|
Post by bac on Mar 5, 2016 14:20:18 GMT -5
If they'd just tell us the ?& (@%}%€ scores...
|
|
|
Post by christina on Mar 5, 2016 14:20:24 GMT -5
agreed but opm is under pressure to produce names too. anyway, we can WAG away and i think all we can come away with is that Gary is right they need to use same testing protocol and standards in 2013 to maintain the integrity of the testing process.
|
|
|
Post by aljfisher on Mar 5, 2016 14:21:50 GMT -5
I think scoring and lowering the cut off line are apples and oranges. I don't think they can change the scoring process itself but it seems to me they can assess and adjust the minimum score required which is how the October-December group got back in the game in the first place. My WAG is that ascertaining the minimum score may be one of the reasons why it takes a while to get NORs. Edit: I was sitting in traffic and realized that the WAG above is highly unlikely and problematic so it was def more of a rant/rave than anothing else
|
|
|
Post by christina on Mar 5, 2016 14:41:29 GMT -5
i was more thinking on the WD, looking them over again to see if they were a passing score or a failing score, for those who failed.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 5, 2016 14:43:43 GMT -5
i was more thinking on the WD, looking them over again to see if they were a passing score or a failing score, for those who failed. As long as what they do is make sure the WDs were graded in accordance with the grading criteria they put into effect in 2013, I see nothing wrong with this.
|
|
|
Post by aljfisher on Mar 5, 2016 14:48:22 GMT -5
Yeah, additional reviews of lower scored WD's would take a while. I can appreciate the careful scoring if such was the case.
BTW I can't help wondering if there has ever been a board member who has taken the step to get an "NOR" tattoo? A painful process to memorialize another painful process?
|
|
|
Post by bac on Mar 5, 2016 14:49:38 GMT -5
I like it "NOR" right next to "Mama"
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Mar 5, 2016 21:15:50 GMT -5
Clearly, OPM needs an Appeals Council to review the WD.
|
|
|
Post by cafeta on Mar 5, 2016 22:14:25 GMT -5
I think scoring and lowering the cut off line are apples and oranges. I don't think they can change the scoring process itself but it seems to me they can assess and adjust the minimum score required which is how the October-December group got back in the game in the first place. My WAG is that ascertaining the minimum score may be one of the reasons why it takes a while to get NORs. Apples and oranges, hmmm, let's see. Both start and end with a vowel, both are round, both have skins, both have seeds, both are a fruit, both grow in a tree.
|
|
|
Post by aljfisher on Mar 5, 2016 22:31:11 GMT -5
That's true. However, orange juice is orange but apple juice isn't apple
|
|
|
Post by cafeta on Mar 5, 2016 22:33:42 GMT -5
Very true that! Also grown in different climates! But I always love pointing out the similarities when that adage is used. I kno, a groaner, but that's just the way I roll (and troll apparently)!
|
|
|
Post by quesera on Mar 6, 2016 9:33:49 GMT -5
BTW I can't help wondering if there has ever been a board member who has taken the step to get an "NOR" tattoo? A painful process to memorialize another painful process? Ah, risking ridicule as well! Someone in my law school class told everyone her LSAT score and the number became her nickname.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 6, 2016 9:38:47 GMT -5
BTW I can't help wondering if there has ever been a board member who has taken the step to get an "NOR" tattoo? A painful process to memorialize another painful process? Ah, risking ridicule as well! Someone in my law school class told everyone her LSAT score and the number became her nickname. She did? How is good old 123 anyway?
|
|
|
Post by bac on Mar 6, 2016 9:39:21 GMT -5
Someone did that? Geez. I onetime got 600k on Galaga
|
|
|
Post by Ready-Now! on Mar 6, 2016 9:44:44 GMT -5
Someone did that? Geez. I onetime got 600k on Galaga 3 Yahtzees in a row here!
|
|
|
Post by Ready-Now! on Mar 6, 2016 9:50:49 GMT -5
I don't recall when the scoring for the LSAT changed from max of 48 to max of180, but 123 would have been in the lower percentile under the current scoring method. I don't know what she would have been bragging about, but then that is probably your point Gary...lol.
Edit: I understand it is not the actual score quesera was noting.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 6, 2016 9:51:52 GMT -5
I don't recall when the scoring for the LSAT changed from max of 48 to max of180, but 123 would have been in the lower percentile under the current scoring method. I don't know what she would have been bragging about, but then that is probably your point Gary...lol. And the penny drops!
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 6, 2016 9:53:25 GMT -5
I don't recall when the scoring for the LSAT changed from max of 48 to max of180, but 123 would have been in the lower percentile under the current scoring method. I don't know what she would have been bragging about, but then that is probably your point Gary...lol. Back in my day it was scored on a scale with a max of 800, so whippersnappers, mine is bigger than yours.
|
|
|
Post by Ready-Now! on Mar 6, 2016 9:54:21 GMT -5
I ask for that
|
|
|
Post by bac on Mar 6, 2016 9:55:02 GMT -5
I was in the 10-48 days. Talk about inferiority complex...
|
|