|
Post by bac on Mar 4, 2016 10:29:08 GMT -5
Good morning, ALJ discussion board friends. Is there any chance the subgroup will get scores today? Opinions? Bahahahahahaha! (laughing/crying) That's been the $64,000 question the last 3 weeks
|
|
|
Post by numbersix on Mar 4, 2016 10:53:18 GMT -5
Bahahahahahaha! (laughing/crying) That's been the $64,000 question the last 3 weeks Ugh! A Friday does seem unlikely...
|
|
|
Post by christina on Mar 4, 2016 12:03:21 GMT -5
im going to wag we all know march 25th at the latest.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator ALJ on Mar 4, 2016 12:08:10 GMT -5
im going to wag we all know march 25th at the latest. Given that someone's status just changed from "see details tab" to "complete" within the last 3 days, I'd wager we don't hear until the end of the month. Not based on intel, just my gut telling me the grading and inputting of overall scores isn't finished.
|
|
|
Post by numbersix on Mar 4, 2016 12:59:58 GMT -5
im going to wag we all know march 25th at the latest. Given that someone's status just changed from "see details tab" to "complete" within the last 3 days, I'd wager we don't hear until the end of the month. Not based on intel, just my gut telling me the grading and inputting of overall scores isn't finished. NRG, so not want I want to hear but it is definitely logical. Sigh.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Mar 4, 2016 13:17:29 GMT -5
well, still waiting for a score or a foad letter but in the interim, i just got an email about Cancun... hmmmm!! better than some of the other junk email i get
|
|
|
Post by odarSAA on Mar 4, 2016 23:44:12 GMT -5
Given that someone's status just changed from "see details tab" to "complete" within the last 3 days...... Has anyone reported going from "complete" to "see details tab"?
|
|
|
Post by JenMPR on Mar 5, 2016 8:25:32 GMT -5
im going to wag we all know march 25th at the latest. Given that someone's status just changed from "see details tab" to "complete" within the last 3 days, I'd wager we don't hear until the end of the month. Not based on intel, just my gut telling me the grading and inputting of overall scores isn't finished. Now, I think that would be an interesting way to limit the number of appeals they get, given that the new application is likely to be posted on April 1.
|
|
|
Post by aljpdq on Mar 5, 2016 8:34:48 GMT -5
In the poll, I guessed it would be next week. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it !!
|
|
|
Post by JenMPR on Mar 5, 2016 8:41:13 GMT -5
In the poll, I guessed it would be next week. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it !! Ditto
|
|
|
Post by litigator52 on Mar 5, 2016 12:25:58 GMT -5
Here's a thought, just a WAG. If highly placed OPM folks have informally shared with highly placed ODAR folks, a concern that fewer than the reasonably expected number of the ALJ testers have scored well enough in the SUBJECTIVELY scored parts of the testing process to make the register, there might be an effort or plan afoot to take another look at the subjective scoring, for those who did super well on the logic-based test (objectively scored) and not so well on the other parts. That scenario makes sense to me in light of the horrifically botched job OPM did initially on deeming many qualified people as unqualified on the online test -- for reason such as misunderstanding/counting the total years of qualifying legal experience, appropriate courtroom procedure, etc. Lit52
|
|
|
Post by christina on Mar 5, 2016 13:05:55 GMT -5
Here's a thought, just a WAG. If highly placed OPM folks have informally shared with highly placed ODAR folks, a concern that fewer than the reasonably expected number of the ALJ testers have scored well enough in the SUBJECTIVELY scored parts of the testing process to make the register, there might be an effort or plan afoot to take another look at the subjective scoring, for those who did super well on the logic-based test (objectively scored) and not so well on the other parts. That scenario makes sense to me in light of the horrifically botched job OPM did initially on deeming many qualified people as unqualified on the online test -- for reason such as misunderstanding/counting the total years of qualifying legal experience, appropriate courtroom procedure, etc. Lit52 that occurred to me too. honestly, the number of completes on this board, assuming the percentages were true for the general population of awaiting a nor status, seemed low. i think it would be hard to redo the SI but having someone else look over the WD's would be doable.
|
|
|
Post by Ready-Now! on Mar 5, 2016 13:34:43 GMT -5
Does the activity with the transfer list, for a while now, support this premise?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 5, 2016 13:39:26 GMT -5
1. OPM has to score all parts of the test the same as they scored them in 2013. If they don't do so it blows the integrity of the exam, since they will be adding new people to the register with scores that will be compared to the scores of those already on the register. They can only change the scoring of any part of the testing when they create a new register.
2. As I recall, while there were some errors by OPM on qualifications, by far the greater number of mistakes at that juncture were made by applicants who failed to accurately report their own qualifications in accordance with the questions OPM asked.
|
|
|
Post by Ready-Now! on Mar 5, 2016 13:44:27 GMT -5
Excellent points Gary.
|
|
|
Post by litigator52 on Mar 5, 2016 13:47:40 GMT -5
Gary said: "OPM has to score all parts of the test the same as they scored them in 2013.". Well, Gary, how can one say that a purely subjective judgement of whether a written faux decision is good or not, and if so HOW good (ditto the interview responses) is, or is not, just as it was done in 2013?? A second pair of more careful eyes might discern that the written part of the test, or the interview responses, were indeed better than originally rated, no? Lit52
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 5, 2016 13:57:28 GMT -5
If they start monkeying around with how they score any part of the exam, they will screw up the comparability of the new scores with the old scores. That is true regardless of whether or not there is a subjective component to the grading.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Mar 5, 2016 14:04:50 GMT -5
or they could look over WD's of those who failed that portion in 2013 as well.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on Mar 5, 2016 14:10:23 GMT -5
Gary said: "OPM has to score all parts of the test the same as they scored them in 2013.". Well, Gary, how can one say that a purely subjective judgement of whether a written faux decision is good or not, and if so HOW good (ditto the interview responses) is, or is not, just as it was done in 2013?? A second pair of more careful eyes might discern that the written part of the test, or the interview responses, were indeed better than originally rated, no? Lit52 I think you may be discussing apples and oranges. I think Gary was referring to the process, the types of tests and the minimum scores during prior rounds. Also, I do not think anyone can second guess or re-evaluate the interviewers' scoring of the candidates as I do not believe these were recorded using video. Thus, the interviewers are the only ones who saw the demeanor of the applicant, or noted the tone of the answers, eye contact, etc., that are realistically part of any interview process. Regarding reviewing and re-evaluating the written portion of the exam, yes a second look for those on the cusp of receiving a score may have been part of the process. Neither of these is mutually exclusive to a statement that "OPM has to score all parts of the test the same as they scored them in 2013". I believe Gary is referring to the process used for grading. Thus, if a second look at the written exam was part of the process in 2013, it would continue to be part of the process this time. The types of tests administered previously are the types of tests that will be administered, the minimum score last time would remain the minimum score this time, etc.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 5, 2016 14:15:06 GMT -5
I'm not convinced OPM views the failure rate on the WD and SI as a problem. I think the minimum scores on the WD and SI are designed to improve the quality of the ALJ candidates OPM puts on the register, and the failure rates demonstrate the seriousness of OPM's commitment to that quality.
|
|