|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 19, 2014 8:22:17 GMT -5
Ok, I'm not trying to restart the "insider v outsider" debate. Just trying to flesh out what they look at with insider candidates. It has been oft repeated that there is some insider preference in hiring because insiders are known factors. It has also been noted that if the known factor is negative (ie low production, problem employees, etc) insider status cuts the other way. With outsiders what they have to go on is your interview, references and things you give them like resumes, test scores etc. With insiders, they have all that plus all the metrics/measureables they keep track of on your work. So what do they care about? What's good and what's bad?
Do they look at the MAR (monthly activity reports, now called something else) and if your productivity is below some p0ercentage its bad? If so, what about senior attorneys who aren't included on those reports?
Do they just look at total cases written over some time period? Again, what about seniors whose duties include other tasks, not always recorded by any of the reports? How do they account for the fact that in some offices seniors do nothing but write while in others they are told to spend huge percentages of time reviewing for otr?
The new metrics writers are "graded" on include appeals council agreement rates. Will that now be a consideration?
Do they look at your PACS assessments?
Is great references from the hocalj, hod and group sups all they care about?
To reach "favored" status as an insider do you need to have done some of the higher profile details?
Given the apparent low percentage of insiders on this register, will it be good enough to be an average producer that has never been on a PIP, doesnt grieve every little thing and is generally liked in his/her office?
Again, I'm not even sure I buy into any significant bias in hiring for insiders. My office has a pretty even split between aljs of insider and outsider histories. But it is undeniable that odar has much more info to use regarding insiders. How do they use it? What's important?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 8:33:29 GMT -5
"What's important is what gets you hired."
Ha! Said it first.
Edit: Funky, I like your chances. If you are thinking that in-depth, and with the thoughtfulness of your other posts, then unless you show up drunk at the interview you will impress. Not trying to kiss your tail. In fact, I hope you do blow it, because more for me. But I think you are sitting pretty where you are.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Mar 19, 2014 8:55:19 GMT -5
I'm with DD you need a couple of glasses of situational bourbon about 20 minutes before your interview.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 19, 2014 9:12:16 GMT -5
Thanks guys. If I blow it I can at least find comfort knowing you guys are there to step in.
I'm probably worrying too much. But two things keep irritating my comfort.
First, when I was first hired my mentor was a senior that had been on the reg a good long time. He had a decent score and was well liked at the office. It took him several years to get an offer and he told me he felt it was because he had never done any of the details. Further supporting his argument, he was finally offered after he buckled and did a 90 day detail at one of the bigwig sites. I have never done any of the details either. With my family situation including a special child, running off to baltimore or FC 3 months is pretty much out of the question.
The second thing is the recent changes to the senior attorney program. Prior to them changing the rules, seniors in my office essentially did nothing but review and write otrs. Thanks to alj transfers and retirements, we were overstaffed with writers so seniors weren't really needed in that capacity except for the most difficult cases. Thus, my otr dispositions and reviews were routinely higher than the national average. Sometimes lapping the nat avg.
When they changed the rules, my management rolled with it by essentially having us keep up the same level of reviews. Only now when we find a case we think should be paid, we refer it to a judge as opposed to writing it ourselves. Many offices responded to the changes by essentially having seniors do nothing but write. As a result, my reviewing numbers are significantly above the average while my cases written is below.
I just don't see how, in regard to seniors especially, how they could compare apples to apples given the vast differences in assigned tasks from office to office. I don't want to be dinged for writing less than the average senior without getting credit for all the other responsibilities I am assigned. Yet, many of those responsibilities don't get measured on the agency metrics.
