|
Post by Missundaztood on Jun 9, 2015 14:59:28 GMT -5
I saw the same notice on the OPM webpage and immediately panicked, checked my emails (the new email address and the old AOL address), saw nothing, and panicked again. Mentally I began berating myself and concluding that I must have selected the wrong radio button on my response last month. Then I realized, "hey, wait a minute, June 10th is TOMORROW." I whipped out my phone, logged into this forum, and have had my panic further quelled (thank you owl and hope2b). I know those of you who have made it through the entire selection process are not permitted to discuss or disclose the various tests or interviews, so I'm not asking for confirmation of my theory. However, I'm starting to believe that, in order to determine ability to perform under pressure, OPM's emails where you can't return to check your response, notifications after 4:00pm on Friday afternoon, and posting notices online that discuss future emails in the past tense must be a new component of the testing process. It's prep for the "logic-based testing."
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 9, 2015 17:51:20 GMT -5
I saw the same notice on the OPM webpage and immediately panicked, checked my emails (the new email address and the old AOL address), saw nothing, and panicked again. Mentally I began berating myself and concluding that I must have selected the wrong radio button on my response last month. Then I realized, "hey, wait a minute, June 10th is TOMORROW." I whipped out my phone, logged into this forum, and have had my panic further quelled (thank you owl and hope2b). I know those of you who have made it through the entire selection process are not permitted to discuss or disclose the various tests or interviews, so I'm not asking for confirmation of my theory. However, I'm starting to believe that, in order to determine ability to perform under pressure, OPM's emails where you can't return to check your response, notifications after 4:00pm on Friday afternoon, and posting notices online that discuss future emails in the past tense must be a new component of the testing process. It's prep for the "logic-based testing." Or, applying Occam's Razor, there is a rip in the fabric of time on the Internet, and OPM's notice is from the future.
|
|
|
Post by Missundaztood on Jun 9, 2015 17:54:32 GMT -5
It's prep for the "logic-based testing." Or, applying Occam's Razor, there is a rip in the fabric of time on the Internet, and OPM's notice Is from the future. gary, nice change of subject... trying to avoid thoughts of the logic test again?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 9, 2015 18:04:53 GMT -5
Or, applying Occam's Razor, there is a rip in the fabric of time on the Internet, and OPM's notice Is from the future. gary, nice change of subject... trying to avoid thoughts of the logic test again? And but for you I would have succeeded.
|
|
|
Post by basileia on Jun 18, 2015 17:19:34 GMT -5
I just got notice that my appeal based on my bar admissions status was denied. I'm one of those who went through the whole testing process and then got denied after the fact. Just an FYI for anyone else in that situation!
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jun 18, 2015 17:40:59 GMT -5
I just got notice that my appeal based on my bar admissions status was denied. I'm one of those who went through the whole testing process and then got denied after the fact. Just an FYI for anyone else in that situation! I just have to say that this particular circumstance sucks more than anything I have heard. To go through the testing process and THEN get told the bar admission was a no go.... big heavy sigh. So sorry you had it happen this way. The only solace I can think of is that now you have a glimpse of the new process so that when the testing opens again you can hit the ground running and use it to your advantage!
|
|
|
Post by hapi2balj on Jun 18, 2015 20:09:09 GMT -5
I just got notice that my appeal based on my bar admissions status was denied. I'm one of those who went through the whole testing process and then got denied after the fact. Just an FYI for anyone else in that situation! I am completely puzzled as to why your bar admission status would disqualify you. If I may ask, were you in an inactive status, or what was the problem? Sorry to be nosy, but since I'm confused, I want to make sure I'm not somehow "in that situation."
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 18, 2015 20:40:21 GMT -5
I just got notice that my appeal based on my bar admissions status was denied. I'm one of those who went through the whole testing process and then got denied after the fact. Just an FYI for anyone else in that situation! I am completely puzzled as to why your bar admission status would disqualify you. If I may ask, were you in an inactive status, or what was the problem? Sorry to be nosy, but since I'm confused, I want to make sure I'm not somehow "in that situation." So long as you have an active law license (or its equivalent), you'll be OK on the law license front so long as you carefully read the questions, then fully answer the questions.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jun 18, 2015 22:03:13 GMT -5
I just got notice that my appeal based on my bar admissions status was denied. I'm one of those who went through the whole testing process and then got denied after the fact. Just an FYI for anyone else in that situation! I am completely puzzled as to why your bar admission status would disqualify you. If I may ask, were you in an inactive status, or what was the problem? Sorry to be nosy, but since I'm confused, I want to make sure I'm not somehow "in that situation." There have been many reports on this board of people who did not provide the exact answers to the questions asked. For instance, if they asked for month and year of bar admission, and the year was the only thing provided, people have been rejected. There are an infinite number of details like this that can eliminate an applicant. Remember, it is not the "intent" of the information provided, it is the ability to follow exact detailed instructions that are the focus of their review.
