|
|
Post by Recalcitro on Jul 7, 2015 9:46:54 GMT -5
Hiring is supposed to take well into 2016. My email states my eligibility expires December 20, 2015. Then what? Do I have reapply and retest and re interview?
|
|
|
|
Post by Missundaztood on Jul 7, 2015 9:52:09 GMT -5
They will extend the register. Too expensive and time consuming not to.
Tons of previous posts about this.
|
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 7, 2015 10:06:55 GMT -5
Miss is exactly right.
Also, OPM has not taken the steps necessary to create a new register. The present register (and the eligibility of those on it) will continue until there is a new register to replace it.
|
|
|
|
Post by keepsake on Jul 7, 2015 12:31:07 GMT -5
Plus OPM is, in essence, adding to the current register by granting some unknown number of appeals and reducing the preliminary score to get to the D.C. portions - with panel interviews being scheduled for sometime in the fall from what's been shared on the Board. That process likely won't be done until near or at the "expiry" of the current register so it will just continue and probably eventually be refreshed by allowing a brief period of new applicants at some distant date.
|
|
paattorney
Full Member
One year anniversary. Wow.
Posts: 46 
|
Post by paattorney on Jul 7, 2015 12:54:30 GMT -5
When they extend the register, am I correct that everyone on it will have the opportunity to expand their GAL?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Jul 7, 2015 12:57:20 GMT -5
Not necessarily - but it is possible they will do both around the same time. They can extend without refreshing and refresh without extending, but the same team works on the issue (and they've suffered some personnel losses in the recent realignment), so I predict those 2 things will happen, more or less at the same time - and I expect it will be September/October - probably after the agencies (mainly ODAR and OMHA) give them a heads up they will have a short pause in hiring.
|
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 7, 2015 13:05:48 GMT -5
When they extend the register, am I correct that everyone on it will have the opportunity to expand their GAL? I believe OPM must allow modification of GALs when it refreshes the register. At other times (like now) OPM has the discretion to allow modification of GALs. |
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jul 7, 2015 15:00:25 GMT -5
I see a refresh occurring sometime before the end of this calendar year.
|
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 7, 2015 15:03:51 GMT -5
I see a refresh occurring sometime before the end of this calendar year. I think when OPM refreshes may depend on how well lowering the online cutoff score works. If it works well for them, they may try it again. |
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jul 7, 2015 15:09:25 GMT -5
The extensions of the last register were just that, extending the date. It happened more than once. The one- time adjustment of GAL in 2012 was all on its own, too.
I don't see a refresh this calendar year to be very likely. Maybe starting very late in the year, but more likely next year. Once they start a refresh, extension of the expiration date will occur as needed. If they add a lot of people due to the appeals, that will give them more breathing room.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jul 7, 2015 15:31:42 GMT -5
The extensions of the last register were just that, extending the date. It happened more than once. The one- time adjustment of GAL in 2012 was all on its own, too. I don't see a refresh this calendar year to be very likely. Maybe starting very late in the year, but more likely next year. Once they start a refresh, extension of the expiration date will occur as needed. If they add a lot of people due to the appeals, that will give them more breathing room. I think a GAL expansion after they get done with the appeals and issue NORs is the most likely scenario. GAL expansion beforehand complicates processing. GAL expansion is cheaper and less time consuming than a refresh. I think it also buys them at least a few more hires before they need a refresh. **** I realize that this may seem like a rebuttal to 71Stretch's post and it is in fact agreement with what I believe to be her main point that a refresh is not imminent**** |
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 7, 2015 15:43:30 GMT -5
I think OPM is getting everything they would get from a refresh with the lowering of the online cutoff score at less cost. If this group does not fail the SI and WD at significantly higher rates than the first group through did, OPM may lower the score a few more times when it needs to repopulate the register.
