|
Rant
Sept 5, 2015 14:56:04 GMT -5
gary likes this
Post by keepsake on Sept 5, 2015 14:56:04 GMT -5
Just to offer what I believe might be a clarification. I think some folks who just very recently took the WD/LBMT/SI were successful appellants (I know I was from Round 1) and then took the online Round 2 and then were deemed fit to move on to DC for Round 3. There is no indication one way or the other if OPM used the "old" score threshold or the "new" score threshold for those who just completed Round 3. But we as a group were not offered the opportunity to self schedule. Rather we were told to be there this past week or reschedule for one particular date (I believe 9/14).
I found it curious that there was a small subset apparently that went to DC just this past week (mostly - or exclusively from what I could tell) on the basis of (a) having successfully appealed either Round 1 or Round 2 issues (note - my appeal was not cancelled but I moved on as a result of a positive appeal determination); (b) having been queried if they were still interested because they were deemed eligible for Round 2 but didn't take the Round 2 online component (as a result of the Zane MSPB case discussed elsewhere I imgaine) or (c) being an eligible vet (quarterly testing).
So for this admittedly small group - the question is open about the score threshold to get the pass to Round 3 from what I can tell. I have selfish reasons for hoping it was the old score threshold as that would mean a higher Round 2 score for those of us, but really cannot say.
|
|
|
Rant
Sept 5, 2015 17:25:09 GMT -5
Post by cafeta on Sept 5, 2015 17:25:09 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. Thanks Gaiden, that makes sense. And I certainly plan on coming to DC to "play," but I hope they don't play to rough!!
|
|
|
Post by cafeta on Sept 5, 2015 17:27:51 GMT -5
Just to offer what I believe might be a clarification. I think some folks who just very recently took the WD/LBMT/SI were successful appellants (I know I was from Round 1) and then took the online Round 2 and then were deemed fit to move on to DC for Round 3. There is no indication one way or the other if OPM used the "old" score threshold or the "new" score threshold for those who just completed Round 3. But we as a group were not offered the opportunity to self schedule. Rather we were told to be there this past week or reschedule for one particular date (I believe 9/14). I found it curious that there was a small subset apparently that went to DC just this past week (mostly - or exclusively from what I could tell) on the basis of (a) having successfully appealed either Round 1 or Round 2 issues (note - my appeal was not cancelled but I moved on as a result of a positive appeal determination); (b) having been queried if they were still interested because they were deemed eligible for Round 2 but didn't take the Round 2 online component (as a result of the Zane MSPB case discussed elsewhere I imgaine) or (c) being an eligible vet (quarterly testing). So for this admittedly small group - the question is open about the score threshold to get the pass to Round 3 from what I can tell. I have selfish reasons for hoping it was the old score threshold as that would mean a higher Round 2 score for those of us, but really cannot say. Thanks keepsake, your situation may be what I was thinking of, which fits with Gaiden's analysis as well, the smaller subgroup that just went through may have qualified at a higher score, moving them/you forward a bit earlier. I find this all great for continued speculationing (apologies to dubya)!
|
|
|
Post by Morfin on Sept 6, 2015 0:35:12 GMT -5
A converse rant. I have (and am not afraid to admit it) survivors guilt. I am from a recent training class and am stationed in a high-turnover office where seemingly few want to be. I had a wide open GAL. I am ecstatic about being a judge and, so far, love the work, people, and experience.
My problem is my score. It was incredibly low. Based on the current polling for the Sept class, my score was lower than all of the people given offers -- for some, more than 15 points lower. Yes, I was fortunate and I have the wide GAL to thank for my offer. And I know there is a system in place with all the the names per city, the strikes, and other assorted wrinkles. But as I talked to new ALJs at training, or in my office, or read on this board, I couldn't help but feel somewhat guilty that I have received the coveted call (from Mellinda, in my case) while there are obviously many others with much higher scores who have to endure hearing about enlarging the candidate pool because they are running out of qualified candidates.
I am not wallowing in self-pity. But I do feel the very real pain of those stuck in an interminably-long, frustratingly-incomprehensible process, waiting for The Call.
Here's a toast to those persevering souls: May your phone ring Tuesday morning. We're all thinking about you.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Sept 6, 2015 0:42:16 GMT -5
Thank you Morfin.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Sept 6, 2015 7:26:16 GMT -5
Morphin, no need to have guilt about anything. You evidently established a body of work over the years that made you desirable to the agency, and TPTB were able to bring you on board. Your wide open GAL made you reachable in spite of a very low score. As I have said before, if the agency wants you, it can usually find a way to get you. Although with the current method OPM is using to send certs to the agency, this probably is not as true as it once was.
