|
Post by auroraborealis on Aug 13, 2015 7:53:41 GMT -5
I'm creating this thread for Round 2 rejectees who are still waiting on either 1) a decision on their appeal or 2) to see if OPM does in fact lower the score for this subgroup which might give some a second shot at moving on to Round 3 (WD/SI). I know there are quite a few of us in this category and I figure many of us are perusing the board and checking our email obsessively to see if there are any updates. This might be a place where (hopefully) if any of our individual statuses change, we can alert others to keep an eye out. It might also be a place to vent if you are feeling particularly prickly with the slow process....
I'll start off by saying as the days pass this month I am not feeling super hopeful any longer after knowing that invites have already gone out for the Round 1 rejectees, whom were given the chance to take the SJT, and now have been invited to participate in the WD/SI. To me this signals that they likely may have a large enough pool from that first batch. Otherwise why would you do two separate rounds of the WD/SI? Just my sense of where things might be headed. Not to be a debbie downer, but it is just my take on where things might stand. If anyone has any different info/insight it would be helpful to hear.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 13, 2015 9:01:27 GMT -5
My thought is that OPM is first sending through people who should have been sent through in 2013 and weren't due to OPM's error.
They cannot possibly get enough new candidates from that group to replenish the Register sufficiently to satisfy the expected continued aggressive hiring by SSA.
I would expect OPM to get to the large next-highest-scoring-subgroup pretty soon and schedule them for DC testing after the successful appeal folks are all scheduled.
|
|
|
Post by scouter2 on Aug 13, 2015 9:04:04 GMT -5
I'm with you Aurora-- not sure what is going on and am frustrated by such an obscure process. I have 24 years of experience handling Social Security disability claims, and it appears they have no idea I'm even out here ready and willing to help reduce the massive backlog. Jeeesh, at least test us and interview us, so you know what you have in your pool to select from.
|
|
|
Post by auroraborealis on Aug 13, 2015 9:11:43 GMT -5
My thought is that OPM is first sending through people who should have been sent through in 2013 and weren't due to OPM's error. They cannot possibly get enough new candidates from that group to replenish the Register sufficiently to satisfy the expected continued aggressive hiring by SSA. I would expect OPM to get to the large next-highest-scoring-subgroup pretty soon and schedule them for DC testing after the successful appeal folks are all scheduled. I hope you are on the money, Gary!
|
|
|
Post by hopingforalj on Aug 13, 2015 9:16:14 GMT -5
My thought is that OPM is first sending through people who should have been sent through in 2013 and weren't due to OPM's error. They cannot possibly get enough new candidates from that group to replenish the Register sufficiently to satisfy the expected continued aggressive hiring by SSA. I would expect OPM to get to the large next-highest-scoring-subgroup pretty soon and schedule them for DC testing after the successful appeal folks are all scheduled. I hope you are on the money, Gary! Im with Gary, u just never know about OPM.
|
|
|
Post by auroraborealis on Aug 13, 2015 9:28:40 GMT -5
I hope you are on the money, Gary! Im with Gary, u just never know about OPM. I'd love to believe this to be true. I was just thinking why would you schedule folks to be available for SIs in two rounds. Unless they have people volunteering like crazy just seemed more logical to do everything in one bunch. I hope I'm wrong!
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 13, 2015 9:39:36 GMT -5
I'm not suggesting two completely separate periods of time for the testing.
I'm suggesting they are scheduling the successful appellants for the first slots. Then they will schedule the next-highest-scoring-subgroup candidates. (People from both groups may or may not test together.)
Then OPM could score the successful appellants first and send out their NORs while they are still scoring the large next-highest-scoring-subgroup, who will have to wait for the scoring of all testees to be completed before receiving their NORs.
OPM can do the scoring this way because they will be scoring consistently with the 2013-14 scoring, and don't need to establish what the minimum scores for the WD and SI are to be.
