|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 14, 2014 9:41:36 GMT -5
Thanks agilitymom
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Apr 14, 2014 10:04:07 GMT -5
And, it's different from the SSA/ODAR one, then.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 14, 2014 10:13:07 GMT -5
And, it's different from the SSA/ODAR one, then. At least from the latest version from ODAR we are aware of from the last cert in 2013.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Apr 14, 2014 10:26:57 GMT -5
And, it's different from the SSA/ODAR one, then. At least from the latest version from ODAR we are aware of from the last cert in 2013. True, that 2013 one was in effect for several certs before that, too. Yes, things can change, but not everything has to.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 14, 2014 12:27:44 GMT -5
Ok, no one else did, so I will give it a shot. Here comes a line of complete rank speculation, assumptions and shady math. Every single word and number below is purely a guess.
1. our best guess has continued to be the reg is 900 strong.
2. also, the best estimate is board participation represents no more than 33% of those on the register.
3. Even though I fully trust the source that said the cert request is for 5 names for each of 90 slots, I don't imagine that will be a net of 450 names. That just seems too large a group for interviews. I am guessing the 5 per won't be unique names, but will include many folks that make the cert for multiple cities. Thus, I'm guessing the request for 5 per will still only net around the historical norm of 3 unique namers per slot plus some extras. Long story short, I'm assuming the cert will still be about 300 people, the number most have expected based on historical norms.
4. So, from a pure math standpoint, one would essentially need to be in the top 3rd of the reg to make the cert. That appears, from propmasters polling, to mean a nor of around 75 or above.
5. But gals are extremely important. if one looks at the cities that are expected to possibly, maybe, be on the cert (those on our crowdsourced cert city WAG being discussed in the popular cities thread) and then correlates that with propmaster and sandiferhands polling, it appears only around 40% of the reg has gals that include more than just one or two of those cities.
6. So, to get to the 300 number for those cities, it appears they will need to go down deep into the big curve at 73, maybe all the way down to 72.
7. There will be those below 72 in certain cities, but I think, based purely on the above speculation, that a 73 or above with a gal that includes more than half of the cities on the crowdsourced wag will pretty much mean you make the cert.
8. or not.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 14, 2014 13:03:51 GMT -5
Ok, no one else did, so I will give it a shot. Here comes a line of complete rank speculation, assumptions and shady math. Every single word and number below is purely a guess. 1. our best guess has continued to be the reg is 900 strong. 2. also, the best estimate is board participation represents no more than 33% of those on the register. 3. Even though I fully trust the source that said the cert request is for 5 names for each of 90 slots, I don't imagine that will be a net of 450 names. That just seems too large a group for interviews. I am guessing the 5 per won't be unique names, but will include many folks that make the cert for multiple cities. Thus, I'm guessing the request for 5 per will still only net around the historical norm of 3 unique namers per slot plus some extras. Long story short, I'm assuming the cert will still be about 300 people, the number most have expected based on historical norms. 4. So, from a pure math standpoint, one would essentially need to be in the top 3rd of the reg to make the cert. That appears, from propmasters polling, to mean a nor of around 75 or above. 5. But gals are extremely important. if one looks at the cities that are expected to possibly, maybe, be on the cert (those on our crowdsourced cert city WAG being discussed in the popular cities thread) and then correlates that with propmaster and sandiferhands polling, it appears only around 40% of the reg has gals that include more than just one or two of those cities. 6. So, to get to the 300 number for those cities, it appears they will need to go down deep into the big curve at 73, maybe all the way down to 72. 7. There will be those below 72 in certain cities, but I think, based purely on the above speculation, that a 73 or above with a gal that includes more than half of the cities on the crowdsourced wag will pretty much mean you make the cert. 8. or not. Your guess is as good as anyone else's guess funky. There is a likelihood they may actually get all the way down to 70 in the NORs. I think the key will be if there are enough people with wide enough GALs to fill all the slots. However, everyone with a wide open GAL and a score of 76 or above may be on all 45 certs. Hence, there is no telling how far down the list of scores this hire may go. It is likely that those in the lower 70s would just be filler anyways, unless SSA really dislikes a lot of those non-vets with higher scores. I do like your analysis. I quite frankly think you may need to have at least e 74 or above to make these upcoming certs. However, it is likely those people (with wide open GALs) even in the 60s may make it in the next large cert by SSA in the next fiscal year. I think there may even be more than one hire next fiscal year depending upon the amount of retirements by ALJs. I think one large and one small cert may actually occur next fiscal year depending upon the budget, etc. While, not all those with higher scores will be used up this time, unless those people are a highly recommend by SSA, it is likely SSA will reach a lot further down on its next large cert. Certainly so, with a small cert of two in the next couple of years, low 60s or upper 50s isn't out of the question. It is possible that those with limited GALs may even get lucky over the next few years depending upon transfers, too. I don't think there is likely to be a refresh of this Register anytime prior to mid-2016, if even then, due to the numbers of people available on the Register and no lack of available people to interview.
