|
Post by gary on Sept 4, 2015 11:16:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zepplin on Sept 4, 2015 12:12:06 GMT -5
I feel like I could be a more interesting person if I could know and capitalize upon the shady side of me that only SSA knows about ...
|
|
|
Post by owl on Sept 4, 2015 12:57:28 GMT -5
You're both right.
I have heard from good sources that ODAR *knows* there are *plenty* of decent candidates on the register, i.e., people who have been rated recommended or highly recommended. They are quite keen to hire these people as fast as possible. So, when looking at the register as a whole, they are not having a problem finding decent (in their eyes) candidates. Point, JudgeRatty.
But I have also heard that there are more than a few who are not recommended. It is comforting to think that that rating is given only very rarely but my intel is that it is not rare - certainly not a majority of interviewees by any means but not just once in a blue moon either. Thus, at this point in the life of the register, for some location certs, the top 3 are all not recommended or are headed by a not-recommended 5- or 10-pointer, blocking the path to many desired candidates with lower NOR scores. Thus, when looking at the various top 3s at this point in the game, they are indeed having a problem finding decent (in their eyes) candidates. The slowness is not due to some epidemic of people not answering their phones or taking 24 hours or whatever. Point, propmaster.
These logjams will eventually break but it may take a combination of GAL expansion (rumored to be coming), new and desirable higher-NOR candidates coming onto certs (always theoretically in process with quarterly retesting, likely to happen in greater numbers after OPM testing this fall concludes), refreshing the register (not on the near horizon), etc.
Additionally, of course, ODAR could decide to hire some not-recommended higher-NOR scorers to free up immediate paths to greater numbers of recommended lower-NOR scorers, but the slow pace and failure to hit oft-announced hiring targets would seem to be evidence that this is not happening much if at all.
Keep the faith and don't quit your day jobs in the meantime. Good luck all.
Nice story Owl, but holds little weight based upon common sense. There are still many people with wide open or near wide open GALs with decent scores for places SSA wants to hire, but these people are not being picked up. I think the part about not recommend may be the most true. There are probably a lot more not recommend than we think. Hence, the register really lacks candidates SSA wants to hire. Not that there aren't qualified candidates, but not qualified candidates SSA wants to hire. It is their perogative to hire whom it wishes, so it decides not to hire many OPM qualified candidates. MPD, I don't think we're disagreeing, maybe just have differing takes on whether the glass is half full or half empty.* I just shared what I have been told on why they are hiring fewer people than their targets. On many certs they have gotten to a point where there are not-recommendeds with higher NOR scores (and presumably fewer than 3 strikes) blocking the path to recommendeds with lower NOR scores. And yes, for this to happen, there would have to be "a lot" of not-recommendeds, and based on my intel, I do believe SSA's interviewers give out significantly more of those ratings than is probably assumed on this board.
There are reasons for all of us who have not been picked up yet to be concerned because as you point out the hard truth is that SSA doesn't want everybody on the register. I wish that weren't the case but it is what it is. There are also reasons to be optimistic because historically SSA has found ways - although it may take them a while - to get to people that it does want. Since none of us knows for sure that we were not recommended, we may as well be optimistic and assume we are in the group being blocked, not the ones doing the blocking, and hope that situation proves to be temporary.
* The glass is in fact always completely full, it's just the ratio of liquid to gas that varies.
|
|
|
Rant
Sept 4, 2015 13:17:52 GMT -5
via mobile
cheesy likes this
Post by wiszman on Sept 4, 2015 13:17:52 GMT -5
As someone with a high NOR but a very small GAL which includes a city that keeps being listed on certs with no one ever being hired for that spot, I have to presume I am a blocker and not a blockee. Sorry to all the "recommended" folks behind me for that city ?
|
|
|
Post by Mocha5 on Sept 4, 2015 13:33:44 GMT -5
In the spirit of Owl's post, I'm trying to stay positive with all this, feeling that I'd make a solid contribution to the ODAR mission if hired as an ALJ, yet taking the long view and recognizing I'm fortunate to be in a job that has treated me well.
Having said that, I'm seeking counsel or information from the board with respect to the interplay of NOR scores and multiple city certs in terms of the timing of the offers. If you make a cert for a city, meaning that you are one of the three highest scores for that location, does that mean that ODAR can hire you for that city whenever it likes? Or, can you be blocked by higher scoring candidates who have your city among numerous others available in their wider GALs, meaning that those candidates must be cleared before ODAR can reach you?
