|
|
Post by dpageks on Apr 14, 2014 15:53:16 GMT -5
Would the Moon be considered "Crapland"?
|
|
|
|
Post by gary on Apr 14, 2014 15:59:00 GMT -5
Would the Moon be considered "Crapland"? I'd always heard it was made of green cheese, which would mean it's like Wisconsin only more Irish. |
|
|
|
Post by crab on Apr 14, 2014 16:11:35 GMT -5
Would the Moon be considered "Crapland"? I'd always heard it was made of green cheese, which would mean it's like Wisconsin only more Irish. I think the Moon probably rates higher than most since it's got good proximity to home relatively speaking. Mars, though, I left off my GAL - I hear it ain't the place to raise your kids and in fact is cold as Wisconsin ... |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Apr 14, 2014 16:27:25 GMT -5
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. [/quote] The announcement says two things very clearly. First, "please carefully select the geographical locations where you would be willing to accept an appointment as an ALJ by an agency of the Federal Government." Second, "Once this ALJ Job Opportunity Announvement closes, you will not be able to change your selected geographical locations." If the argument is that circumstances change and you're now more flexible, then that's an unfortunate and somewhat infrequent consequence of listing the GAL up front. If it's that you didn't realize your odds were better in Florence, Alabama than in San Diego, then I don't feel too bad. You'll be able to remedy the situation in a couple of years without having to retake all the tests. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2014 16:32:39 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. "Delegated Examining Operations Handbook: A Guide for Federal Agency Examining Offices (2007)"
What does delegated examining cover?
Under 5 U.S.C. § 1104, OPM delegated to agencies the authority to conduct competitive examinations for positions in the competitive service, except for administrative law judge positions.
Unless OPM is looking for litigation in their future, I'm betting they will follow the original job posting and give ODAR the highest 3 NORs for each separate location plus extras names to ensure at least 3 candidates per vacancy are considered and let ODAR do whatever it wishes with the list. Requiring one SF 39 per vacancy protects OPM and ODAR will do whatever it wishes to do from everything that I have read on this board.
|
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 14, 2014 16:40:05 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. "Delegated Examining Operations Handbook: A Guide for Federal Agency Examining Offices (2007)"
What does delegated examining cover?
Under 5 U.S.C. § 1104, OPM delegated to agencies the authority to conduct competitive examinations for positions in the competitive service, except for administrative law judge positions.
Unless OPM is looking for litigation in their future, I'm betting they will follow the original job posting and give ODAR the highest 3 NORs for each separate location plus extras names to ensure at least 3 candidates per vacancy are considered and let ODAR do whatever it wishes with the list. Requiring one SF 39 per vacancy protects OPM and ODAR will do whatever it wishes to do from everything that I have read on this board.
Based upon the OMHA certs my friend, you have nothing to worry about as all the top scores were on all the certs within their GAL. However, remember that is a two-edged sword in that it means you could be three struck quicker if SSA doesn't like your interview. Watch what you wish for! |
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 14, 2014 16:55:06 GMT -5
Mark Twain once said that to succeed in life you need two things. Ignorance and Confidence.
Some on here will undoubtedly prove that theory.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2014 17:03:44 GMT -5
"Delegated Examining Operations Handbook: A Guide for Federal Agency Examining Offices (2007)"
What does delegated examining cover?
Under 5 U.S.C. § 1104, OPM delegated to agencies the authority to conduct competitive examinations for positions in the competitive service, except for administrative law judge positions.
Unless OPM is looking for litigation in their future, I'm betting they will follow the original job posting and give ODAR the highest 3 NORs for each separate location plus extras names to ensure at least 3 candidates per vacancy are considered and let ODAR do whatever it wishes with the list. Requiring one SF 39 per vacancy protects OPM and ODAR will do whatever it wishes to do from everything that I have read on this board.
Based upon the OMHA certs my friend, you have nothing to worry about as all the top scores were on all the certs within their GAL. However, remember that is a two-edged sword in that it means you could be three struck quicker if SSA doesn't like your interview. Watch what you wish for! Oh to hear most of the insiders talk on this board, I will be lucky to make it out of the interview alive as an outsider and veteran! But as I have said before, there seems to be a ton of vets as ALJs and I tend to interview a heck of a lot better than I perform on tests. In person, most folks like me, but I do have a problem communicating via the internet...or so I have been informed.  |
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 14, 2014 17:05:14 GMT -5
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. [/quote] We expect an 18 year old high school student to put in serious pre-college research that involves geographic location, area of study, financial aid, living arrangements, etc. But somebody who has a minimum of 7 years of legal practice needs some hand-holding in a job application process? Are the children of helicopter parents really that old? |
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 14, 2014 17:12:17 GMT -5
Relax tiger. I think you communicate quite well on the internet. With your score, your vet pref...you will undoubtedly be fine. Hell, I've even changed my tune on you. Since you offered to buy the beer when we meet, I'm pulling for you bud.
Free beer and undoubtedly some of the best conversation I've had in years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2014 17:14:17 GMT -5
Mark Twain once said that to succeed in life you need two things. Ignorance and Confidence. Some on here will undoubtedly prove that theory. "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Mark Twain
I like my Mark Twain too.
|
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 14, 2014 17:27:05 GMT -5
Mark Twain once said that to succeed in life you need two things. Ignorance and Confidence. Some on here will undoubtedly prove that theory. "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Mark Twain
I like my Mark Twain too.
