|
Post by christina on May 4, 2014 19:43:34 GMT -5
yep highlander!!!
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on May 4, 2014 23:29:53 GMT -5
Since shortly after filing my application in March of 2013, I bet not a day has gone by when I didn't, at least once, day dream a bit about landing an alj job. Every time I caught myself lingering on the thought for too long, I'd remind myself that the odds were heavily against it.
Each hurdle passed in the process, I've tempered my feeling of accomplishment with the thought that it's just one more step safely through the minefield with miles more to walk. Online testing invite, DC invite and NOR were all met with great happiness followed quickly by a conscious decision to remain grounded and pessimistic.
I really.convinced myself I wouldn't make the first cert. When I did, I was ecstatic but again reminded myself that I could just be filler and probably have at best a 1 in 3 shot of getting a job. I kept that thought...right up till I started ranking my cities today.
It's hard to keep grounded now. I know it's still a longshot. But, now its not insurmountable. It's not 179 possible landing spots. I have 38 cities that, in just a few months, I could be moving to. Wow. And I have to put real consideration into each, even if it proves I dont get the gig, because now is the only chance I will have to do so. Double wow.
I can't believe they have figured a way to make a person's preferences a determining factor in whether they get hired or not. I just cant see how the fact that I ranked East Crapland #1 would somehow bring me into contention for it over someone who ranked it #44 if I'm not in the top 3 to 5 for it and the other is. I think the preferences wont matter until they somehow choose the 90 they want. Then they will try to match the 90 to their preferred locales.
So, I see nk reason to try and game the system by selecting first cities I feel few would rank high. Instead, I'm gonna use this ranking for what I think it is, my preference of where me and my family want to be. Number one is easy, I made the list for my current locale. We love it here and would be delighted to stay. The next few will be cities where we had already discussed moving due to friends and family (not many of those on my list though). We will then list the few that our research indicates we could still have the rural, small farm lifestyle we now love and wouldnt be a huge culture shock. The last few will be the large metro areas. I know we wouldnt want to live permanently in such a place. So, I will rank them in order of ease of traveling home on the weekends. If I land in one of those, I will be going in thinking transfer asap.
So thats my own personal plan. No gamesmanship. Purely a family happiness ranking.
Good luck everyone. After I finish the ranking I will go back to my more comfortable pessimism.
|
|
jmgjr
Full Member
Posts: 57
|
Post by jmgjr on May 5, 2014 2:24:42 GMT -5
Funky, I echo much of what you wrote, although I did expect to be on the first cert, based on GAL. Like you there are 38 cities on my list I must rank. Some I had never heard of. Tapping friends from region 5 for intell as 17 on my list are region 5. First few choices pretty easy same with last choices, then a whole lot in between. Spilled the beans to my boss, a bit of Federal Paperwork to do this week......Not a done deal yet, but hard not to think about it now.
|
|
|
Post by westernalj on May 5, 2014 5:20:09 GMT -5
I am going through that process, plus I'm eliminating locations. Tough calls as to where to draw the line.
|
|
|
Post by christina on May 6, 2014 5:41:51 GMT -5
funky and et all, good planning on your end. i don't think or at least hope the preferences will not be used to haunt the candidates. After years of seeing too many people end up God only knows where, i think it's great they are gaging where people would actually like to live. could save the agency transfer hassles and to a lesser extent resignations down the road.
|
|
|
Post by ladywordsmith on May 6, 2014 11:41:44 GMT -5
funky and et all, good planning on your end. i don't think or at least hope the preferences will not be used to haunt the candidates. After years of seeing too many people end up God only knows where, i think it's great they are gaging where people would actually like to live. could save the agency transfer hassles and to a lesser extent resignations down the road. Long before I entered the "ALJ Lottery", SSA use to allow ranking of locations (prior to becoming an ALJ, I was a long time Fed and worked for ALJs in another agency). It did turn out better and not so many new ALJs involved in the "90 day musical chairs relocation contest". There were a few who picked what they considered their "dream location" (having not been there) and didn't like it; but, most got what they wanted, knew what they were getting and stayed long term. My group didn't have a choice; it's good to see that they're back to rankings -- for once, "common sense" won out. LW
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on May 6, 2014 11:42:01 GMT -5
Here is a thought on preferences and how that might impact second certers.
We now know only 168 people made the first certs for 44 cities and PR. But the cert cities polling indicates each of those cities got between 17 and 25 names on the cert from those 168 folks. There appears to be an average of 14.8 cities in contention for each person on the cert. That seems really high when you consider average number of openings is 2 per cert city (90 slots divided by 45 locales including PR).
As mpd noted, grand rapids has 7 vacancies. A few more may have more than 2. Some, like greenville and fayetteville may have 1, based on our polling.
But maybe, just maybe, this new preference ranking is a big clue. What if ssa just told opm they had these 90 slots in 45 locales and wanted 30 or so names a city.