I ask because this is my second cert for a single city (small GAL; currently only hiring for one city on it). My NOR score is slightly below the lowest score reported on the most recent NOR poll. I'm just trying to figure out if I have a chance of even being considered on the merits at this point. Put differently, is ODAR interviewing candidates it has no possibility of hiring in any reasonable time frame?
As always, thank you to the Board for the encouragement, camaraderie, and information.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Sept 4, 2015 13:40:03 GMT -5
In the spirit of Owl's post, I'm trying to stay positive with all this, feeling that I'd make a solid contribution to the ODAR mission if hired as an ALJ, yet taking the long view and recognizing I'm fortunate to be in a job that has treated me well. Having said that, I'm seeking counsel or information from the board with respect to the interplay of NOR scores and multiple city certs in terms of the timing of the offers. If you make a cert for a city, meaning that you are one of the three highest scores for that location, does that mean that ODAR can hire you for that city whenever it likes? Or, can you be blocked by higher scoring candidates who have your city among numerous others available in their wider GALs, meaning that those candidates must be cleared before ODAR can reach you? I ask because this is my second cert for a single city (small GAL; currently only hiring for one city on it). My NOR score is slightly below the lowest score reported on the most recent NOR poll. I'm just trying to figure out if I have a chance of even being considered on the merits at this point. Put differently, is ODAR interviewing candidates it has no possibility of hiring in any reasonable time frame? As always, thank you to the Board for the encouragement, camaraderie, and information. Generally, if you are on a cert you are reachable. This means that there is some combination of hiring from the open certs that would put you in a top 3 and so make it possible for ODAR to hire you. It may be that you are just barely reachable and that unless ODAR hires in one possible sequence they won't be able to reach you. Also, especially if you are somewhat down the score list for a city, it is possible that ODAR's first hire will put you out of reach.
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Sept 4, 2015 13:45:43 GMT -5
The short answer is YES. SSA interviews every new name that appears on one of its certs as a matter of course. It has nothing to do with where you rank on the certs or whether you actually ever rise to the top 3.
Making a city cert does NOT mean that you are one of the top 3 on that cert. OPM must provide enough candidates on each cert to have 3 left on each once all the picking and choosing goes on. Getting on the cert means that you MIGHT be reachable, but it doesn't mean that you will be reached.
SSA is supposed to choose among the top 3 for each city, which changes as the process goes. Candidate A - a super-high scorer or a 10-pt vet (more on that later) - might be in the top 3 on 4 city certs - so offering him city 1 AND HIS ACCEPTANCE would remove him from cities 2, 3 & 4, allowing up to 3 other candidates to move up. But if he DECLINES the offer, he is still sitting in the top 3 of the other cities, and only city 1 is affected, with 1 candidate moving up the list.
There is also an overlay of vet preference, which is explained in much better detail in other threads. The gist - if there is a 5- or 10-pt vet in the top three, the vet has preference over the others, and SSA has to explain to OPM why it is not taking the vet if it wants to hire one of the others in the top 3.
Also note that OPM provides enough candidates ASSUMING that SSA hires for every city requested. We have yet to see a hiring round in which all of the cities certed are hired.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Sept 4, 2015 14:15:17 GMT -5
Veterans Preference:
1. If a preference-eligible (most but not all are vets) is in a top 3 for a position at the time of selection, the agency: a) may not select a lower-scoring non-preference-eligible; b) may hire another preference-eligible in the top 3 regardless of scores; and c) may hire a higher scoring non-preference-eligible in the top 3.
2. The three considerations rule applies to preference-eligibles just like it does to non-preference-eligibles. That is, if a preference-eligible is considered three times for positions and not hired, the agency does not have to consider the preference-eligible for subsequent positions. (If the agency requests, OPM will omit candidates who have been considered three times from subsequent certs, which is what is called being three-struck.)