Just like in law school when we all took the LSAT. Did those questions have a direct application to the practice of law? No. It was a threshold. You had to cross/ pass that threshold in order to proceed to the next step. There is nothing different about this process (except the time it takes). Threshold after threshold, sort of like the Hunger Games. Many very good advocates are eliminated at various steps in this process, and it has no bearing on the individual's worth. It's quite the minefield of a process, and one step in the wrong direction ....
|
|
|
Post by agilitymom on Jun 19, 2015 5:52:18 GMT -5
I do believe (if I remember correctly...because I've tried to suppress the horrid details of this process) that you must be in "active" status in order to be hired (which is weird b/c I believe that once hired you are not required to maintain active status). I do believe that failing to be in "active" status with your bar did bite some people. If it were simply you didn't fill out the paperwork correctly, you would have been cut much sooner.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jun 19, 2015 7:52:00 GMT -5
I do believe (if I remember correctly...because I've tried to suppress the horrid details of this process) that you must be in "active" status in order to be hired (which is weird b/c I believe that once hired you are not required to maintain active status). I do believe that failing to be in "active" status with your bar did bite some people. If it were simply you didn't fill out the paperwork correctly, you would have been cut much sooner. Below is from the announcement. I agree that it's bizarre that we're required to have an active license at teh time of application when we can go inactive immediately after being selected. 2. LICENSURE: An applicant must be licensed and authorized to practice law as an attorney under the laws of a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territorial court established under the United States Constitution. Judicial status is acceptable in lieu of "active" status in States that prohibit sitting judges from maintaining "active" status to practice law. Being in "good standing" is acceptable in lieu of "active" status in States where the licensing authority considers "good standing" as having a current license to practice law. An applicant must possess a license to practice law, as described in the preceding paragraph, at the time of application and continuously throughout the selection process including any period on the ALJ competitive register, as defined below. An applicant can be deemed ineligible at any time if it is determined that he/she does not satisfy or no longer satisfies the licensure requirement at any point during the selection process.
|
|
|
Post by basileia on Jun 19, 2015 8:38:26 GMT -5
I just got notice that my appeal based on my bar admissions status was denied. I'm one of those who went through the whole testing process and then got denied after the fact. Just an FYI for anyone else in that situation! I am completely puzzled as to why your bar admission status would disqualify you. If I may ask, were you in an inactive status, or what was the problem? Sorry to be nosy, but since I'm confused, I want to make sure I'm not somehow "in that situation." I was a judicial employee inactive in good standing. The rules stated that was acceptable if a certain definition of good standing was met, so when I applied I completely noted that and explained how I believed it applied to me. That was accepted and I was passed through all of the testing. I was then denied after the fact. The appeal denial I received yesterday indicated (but was not entirely clear) that they would only accept this status for a judge with an inactive good standing license and not a judicial employee. I have since switched my license back to active, which is simply a matter of paying more dues, so I could try again next time if I want, but I don't know that I will do so. The process is too long and tedious for my tastes and I enjoy my current job.
|
|
|
Post by Missundaztood on Jun 19, 2015 9:40:58 GMT -5
A thought: it is multi-agency listing. You can go inactive if you go to SSA obviously, but I'm not sure that applies to all the agencies that hire off the register. That could matter.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 19, 2015 9:47:11 GMT -5
Inactive status is only allowed for judges in states that prohibit judges from maintaining an active law license. This exception is pretty narrow.
The other "exception" is that being "in good standing" is sufficient in a state where that status allows you to practice law.
|
|
|
Post by ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) on Jul 2, 2015 14:50:17 GMT -5
APPEAL GRANTED!
Lurking for two years now with not much to share. But thought others might like to know my appeal from the last round (WD score too low) was granted.
|
|
|
Post by dwNOT2balj on Jul 2, 2015 14:53:09 GMT -5
('_') that is awesome news! Do you mind sharing the basis for your appeal? Only if it doesn't somehow violate the confidentiality clause, of course. Thx.
|
|
|
Post by beenlurking on Jul 2, 2015 15:10:53 GMT -5
('__'), yes, please elaborate to the extent possible! I too was dismissed at the WD stage but gave up my appeal to re-take. Was your score to low or did it not meet min. requirement? When did you find out you won?
Thanks and congrats!!
|
|
|
Post by ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) on Jul 2, 2015 15:15:30 GMT -5
APPEAL GRANTED! Lurking for two years now with not much to share. But thought others might like to know my appeal from the last round (WD score too low) was granted. ('_') that is awesome news! Do you mind sharing the basis for your appeal? Only if it doesn't somehow violate the confidentiality clause, of course. Thx. I don't remember what I said exactly in my appeal, but it was short and simple, and asked them to review what I did because I thought they might be making a mistake. And that appears to be exactly what they did. They said: "The 2013 ALJ appeals process was extensive. As part of the process, OPM ensured that different raters reviewed various parts of the exam than those who initially rated them. The Panel reviewed your original score on your Written Demonstration (WD) and then based on a re-assessment, determined that you did, in fact, meet the required minimum score for the WD." [@aljd - if you think the info above violates the confidentiality agreement for the WD, please delete. I don't think it does, but can't be too careful]
|
|
|
Post by dwNOT2balj on Jul 2, 2015 15:18:24 GMT -5
Thank you sooooo much. (Of course now I'm going to just be checking email every 5 minutes.)
|
|
|
Post by grandparay1 on Jul 2, 2015 15:18:49 GMT -5
Do you now have a score?
|
|