who are discouraged by their scores may report less frequently. I'd guesstimate a 10% skewing upward of scores reported, but I'm really only guessing. Curious if someone knows this stuff. I think there is knowledge out there to be had on this, but I've only brushed up against it. Anonymously reporting them in the polls is one thing. Disclosing them in a discussion thread is something else again. We have not historically had a self-reporting bias. As many people stop reading the board when they get a good score and think they are done, or never post anything at all or respond to polls, as leave because they got a low score or now score, or stop posting, etc. We were about 35% of the 2007 register, and it has been going down steadily as our members get hired or otherwise drop out of the 'hunt.' I think it was between 22% and 25% last time we had accurate numbers to compare. Remember that the keen interest aspect not only helps you get a higher score, it helps a non-scorer in another circumstance receive a very low score, which makes the low numbers in our membership equally representative to the population as a whole. I do not think we have ever detected an OPM bias in scoring for insiders or for people on this board. We may be more welkl adjusted from the support, but we don't do better or, seemingly, get hired on a faster basis than those not on the board. In answer to the original question, the first question I have in response is if anyone know if three-strikers carry over. I assume so, unless someone knows otherwise. The register is different, but the job is the same, and the law says consideration for the position, not from a register, if I recall correctly. The last 2 certs, SSA was able to avoid getting the names from OPM of those it had already considered and rejected thrice, and thus not have to do all the paperwork for no reason. It is in their interest to have some unwanteds in the mix to fill slots, but they don't want to make their job more difficult. If 3-strikers are still excluded, many of the people previously passed over (and some from the last 2 certs who were not hired and can now be passed over) can or will be passed over again, allowing the cert to go deeper into the register. Also, assuming there will be a similar hiring curve as 2008-2011 in light of SSA's budget, I would say anyone with a high 60's is golden for consideration. **Note: Many people on a cert are not considered because some peopple must be considered thrice before moving on. I think the numbers work mathematically to about 67% of a cert gets 'considered' at least once (some of whom are made offers). I originally had a magic score that get me on certs without being considered before I was rejected (the language differs in the "we don't want you" letter). So anyway, in my opinion, a score of 68 or so will get you on the first cert if 3-strikers are avoided, otherwise 70-72; a score of 70 or so will be needed for serious consideration on the first cert (and that doesn't change with 3-strikers included because they will just avoid them again). No warranty of suitability for a particular purpose.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Mar 27, 2014 19:48:47 GMT -5
Wow, thank you prop, that was an awesome, informative post. Much appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Mar 28, 2014 10:51:50 GMT -5
Follow up note: the reason I guessed 68 would get you on a cert and 70 would get you considered, despite my earlier estimate that 1/3 of a cert did not get considered, is because of the way SSA can pick the order of the cities considered. If there are 8 slots in Valparaiso, Indiana, they can do 1 of those slots early to get a high scorer with just that city, then switch to New York and environs to give consideration to high scorers with restricted GALs against high scorers with wide-open ranges so that they can consider and not choose cerrtain people they don't want, then come back to Valparaiso for some slightly lower scores who could be placed there instead of worrying about higher scores in other cities that would block those slightly lower scorers, etc. It is complex, probably enjoyable to some that do it, and easily able to allow consideration farther down the cert than a pure comparison of the number of people considered would lead you to believe.
