|
Post by robespierre on Jun 13, 2014 20:58:07 GMT -5
Sealaw - A 65 score would put the applicant in the bottom 10% of the register. So I'm surprised to hear you say that that kind of score would get him/her onto the next cert, even with the "right cities." I mean, this is a new register. And Cert #1 is only going to eliminate ~90 hirees and a modest number of 3-strikers. Seems like it's too early to plumb the bottom of the register. Can you elaborate on your math? I'm not saying that not a single 65 will make the next cert. Or that some 65s won't make the cert for Puerto Rico (if there is one). Or that 65s won't make future certs. I just don't see an appreciable number of them making Cert #2. How do you figure that a 65 is in the bottom 10% of the register? I think the ratings are on a normal curve -- notice that with 168 candidates, the lowest rating that still qualified was 73. There are probably more candidates with 65s than with 85s. Or, if you think a 65 is in the bottom 10%, it must be a REALLY small register. The bottom line is that we just don't have enough information to evaluate the quality of a rating, other than "higher than" or "lower than." The "More Refined NOR Results" poll was answered by 237, and only 17 people reported 65 or less. Well within the bottom 10%. That was my brilliant mathematical reasoning, lol.
|
|
|
Post by robespierre on Jun 13, 2014 21:22:35 GMT -5
Robes, What I did is I went back to the detailed poll for the NOR scores and added up all the votes from 74 - 88/89, plus added half of the folks who voted a 73. It comes to approximately 110 folks. I did not add folks in the 90s, quite frankly because I think you could count them on one hand, so I do not believe there are that many who make a statistical difference to our general population of candidates. In otherwords, I do not think that 1/3 of the folks who scored over a 90 voted - I think it's more like 75% or more. whatever, I discounted them. Anyway, assuming that 110 represents a third of the candidates with scores between 73.41 and 89 - you get 330. 168+ folks have made it to this first round of interviews, plus a few folks who interviewed for OMHA and not SSA. That's about half of the pool in that range. Ninety will get hired by SSA. We need to subtract 3-struck/NR folks as well as OMHA hires, which probably leaves 38 folks who get a second chance on the next certs. Now I believe that many, many, many good folks on the register only asked for their local ODAR, plus an ODAR that's about 2 hours away. OPM's ability to provide adequate certs for SSA to hire another 100 ALJs, in various yet-to-be-named cities means that the folks remaining above 73.41 will most likely not be able to fill out the certs. A portion of these folks may make the next cert, but only if their city is selected. I also assume that the next cert will have more folks on it than this first cert of 168. If you add the votes who scored between 65 - 72, plus add half of the 73 scores, it comes very close to the 110 above the cut. Once again, there's a pool of 330 candidates. So, I was thinking that in order to really make an aggressive hire by the end of the year, then OPM may have to dip down low - as low as 65 for certain cities. What I was not saying is anyone who scores a 65 is a shoe in, but more of a possibility if you are the only one wh wants East Crapland...or San Juan.. or some other hard to fill spot. Not sure I really explained myself. Keep the conversation going though - my math usually sucks and I'm an eternal optimist. Sorry, but I have to file a Motion before close of business so I can annoy my opponent - TTFN Interesting reasoning. Thanks. I think you may be putting a little too much emphasis on the 73.41 figure, though. That's the absolute lowest they went and for all we know it could be for a single unpopular city. For more popular cities they may only have gone down to 75 or so to find enough candidates. For those more popular cities, if they come up on the certs again, it's hard for me to believe they would have to go much below 70 this time around. Especially because when you are in the 70-75 range -- the thickest part of the bell -- you have a ton of candidates for every 1 point. And then there are the cities that come up for Cert 2 that didn't come up for Cert 1. For those, OPM is practically starting from the top of the register. The only people to have been eliminated are the people who (a) got hired or 3-struck in the first round AND (b) have that particular city on their GAL. That's not a huge cut. So even for an unpopular city where they would have to go down to 73.41 on a blank slate, I'm betting they only have to go down to 70 or 71 this time around. But a lot of this is guesswork. Maybe you're right. I SURE HOPE SO, lol.
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Jun 13, 2014 21:53:28 GMT -5
They can't add a new ALJ to an office without first working the transfer list, regardless. They didn't for Morgantown. I imagine Morgantown fell under the most recent transfer list follies. Someone had posted the language of the transfer list request and I thought it said something about being willing to accept a transfer within the next six months. Also, was there anyone on the transfer list into Morgantown?
|
|
|
Post by agilitymom on Jun 13, 2014 23:06:50 GMT -5
No one on the transfer list (that was from the April timeframe, I believe) into Morgantown, but 3 judges on the transfer list seeking to get out of Morgantown.
|
|
|
Post by jessejames on Jun 14, 2014 1:03:09 GMT -5
It is probably a safe bet that those with lower scores were less likely to report their score. Thus, the 10% estimate may be inaccurate.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jun 14, 2014 7:16:32 GMT -5
I believe there are certainly scores into the fifties on this Register and perhaps even into the forties (like in past Registers). Either these individuals failed to report their scores in the survey if a member of the Board or are not a member of the Board.