3. There is another procedure relevant to preference-eligibles. If the agency has sufficient grounds and gets permission from OPM, it may pass over the preference-eligible and hire instead a lower scoring non-preference-eligible who is in the top 3. The grounds for this are narrow. If a preference-eligible is passed over three times by this procedure, the preference-eligible need not be included on future certs.
|
|
|
Rant
Sept 4, 2015 14:17:08 GMT -5
gary likes this
Post by luckylady2 on Sept 4, 2015 14:17:08 GMT -5
As someone with a high NOR but a very small GAL which includes a city that keeps being listed on certs with no one ever being hired for that spot, I have to presume I am a blocker and not a blockee. Sorry to all the "recommended" folks behind me for that city ? You might not be THAT important (none of us are!) - after the agency has given you 3 considerations, they don't need to consider you any more, and can move past you - IF they want to.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Sept 4, 2015 15:25:05 GMT -5
As someone with a high NOR but a very small GAL which includes a city that keeps being listed on certs with no one ever being hired for that spot, I have to presume I am a blocker and not a blockee. Sorry to all the "recommended" folks behind me for that city ? You might not be THAT important (none of us are!) - after the agency has given you 3 considerations, they don't need to consider you any more, and can move past you - IF they want to. Actually the agency can easily move past him on the first consideration, unless he has veterans' points, then it isn't so easy. There is no requirement that the agency hire the top score from the top three scoring candidates, and in fact it often does not do so. The agency doesn't care about the OPM score in making its hiring decisions. It determines the quality of the candidate using different criteria. So, a candidate with a high score isn't blocking anyone below him with a lesser score from getting an offer, unless veterans' points attach to the high scoring candidate. Pixie.
|
|
|
Rant
Sept 4, 2015 16:10:11 GMT -5
gary likes this
Post by beenlurking on Sept 4, 2015 16:10:11 GMT -5
You might not be THAT important (none of us are!) - after the agency has given you 3 considerations, they don't need to consider you any more, and can move past you - IF they want to. Actually the agency can easily move past him on the first consideration, unless he has veterans' points, then it isn't so easy. There is no requirement that the agency hire the top score from the top three scoring candidates, and in fact it often does not do so. The agency doesn't care about the OPM score in making its hiring decisions. It determines the quality of the candidate using different criteria. So, a candidate with a high score isn't blocking anyone below him with a lesser score from getting an offer, unless veterans' points attach to the high scoring candidate. Pixie. I don't know if I like the post or not because I don't know where I fit in, if at all. But, it's good information nonetheless, so I liked it.
|
|
|
Rant
Sept 4, 2015 17:07:56 GMT -5
Post by bartleby on Sept 4, 2015 17:07:56 GMT -5
Prop, you can be Lucas, Prince of Darkness... If you have ever owned a Little British Car, you will totally understand..
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Sept 5, 2015 1:21:29 GMT -5
Just wanted to comment on Moopigsdad's post. As you know, I don't have any dog in this hunt, but I still follow the board. I don't know who is the ultimate decision-maker on the hiring. But I know ODAR has a lot of information of the judges it has hired since 2007 when OPM did the first post-Azdell testing. If I was a smart analytical type, I would looking at the following data for the hires: (1) NOR, (2) number of dispositions per year, (3) remand rate. No doubt there is the person who has a high NOR but is not faring well in the other two categories as well as the reverse. But if the Bell curve holds true, there is that point on the downside. As the person doing the hiring, I would be hesitant to pick up anyone who is at or beyond that point, unless the candidate was highly recommended. The risk just isnt' worth it. And it does not appear from the reports that we are seeing ODAR going into the low 60's, high 50's like it did before the latest round of testing. So I agree with Moopigsdad. You may be on the certificates of eligibles but ODAR is showing no inclination to make the offers. I predict that such a study would show that there is little to no correlation between one's NOR and one's future performance as an SSA ALJ. The only ALJ I've worked with who I'd rate as a 5/5 in all aspects of the job: high producer, high quality, excellent instructions, thorough file review, effective hearing, mentor/teacher/leader had a NOR that was "below the curve".
