|
|
Post by Gaidin on Mar 28, 2014 8:50:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Mar 28, 2014 8:57:24 GMT -5
My only comment would be, once you become an ALJ will the company come and conduct your hearings and write your decisions? If you want to pay someone to help you with no guarantee you will pass and get on the Register, that is your choice. If you have money to burn with no guarantee of a position have at it. I certainly don't endorse such action. Caveat Emptor..  |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Mar 28, 2014 9:09:23 GMT -5
Of all the things I signed and certified during the process, my thought has been that they are not allowed, but you'll see people who work in these places persistently argue otherwise. I also believe that they are largely worthless now that the AR has been done away with and minimum scores are required to make the register.
|
|
|
|
Post by owl on Mar 28, 2014 12:03:46 GMT -5
This is the certification language from the application:
"I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, all of the information included in this Assessment Questionnaire is true, correct, and provided in good faith. I understand that if I make an intentional false statement, or commit deception or fraud in this application and its supporting materials, or in any document or interview associated with the examination and appointment process, I may be fined or imprisoned (18 U.S.C. 1001); my eligibilities may be cancelled, I may be denied an appointment, or I may be removed and/or debarred from the Federal service (5 CFR part 731); or I may be disciplined under applicable state law by the authorities responsible for regulating the conduct of attorneys and judges. I understand that any information I give may be investigated. I understand that I will be rated "ineligible" if I do not respond "Yes" to this certification item, or if I fail to respond at all to this certification item."
I assume similar certifications were required at the online stage and in DC (can't remember specifically) and maybe some added language (similar to the honor code I had to use on exams in college) to the effect of: "I have neither given nor received any aid on this exam."
Of course there were the nondisclosure agreements also. But obviously an applicant buying this guide wouldn't be violating any nondisclosure agreement (nothing would have been disclosed to him/her yet) nor was the guide compiled in breach of any nondisclosure agreement (obviously, the actual test questions aren't in it).
My $0.02 is that consulting a guide like the above would not conflict with any of these certifications. I think it just falls under the heading of trying to prepare yourself better for the application and exam process. Is it "not in good faith," or "deception," or "fraud," to generally study/prepare? How is this different from a bar review course?
Now, whether it would be truly helpful and worth the money is a whole 'nother question. MPD said it best: caveat emptor.
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Mar 28, 2014 12:15:18 GMT -5
Good points, owl. I should have clicked the links and read their updated services before posting. And I believe the online assessments and DC portion contained the extra statement (or some version thereof) that you mention.
In looking at one of the sites, I'd point out the following language...
"The Resume Place is expert in providing ALJ applicants with the expert help needed to respond appropriately to the online experience assessment and structured interview preparation. This part of the evaluative process is not timed, and provides candidates with the opportunity to deliberate accomplishments, and provide the most accurate and useful responses in keeping with OPM’s standards and accepted techniques for providing accomplishment narratives in the format OPM prefers."
Assuming the EA contained the same admonishment about performing the activity independently, I would think getting outside help would violate the certification.
|
|
|
|
Post by owl on Mar 28, 2014 12:58:33 GMT -5
Assuming the EA contained the same admonishment about performing the activity independently, I would think getting outside help would violate the certification. I see where you are coming from. Obviously during the proctored components (WD/LBMT/SI) purchasers of the guide would not be violating the certifications against receiving help because they couldn't have their guides with them during those parts. But theoretically somebody could have the guide open while sitting at his/her computer doing the EA (and I guess SJT and WS for that matter, although IMO it would be a disastrous waste of precious time to be flipping through a guide for undoubtedly general advice on those parts). I do agree if one certifies against receiving outside help on the EA (or any part), then you are essentially taking a closed-book exam and if you were to have a guide you couldn't look at it. I still don't think it would be unethical per se to simply read the guide ahead of time, though. I don't remember what we certified at the EA stage. Nor did I have a guide, BTW. But I do think there is such a thing as "OPMese" when it comes to writing a resume and describing one's KSAs and fitting competency buzzwords into your answers, and such. And I definitely would advise future applicants to do everything allowable  to get better at that. |
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Mar 28, 2014 13:08:37 GMT -5
I wonder how many people used outside help, and how many of those felt it was worthwhile (especially on the 2013 application). Sounds like a poll. Gaidin? |
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Mar 28, 2014 13:15:51 GMT -5
What's the difference between consulting with these services and reading agency decisions or working SAT logic problems? It's all part of study and preparation. Frankly, it's what we are trained to do as lawyers: use all available resources to prepare ourselves to argue a case. Is it cheating or unethical to take a Bar review course? But I agree with moopigsdad, caveat emptor.