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Jun 14, 2014 9:04:59 GMT -5
I believe there are certainly scores into the fifties on this Register and perhaps even into the forties (like in past Registers). Either these individuals failed to report their scores in the survey if a member of the Board or are not a member of the Board. The "more refined" poll had a smattering of reported scores below 60 - but with the outliers in the upper 90s/100 at the top end, I originally discounted those as jokes or trolling attempts. You may very well be correct - and certainly we would expect low scorers to underreport, even with anonymity. However, we don't have polling data to support significant numbers of low scores. I firmly believe there was a "bell curve" of people who went to D.C., but because of the cutoffs for the SI and WD, the left 1/3 of that curve was truncated. So the register has many, many candidates, vets and non-vets, with scores between 65 and 80. Just my $0.02. Edited to add: The concept that several of us worked on earlier in this process is something I call an "effective" score - Candidate "A" with a numerical score of 88, but a GAL including only Falls Church, Denver and Tampa has a much lower "effective score" than Candidate "B" with a numerical score of 73, but ~100 cities on the GAL.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 14, 2014 9:43:59 GMT -5
On a civil service scale, they would ordinarily convert raw scores to a scale where 100 is perfect and 70 is passing. I think OPM modified this to make 70 the median (or possibly the mean) score on the scale, before adding preference points. Our polling had a median of 73. The difference between 70 and 73 could be because of veterans preference points and the hypothesized under reporting of lower scores in our polls.
|
|
|
Post by westernalj on Jun 14, 2014 10:23:13 GMT -5
While there may be scores lower than reported, although I'm not convinced, remember that this is the first time OPM imposed a minimum score for the WD and SI. A significant portion of those that made it to DC didn't make the register. This group must include at least many of the people that would've scored below 60.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Jun 14, 2014 10:55:23 GMT -5
1) Not a score, it's a rating as compared to all others on the Register, 2) OPM said that an NOR of 1 made the Register, so your extreme outlier will have a 1, 3) we've already determined that Board members skew higher (because of more info or demonstrating their excellence by finding the Board in the first place), and 4) we don't know how representative the Board is of the entire population of the register.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 14, 2014 11:50:54 GMT -5
1) Not a score, it's a rating as compared to all others on the Register, 2) OPM said that an NOR of 1 made the Register, so your extreme outlier will have a 1, 3) we've already determined that Board members skew higher (because of more info or demonstrating their excellence by finding the Board in the first place), and 4) we don't know how representative the Board is of the entire population of the register. 1) In the letter explaining how they arrived at the ratings, OPM to some extent uses the terms "score" and "rating" interchangeably when referring to the final score/rating. What it's definitely not is a ranking. 2) OPM did not say that an NOR of 1, or of any other specific number, made the Register. They said what it would mean if someone had a "score" of 1: "A score of 1 would mean only that this individual had the lowest rating relative to other candidates on the register." 3) We have not determined that Board members "skew higher"; we have surmised that it might be so, but do not have proof. And 4) is true.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Jun 14, 2014 12:06:22 GMT -5
"The total competency scores of all applicants were put on a 1 to 100 scale to establish each applicant's numerical rating, excluding veterans' preference. In this scale, the lowest possible score is 1 and the highest possible score is 100.
A score of 1 would mean only that this individual had the lowest rating relative to other candidates on the register (or was tied for the lowest rating), not that s/he 1C20failed1D20 the examination or was unqualified in any way. Candidates placed on the register not only have been determined to be qualified but also have been drawn from the high-scoring group of those who took the online assessments, so their ratings signify only how they placed relative to others on the same register."
We have been told repeatedly that we would only get an NOR if we were on the Register. So if someone received an NOR, even of 1, he is still on the Register. How do you figure that "how they placed relative to others" is not a ranking?
