|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 14, 2014 14:31:10 GMT -5
I recognize the fallacy of looking at the math big picture....but it does give a broad outlook.
900 people on the reg. But, you aren't competing with all 900, just the ones that have the same gal as you.
From our polling, roughly 50% seem to have gals broad enough to include more than one or two of the 45 cities we think have vacancies.
So, someone with those cities on their gal is really only competing with half the register, 450, for cert slots.
If 300 of those 450 make the cert....that's pretty good odds.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 14, 2014 14:33:13 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. I never thought about it that way brother funky. If you are on three certs and not hired, then you would be three stuck and removed from future consideration. So, the key may be each top scorer with a wide GAL will only show up on three certs total. Hence, they would they reach a lot further down the scoring list. Also, there is a great likelihood that for ODAR's likely hiring certs there might be only a total of 200 to 350 people with wide open GALs, along with a few who have single or a select number of locations within the certs to be hired. If this is the case, the certs go go way down the list of NORs. You are right, it will be interesting to see the outcome of how it works. Hopefully, those with multiple certs will be willing to let us know how many they are listed on in total.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Apr 14, 2014 14:38:00 GMT -5
Well, they interviewed around 400 in 2010. What's 50 more? They have ALWAYS had extra names on certs before, it's never been three names per slot. If they have high scorers with wide GALs on multiple single city certs, they will run out of people and have to ask for supplemental certs and do more interviews. I think the 5 per slot, and rank the cities you are listed for on the cert, makes sense. As for "one cert at a time", that wasn't true in 2010, for those who were on both OMHA and ODAR certs. We shall see. Pass the Dramamine. (not to be consumed while under the influence of situational bourbon. You've got to choose. )
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Apr 14, 2014 14:40:39 GMT -5
This discussion highlights how devastating it was for people to go through this process without understanding the cert and GAL ramifications. The funky town poll shows that about 1/4 of the responding candidates will have NO eligible cities on their GAL. This extrapolates to ~200 of the ~900 who are on the register. Another quarter may have only one or two viable cities listed. Huge swaths of candidates who went through all this thinking they were applying for positions in NY or LA have been relegated to the position of spectators. How grossly inefficient, what a waste of manpower, how very arguably unfair.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Apr 14, 2014 14:40:58 GMT -5
Not exactly, mpd. Three striking only occurs if you are in the top three scores for a location and passed over for another candidate all three times. It's feasible that some people on the upcoming cert are merely filler "just in case" a location gets down to their level, and they may never get considered for any openings. Conversely, there will be folks considered three times on this initial cert and three-struck. Making a cert doesn't guarantee a strike if you're not hired.
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Apr 14, 2014 14:45:37 GMT -5
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. I never thought about it that way brother funky. If you are on three certs and not hired, then you would be three stuck and removed from future consideration. With all due respect, guys, do you really think this may be what happens?? They'd be three striking higher scoring candidates and then forced to place lower scoring candidates on subsequent certs. That would be kind of like having a final four where 1 plays 2 and 3 plays 4--you guarantee that you'll lose one of the best teams. I just don't see that being the logic (or process) here. It would really make this whole testing and ranking process a joke.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Apr 14, 2014 14:47:55 GMT -5
I never thought about it that way brother funky. If you are on three certs and not hired, then you would be three stuck and removed from future consideration. With all due respect, guys, do you really think this may be what happens?? They'd be three striking higher scoring candidates and then forced to place lower scoring candidates on subsequent certs. That would be kind of like having a final four where 1 plays 2 and 3 plays 4--you guarantee that you'll lose one of the best teams. I just don't see that being the logic (or process) here. It would really make this whole testing and ranking process a joke. But, if they want you, based on your interview, your score historically hasn't mattered, in the sense that if they want to get to you, they will. For all they've invested in all this screening, once they get through the interviews (and the references), they know who they want, now or later, regardless of score. (I'm not talking veterans preference issues here.) And, just being on a cert (or three certs) and not getting hired does NOT necessarily mean you have been three struck, as someone else responded above (although with the new cert process, one could theoretically be three struck easily using three city certs.) Even getting three struck is entirely discretionary and is also not necessarily forever, as has been discussed many times here. Actually, in this new process there may be lots of people who DO get bona fide consideration for three cities and are NOT three struck, because the agency still has them on their "recommended" list, they just have others they want more (or have to hire due to vet preference) this time around.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 14, 2014 14:48:46 GMT -5
Not exactly, mpd. Three striking only occurs if you are in the top three scores for a location and passed over for another candidate all three times. It's feasible that some people on the upcoming cert are merely filler "just in case" a location gets down to their level, and they may never get considered for any openings. Conversely, there will be folks considered three times on this initial cert and three-struck. Making a cert doesn't guarantee a strike if you're not hired. You are absolutely right hopefalj. However, what better way for SSA to rid itself of those it doesn't want to hire. If you have a high score and are listed in the top three of several certs and are given consideration for those positions, I can see it being a strike, unless SSA doesn't want to lose that person from consideration for a cert in the future.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Apr 14, 2014 14:51:32 GMT -5
Hate to stop this latest round of hand-wringing, but suspect MPD is misapplying some information. SSA is not the certifying agency. That would be OPM. SSA asks for a certificate of eligibles only.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 14, 2014 14:53:42 GMT -5
Here's a hypo of how I think it could be done.