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Mar 28, 2014 13:41:42 GMT -5
What's the difference between consulting with these services and reading agency decisions or working SAT logic problems? It's all part of study and preparation. Frankly, it's what we are trained to do as lawyers: use all available resources to prepare ourselves to argue a case. Is it cheating or unethical to take a Bar review course? But I agree with moopigsdad, caveat emptor. I don't have a problem with people using study guides or doing self-study. I guess I'll have a problem down the line if these study guides accurately reflect the tests in their preparation because the certification states that not only can you not receive help in the testing, but you may not provide any information to anyone else about what the tests entail. There's a reason we had to sign so many non-disclosure agreements. They don't want to have a barbri-like review course for the ALJ application. I do have a problem with having a company like this essentially draft your EA or, in the past, the AR. I'm not sure it was expressly disallowed in the previous application, but I do believe it is now. This is not using all available resources to prepare yourself to argue a case. This is paying someone else to draft the brief and argue the case for you. I do know these consultants have posted here in the past, and I also know that at least one client of theirs was dinged at the initial level. I would not have appreciated paying a bunch of money for that result, although I fully acknowledge that it very well may not have been the consultant's fault given the variance in the results at the first stage. |
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Mar 28, 2014 13:58:33 GMT -5
What's the difference between consulting with these services and reading agency decisions or working SAT logic problems? It's all part of study and preparation. Frankly, it's what we are trained to do as lawyers: use all available resources to prepare ourselves to argue a case. Is it cheating or unethical to take a Bar review course? But I agree with moopigsdad, caveat emptor. I don't have a problem with people using study guides or doing self-study. I guess I'll have a problem down the line if these study guides accurately reflect the tests in their preparation because the certification states that not only can you not receive help in the testing, but you may not provide any information to anyone else about what the tests entail. There's a reason we had to sign so many non-disclosure agreements. They don't want to have a barbri-like review course for the ALJ application. I do have a problem with having a company like this essentially draft your EA or, in the past, the AR. I'm not sure it was expressly disallowed in the previous application, but I do believe it is now. This is not using all available resources to prepare yourself to argue a case. This is paying someone else to draft the brief and argue the case for you. I do know these consultants have posted here in the past, and I also know that at least one client of theirs was dinged at the initial level. I would not have appreciated paying a bunch of money for that result, although I fully acknowledge that it very well may not have been the consultant's fault given the variance in the results at the first stage. The bolded items are my concerns. Particularly given that Barbri and other test prep courses frequently attempt to copy bar exam questions. I don't have a problem with anybody studying for the exam using test prep materials. My concern is the source of the materials and the nature of the assistance on the EA and other unobserved portions. |
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 28, 2014 14:05:10 GMT -5
What's the difference between consulting with these services and reading agency decisions or working SAT logic problems? It's all part of study and preparation. Frankly, it's what we are trained to do as lawyers: use all available resources to prepare ourselves to argue a case. Is it cheating or unethical to take a Bar review course? But I agree with moopigsdad, caveat emptor. What you are going through is not a bar exam. A bar exam tests your knowledge of the law and yes, your ability to write legal analysis. While the last skill set is also being tested by OPM, the Judge who is grading your WD is looking for a Judge, not a lawyer. There is a difference having sat in those two chairs. It can be both subtle and not so subtle. Secondly, there is impliedly, if not actually, as hopefalj and others have posted, the issue of ethics. Every aspect of your application is your work product and yours alone; for as moopigsdad has stated, the Judgeship is hardly a collaberative endeavor as judges only huddle at the appellate court. Your ethics have to have no appearance of impropriety. What a dark secret that must be for the rest of your life--I couldn't live with it. I don't like to be lecturing here and forgive me, but some truths, IMHO, are self evident. This is not a gray area for me. Thirdly, (and how about some practicum here) what if a disgruntled customer sued one of these companies? There is discovery and your name as a customer and now a Judge is on a lawyer's desk and you get this call...from whom? OPM? The Bar? Your Agency's OGC? What we have here is a failure of the imagination....I can see the headlines now. Fourthly, I trust in God and me and my family. I'm not putting my future in someone else's hands. |
|
|
|
Post by chinook on Mar 28, 2014 14:36:06 GMT -5
I don't necessarily have a problem with somebody using a "study guide." The problem I have is how did the company get their information. If I remember correctly one test taker was found with a camera and another (or maybe the same one) left when presented with the non-disclosure form. I think somebody who wants to be a judge and needs help preparing for the exam or even help preparing the resume, does not deserve to be a judge.