It may be a long time before OPM does a refresh of the register.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jul 7, 2015 16:00:58 GMT -5
I think OPM is getting everything they would get from a refresh with the lowering of the online cutoff score at less cost. If this group does not fail the SI and WD at significantly higher rates than the first group through did, OPM may lower the score a few more times when it needs to repopulate the register. It may be a long time before OPM does a refresh of the register. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jul 7, 2015 16:39:42 GMT -5
Well, they aren't getting the same numbers they'd get from a refresh, but they are getting them cheaper and faster. If they then do a GAL adjustment, they can hold off on a refresh.
|
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 7, 2015 16:53:01 GMT -5
I think there were several thousand who took the online portion but didn't make the cutoff. OPM could lower the cutoff to test as many as they did when they established the register and still have enough left to do it another time or three if they chose.
|
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jul 7, 2015 19:52:17 GMT -5
I think there were several thousand who took the online portion but didn't make the cutoff. OPM could lower the cutoff to test as many as they did when they established the register and still have enough left to do it another time or three if they chose. I don't think they are going to keep lowering the score to get more people in without starting over. Sends a message they don't want to send. This was a whole new process, they looked at how many didn't meet the score, how menu appeals there were, and the nature of those appeals, and decided the score was too low. They were probably hoping to have more on the register than they ended up with. This gets some more folks on there without starting over. Of course, those doing the online portion still have to pass the rest of the steps. More pitfalls remain. |
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 7, 2015 20:01:30 GMT -5
I think there were several thousand who took the online portion but didn't make the cutoff. OPM could lower the cutoff to test as many as they did when they established the register and still have enough left to do it another time or three if they chose. I don't think they are going to keep lowering the score to get more people in without starting over. Sends a message they don't want to send. This was a whole new process, they looked at how many didn't meet the score, how menu appeals there were, and the nature of those appeals, and decided the score was too low. They were probably hoping to have more on the register than they ended up with. This gets some more folks on there without starting over. Of course, those doing the online portion still have to pass the rest of the steps. More pitfalls remain. I think changing the cutoff was OPM's plan from the start. The online cutoff is primarily a way for OPM to control how many it tests in DC at a time. The WD and SI minimum scores are how OPM controls the quality of those on the register. So changing the cutoff for the online testing does not send a bad message; changing the passing score for the SI or WD would. |
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Jul 7, 2015 22:56:32 GMT -5
I don't think they are going to keep lowering the score to get more people in without starting over. Sends a message they don't want to send. This was a whole new process, they looked at how many didn't meet the score, how menu appeals there were, and the nature of those appeals, and decided the score was too low. They were probably hoping to have more on the register than they ended up with. This gets some more folks on there without starting over. Of course, those doing the online portion still have to pass the rest of the steps. More pitfalls remain. I think changing the cutoff was OPM's plan from the start. The online cutoff is primarily a way for OPM to control how many it tests in DC at a time. The WD and SI minimum scores are how OPM controls the quality of those on the register. So changing the cutoff for the online testing does not send a bad message; changing the passing score for the SI or WD would. I don't know if it was their strategy from the start, but it serves the purpose of controlling the numbers going to DC for testing on what at least appears to be a fairer basis than limiting the initial posting to an arbitrary number of applicants and giving an edge to people familiar enough with the process to have everything ready to file the day the announcement goes live. Because I have taken the online portion, I also agree with the first half of your last sentence, but I am not sure I would agree if I had not actually taken the online test and seen the questions. I'm not going to elaborate on that. |
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jul 8, 2015 21:56:28 GMT -5
I don't think they are going to keep lowering the score to get more people in without starting over. Sends a message they don't want to send. This was a whole new process, they looked at how many didn't meet the score, how menu appeals there were, and the nature of those appeals, and decided the score was too low. They were probably hoping to have more on the register than they ended up with. This gets some more folks on there without starting over. Of course, those doing the online portion still have to pass the rest of the steps. More pitfalls remain. I think changing the cutoff was OPM's plan from the start. The online cutoff is primarily a way for OPM to control how many it tests in DC at a time. The WD and SI minimum scores are how OPM controls the quality of those on the register. So changing the cutoff for the online testing does not send a bad message; changing the passing score for the SI or WD would. Doing it once, whether they meant to do it all along or not, doesn't send any bad message. Doing it multiple times would. JMO |
|