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Apr 14, 2014 13:18:25 GMT -5
And the biggest news yet.....Under the new process, odar is not just gonna allow you to opt out of a city or so, they are gonna let you rank the cities you are on the certs for in order of which you prefer most. Wow. Funk - obviously I'm not in a position to confirm or deny this specific rumor, but I will say that this is how the military did assignments for years and years. They didn't allow you to say "no" to a reassignment, of course, (Needs of the service, and all that), BUT, they let you do an order of preference list and the goal was to try to satisfy everyone's "Top 3" - now if you did something stupid, like a brand new lieutenant putting: 1. Schofield Barracks, Oahu, HI 2. Presidio of Monterey, CA 3. The Pentagon - that translates to "Korea" - but otherwise, if your speciality fit a vacancy they made some effort, at least after the first assignment, to satisfy soldiers' and officers' preferences. That may be what is happening here, should the rumor turn out to be true.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 14, 2014 13:34:24 GMT -5
The register likely has about 1200 people on it. The lower scoring people aren't nearly as likely to respond to the polling, and are significantly unrepresented.
They most likely are hiring 90 ALJs, which means there will be 270 names on the cert.
I don't know where the five names per slot is coming from, but it doesn't sound right. That's the kind of rule change that would have been publicized. I would be more willing to believe that they will let the candidates rank their top five city choices.
Usually those with the highest scores also have the fewest locations on their GAL, (much more experience, but more settled and deeper roots in their current location). This means that there will probably be much more attrition at the top than a lot of people are anticipating. There will be some high scores that are shut out from the start because they do not have any cites in their GAL that appear on the cert.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 14, 2014 13:35:56 GMT -5
Here is the bigger question. Assume there are 45 locations available for the SSA cert upcoming. Assume further that there are at least 20 to 30 people with scores of 75 or higher with wide open GALs. Does this mean all 45 SSA certs will be eaten up by those 20 to 30 people? If OPM must give the highest five scores to SSA that have each location listed, isn't it possible for the same five or ten names to be able to use up all 45 certs with the highest five scores?
|
|
|
Post by robespierre on Apr 14, 2014 13:36:49 GMT -5
If this cert is done on the basis of "5 highest scorers for each vacancy" rather than "5 highest-scoring unique names for each vacancy," I think folks are overestimating how far down the register it will go.
The "Classify Your GAL" poll shows that one-quarter of the people on this board have an unlimited GAL. Even if we assume, VERY CONSERVATIVELY, that this board is skewed towards highly-motivated applicants and the real percentage of unlimited-GAL people is 10% of the register, that means there are 90 people on the register who have any given city on their GAL; even the most unpopular ones. Now, let's assume that this unpopular city has a whopping FOUR vacancies. OPM will refer 20 names to ODAR for the vacancies if Funky's source is right. Still, there are 90 people willing to go to this city, so they only have to go 2/9ths of the way down the register to find 20. And this is under the most favorable possible circumstances (unpopular city, 4 vacancies).
2/9ths of the way down the register only gets you to a score of about 78.
Again, this is on the basis of "5 highest scorers for each vacancy." I recognize that it's a whole different ballgame if we're in a "5 highest-scoring unique names for each vacancy" situation. That would mean 450 on the cert by simple arithmetic. (And while I wouldn't have thought SSA could do so many inteviews in a short span, O-53 informed us in another thread that they did indeed interview 400 in a few weeks back in 2010.)