Remember this is not just a promotion from Senior Attorney Advisor to judge, this is a big deal that qualifies you to be one of approximately 1700 federal ALJs in the country, qualified to preside over a wide variety of issues, not just SSA questions. Last time the AR had its own declaration that this was your own work. My feeling was then and now is that you don't even get somebody to proof it. It is all part of your application, if you didn't do it by yourself you should withdraw from consideration.
|
|
|
|
Post by pubdef on Mar 28, 2014 15:29:43 GMT -5
I think somebody who wants to be a judge and needs help preparing for the exam or even help preparing the resume, does not deserve to be a judge. I wonder if I am thinking of the same thing that others are talking about. I prepared for the logic test by studying LSAT study guides. I think doing so was helpful. In regards to the resume, even with 7+ years of experience, I would guess that a substantial amount of the applicants submitted resumes that were originally made with the close assistance of their law school's career services office. My law school required us to meet with career services before we went through the on-campus interview process. My resume still has some of the shell from that and certainly incorporates tips they gave. I wouldn't be surprised if a few parts have language they added. Would it have been wrong, before applying to such an important job, to have someone look over that resume and give tips? I didn't because I don't live in the same city anymore, but I certainly don't see an issue with that. Furthermore, I don't think the quality of a resume correlates to ability to be a good Judge. I have practiced before some fantastic judges who have terribly written and designed resumes posted on their court's website. They could use some help in preparing a better resume. I don't think the services listed at the top of this thread are going to be helpful, so I don't think they give a leg up in the competitive process. Without more information, I don't think I see a big issue here. |
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 28, 2014 19:34:36 GMT -5
I think somebody who wants to be a judge and needs help preparing for the exam or even help preparing the resume, does not deserve to be a judge. I wonder if I am thinking of the same thing that others are talking about. I prepared for the logic test by studying LSAT study guides. I think doing so was helpful. In regards to the resume, even with 7+ years of experience, I would guess that a substantial amount of the applicants submitted resumes that were originally made with the close assistance of their law school's career services office. My law school required us to meet with career services before we went through the on-campus interview process. My resume still has some of the shell from that and certainly incorporates tips they gave. I wouldn't be surprised if a few parts have language they added. Would it have been wrong, before applying to such an important job, to have someone look over that resume and give tips? I didn't because I don't live in the same city anymore, but I certainly don't see an issue with that. Furthermore, I don't think the quality of a resume correlates to ability to be a good Judge. I have practiced before some fantastic judges who have terribly written and designed resumes posted on their court's website. They could use some help in preparing a better resume. I don't think the services listed at the top of this thread are going to be helpful, so I don't think they give a leg up in the competitive process. Without more information, I don't think I see a big issue here. No, we are not talking about "the same thing." You are talking about a resume for a job. I am talking about how you are evaluated as a potential ALJ--and perhaps just as importantly, how you see yourself. This thread was never really about just a resume, was it? |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Mar 28, 2014 19:51:56 GMT -5
I wonder if I am thinking of the same thing that others are talking about. I prepared for the logic test by studying LSAT study guides. I think doing so was helpful. In regards to the resume, even with 7+ years of experience, I would guess that a substantial amount of the applicants submitted resumes that were originally made with the close assistance of their law school's career services office. My law school required us to meet with career services before we went through the on-campus interview process. My resume still has some of the shell from that and certainly incorporates tips they gave. I wouldn't be surprised if a few parts have language they added. Would it have been wrong, before applying to such an important job, to have someone look over that resume and give tips? I didn't because I don't live in the same city anymore, but I certainly don't see an issue with that. Furthermore, I don't think the quality of a resume correlates to ability to be a good Judge. I have practiced before some fantastic judges who have terribly written and designed resumes posted on their court's website. They could use some help in preparing a better resume. I don't think the services listed at the top of this thread are going to be helpful, so I don't think they give a leg up in the competitive process. Without more information, I don't think I see a big issue here. No, we are not talking about "the same thing." You are talking about a resume for a job. I am talking about how you are evaluated as a potential ALJ--and perhaps just as importantly, how you see yourself. This thread was never really about just a resume, was it? I am of the mind that if something even remotely gives one pause.... Back off. Don't do it. The remote appearance of impropriety should rule. If the question was brought because there was an inkling of any thought of impropriety then that is the answer. Some things are not worth pursuing just because of the "potential" consequences. Clearly the intent is not impropriety but that isn't the issue. Always take the high road and there isn't any worry. |
|
to get better at that.