Oh well, not a lot that can be done now I suppose. We are where we are at this point.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Mar 19, 2014 9:44:03 GMT -5
Thanks guys. If I blow it I can at least find comfort knowing you guys are there to step in. I'm probably worrying too much. But two things keep irritating my comfort. First, when I was first hired my mentor was a senior that had been on the reg a good long time. He had a decent score and was well liked at the office. It took him several years to get an offer and he told me he felt it was because he had never done any of the details. Further supporting his argument, he was finally offered after he buckled and did a 90 day detail at one of the bigwig sites. I have never done any of the details either. With my family situation including a special child, running off to baltimore or FC 3 months is pretty much out of the question. The second thing is the recent changes to the senior attorney program. Prior to them changing the rules, seniors in my office essentially did nothing but review and write otrs. Thanks to alj transfers and retirements, we were overstaffed with writers so seniors weren't really needed in that capacity except for the most difficult cases. Thus, my otr dispositions and reviews were routinely higher than the national average. Sometimes lapping the nat avg. When they changed the rules, my management rolled with it by essentially having us keep up the same level of reviews. Only now when we find a case we think should be paid, we refer it to a judge as opposed to writing it ourselves. Many offices responded to the changes by essentially having seniors do nothing but write. As a result, my reviewing numbers are significantly above the average while my cases written is below. I just don't see how, in regard to seniors especially, how they could compare apples to apples given the vast differences in assigned tasks from office to office. I don't want to be dinged for writing less than the average senior without getting credit for all the other responsibilities I am assigned. Yet, many of those responsibilities don't get measured on the agency metrics. Oh well, not a lot that can be done now I suppose. We are where we are at this point. Funky, I have wondered about these issues as well. So many offices use their SAs differently, there is no way to compare raw numbers. I sure hope that is taken into consideration! Even the appeal agreement rates are frustrating. Getting dinged for new and material evidence or things that are in no way the writer's issue...these things and many more make those numbers less than accurate. Not to mention, some offices still have writers who write for particular ALJs and if you have an ALJ who has a high remand rate for issues beyond your control, you get to go down with the ship. Indeed, I hope the powers that be take these issues into account and do not look at raw numbers alone.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Mar 19, 2014 9:52:18 GMT -5
Funky. In the past the percentages were not as in favor of an insider who wasn't able to rub elbows in FC. Insiders simply made up a larger percentage of the pool. With the current process being so heavy on the outsiders you should be fine.
I do have a question about our demographic surveys that you and some other insiders may be able to answer. Do you think that most if not all insiders know about this board? What percentage of insiders do you think are lurkers? The reason I ask is that I think the percentage of insiders may actually be skewed upwards because of higher participation rates by insiders. If so that is even better for the insiders who have a decent relationship with management.
|
|
|
Post by hopenfaith on Mar 19, 2014 10:05:49 GMT -5
I have heard tell of at least one decision writer picked up as an ALJ just before being put on a performance plan for poor work. Of course, this is one of those someone told someone who told someone who told someone who told me, so I don't have direct knowledge. I don't think they look at insider stats, but current supervisor references could make or break you.
|
|
|
Post by hopenfaith on Mar 19, 2014 10:08:43 GMT -5
As for insiders knowing about the board, I think most do; however, I met a couple who didn't. Sadly, most of the insiders I know didn't make it due to a lack of litigation experience/knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by papresqr on Mar 19, 2014 10:26:05 GMT -5
This is what killed me on the SI. I just didn't have the experiences they were asking for. Not sure how I'm going to change that on the next try, but I'm going to try nevertheless.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 19, 2014 10:33:24 GMT -5
I agree with hope. Of the dozen or so insiders I knew (from outside the board) that applied, all of them knew and monitored the board. Most lurked though out of some fear that posting here would be detrimental. All but me and one other were cut though. Most at phase 1, a couple at 2.
The litigation experience requirement undoubtedly massacred many an insiders chances. The ones that squeezed thru are most likely on the board. Some remain lurkers, but given the huge uptick in newbies since nors came out and vast interest in the polls that can only be seen by members, I bet insider lurkers on the register are a minor percentage at this point.
|
|
|
Post by dudeabides on Mar 19, 2014 10:58:30 GMT -5
"My advice to you [Funky] is to start drinking heavily."