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Aug 13, 2015 10:39:22 GMT -5
I initially thought they would lower the bar 1st, passing along a set number of people onto step 3, and in the process mooting a chunk of the step 2 appeals. And then processing the step 2 appeals. I now think they are going to process the appeals 1st, before lowering the bar.
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Aug 13, 2015 11:46:31 GMT -5
Well, the group that's moving through now is a group that didn't get the invitation they should have gotten to do the online test. My WAG is that it is the subgroup of these folks that meet the old, higher scoring threshold are being invited to DC now. It makes sense that OPM would process the folks who meet the old, higher scoring threshold first, before lowering the threshold score and processing the next group.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 13, 2015 11:51:01 GMT -5
Well, the group that's moving through now is a group that didn't get the invitation they should have gotten to do the online test. My WAG is that it is the subgroup of these folks that meet the old, higher scoring threshold are being invited to DC now. It makes sense that OPM would process the folks who meet the old, higher scoring threshold first, before lowering the threshold score and processing the next group. I like your thinking on this.
|
|
|
Post by auroraborealis on Aug 13, 2015 12:13:26 GMT -5
Well, the group that's moving through now is a group that didn't get the invitation they should have gotten to do the online test. My WAG is that it is the subgroup of these folks that meet the old, higher scoring threshold are being invited to DC now. It makes sense that OPM would process the folks who meet the old, higher scoring threshold first, before lowering the threshold score and processing the next group. I like your thinking on this. Personally, this only makes sense to me if the pool is large enough to provide enough potential candidates to be put on the cert. Unless they are going to quickly process this second group and do the testing in the same timeframe. I hope that is the case. I am also still holding on to hope because I also assume that by now they convened the appeals panel and would have made some decisions on appeals---which means that there is at a least a small pocket of folks who may have their appeals granted who would then be invited to the WD/SI. I am not aware of anyone (at least on the Board) who fits that criteria being invited to this new round of testing. A lot of guessing/assumptions being made I know but at this point we have nothing else to go by.
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Aug 13, 2015 12:54:25 GMT -5
You know, it's only a WAG. I'm an outsider with no special knowledge.
But I'm not sure numbers is a driving factor here. For example, OPM is required to process 10-pt vets quarterly - so testing and interviewing is an ongoing process and it's not like they have to have huge numbers to move a group through. They place individuals on the Register, not groups, and you can individually request to suspend or reinstate at any time. So the Register is fluid and I don't think that they hold up one set to wait for another; instead, I think they add more resources to the ongoing process when they know they'll have a bigger number of candidates coming through.
It just seems to be an easy group to define and move through - people that meet the criteria that was used to form the group that's already on the register. But it's just my WAG.
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Aug 13, 2015 13:08:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by auroraborealis on Aug 13, 2015 13:09:08 GMT -5
You know, it's only a WAG. I'm an outsider with no special knowledge. But I'm not sure numbers is a driving factor here. For example, OPM is required to process 10-pt vets quarterly - so testing and interviewing is an ongoing process and it's not like they have to have huge numbers to move a group through. They place individuals on the Register, not groups, and you can individually request to suspend or reinstate at any time. So the Register is fluid and I don't think that they hold up one set to wait for another; instead, I think they add more resources to the ongoing process when they know they'll have a bigger number of candidates coming through. It just seems to be an easy group to define and move through - people that meet the criteria that was used to form the group that's already on the register. But it's just my WAG. Your WAG is as good as mine. Anything that gives me a sunnier outlook sure is helpful, so I'll take it. Was one of the reasons I started this thread because I was feeling about as bad as I did after getting, "sorry you didn't meet the cutoff score email."
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Aug 13, 2015 13:13:20 GMT -5
At just about every stage of this process, it's sometimes encouraging and sometimes incredibly depressing to read about others' experiences. It's very hard not to get discouraged when your number hasn't been called - for one reason or another - and the Board lights up with good news for a bunch of others.