Very applicable. Here's a quote from another source I like a lot. "Egotism is the anaesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidy." Frank Leahy. Good luck tigerlaw. We can start with the beer. Then I think it would only be appropriate to move to bourbon. That round will be on me. |
|
|
|
Post by crab on Apr 14, 2014 17:53:00 GMT -5
Slow down cowboy are you implying..... Just kidding, but the insiders get real touchy when you start talking about working 60 + hours and the life of a private attorneys, they will turn on you and eat you alive...just be forewarned! I made sure to have dinner before posting  , and generally leave these baiting type posts alone, but I hope you do know, Tiger, that there are a lot of federal attorneys who very well know what a 60+ hour week looks like (and for no compensation such as credit hours, comp time). We don't turn on folks and eat them alive, we just do an eye roll and recognize that there is still a disconnect between what the public thinks of its public servants and what actually takes place. All that said, I'm glad you're back as Tiger and not that frou frou island themed dude or whatever it was.  |
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Apr 14, 2014 18:01:36 GMT -5
Mark Twain, "Cats are loose in their morals, but not consciously so. Man, in his descent from the cat, has brought the cat’s looseness with him but has left the unconsciousness behind–the saving grace which excuses the cat. The cat is innocent, man is not."
"Of all the animals, man is the only one that is cruel. He is the only one that inflicts pain for the pleasure of doing it. It is a trait that is not known to the higher animals. The cat plays with the frightened mouse; but she has this excuse, that she does not know that the mouse is suffering. The cat is moderate–unhumanly moderate: she only scares the mouse, she does not hurt it; she doesn’t dig out its eyes, or tear off its skin, or drive splinters under its nails–man-fashion; when she is done playing with it she makes a sudden meal of it and puts it out of its trouble. Man is the Cruel Animal. He alone is of that distinction."
It would appear that the human race is damned...
|
|
|
|
Post by skippy on Apr 14, 2014 22:05:19 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. Forgive me, but what is a "refresh" of the Register? |
|
|
|
Post by minny on Apr 14, 2014 22:37:33 GMT -5
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! Not all of us who have small GALs were caught off-guard, but I think it's a bit judgmental to think that every applicant should have found their way ...ummm... here to take advantage of the wisdom of those who have done this before. Is there really any other place that would have given them this nugget of GAL wisdom? |
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Apr 14, 2014 22:47:12 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. Forgive me, but what is a "refresh" of the Register? A search would get you the answer to this, but it's a reopening of applications to add to an existing register... The last refresh of the old 2007 register was in November 2009. Applications were open until midnight on the day they received the 1100th application. Those already on the register can change their GALs during the time applications are open for a refresh. They don't have to reapply to do that, but they can, at their peril, to try to improve their score. |
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 15, 2014 2:40:36 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. Forgive me, but what is a "refresh" of the Register? You could always use the search feature of this Board, like an attorney who does legal research, and determine what it is. Just kidding. A Refresh is when OPM has been informed by one or more federal agencies that there aren't enough "good" or useable names left on the Register for it to find candidates for open positions and OPM opens the Register again for a while (day, days, week, etc.) to allow new candidates to go through the testing to possibly add their names to the Register. It is not creating a new Register, but just the adding of new names to the old Register for federal agencies to have newer people to pick from for positions. |
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 15, 2014 7:48:28 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. Forgive me, but what is a "refresh" of the Register? Skippy, OB53 and MPD answered your question. Here is a little more info. People on the current register are most interested in refreshes because, in the past, opm has allowed those already on the register to amend their gals once they reopen the testing for new applicants. Other than one extraordinary time that impacted the small hire in 2013 (the last from the old register), the only time candidates on the reg could add to their gal was during a refresh. Also, it is my understanding, someone on the reg could reapply and retest during a refresh in hopes of bettering their score. I don't know anyone who has done that and I don't know what would happen if a candidate did so and then failed to make the reg or got a lower score. In any event, based on historical evidence, it will likely be 2 to 3 years before a refresh of this register is needed. Its brand new, probably 900+ strong and hiringisn't expected to be as frequent or as plentiful as in the past. Now, all of that is based on historical norms. And, as is apparent, the opm/odar world we are playing in now is different. In some ways subtly so, in others vastly. Looking at how things were done even in the 2013 hire is only illustrative at best. Kinda like reading about the Roman Republic political system and trying to discern what's going on in the US. Sure, they both have a senate, but some pretty big differences too. |
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 15, 2014 8:07:54 GMT -5
I love the analogies in your posts funky. They bring a smile to my face or an outright chuckle. Keep up the analogies buddy it's nice to smile or chuckle more often. |
|
, and generally leave these baiting type posts alone, but I hope you do know, Tiger, that there are a lot of federal attorneys who very well know what a 60+ hour week looks like (and for no compensation such as credit hours, comp time). We don't turn on folks and eat them alive, we just do an eye roll and recognize that there is still a disconnect between what the public thinks of its public servants and what actually takes place. All that said, I'm glad you're back as Tiger and not that frou frou island themed dude or whatever it was. 