|
|
|
Post by chessparent on Mar 28, 2014 10:57:53 GMT -5
Follow up note: the reason I guessed 68 would get you on a cert and 70 would get you considered, despite my earlier estimate that 1/3 of a cert did not get considered, is because of the way SSA can pick the order of the cities considered. If there are 8 slots in Valparaiso, Indiana, they can do 1 of those slots early to get a high scorer with just that city, then switch to New York and environs to give consideration to high scorers with restricted GALs against high scorers with wide-open ranges so that they can consider and not choose cerrtain people they don't want, then come back to Valparaiso for some slightly lower scores who could be placed there instead of worrying about higher scores in other cities that would block those slightly lower scorers, etc. It is complex, probably enjoyable to some that do it, and easily able to allow consideration farther down the cert than a pure comparison of the number of people considered would lead you to believe. But if 68 gets you on a cert, aren't you also being "considered"? Its not all about the scores.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 28, 2014 11:03:26 GMT -5
Follow up note: the reason I guessed 68 would get you on a cert and 70 would get you considered, despite my earlier estimate that 1/3 of a cert did not get considered, is because of the way SSA can pick the order of the cities considered. If there are 8 slots in Valparaiso, Indiana, they can do 1 of those slots early to get a high scorer with just that city, then switch to New York and environs to give consideration to high scorers with restricted GALs against high scorers with wide-open ranges so that they can consider and not choose cerrtain people they don't want, then come back to Valparaiso for some slightly lower scores who could be placed there instead of worrying about higher scores in other cities that would block those slightly lower scorers, etc. It is complex, probably enjoyable to some that do it, and easily able to allow consideration farther down the cert than a pure comparison of the number of people considered would lead you to believe. But if 68 gets you on a cert, aren't you also being "considered"? Its not all about the scores. You are not considered, in terms of "bona fide consideration" leading to a hire or a strike, unless you move into the top three being considered for a particular position. Absent that, you are just "filler"... no strikes. How the supposed new procedure for certs plays into this, no one knows for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Mar 28, 2014 11:06:11 GMT -5
In this context, "considered" means you were one of the three people looked at for an available slot. If SSA goes through all the slots and has not fit your name somewhere for consideration, you were not 'considered.' They may have actually considered whether or not to consider you , but they did not officially consider you in a way that counts as a 'strike' against you in terms of the position. So lets say SSA has 1 opening in Albany, and the 7th highest scorer there has only Albany on his or her GAL, and the top 6 scorers who included Albany have WIDE open GALs. If SSA wants Scorer 7, they have to do Albany later in the process: otherwise, they consider the top 3, pick one, and Albany is full. If they do not want Scorer 7, and let's assume Scorer 7 has vet preference, they need to have at least 3 higher scorers available when they do Albany so they can avoid consideration of Scorer 7 altogether. Thus, they looked at Scorer 7, decided they did not want him or her, and then arranged not to be able to 'consider' Scorer 7 on this certificate.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 28, 2014 11:09:33 GMT -5
In this context, "considered" means you were one of the three people looked at for an available slot. If SSA goes through all the slots and has not fit your name somewhere for consideration, you were not 'considered.' They may have actually considered whether or not to consider you , but they did not officially consider you in a way that counts as a 'strike' against you in terms of the position. So lets say SSA has 1 opening in Albany, and the 7th highest scorer there has only Albany on his or her GAL, and the top 6 scorers who included Albany have WIDE open GALs. If SSA wants Scorer 7, they have to do Albany later in the process: otherwise, they consider the top 3, pick one, and Albany is full. If they do not want Scorer 7, and let's assume Scorer 7 has vet preference, they need to have at least 3 higher scorers available when they do Albany so they can avoid consideration of Scorer 7 altogether. Thus, they looked at Scorer 7, decided they did not want him or her, and then arranged not to be able to 'consider' Scorer 7 on this certificate. Somehow, my friend, as I was reading this and considering my own history and that of many others, the line about "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic" popped into my head.
|
|
|
Post by chessparent on Mar 28, 2014 11:38:02 GMT -5
I got you. I thought for a moment you were suggesting a score of 70 would get you considered, but a score of 68 would not, without consideration of other factors. Mea culpa.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Mar 28, 2014 11:38:20 GMT -5
I completely disclaim and "strike from the record" (without deleting it) everything i wrote above. I am just now reading the thread with the multiple certs info and that will cause all kinds of chaos with any extrapolation based on past practice.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 28, 2014 11:49:44 GMT -5
I completely disclaim and "strike from the record" (without deleting it) everything i wrote above. I am just now reading the thread with the multiple certs info and that will cause all kinds of chaos with any extrapolation based on past practice. It will be different, propmaster, but they can't put the same 3-5 people with high scores and wide GALS on dozens of certs, as we discussed in that thread. It will be interesting to see how it gets put together under that change.
|
|