We know ssa doesn't have to fill every slot or hire to every city on the cert. So, let's say ssa really doesn't like who they have to pick from in the top 3 at hartford. But they really like someone at # 17 on the list for grand rapids. What would stop them from saying, well, we just won't fill hartford this go round and instead of filling only 3 in grand rapids we will fill 5 slots there so we can get to the guy we want and who, by his ranking, wants to be in GR? We don't care for our choices for the second slot in vegas, so we will just hire 1 there and shift that other slot to GR too.
This would seem to be completely within the rules and would return to ssa a lot of the list manipulation to get to people they want which was lost with the cert change. Don't like your choices for one city or one slot in a city, just don't hire there and move that slot to a city where you can reach someone you do like.
Thus, ssa could shuffle the slots around among the cities so they can fish out who they want (subject to the actual number of open alj offices in each city). That could result in all 90 hires going to way less than the 45 locales and push the unfilled locales to the second cert.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on May 6, 2014 12:09:19 GMT -5
I agree with your analysis, funky, but what does that have to do with ranking preferences?
|
|
|
Post by redryder on May 6, 2014 12:23:05 GMT -5
I think many of you are trying to read too much into this preference of placement. It is a good way to start the placement in the selection process. Person with the highest NOR is recommended for the job but has wide open GAL. Which of the 44 cities does SSA place that person in? If put in the #1 preference, SSA knows person is where he/she may stay for a while. But after a certain point in the selection process, the top preferences for the majority of the candidates will be filled. Then who knows how much, if any, attention is paid to a candidate's preference. Is #20 really that different from #44?
There is a judge in my office who told the story of his list of preferences when he was hired. Where he was assigned was the last choice on his list--here. And he has been here ever since.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 6, 2014 12:23:50 GMT -5
Here is a thought on preferences and how that might impact second certers. We now know only 168 people made the first certs for 44 cities and PR. But the cert cities polling indicates each of those cities got between 17 and 25 names on the cert from those 168 folks. There appears to be an average of 14.8 cities in contention for each person on the cert. That seems really high when you consider average number of openings is 2 per cert city (90 slots divided by 45 locales including PR). As mpd noted, grand rapids has 7 vacancies. A few more may have more than 2. Some, like greenville and fayetteville may have 1, based on our polling. But maybe, just maybe, this new preference ranking is a big clue. What if ssa just told opm they had these 90 slots in 45 locales and wanted 30 or so names a city. We know ssa doesn't have to fill every slot or hire to every city on the cert. So, let's say ssa really doesn't like who they have to pick from in the top 3 at hartford. But they really like someone at # 17 on the list for grand rapids. What would stop them from saying, well, we just won't fill hartford this go round and instead of filling only 3 in grand rapids we will fill 5 slots there so we can get to the guy we want and who, by his ranking, wants to be in GR? We don't care for our choices for the second slot in vegas, so we will just hire 1 there and shift that other slot to GR too. This would seem to be completely within the rules and would return to ssa a lot of the list manipulation to get to people they want which was lost with the cert change. Don't like your choices for one city or one slot in a city, just don't hire there and move that slot to a city where you can reach someone you do like. Thus, ssa could shuffle the slots around among the cities so they can fish out who they want (subject to the actual number of open alj offices in each city). That could result in all 90 hires going to way less than the 45 locales and push the unfilled locales to the second cert. There are 44 separate certs, so I don't think they could shift slots from one city's cert to another city's cert this go around. They could leave vacant some slots on this set of certs and then likely be able to add those slots to another city in the second round of certs. If GR 17 retains #17 on the second GR cert and if they were doing all 5 GR slots together, they would need to get GR 17 up to at least #9 to hire him/her. That certainly might be possible depending on the GALs of those ahead of GR 17 in GR. If GR 17 had advanced on the list by the time of the second GR cert, it would be an easier task for SSA to hire her/him. Of course they'd better have offices in GR for the 5 newly minted ALJs if they do this.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on May 6, 2014 12:25:00 GMT -5
Agreed, preferences would play a minimal role, but I suspect a role. Let's say they really won't to get to a candidate. He is, unfortunately, ranked #16 and 17 on Grand Rapids and Fresno respectively.
Now, they really want to hire them, but with only 2 or 3 slots filled in his two cities, they won't reach him. But, they like him a whole lot more than any of their choices for Eugene. So, they decide not to fill Eugen this year and instead shuffle that hiring slot to either Fresno or GR. But which? Easy, whichever our wanted man had ranked higher.
You are right DD, they have to look at the top 3. But its for each slot. The more slots for a city, the deeper down that city's list they can go.
And yes, you are also correct, I really want the job. I guess you don't?
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on May 6, 2014 12:29:36 GMT -5
"Easy, whichever our wanted man had ranked higher."