Opm gets cert requests for 90 slots. You start with the premise of 3 x 90 is 270 needed on the cert.
But candidate 1 has HS/WG and is in the top 3 for every city. He makes the cert for all 45. But you only count him as 3 of the 270 slots under the premise that he will either be hired or receive bona fide consideration for 3 and could, at agency discretion, be three struck.
So you move to candidate 2 and that person can take only up to 3 slots (but be on all or several more than 3 certs). That way, everyone is on the certs for which they are in the top3 and they get plenty of names to ensure they have at least 3 for each city irregardless of what happens with hiring and striking of the HS/WG folks.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 14, 2014 14:54:00 GMT -5
This discussion highlights how devastating it was for people to go through this process without understanding the cert and GAL ramifications. The funky town poll shows that about 1/4 of the responding candidates will have NO eligible cities on their GAL. This extrapolates to ~200 of the ~900 who are on the register. Another quarter may have only one or two viable cities listed. Huge swaths of candidates who went through all this thinking they were applying for positions in NY or LA have been relegated to the position of spectators. How grossly inefficient, what a waste of manpower, how very arguably unfair. Sandifer, I can see how you might see it as unfair, but SSA isn't going to hire someone for Nowhere, Wyoming when that person only wants to work in San Francisco or Los Angeles. Further, that person who only wants those two locations isn't going to take that Nowhere site. If you are willing to move anywhere now that you see how things shake out for ALJ positions, you have to hope you are a 10-point vet who can test at any time or that the Register has a Refresh earlier rather than later. If you are waiting for the later, OPM isn't likely to do that until 2015 or 2016 at the earliest. Sorry my fine friend, I wish you had been here at the Board prior to making your selections for GALs.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Apr 14, 2014 14:54:46 GMT -5
And you've raised a different aspect on this issue, mpd. Just because you've been considered and passed over three times doesn't mean you're automatically three struck, either. The agency has the prerogative to consider folks with 3, 4, or 12 strikes down the line. So I'd they really like a non-vet high scorer and can't get to them in the first three tries, they will keep them around for future certs or additional openings.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Apr 14, 2014 14:55:21 GMT -5
Hate to stop this latest round of hand-wringing, but suspect MPD is misapplying some information. SSA is not the certifying agency. That would be OPM. SSA asks for a certificate of eligibles only. But, they can, and have, asked OPM to leave off the cert those they have already three struck. They may or may not do that again, or they may limit it to those they have three struck because they came out of the interview with a "do not recommend".
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 14, 2014 14:59:25 GMT -5
With all due respect, guys, do you really think this may be what happens?? They'd be three striking higher scoring candidates and then forced to place lower scoring candidates on subsequent certs. That would be kind of like having a final four where 1 plays 2 and 3 plays 4--you guarantee that you'll lose one of the best teams. I just don't see that being the logic (or process) here. It would really make this whole testing and ranking process a joke. But, if they want you, based on your interview, your score historically hasn't mattered, in the sense that if they want to get to you, they will. For all they've invested in all this screening, once they get through the interviews (and the references), they know who they want, now or later, regardless of score. (I'm not talking veterans preference issues here.) And, just being on a cert (or three certs) and not getting hired does NOT necessarily mean you have been three struck, as someone else responded above.(although with the new cert process, one could theoretically be three struck easily using three city certs.) Even getting three struck is entirely discretionary is not necessarily forever, as has been discussed many times here. Actually, in this new process there may be lots of people who DO get bona fide consideration for three cities and are NOT three struck, because the agency still has them on their "recommended" list, they just have others they want more (or have to hire due to vet preference) this time around. Sandifer I think observer53 nailed it exactly. Yes, SSA will three strike to get to those it wants to hire. Just because you have a high score and a wide open GAL doesn't mean SSA will hire you. It just means you will be considered. Is that a waste of good manpower? It depends upon how you look at it. Yes, some high scoring people are discarded, but the agency is hiring those it feels will best serve its needs. It doesn't want to be forced to hire someone who doesn't play well with others and will just be a thorn in SSA's side into the future. Scoring isn't everything my friend, it is how you are viewed by the hiring agency.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Apr 14, 2014 15:08:05 GMT -5
I don't know that SSA would necessarily ask for 270 names to fill 90 slots, but Funky has the right idea. SSA has to have a large enough pool to have a "top three" for each vacancy. Will they ask for twice the number they wish to hire or three times? Only OCALJ knows for sure. But whatever that number is, everyone who makes one or more certs will be interviewed. And when the next round of hiring is done, none of those will be interviewed again. SSA can ask that names of those with 3 strikes be removed from future certificates. But many more of the pool will not be offered a job in this round of hiring, regardless of their interview. Their scores will render them unreachable because they won't be in the top three candidates for any site. These will come up on future certificates. However, once again, remember you won't be interviewed again. So don't go in with the attitude that you have a score in the low 70's, probably won't be reached and this interview won't count. It is your one and only chance to dazzle the panel and show why you should be selected.