I am glad you are finding the agency a good fit and are enjoying the experience. Keep up the good work. Pix
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Sept 6, 2015 14:30:58 GMT -5
I totally agree with Pixie on this one, morphin. Your post is honest and original.
You had not just a body of work as Pixie notes, but you had a high enough score to get hired.
Let me posit this hypothetical: some day you get hired by another Agency and after a few years they make you Chief Judge. Do you think anyone is going to care what your score is? Are you going to be sitting at a FALJC Convention roundtable muttering to yourself that you have no business being there because your score is too low?
Once we hired as ALJs, we are all equals. What you do with your career after that and the reputation that you have is largely up to you. Welcome aboard!
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Sept 6, 2015 15:03:48 GMT -5
I totally agree with Pixie on this one, morphin. Your post is honest and original. You had not just a body of work as Pixie notes, but you had a high enough score to get hired. Let me posit this hypothetical: some day you get hired by another Agency and after a few years they make you Chief Judge. Do you think anyone is going to care what your score is? Are you going to be sitting at a FALJC Convention roundtable muttering to yourself that you have no business being there because your score is too low? Once we hired as ALJs, we are all equals. What you do with your career after that and the reputation that you have is largely up to you. Welcome aboard! I'll take it a step further. The NOR is a lot like a score on the bar exam. If you hit the minimum score (meaning got on the register), you're every bit as qualified to be an ALJ as anyone else on the register. NORs aren't indicative of anything other than the folks that scored your WD and SI thought you performed at a certain level. If I had switched reviewers/graders with anyone in this process, including those cut at the WD/SI stage, it's entirely possible I'm still a writer in my former office and would have never made the register. Or I could have ended up with a NOR 5-6 points higher or lower. There is way too much subjectivity and luck of the draw involved in navigating the testing process and landing on the register to read anything into a NOR. You're qualified because you ended up on the register. SSA thought you were among the best candidates, so they snapped you up.
|
|
|
Rant
Sept 6, 2015 15:06:21 GMT -5
Gaidin likes this
Post by grassgreener on Sept 6, 2015 15:06:21 GMT -5
My problem is my score. It was incredibly low. Based on the current polling for the Sept class, my score was lower than all of the people given offers -- for some, more than 15 points lower. Yes, I was fortunate and I have the wide GAL to thank for my offer. And I know there is a system in place with all the the names per city, the strikes, and other assorted wrinkles. But as I talked to new ALJs at training, or in my office, or read on this board, I couldn't help but feel somewhat guilty that I have received the coveted call (from Mellinda, in my case) while there are obviously many others with much higher scores who have to endure hearing about enlarging the candidate pool because they are running out of qualified candidates. I am not wallowing in self-pity. But I do feel the very real pain of those stuck in an interminably-long, frustratingly-incomprehensible process, waiting for The Call. We all played the same "game" - we all have to decide how badly we want the job versus the location and you choose the job and got the call. Well done.
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Sept 6, 2015 16:07:35 GMT -5
We all played the same "game" - we all have to decide how badly we want the job versus the location and you choose the job and got the call. Well done. Yeah, not all of us had found the Board before we applied, so we chose GAL as if it were like any other job offer, not knowing all the transfer possibilities and the gamesmanship of choosing a GAL. So for many of us the choice of GAL was not a function of how badly we wanted the job. And for many of us, the other facets of our lives REQUIRED a smaller GAL - still not a function of how badly we want the job or how good we'd be at it.
|
|
|
Post by ba on Sept 6, 2015 20:56:44 GMT -5
We all played the same "game" - we all have to decide how badly we want the job versus the location and you choose the job and got the call. Well done. Yeah, not all of us had found the Board before we applied, so we chose GAL as if it were like any other job offer, not knowing all the transfer possibilities and the gamesmanship of choosing a GAL. So for many of us the choice of GAL was not a function of how badly we wanted the job. And for many of us, the other facets of our lives REQUIRED a smaller GAL - still not a function of how badly we want the job or how good we'd be at it. There is likely a GAL expansion in the near future.
|
|
|
Rant
Sept 6, 2015 21:33:29 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by phoenixrakkasan on Sept 6, 2015 21:33:29 GMT -5
We all played the same "game" - we all have to decide how badly we want the job versus the location and you choose the job and got the call. Well done. Yeah, not all of us had found the Board before we applied, so we chose GAL as if it were like any other job offer, not knowing all the transfer possibilities and the gamesmanship of choosing a GAL. So for many of us the choice of GAL was not a function of how badly we wanted the job. And for many of us, the other facets of our lives REQUIRED a smaller GAL - still not a function of how badly we want the job or how good we'd be at it. You made your bed, now you have to lie in it.