Actually, I would suggest whichever one is easiest to reach super candidate while also allowing ODAR to also reach other desired candidates. If all things are equal, sure, preferences will come into play. I don't believe things are equal the vast majority of the time in this process, however. JMO, of course.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 6, 2014 12:34:47 GMT -5
My analysis treated the candidates as having no strikes going into GR. if all the not chosen candidates had 2 strikes going in, GR 17 would only need to have moved up to #15 to be considered.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on May 6, 2014 12:38:05 GMT -5
My analysis treated the candidates as having no strikes going into GR. if all the not chosen candidates had 2 strikes going in, GR 17 would only need to have moved up to #15 to be considered. Or GR1-GR16 could also be hired into other cities to get to GR17. Lots of moving parts.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on May 6, 2014 12:40:11 GMT -5
I started theorizing on this trying to find how they could use preferences. I went astray, but I think I may have found their new maneuverability.
Your points are valid Gary. But think about this. Our polling, which apparently does represent roughly a third to forty percent of the cert members, shows around 20 names per city. Extrapolated to the whole cert, thats like 50 to 60 names per city.
Why would they need that many? Why would opm cert that many if they only had to give 3 per slot? Sure, they would need to give some overage to account for multicerters. But 50 to 60 per city?
I dont see how that comes about without ssa specifically asking for way more names. They most likely would have done that by telling opm they had a larger number of slots per city than they actually intend to fill.
I know I heard from great sources that odar was trying to find a way to still work the certs in a manner to get to who they want prior to asking for the certs. Maybe they decided that working the candidates may be more difficult, but they can still really manipulate the cities and slots so they can reach the people they want.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on May 6, 2014 12:41:28 GMT -5
Agree that the preferences will be used to game the system. If doing so also benefits the applicants in any way, the methodology might have to change...
"Oh look, Candidate #659 listed Emerald City as his top preference." "Isn't that special?"
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 6, 2014 12:44:16 GMT -5
My analysis treated the candidates as having no strikes going into GR. if all the not chosen candidates had 2 strikes going in, GR 17 would only need to have moved up to #15 to be considered. Or GR1-GR16 could also be hired into other cities to get to GR17. Lots of moving parts. Yep. A whole lot of moving parts. But with the more limited GALs, SSA could well find itself at times with the top 3 scorers for a city all being only on that one city's cert for this round.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 6, 2014 12:52:50 GMT -5
I started theorizing on this trying to find how they could use preferences. I went astray, but I think I may have found their new maneuverability. Your points are valid Gary. But think about this. Our polling, which apparently does represent roughly a third to forty percent of the cert members, shows around 20 names per city. Extrapolated to the whole cert, thats like 50 to 60 names per city. Why would they need that many? Why would opm cert that many if they only had to give 3 per slot? Sure, they would need to give some overage to account for multicerters. But 50 to 60 per city? I dont see how that comes about without ssa specifically asking for way more names. They most likely would have done that by telling opm they had a larger number of slots per city than they actually intend to fill. I know I heard from great sources that odar was trying to find a way to still work the certs in a manner to get to who they want prior to asking for the certs. Maybe they decided that working the candidates may be more difficult, but they can still really manipulate the cities and slots so they can reach the people they want. With all wide open GALs they could only go down 150 scores between hiring and maximum 3 striking. The total is only 18 above that and may be necessary to account for some of the limited GALs and to allow a little room for drop outs. The 50-60 per city is necessary to make sure they have enough candidates who have not already been selected or 3-struck when they reach each city no matter in which order SSA fills the slots.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on May 6, 2014 12:59:38 GMT -5
All ssa would have to do is tell opm they were "considering" hiring 10 judges in each of the 45 cities and they want 5 names per slot (which was the reported per slot number offered by the excellent source). Voila, you get the top 50 scorers for each city. Nothing binds them into actually hiring 10 judges per city.
The only thing that really binds them, other than the budget for 90 and how many vacant alj offices are in a given locale.
We have all heard they don't really care where they put you. With VH you can work anywhere. So, why not hire who you want whether that's to 25 cities or 45 cities.
Don't like the top 3 at Hartford? No problem we just don't hire there and push it to the next cert. Instead, we will fill one more of the GR slots than we intially intended because we really like a candidate we could reach there with an extra slot, they have the offices and he even ranked GR high.
In the past they have played the game by moving the pieces (candidates) and the only real board (cities) manipulation has been picking what order to select for. Now, maneuvering the pieces is harder, but you could still get much of what you want by flipping the spaces on the board around.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on May 6, 2014 13:09:20 GMT -5
A couple of things. Funky the city I mentioned was Mt. Pleasant, not Grand Rapids. Two, SSA has to hire from the top three scorers for each location unless one, two or three are already used up then they go to 4, 5 or 6, etc. down the line. They had to let OPM know up front how many positions in each location, so OPM could create a cert for each position with the top three listed.
So, you say why are there 20 or 30 names or more on each location. Simple, SSA chose a number that it told OPM it wanted to use for each location, whether 20 or 30 names depending upon the positions open for hiring. It needed extra in case those in front were already used or hired, 3-struck, etc. The only issue for SSA is either they will have to chose ALJs with much less ability to manipulate hiring and chosen individuals or it will have to leave positions open because it doesn't like enough (90) individuals to hire them for the position. A lot of those at the bottom of each location are just filler, in case SSA doesn't like those in front of them. However, it could be SSA dislikes the filler this time, too and just doesn't hire certain locations or positions.
|
|