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 14, 2014 13:39:46 GMT -5
Val,
I was under the impression that they always got a few more than 3 per slot to account for the fact that some folks will be on the list(s) for multiple cities. Hire one of them for a city and then you don't have 3 for the other cities they were in consideration for otherwise.
It also plays in with the rule. As I understand it, opm has to give them enough names to ensure they at least three to consider. Agencies can ask for more or opm can give more on its own to counter the above.
Is that wrong?
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 14, 2014 13:49:34 GMT -5
The question would be how many more names for each city does OPM give SSA? Do they give SSA 6 or 7 names for each slot? Does OPM just give SSA a list of say 300 names and then tell them you must slot each one by score and location until they have either been hired or struck three times? Otherwise, OPM would be supplying the same names over and over again until SSA informed them the person was hired or three struck. I think there must be a longer list of uniquely different names and scores given to SSA to work with, but still follow the rules on hiring or three striking.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 14, 2014 13:55:50 GMT -5
I can't claim to have a grasp on how its gonna work. But, I just can't fathom a plan where the 20 or 30 (to use Mpd's hypo) high scoring wide galers are allowed to take every slot. That would force ssa to keep going back to opm for more names once they have hired or three struck that group. That just seems nonsensical to me.
Likewise, I just can't see them interviewing 450 people as would be required if its 5 unique names per city.
I'm betting that, in the reported back and forth between opm and ssa, they figured out that by asking for 5 per slot they will ensure that the multcerters get consid for every city in which they are top 3, but will still have enough names for each city if one of those is hired for another city or 3 struck (ie still have 3 names for consid for each city). Be pretty easy to do on a spreadsheet. Pull the top 3 for each city. If someone appears on more than 3 cities individual lists, add someone else so as to account. Perhaps that magic number was 5 per city.
As to the number on the reg, I don't think they even invited 1200 to DC. maybe right near that. In any event, they clearly cut 20 to 25% at that phase so I can't see the register being over 1000 and probably closer to the 900 we have been guessing.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Apr 14, 2014 14:00:14 GMT -5
The register likely has about 1200 people on it. The lower scoring people aren't nearly as likely to respond to the polling, and are significantly unrepresented. Unless there was an enormous swell of vet applicants in the third and fourth quarters of calendar year 2013, there's nowhere near 1200 people on the register. There were 11 weeks of WD/SI testing scheduled from August through early October. The testing room held a maximum of 32 people, but it was rarely full. Even assuming every possible WD/SI group had 30, that's a maximum of 1320 people (120 per week for 11 weeks) that even got to DC. Couple that with a significant cut after the DC tests that is estimated at a quarter to a third, and the register doesn't even hit 1000 at this time. Perhaps successful appeals and navigation of the testing upon successful appeals gets the register to 1200 in the future, but it's nowhere near that now.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 14, 2014 14:03:19 GMT -5
According to the "Delegated Examining Operations Handbook: A Guide for Federal Agency Examining Offices (2007) it states: Two alternative methods of certifying eligible candidates Under the amended regulation (Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 32, February 15, 2002), you have the option of using one of the two alternative methods of certifying eligibles for competitive appointments. In most circumstances, you can use these methods when filling multiple jobs at multiple grade levels and/or geographic locations. The two alternative methods are: 1. You may refer an eligible’s name out on only one certificate at a time. This method temporarily removes the eligible from further consideration, including any specialties, grade levels, and duty locations, while he or she on the certificate; or 2. You may refer an eligible’s name simultaneously on all certificates for which the eligible expresses an interest, is eligible, and is within reach. This is called "dual certification." Under this option, there is no limit to the number of certificates on which a candidate can be referred simultaneously.
Hence, SSA could use number 1 above and get 5 times 45 locations of 225 unique names for its certs. Under this rule you can only be on one cert at a time.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 14, 2014 14:09:41 GMT -5
I believe the 900 number give or take 50 is about correct for this Register as it now sits. I think quite frankly there were only about 1100 to 1150 that took the tests in DC. Many of the days there were a lot less than a full classroom for testing. Furthermore, with the cuts signified on this Board, there is likely even less than that 1100 to 1150 number left now. It is clear about 200 or so were cut in the DC phase. Hence, the 900 number is pretty close to correct and if the number cut was closer to 300 cut there may be only a little over 800 on the Register. Based upon past Registers the 800 to 900 number is about the normal number on a new Register and then the numbers swell higher with refreshes that occur for the Register.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 14, 2014 14:12:12 GMT -5
If the register has 900 and the cert is for 300, it only makes sense that the top 3 of that 900 will make it.