Bluto
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Mar 19, 2014 11:12:42 GMT -5
"What's important is what gets you hired." Ha! Said it first. Edit: Funky, I like your chances. If you are thinking that in-depth, and with the thoughtfulness of your other posts, then unless you show up drunk at the interview you will impress. Not trying to kiss your tail. In fact, I hope you do blow it, because more for me. But I think you are sitting pretty where you are. The real concern is if funky's alter-ego (Radoy Knuf) shows up in his place for the interview and is drunk. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Mar 19, 2014 11:29:17 GMT -5
In reality funkyodar and sratty and other SAs, I think stats will play a lesser role in the decision-making for hiring of "insiders" than your reputation in the office. If you are well-liked by the ALJs, HOD, and HOCALJ and have a good reputation as a team player and good person, you are very likely to be hired given a good SSA interview. I think the same applies for people, like me, who are "outsiders", but practice frequently in front of SSA. My reputation has been sterling for 30 years of practice in representing SSA claimants at OHA and now ODAR. I am well-liked by peers, ALJs, HODs and others and the only downfall would possibly be the SSA interview. If I can do well there, I hope, like all of you, to be hired. However, I don't count on anything and I will continue to try to do my best and yet not be disappointed if I am not hired.
|
|
|
Post by futuressaalj on Mar 19, 2014 11:31:48 GMT -5
Funky i am a former insider and was shocked to see that they want the name of the HOCALJ and RCALJ from when i worked for the agency eitght years ago.
I do not even know who the RCALJ was.
I believe the HOCALJ can make you or break you when they ask him or her to weigh in. I beleive you are in good with your HOCALJ so we will see another bearded robe walking around shortly
|
|
|
Post by FlaTreeFarm on Mar 19, 2014 11:33:51 GMT -5
As an outsider, I can candidly say that if I were hiring for this position, I would want insiders! As long as they have no significant negatives, I would work to get them hired because they know the business already. Seems logical to me (nothing to do with the LBMT) and somebody like Funky would be at the top of my list, regardless of score. I'm just glad there is still hope for the rest of us as well.
|
|
|
Post by futuressaalj on Mar 19, 2014 11:33:52 GMT -5
This is what killed me on the SI. I just didn't have the experiences they were asking for. Not sure how I'm going to change that on the next try, but I'm going to try nevertheless. Sent from my SCH-I535 using proboards You can qualify to take test by being a writer for seven years but if being a writer or senior atty is only exp you cannot make it thrpugh Si without outside experience or creating fiction aka lying. My advice. Go to another agency and get courtroom experience
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 19, 2014 12:31:51 GMT -5
This is what killed me on the SI. I just didn't have the experiences they were asking for. Not sure how I'm going to change that on the next try, but I'm going to try nevertheless. Sent from my SCH-I535 using proboards You can qualify to take test by being a writer for seven years but if being a writer or senior atty is only exp you cannot make it thrpugh Si without outside experience or creating fiction aka lying. My advice. Go to another agency and get courtroom experience From the insiders I know who were cut, most hope the rumors about odar wanting insiders and being upset that this new process was harsh on insiders are true and will result in a pushback by ssa against opm. They point to the past, when ssa sucessfully lobbied to get the AA position counted as qualifying administrative experience and the resulting increase in insider hiring as evidence. The argument being that ssa will make a similar push now that opms has maneuvered around that old concession with the new test's emphasis on litigation experience. Perhaps that's so. But I would think any such change would be a ways off. From our speculative numbers, I'd think this register will be plenty for three (and maybe a small one or two) certs. So that is 3 years. Then, if they do a refresh and not a whole new register, they can't very well change the testing procedure then mix the new in with the old like there is no difference. I dunno. I do think its sad that so many great insiders won't get the chance because they have devoted their careers to odar. And it appears more are on the way. I was told that the are gearing to hire a bunch of new writers but so far have only given notices to law schools career services offices. That means more fresh minted and less experienced applicants. I'm positive my litigation experience helps me none in my current gig. Court room procedure and the like may help some in an alj job. seems to me though, the biggest aid that experience gives is knowing how to manage a ton of cases on deadline. When I think of the time management skills needed for alj, I definitely think back to my days in private practice. I remember defending a dui in city court one morning then driving 200 miles to argue before a circuit court of appeals that afternoon. Certainly don't get that type of experience as a writer at odar. I wouldn't counsel anyone to leave their AA job at odar. But, if you want a shot at alj anytime in the near future, you will need to up your courtroom time if all you have ever done is write odar cases. Luckily there are plenty of legal aid offices, public defenders and charitable organizations that could use your spare time. Just remember to get that outside activity form approved first.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Mar 19, 2014 13:36:36 GMT -5