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Apr 14, 2014 15:16:17 GMT -5
Just because you have a high score and a wide open GAL doesn't mean SSA will hire you. It just means you will be considered. Is that a waste of good manpower? ... Scoring isn't everything my friend, it is how you are viewed by the hiring agency. MPD, thanks for the sympathies, but I had to laugh at what a poor job I evidently did of communicating with you--my apologies. I did not decry the process for myself; my GAL is fine and just where it needs to be for me. I am thinking not just of high scorers, but high scorers who are qualified and would be great judges, but didn't realize that the "process" requires entry into crapland and then transfer to better cities. That was not evident to many who paid their money and went to D.C. for testing, apparently oblivious to the fact that their fate was sealed by their small GALs before they ever put pencil to paper. That, my friend, is wasteful.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 14, 2014 15:30:06 GMT -5
Just because you have a high score and a wide open GAL doesn't mean SSA will hire you. It just means you will be considered. Is that a waste of good manpower? ... Scoring isn't everything my friend, it is how you are viewed by the hiring agency. MPD, thanks for the sympathies, but I had to laugh at what a poor job I evidently did of communicating with you--my apologies. I did not decry the process for myself; my GAL is fine and just where it needs to be for me. I am thinking not just of high scorers, but high scorers who are qualified and would be great judges, but didn't realize that the "process" requires entry into crapland and then transfer to better cities. That was not evident to many who paid their money and went to D.C. for testing, apparently oblivious to the fact that their fate was sealed by their small GALs before they ever put pencil to paper. That, my friend, is wasteful. Accept my apologies for my misunderstanding your post my friend. I thought you were bemoaning the process for yourself. I agree it is a shame for those who went to D.C. and still didn't understand that ODAR usually hires mainly in "Crapland" due to transfers out of there to better locations. (By the way, I would be happy to stay in a lot of Crapland without transferring out of it.) Yes, I agree, if my GAL was one or two cities in the most coveted locations I may have not wanted to waste my money on the D.C. trip. Much like I tell my claimants applying for SSA Disability (SSDI/SSI) it's what you do and say (in playing the disability "game") that makes all the difference in winning or losing your benefits. If you don't do things right, you will never get to the "promised land".
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 14, 2014 15:33:09 GMT -5
Just because you have a high score and a wide open GAL doesn't mean SSA will hire you. It just means you will be considered. Is that a waste of good manpower? ... Scoring isn't everything my friend, it is how you are viewed by the hiring agency. MPD, thanks for the sympathies, but I had to laugh at what a poor job I evidently did of communicating with you--my apologies. I did not decry the process for myself; my GAL is fine and just where it needs to be for me. I am thinking not just of high scorers, but high scorers who are qualified and would be great judges, but didn't realize that the "process" requires entry into crapland and then transfer to better cities. That was not evident to many who paid their money and went to D.C. for testing, apparently oblivious to the fact that their fate was sealed by their small GALs before they ever put pencil to paper. That, my friend, is wasteful. Its the candidate that is being wasteful! How can you apply for a position like this and not put a lot of research into it? We're talking about legal professionals applying for a high level federal job, not a high school dropout claimant trying to negotiate the disability process!
|
|
|
Post by dpageks on Apr 14, 2014 15:50:21 GMT -5
Did anyone list the Moon on their GAL?
|
|
|
Post by steelrain on Apr 14, 2014 15:51:13 GMT -5
[/quote]Its the candidate that is being wasteful! How can you apply for a position like this and not put a lot of research into it? We're talking about legal professionals applying for a high level federal job, not a high school dropout claimant trying to negotiate the disability process![/quote]
Yikes. That is a little harsh.
If an outsider simply read the announcement on USA Jobs, one would not know that the vast majority of ALJ positions are with SSA and/or that SSA has a transfer policy unlike OHMA. Additionally reading the announcement one would not know which locations are "crapland" versus "highly sought after."
Of course you could do an internet search, find this board, and read through thousands of posts going back seven years and try create your own spreadsheet on the locations likely to receive a new hire. But given that there was a limited application period and that all of us "legal professionals" have actual jobs that require 60 plus hours a week in billable time, one might find it difficult to research and process all that information (and complete the application materials) all within such a short time frame so as to make an intelligent decisions where one might be willing to live in 2-3 years.
If one is in insider it can seem so simple and self evident, but try for a moment to envision not having a clue regarding the process until you read the job announcement. It has taken me a year of following this board to fully grasp and understand the process and how important the GAL is.
There is no reason why the GAL needs to be chosen at the time of the application. A more sensible approach would be to require the GAL once applicants have received a NOR. First, OPM would then just have the GAL of those actually on the Registry and second after a year into the process folks would be in a better position to make such an important life decision.
|
|