From our polling (the validity of which can surely be debated but does show an almost perfect bell curve at 73) anyone with a 75 or above is in that top 3rd. If you subscribe to the idea that our polling is tainted because lower scorers don't post (but again see the bell curve and the fact that there were minimum cuts at the DC phase this time unlike in the past and that likely means less of the lower scores on the reg thanwere there Iin the past) then that pushes the top 3rd making score even further down. Also pushes it down if you believe our polling is flawed because the average board score is higher than the average nonboard members score.
Then, that number is definitely pushed lower by the fact that only less than half of the poll respondents have gals wide enough to include the cities where the vacancies likely will be.
All of that would seem to indicate someone with a wide gal and a score anywhere above the midpoint in our polling has an excellent shot at making the cert.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 14, 2014 14:15:36 GMT -5
According to the "Delegated Examining Operations Handbook: A Guide for Federal Agency Examining Offices (2007) it states: Two alternative methods of certifying eligible candidates Under the amended regulation (Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 32, February 15, 2002), you have the option of using one of the two alternative methods of certifying eligibles for competitive appointments. In most circumstances, you can use these methods when filling multiple jobs at multiple grade levels and/or geographic locations. The two alternative methods are: 1. You may refer an eligible’s name out on only one certificate at a time. This method temporarily removes the eligible from further consideration, including any specialties, grade levels, and duty locations, while he or she on the certificate; or 2. You may refer an eligible’s name simultaneously on all certificates for which the eligible expresses an interest, is eligible, and is within reach. This is called "dual certification." Under this option, there is no limit to the number of certificates on which a candidate can be referred simultaneously. Hence, SSA could use number 1 above and get 5 times 45 locations of 225 unique names for its certs. Under this rule you can only be on one cert at a time. Great find mpd. I can't see them using #1 tho. If so, there would be no reason to allow candidates to rank their preferences as they would only be in consideration for one slot. Maybe that info is wrong, but I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 14, 2014 14:20:35 GMT -5
According to the "Delegated Examining Operations Handbook: A Guide for Federal Agency Examining Offices (2007) it states: Two alternative methods of certifying eligible candidates Under the amended regulation (Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 32, February 15, 2002), you have the option of using one of the two alternative methods of certifying eligibles for competitive appointments. In most circumstances, you can use these methods when filling multiple jobs at multiple grade levels and/or geographic locations. The two alternative methods are: 1. You may refer an eligible’s name out on only one certificate at a time. This method temporarily removes the eligible from further consideration, including any specialties, grade levels, and duty locations, while he or she on the certificate; or 2. You may refer an eligible’s name simultaneously on all certificates for which the eligible expresses an interest, is eligible, and is within reach. This is called "dual certification." Under this option, there is no limit to the number of certificates on which a candidate can be referred simultaneously. Hence, SSA could use number 1 above and get 5 times 45 locations of 225 unique names for its certs. Under this rule you can only be on one cert at a time. Great find mpd. I can't see them using #1 tho. If so, there would be no reason to allow candidates to rank their preferences as they would only be in consideration for one slot. Maybe that info is wrong, but I don't think so. Funky you could be right that they use number 2 above and ask for the preferences of those on the cert. The problem with using number 2 is unless OPM is asking the preferences as to locations then OPM is only giving the highest five scores for each location (which could be the same names over and over). Under this scenario, I think SSA would have to ask for 8 to 10 names for each location to get around only receiving the highest scorers over and over again. This would allow SSA after the interviews to three strike all those it doesn't like and still have names to fill out the slots.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 14, 2014 14:26:29 GMT -5
perhaps you are right mpd. But I suspect they worked with opm to figure how to do it so they can account for the HS/WG folks and still have plenty of names to consider. Maybe that magic number was 5 per because there's less of them than we assume. Maybe they figured anytime someone was on 3 certs they could stop counting them against the slot total assuming that person would either get hired for one of the three or three struck.
I dunno. will be very interesting to see.
|
|