funky, regarding your initial questions, too many to answer quickly. and honestly, I don't know. the people at the top of the ODAR chain are fairly new and I don't think were in charge at the time of the last big ALJ hirings. by the time they had known input into the process, i think it was only for small hirings, i.e. less than 50 per hiring and I doubt there were that many people even left on the cert. So who did or did not get hired recently would not be good evidence to what the current big ODAR wigs are looking at for the next hiring. I would assume they are 1) looking for people who can pump out 600 to 700 ALJ dispos a year, so anything to support your ability to do that would be helpful. my guess is that will be the biggest factor so whoever convinces the hiring crew they can hit those numbers is most likely to get an ALJ spot somewhere regardless of whether they are an insider or outsider. They would also want team players who have at least good quality. You can spin your reviewing cases into how that would help you be an ALJ, esp if those numbers are high. historically, having been in management looked like it helped a lot and yes, details seemed to help too.
|
|
|
Post by papresqr on Mar 19, 2014 15:19:01 GMT -5
I do have non-ODAR experience, but as a staff attorney for the state court system, so still not litigation. It's clearly not the same thing and I understand that, but I have been in court hearings many times, have listened to many ODAR hearings, and have worked closely with judges in both settings. I'm pretty confident I could do the job. I would never consider applying for/running for judge in a trial court without having any litigation experience. However, there is little litigation skill required to conduct ODAR hearings. Not knocking any ALJs, and not saying there's no skill involved - just not necessarily litigation skill, although I'm sure it helps. And yes, I know the register is not technically only for SSA ALJs, but realistically it is.
Despite my lack of litigation experience and the resulting 1 point on the EA, I passed to the next round. Perhaps my writing sample was highly rated, despite my later failure of the WD. More likely, I'm left with the assumption that I did well on the SJT even though it is based on scenarios that one would expect a person without litigation experience to have difficulty with.
Seems to me they could get the same results with hypotheticals, rather than specifics. You can certainly know exactly what to do, even if you've never actually done it. Or if they are going to require litigation experience, make that the requirement up front. Something just doesn't sit right with a testing process that qualifies you to go all the way through to the final round without litigation experience, only to make it impossible for you to pass that final hurdle without that experience unless you lie.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 19, 2014 16:56:57 GMT -5
In reality funkyodar and sratty and other SAs, I think stats will play a lesser role in the decision-making for hiring of "insiders" than your reputation in the office. If you are well-liked by the ALJs, HOD, and HOCALJ and have a good reputation as a team player and good person, you are very likely to be hired given a good SSA interview. I think the same applies for people, like me, who are "outsiders", but practice frequently in front of SSA. My reputation has been sterling for 30 years of practice in representing SSA claimants at OHA and now ODAR. I am well-liked by peers, ALJs, HODs and others and the only downfall would possibly be the SSA interview. If I can do well there, I hope, like all of you, to be hired. However, I don't count on anything and I will continue to try to do my best and yet not be disappointed if I am not hired. OK, I am not ODAR. But I have friends who are and one in particular who is an SA with great numbers who is well liked by everyone, except the RCALJ (he/she is 90% sure). I think about him/her alot and all that he/she has been through in the anguish of ALL the Judges saying "why aren't you a Judge"? In a way its worse than sexual harassment or a race complaint. At lease then you can go to Court. My take on all this is that most times it boils down to the right people liking you and the wrong person not liking you. In that way its so much like the private sector. Good luck everyone. Because everyone needs it.
|
|