But the flip side is that it's very comforting to know that you're not the ONLY one who's still waiting for her turn. And the passing on of real intel from insiders is invaluable.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Aug 13, 2015 13:40:46 GMT -5
Plus on some level the people here get your roller coaster and there is comfort in the shared experience. Think March of the Penguins but less cold.
|
|
|
Post by upbeat on Aug 13, 2015 15:14:03 GMT -5
Hi. Just received notification that my round 2 appeal was unsuccessful. While I think I should have won my appeal and moved on in the process, I believe that there is a reason for everything and that great things still lie ahead for me (and everyone else!). Thanks for all the info and support on this board. And may the odds be ever in your favors!
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 13, 2015 15:22:29 GMT -5
Hi. Just received notification that my round 2 appeal was unsuccessful. While I think I should have won my appeal and moved on in the process, I believe that there is a reason for everything and that great things still lie ahead for me (and everyone else!). Thanks for all the info and support on this board. And may the odds be ever in your favors! Was your appeal of the decision that your score on the online testing was not high enough for you to test in DC?
|
|
|
Post by agent99 on Aug 13, 2015 15:23:24 GMT -5
Positive name to go with a positive attitude.!
|
|
|
Post by upbeat on Aug 13, 2015 15:28:52 GMT -5
This is the text of e-mail I received: "Appeal Status: IMSJ Ineligible Rating Sustained This message serves as official notification of the results of your appeal for the IMSJ ineligible rating you received for the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) examination, Job Opportunity Announcement (JOA), number ALJ2013-847661. The Administrative Law Judge Appeals Panel has evaluated your appeal based on all relevant documentation in your record and has sustained your original 1C20Ineligible1D20 Notice of Results (NOR) as described below: 1C20IMSJ: The score for your performance in the Situational Judgment Test (SJT), Writing Sample, and Experience Assessment is not within the range of the higher scored sub-group of all the eligible applicants. Accordingly, your application will no longer be considered for the current Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) examination. As provided in the ALJ Job Opportunity Announcement, your score for the SJT, Writing Sample, and Experience Assessment must have placed you among the higher scored group for you to be invited to participate in the subsequent assessments. Note: In determining which candidates were in the higher scored group, veterans1920 preference points were added to the scores of applicants who were entitled to veterans1920 preference and had submitted the required documentation.1D20 The Appeals Panel first reviewed your Online Component record (i.e., SJT, Writing Sample and Experience Assessment) and confirmed that your score was assigned appropriately. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) also investigated any specific technical concerns raised regarding the administration of the Online Component and found no irregularities. Further, OPM has made a decision to permit a larger group of preliminarily qualified applicants to move forward to the Proctored and In-Person Components (i.e., Written Demonstration, Logic-Based Measurement Test, and the Structured Interview) of the ALJ examination. OPM then reviewed your Online Component score based on this decision. As a result of its review, OPM determined that your Online Component score is not within the range of the expanded group to move forward to the Proctored and In-Person Components. Accordingly, your ineligible rating of IMSJ stands as noted above. The 2013 ALJ appeals process was comprehensive. As further described in the ALJ JOA and the ALJ Appeal Rights message, this decision of the Panel is final and exhausts your administrative appeal rights. You may retake the ALJ Examination when the examination is open to the receipt of new applications. OPM plans to reopen the ALJ examination as the need arises. You will also be required to complete all parts of the examination at that time. Specific application information and filing procedures will be described in the ALJ announcement. You may find out about future open periods by referring to OPM1920s website at www.usajobs.gov. OPM will also provide information and notices regarding the ALJ examination to interested parties, as appropriate. As such information becomes available it will be posted on the OPM ALJ website at www.opm.gov/services-for-agencies/administrative-law-judges/. Thank you for your interest in the ALJ Program. Sincerely, Administrative Law Judge Program Office"Oh, well. Onward and upward!
|
|