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Jun 14, 2014 12:33:30 GMT -5
We have been told repeatedly that we would only get an NOR if we were on the Register. So if someone received an NOR, even of 1, he is still on the Register. How do you figure that "how they placed relative to others" is not a ranking? Because we know this to be inaccurate, viscerally. On a pure linear scale, a hypothetical 100 scorers, with no ties, would mean we would have scores all along the range from 1 to 100. That obviously didn't happen, if our polling is in the same universe as "accurate". Therefore, something else is going on - perhaps they scaled it, "centered" it, what have you, to come up with the range of "ratings" or "scores" that we have. In any event, there is no evidence that there is a person with a register score of "1" - although there is a report of a "100" - even accounting for ties that might explain the range of numerical results out to 2 decimal places (which is widely accepted to be accurate) - there is simply insufficient support to suggest that anything like what you suggest, which I admit was in the explanation of NOR is actually what happened. I believe the "1" was used as an example and was not meant to be taken literally. What they wanted to express was that it was a normed, "relative" score and that a "1" (again - NO evidence a "1" was awarded) did not mean a failure, but rather that everyone else who tested scored better and that a person with a score of "1" - particularly after this process would be deemed by OPM as qualified to hold the position. I hope this helps, because I don't want you to die on the hill of "There was a '1' because the email said there was a '1' and the score is a ranking not a score." I agree the confusion is understandable because of the inartful language chosen.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 14, 2014 12:45:44 GMT -5
If the ratings/scores were rankings, you would see the top score ranked 1, the second highest score ranked 2, the 700th highest score ranked 700, and so on. That's not what we are seeing. Instead, we are seeing scores/ratings in the form xx.xx. We know for example at least one person received a score of 73.41. That does not mean they are the "73.41st" on the register, whatever that would mean.
Also, the letter did not say that someone had actually received an NOR of 1. It only stated what it would mean if someone received that score. OPM took the scores for the 13 different competencies of each person who qualified to be placed on the register, did what was necessary to give them equal weight, added them up, and then took the resulting total scores and converted them to a 1 to 100 scale where 100 would be perfect and, I believe, 70 was likely the median or the mean. They added in applicable veteran's preference points and, voila, had their register.
I do not know how low the ratings on this register go. I do not believe they go anywhere near as low as 1.
|
|
|
Post by westernalj on Jun 14, 2014 13:05:45 GMT -5
There's a long discussion of various interpretations of the meaning of OPM's NOR explanation in another thread.
|
|
|
Post by robespierre on Jun 15, 2014 13:12:49 GMT -5
Whether 65 is bottom 10% or just, let's say, bottom third, the point is still this: Cert #2 seems like a rather early point to be reaching down that low on the register. Except perhaps for specialized situations like Puerto Rico or a highly unpopular city. But I guess we'll see. Far stranger things have happened.
|
|
|
Post by zepplin on Jun 15, 2014 16:25:52 GMT -5
73.41 was not the lowest on the cert. I was a few hundredths below that.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jun 15, 2014 17:51:05 GMT -5
Whether 65 is bottom 10% or just, let's say, bottom third, the point is still this: Cert #2 seems like a rather early point to be reaching down that low on the register. Except perhaps for specialized situations like Puerto Rico or a highly unpopular city. But I guess we'll see. Far stranger things have happened. Once again the issue will be cert ODAR locations with openings and the GALs of those on the Register. Those with wide open GALs in the 60's may very well make the next set of certs. Remember there are a lot of people with limited GALs on the Register. Only time will tell us for sure.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Jun 16, 2014 7:50:29 GMT -5
Whether 65 is bottom 10% or just, let's say, bottom third, the point is still this: Cert #2 seems like a rather early point to be reaching down that low on the register. Except perhaps for specialized situations like Puerto Rico or a highly unpopular city. But I guess we'll see. Far stranger things have happened. Once again the issue will be cert ODAR locations with openings and the GALs of those on the Register. Those with wide open GALs in the 60's may very well make the next set of certs. Remember there are a lot of people with limited GALs on the Register. Only time will tell us for sure. And I guess that was really my original point afterall. I was just playing with the numbers to support my WAG. Then again, I had figured out a long time ago that I needed to switch my college major in order to avoid multivariable calculus and other annoying higher level math classes. At this point in my life, I pretty much suck at math, LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Jun 16, 2014 8:17:27 GMT -5
Once again the issue will be cert ODAR locations with openings and the GALs of those on the Register. Those with wide open GALs in the 60's may very well make the next set of certs. Remember there are a lot of people with limited GALs on the Register. Only time will tell us for sure. This goes back to the concept I call "effective score" - a relatively low scaled score (let's say 66 for purposes of the current register - with all due respect to those who scored that low or lower), combined with an unlimited score is effectively higher than a 100 and a GAL containing a handful of highly popular locations that rarely, if ever, get filled with new hires. Although this rumored "new process" may alter that analysis over time, thus far it appears to hold true this time around.
|
|