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Sept 7, 2015 0:03:59 GMT -5
Yeah, not all of us had found the Board before we applied, so we chose GAL as if it were like any other job offer, not knowing all the transfer possibilities and the gamesmanship of choosing a GAL. So for many of us the choice of GAL was not a function of how badly we wanted the job. And for many of us, the other facets of our lives REQUIRED a smaller GAL - still not a function of how badly we want the job or how good we'd be at it. You made your bed, now you have to lie in it. I'm not complaining. I'm just objecting to the inference that we all knew the "game" at the time we applied. Some did, some didn't. I have no problem with the fact that I did the best application (including GAL) that I could at the time. While I would welcome a GAL expansion because life has changed significantly in the last 2.5 years, I am very much at peace with the choices I made at the time of application.
|
|
|
Post by ok1956 on Sept 7, 2015 8:36:32 GMT -5
I know other board memberss have heard this from me before but I selected a small GAL for personal reasons (that haven't changed) and I got the call - so don't despair! In fact, my class (April) had a significant number of folks with small GALs. Which may also account for the slowness of offers - trying to work around the individual city certs and people with small GALs. To quote JudgeRatty: it is a great time to be on the register!
|
|
|
Post by gary on Sept 7, 2015 8:47:38 GMT -5
I know other board memberss have heard this from me before but I selected a small GAL for personal reasons (that haven't changed) and I got the call - so don't despair! In fact, my class (April) had a significant number of folks with small GALs. Which may also account for the slowness of offers - trying to work around the individual city certs and people with small GALs. To quote JudgeRatty: it is a great time to be on the register! It has not escaped our attention that the two of you saying it's a great time to be on the register aren't on it.
|
|
|
Post by ok1956 on Sept 7, 2015 10:00:03 GMT -5
I know other board memberss have heard this from me before but I selected a small GAL for personal reasons (that haven't changed) and I got the call - so don't despair! In fact, my class (April) had a significant number of folks with small GALs. Which may also account for the slowness of offers - trying to work around the individual city certs and people with small GALs. To quote JudgeRatty: it is a great time to be on the register! It has not escaped our attention that the two of you saying it's a great time to be on the register aren't on it. Ah..... But that's where we started. :-) You can't play if you don't enter. Oh wait! That's my $7,000 per week for life entry ...
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Sept 8, 2015 13:04:14 GMT -5
I totally agree with Pixie on this one, morphin. Your post is honest and original. You had not just a body of work as Pixie notes, but you had a high enough score to get hired. Let me posit this hypothetical: some day you get hired by another Agency and after a few years they make you Chief Judge. Do you think anyone is going to care what your score is? Are you going to be sitting at a FALJC Convention roundtable muttering to yourself that you have no business being there because your score is too low? Once we hired as ALJs, we are all equals. What you do with your career after that and the reputation that you have is largely up to you. Welcome aboard! Reminds me of the old adage - What do you call the person who graduated last in his medical school class? Doctor.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Sept 9, 2015 7:03:28 GMT -5
I totally agree with Pixie on this one, morphin. Your post is honest and original. You had not just a body of work as Pixie notes, but you had a high enough score to get hired. Let me posit this hypothetical: some day you get hired by another Agency and after a few years they make you Chief Judge. Do you think anyone is going to care what your score is? Are you going to be sitting at a FALJC Convention roundtable muttering to yourself that you have no business being there because your score is too low? Once we hired as ALJs, we are all equals. What you do with your career after that and the reputation that you have is largely up to you. Welcome aboard! I'll take it a step further. The NOR is a lot like a score on the bar exam. If you hit the minimum score (meaning got on the register), you're every bit as qualified to be an ALJ as anyone else on the register. NORs aren't indicative of anything other than the folks that scored your WD and SI thought you performed at a certain level. If I had switched reviewers/graders with anyone in this process, including those cut at the WD/SI stage, it's entirely possible I'm still a writer in my former office and would have never made the register. Or I could have ended up with a NOR 5-6 points higher or lower. There is way too much subjectivity and luck of the draw involved in navigating the testing process and landing on the register to read anything into a NOR. You're qualified because you ended up on the register. SSA thought you were among the best candidates, so they snapped you up. Hopefalj I'll see your "luck of the draw" for the WD/SI and raise you that "luck of the draw" also applies to the SSA interview. The panel you draw for the SSA interview will determine if you get the position or not at SSA. So, yes, the "luck of the draw" applies to the entire process not just at OPM IMHO.
|
|