|
Post by robespierre on May 7, 2014 14:49:52 GMT -5
So then its your theory they just took the top 20, 40 or 60 for each city? And with gals in consideration, that accounted for just 168 folks? I know I'm not the one you were asking, but yes, that's exactly how I think it was done. So, for example: There was one unique Craplandish city for which there was a whopping three vacancies and thus they needed ~60 candidates. And that city only had about 130 candidates who were willing to go there (about 90 with wide-open GALs, i.e. ~10% of the register, plus ~40 hardy souls who enjoy that part of Crapland). So to find 60 out of 130, they had to go 46% of the way down the register (60/130). And if you check our polling, 46% of the way down the register takes you pretty darn close to 73.4, which has now been identified as the lowest they went. We'll never know for sure it this is right but to me it seems mechanistic yet obscure, in the way government likes to operate. So I think that was the method, although Gary's last few posts make a good point that it may have been slightly more sophisticated than that.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on May 7, 2014 14:51:43 GMT -5
Equallt possible im way wrong too.
But based on the way I read the regs, I think they can. Maybe not under the spirit, but within the letter.
It appears they are able to make a hire for any vacancy for which opm has certified at least the 3 highest candidates. Each city in this deal has been certed for the top 50 or so.
If they hired one at Valparaiso and suddenly decided to hire another there, if they were forced to go back and get another cert for valparaiso, they would get the same folks anyway with one more tacked onto the end. Can't see even ssa and opm condoning that much inefficency.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on May 7, 2014 15:07:35 GMT -5
Are candidates ever added to a cert if a certain number decline the interview? No, but it could THEORETICALLY lead to a small supplemental cert if they end up not being able to fill all 90. They'd have to get that done in time that those few hires could make the second hire date and training class. It will be fascinating to watch the new process play out for possibilities such as this.
|
|
|
Post by ok1956 on May 7, 2014 15:41:09 GMT -5
It's been fascinating to watch a bunch of lawyers try to solve a complex algebraic equation without even having all the variables defined. And I mean that in good faith. Nothing else better to do while we wait. And if you could see the expression on my face when I'm reading all the postings, I'm pretty sure you would laugh out loud.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 7, 2014 15:43:21 GMT -5
It's been fascinating to watch a bunch of lawyers try to solve a complex algebraic equation without even having all the variables defined. And I mean that in good faith. Nothing else better to do while we wait. They never said there'd be no math.
|
|
|
Post by ok1956 on May 7, 2014 15:46:00 GMT -5
It's been fascinating to watch a bunch of lawyers try to solve a complex algebraic equation without even having all the variables defined. And I mean that in good faith. Nothing else better to do while we wait. They never said there'd be no math. After reading the excellent analysis from so many on all the variables, I am VERY happy there was no math component in the DC testing!
|
|
|
Post by orchid on May 7, 2014 17:42:58 GMT -5
Are candidates ever added to a cert if a certain number decline the interview? No, but it could THEORETICALLY lead to a small supplemental cert if they end up not being able to fill all 90. They'd have to get that done in time that those few hires could make the second hire date and training class. Thanks observer. This is a strange and mysterious process, especially to us newbie outsiders!
|
|