|
Post by 71stretch on May 6, 2014 17:04:04 GMT -5
From the reliable anonymous source,via Bob G.
Recap: 168 emails sent, 73.41 low score. EXCLUDES Puerto Rico.
Now for the NEW INFO:
The 168 emails ARE for the planned 90 hires, split into 2 classes.
Best odds you will EVER see in this process, IMO. Go forth and shine in those interviews, all! And get your references up to speed!
|
|
|
Post by orchid on May 6, 2014 17:24:58 GMT -5
Great news for the first centers! Any news on timeframe for second cert?
|
|
sxsw
Full Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by sxsw on May 6, 2014 17:53:00 GMT -5
Potentially not so great for us second certers. Situational Scooby Snacks may be in order ...
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on May 6, 2014 18:04:41 GMT -5
Wow
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2014 18:10:38 GMT -5
Double Wow.
|
|
|
Post by futuressaalj on May 6, 2014 18:12:13 GMT -5
Great news for the first centers! Any news on timeframe for second cert? Orchid, I believe training for this first batch of 90 is projected to end in October. November and December are not usually great months for much to get things done in the Federal Government because of the holidays that begin the third week of November and go into the first week of January. I believe it is fair to say that the earliest we may see another cert will be in early February 2015 time frame with hiring in the spring.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on May 6, 2014 18:16:50 GMT -5
Ok, so the 168 doesn't include those certed for PR.
But the 90 planned hires does include, what 2 slots for PR?
So from the 168, maybe 88 hires.....that's a raw 52.38% chance of getting hired.
What a strange new world this is.
|
|
|
Post by orchid on May 6, 2014 18:21:09 GMT -5
Great news for the first centers! Any news on timeframe for second cert? Orchid, I believe training for this first batch of 90 is projected to end in October. November and December are not usually great months for much to get done in the Federal Government because of the holidays that being the third week of November and go into the first week of September. I believe it is fair to say that the earliest we may see another cert will be in early February 2015 time frame with hiring in the spring. Thanks Future. If some on the cert do drop out prior to interviews, are any supplemental names added for consideration? I ask for those of us just a smidge under the cut off.
|
|
|
Post by hamster on May 6, 2014 18:58:07 GMT -5
I will keep my fingers crossed, Funky. But look at those percentages! You kids have it so easy, relative to us comparative old-timers. We actually had to work to get hired. Good luck everybody in your interviews! Best, Hamster
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on May 6, 2014 20:53:11 GMT -5
Ok, so the 168 doesn't include those certed for PR. But the 90 planned hires does include, what 2 slots for PR? So from the 168, maybe 88 hires.....that's a raw 52.38% chance of getting hired. What a strange new world this is. I'm questioning this. I wonder if the low score doesn't include PR, but the rest of the info does. Someone posted that PR was included on the e-mail with that candidate's other cities. "168 e-mails sent" and PR was not on separate e-mails. I dunno. I just got through the statistical gymnastics on the other thread, so my brain is a bit scrambled just now. Either way, great odds.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on May 6, 2014 21:11:15 GMT -5
Look to the Board. PR always has had a separate cert.
What great odds y'all have. Why that big old grease stain on your tie that you didn't see until half way through your interview may not matter now.
|
|
|
Post by bucksfan on May 6, 2014 22:03:20 GMT -5
Ok, so the 168 doesn't include those certed for PR. But the 90 planned hires does include, what 2 slots for PR? So from the 168, maybe 88 hires.....that's a raw 52.38% chance of getting hired. What a strange new world this is. Your odds are even better than you think. A few people will decide they are not interested. When they applied 14 months ago, they might not have fully understood the implications of what they were getting themselves into and are having second thoughts. If you work for SSA you might not believe this could be the case, but if you are a 40-year old GS-15 step 10 attorney at DOJ with two kids and spouse with a job, you know exactly what I am talking about. Others are realizing that while having a wide open GAL might increase your odds of being selected, a wide open GAL also increases your odds of being selected and sent to Johnstown or Akron or some other place to which you would not normally voluntarily move your family. So people are going to trim their GALs. I was told there would be no math, so I can't tell you how this factor would impact a given person's odds. Finally, OMHA and any other agencies that have gotten certs from OPM ahead of ODAR are going to skim somewhere around 10 to 12 applicants off the top before ODAR gets around to handing out offers. Even if you prefer ODAR, would you turn down an offer from OMHA in hopes that you would later get a call from Bob?
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on May 6, 2014 22:15:09 GMT -5
Look to the Board. PR always has had a separate cert. Over in the Polling Palace, Observer53 noted: Puerto Rico is a special case. In the past, it had a completely separate cert. Even under the new system, I'll bet it still does. MW2 responded: That may be so, but those two cities [PR] appeared in the mix with five other locations in the Continental US, and I've been asked to rank all seven.
|
|
|
Post by FlaTreeFarm on May 6, 2014 22:42:17 GMT -5
Potentially not so great for us second certers. Situational Scooby Snacks may be in order ... No, I'm thinking this is good for second certers (and beyond, if ever!). Get a whole bunch of these wide GAL folks hired up at places that are not on my narrow GAL. Less of them left when (and if ever) we get to a city on my GAL! But situational Scooby Snacks are always OK with me!
|
|
|
Post by queenie262 on May 7, 2014 5:53:27 GMT -5
I'm a SCOB, with emphasis on the OB. Now that Bob's talkin', can he tell the reliable source how big the register is? And the lowest number on it? So that I can stop thinking about this $%^& for a while?
|
|
|
Post by mikeinthehills on May 7, 2014 6:47:05 GMT -5
I'm a SCOB, with emphasis on the OB. Now that Bob's talkin', can he tell the reliable source how big the register is? And the lowest number on it? So that I can stop thinking about this $%^& for a while? Hang in there Queenie. It's a long and winding road ...
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on May 7, 2014 7:09:47 GMT -5
I'm a SCOB, with emphasis on the OB. Now that Bob's talkin', can he tell the reliable source how big the register is? And the lowest number on it? So that I can stop thinking about this $%^& for a while? It is very possible Bob G. doesn't know the size of the register because that is OPM's purview not SSA's. Also, I think Bob G. has already been more than accommodating and we shouldn't be bothering him any more at this point.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 7, 2014 7:13:43 GMT -5
I'm a SCOB, with emphasis on the OB. Now that Bob's talkin', can he tell the reliable source how big the register is? And the lowest number on it? So that I can stop thinking about this $%^& for a while? It is very possible Bob G. doesn't know the size of the register because that is OPM's purview not SSA's. Also, I think Bob G. has already been more than accommodating and we shouldn't be bothering him any more at this point. I agree with both points.
|
|
|
Post by queenie262 on May 7, 2014 7:18:25 GMT -5
Well if he doesn't know, he doesn't know. But this register differs from those in the past, because for those the outer limits of the size of the register were known by the number of applications accepted. So it doesn't seem an unreasonable question; whether it is for Bob or his OPM counterpart I do not know. Maybe I will muster the resolve to ask.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2014 7:27:10 GMT -5
nevermind, oops
|
|