|
|
|
Post by saaao on Sept 5, 2015 7:36:22 GMT -5
Just wanted to comment on Moopigsdad's post. As you know, I don't have any dog in this hunt, but I still follow the board. I don't know who is the ultimate decision-maker on the hiring. But I know ODAR has a lot of information of the judges it has hired since 2007 when OPM did the first post-Azdell testing. If I was a smart analytical type, I would looking at the following data for the hires: (1) NOR, (2) number of dispositions per year, (3) remand rate. No doubt there is the person who has a high NOR but is not faring well in the other two categories as well as the reverse. But if the Bell curve holds true, there is that point on the downside. As the person doing the hiring, I would be hesitant to pick up anyone who is at or beyond that point, unless the candidate was highly recommended. The risk just isnt' worth it. And it does not appear from the reports that we are seeing ODAR going into the low 60's, high 50's like it did before the latest round of testing. So I agree with Moopigsdad. You may be on the certificates of eligibles but ODAR is showing no inclination to make the offers. I predict that such a study would show that there is little to no correlation between one's NOR and one's future performance as an SSA ALJ. The only ALJ I've worked with who I'd rate as a 5/5 in all aspects of the job: high producer, high quality, excellent instructions, thorough file review, effective hearing, mentor/teacher/leader had a NOR that was "below the curve". In regard to NOR's, the NOR's being assigned to this register are being assigned based on a new test that was supposedly revamped based on customer (i.e. ODAR) feedback. Obviously I don't know how different the test is now, because I didn't take the previous test, but I would think that NOR analysis based on current ALJ's would not be valid for ALJ's coming in from the new register. The NOR might be turning out to be a correlating factor to interview performance, meaning OPM might have hit some of the notes ODAR was concerned about. To take it further, in regards to the testers coming in from the new second phase cut off, if the NOR is a factor (especially if NOR is explicitly being factored into the ODAR hiring equation), then they are going to have a lower score already baked into the cake. I think (without any support but observation and supposition) that the second phase cut off was probably set based, in part, on a predictive factor of success at the third phase. The cut was already pretty brutal for the round of testing that generated the register. If my supposition is true, the new round of testing will probably take a greater toll. If the NOR is correlating to ODAR interview performance, then the new round will produce more NR interview results. If on the other hand there is a NOR level where ODAR has decided someone has to be pretty special to get a look, then ODAR will either have to adjust score expectations down or go back up the list and take a closer look at the previously passed over. I would note that everyone on this round of certs was required to provide an updated resume, and the cert pulled many, many previously referred names. I of course do have a dog in this fight, but I think my analysis is objective, though it does rely on some logical leaps substituting for actual knowledge of what is going on. As an added factor OMHA also wants to do a major expansion of it's ALJ Corp, and while funding is of course always the question, ODAR does need to factor in that they will have competition next year. While hiring ability goes FY to FY, ODAR did set this up as a multi year hiring plan. Hiring patterns might not just be turning on the usual factors but also might factor in if a candidate is up for an OMHA city as well. Of course these are issues I should really not be thinking about on vacation.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Sept 5, 2015 9:29:57 GMT -5
Just wanted to comment on Moopigsdad's post. As you know, I don't have any dog in this hunt, but I still follow the board. I don't know who is the ultimate decision-maker on the hiring. But I know ODAR has a lot of information of the judges it has hired since 2007 when OPM did the first post-Azdell testing. If I was a smart analytical type, I would looking at the following data for the hires: (1) NOR, (2) number of dispositions per year, (3) remand rate. No doubt there is the person who has a high NOR but is not faring well in the other two categories as well as the reverse. But if the Bell curve holds true, there is that point on the downside. As the person doing the hiring, I would be hesitant to pick up anyone who is at or beyond that point, unless the candidate was highly recommended. The risk just isnt' worth it. And it does not appear from the reports that we are seeing ODAR going into the low 60's, high 50's like it did before the latest round of testing. So I agree with Moopigsdad. You may be on the certificates of eligibles but ODAR is showing no inclination to make the offers. I predict that such a study would show that there is little to no correlation between one's NOR and one's future performance as an SSA ALJ. The only ALJ I've worked with who I'd rate as a 5/5 in all aspects of the job: high producer, high quality, excellent instructions, thorough file review, effective hearing, mentor/teacher/leader had a NOR that was "below the curve". I think that is 100% true as stated. And while Puzzle Palace is thinking in terms of future performance production, you must also remember that they want to hire the right kind of applicant--one who won't embarass them or make waves. In that regard those whom have a solid government track record offer more certainty. However, I would submit that there are intangibles here that are all important for your future happiness. Are you patient with those less fortunate than you and oftetimes far less intelligent? Can you distance yourself from the heart-breaking stories you hear day after day and maintain professional courtesy and compassion? Do you daydream and dwell on this insignificant? Are you organiized and self motivated with little need for outside encouragement? Do you leave the heartbreak hotel that is your ODAR Office behind you every night with nary a thought as to what went down? When I was an attorney I could passionately believe in the "sanctity" of my cause. Doubt need not creep in. When I became a Judge, I became The Ump and allowed all that came before me to whiz past and allow me to make the decision that I had to make--then and there. After that, all is dust in the wind and I go back to being an umpire with a very circumscribed home plate.
|
|
|
Post by phoenixrakkasan on Sept 5, 2015 10:15:26 GMT -5
SAAAO, the vacation has given you some very good thoughts. I agree that applicants who are just getting to the third stage will start with a lower score. However, that does not mean they will not do better at the SI or the WD or LBMT than those who took the test in 2013. Once on the register, they will have a shot. There is no guarantee for the job. There will never be. Applicants need to keep this in mind.
|
|
|
Rant
Sept 5, 2015 11:15:36 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by zepplin on Sept 5, 2015 11:15:36 GMT -5
SAAAO, the vacation has given you some very good thoughts. I agree that applicants who are just getting to the third stage will start with a lower score. However, that does not mean they will not do better at the SI or the WD or LBMT than those who took the test in 2013. Once on the register, they will have a shot. There is no guarantee for the job. There will never be. Applicants need to keep this in mind. I think they will do better because of all the tips posted! ; )
|
|
|
Rant
Sept 5, 2015 11:42:35 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by gary on Sept 5, 2015 11:42:35 GMT -5
SAAAO, the vacation has given you some very good thoughts. I agree that applicants who are just getting to the third stage will start with a lower score. However, that does not mean they will not do better at the SI or the WD or LBMT than those who took the test in 2013. Once on the register, they will have a shot. There is no guarantee for the job. There will never be. Applicants need to keep this in mind. We don't know what, if any, correlation there is between performance on the online components and performance on the proctored components. OPM has data from 2013 from which it might have a good idea on this, but they are not sharing the data or the results of any analyses with us.
|
|
|
Rant
Sept 5, 2015 12:24:56 GMT -5
Post by cafeta on Sept 5, 2015 12:24:56 GMT -5
SAAAO, the vacation has given you some very good thoughts. I agree that applicants who are just getting to the third stage will start with a lower score. However, that does not mean they will not do better at the SI or the WD or LBMT than those who took the test in 2013. Once on the register, they will have a shot. There is no guarantee for the job. There will never be. Applicants need to keep this in mind. We don't know what, if any, correlation there is between performance on the online components and performance on the proctored components. OPM has data from 2013 from which it might have a good idea on this, but they are not sharing the data or the results of any analyses with us. I, too, used part of my vacation time in this way and pondered the fact that we would be entering with lower scores from the earlier testing. But then, I had a thought! I noticed that at least one person had their appeal cancelled as well as their non-eligibility. That would be profoundly unfair to that individual and others in that position, because a favorable appeal would have possibly increased that earlier score. And, add in that there are so many changes since then, known and unknown, to the factors considered for the NOR. So, is it possible there will be a new and revised process that accounts for/negates the impact of the earlier scores! I think I am using my vacation time extraordinarily well! My wife says "not" however!
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Sept 5, 2015 13:38:26 GMT -5
They cannot change the scoring process or they create a fairness issue.
The folks who had their appeals canceled were in the next highest scoring subgroup. To my knowledge no one who took the online portion of the test had a successful appeal. They were simply in the next highest scoring subgroup. Some folks who did not take the online portion advanced to being allowed to take the online portion.
Some people who appealed their WD scores have been given a new NOR which placed them on the register. Their appeals were granted not cancelled.
I think you should go to DC and take the test. You can't win if you don't play and none of us has any idea how much any particular piece of the testing counts other than that you must achieve a minimum score on the WD and SI. They are down into at least the low 60's on NORs for several locations and I wouldn't be surprised if they have cracked the 50's.
addendum:
If you have - and would keep - a narrow GAL made up of cities like Seattle, San Diego, Manhattan, San Francisco, etc. then you need to think long and hard about the possibility that your score doesn't matter because you will never get an interview.
|
|