|
Post by backtoeden on Mar 9, 2016 9:41:54 GMT -5
Possibly. But it is more likely that it is just a friendly FYI for their AJs who wish to apply. That's exactly what it is. Many EEOC AJs eventually became ALJs. Indeed, in recent years a number of EEOC AJs have left EEOC to become ALJs at SSA. EEOC AJs decide discrimination cases, including some complex disability cases. I think the background analyzing medical conditions and determining whether they rise to the level of a disability makes AJs attractive candidates for SSA. I think it's interesting that EEOC is informing the AJs to be on the lookout for the application opening, but for the AJs, who are maxed out as GS-14s, it is a good opportunity for career progression. EEOC may also look at it as way for them to hire and develop new AJs as the veterans move on.
|
|
|
Post by aljudgmental on Mar 9, 2016 9:47:32 GMT -5
Be on the lookout: The new exam could possibly have new cities on it, as well. I would imagine we would be able to update our GALs once again, if this is to occur. Watch calling it a new exam. It isn't a new exam its an opportunity for people to take the same exams that was offered in 2013. Not trying to pick at you but with new people coming to the Board I don't want to give anyone the wrong idea about whats going on. I honestly don't think any new cities that were not available in January will be on the list but new cities have been rumored in the past so maybe some will come to fruition. gary is right past practice has been that when a refresh occurs everyone can update your GAL. Maybe we should change the title of thread
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Mar 9, 2016 10:13:05 GMT -5
Watch calling it a new exam. It isn't a new exam its an opportunity for people to take the same exams that was offered in 2013. Not trying to pick at you but with new people coming to the Board I don't want to give anyone the wrong idea about whats going on. I honestly don't think any new cities that were not available in January will be on the list but new cities have been rumored in the past so maybe some will come to fruition. gary is right past practice has been that when a refresh occurs everyone can update your GAL. Maybe we should change the title of thread Actually it says "New ALJ Application," which is correct. It then says "and Exam," which is correct as it doesn't say it is a new exam. Plus, I can't actually change the name of the thread; once established it is set in stone. I have, however, found a way to correct egregious errors in the title, such as spelling, but it isn't a simple process. The original poster must start a new thread with the spelling errors corrected (hopefully). I then move all of the posts over to the new thread. I think that will work OK when it arises in the future. Pix.
|
|
|
Post by aljudgmental on Mar 9, 2016 12:00:39 GMT -5
Maybe we should change the title of thread Actually it says "New ALJ Application," which is correct. It then says "and Exam," which is correct as it doesn't say it is a new exam. Plus, I can't actually change the name of the thread; once established it is set in stone. I have, however, found a way to correct egregious errors in the title, such as spelling, but it isn't a simple process. The original poster must start a new thread with the spelling errors corrected (hopefully). I then move all of the posts over to the new thread. I think that will work OK when it arises in the future. Pix. Let us now digress into a debate about coordinate nouns and one adjective
|
|
|
Post by yodapug on Mar 9, 2016 12:29:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aljudgmental on Mar 9, 2016 12:40:22 GMT -5
Former English teacher, turned lawyer.
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Mar 9, 2016 13:15:39 GMT -5
Callister - You'll have to look at the new job announcement when it comes out and see how they ask for it.
BTW - Welcome to the Board!
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Mar 9, 2016 13:50:54 GMT -5
Okay, I'm a newbie to all of this and have a question about qualifying legal experience. If, in 1 job, I have both administrative and litigation experience (for 10 years total), and it was split pretty evenly, would I give percentages of 50% qualifying litigation experience and 50% administrative experience? Or would both text boxes state 100% qualifying experience, but that seems odd since it would be 200% for 1 job? Or are the percentages even necessary since it is not mixed with non-qualifying and qualifying? Any thoughts are appreciated. Welcome aboard. We can't answer that. You must answer and submit your application materials in the way YOU interpret the question. Level playing field and all that. . .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2016 14:00:37 GMT -5
Okay, I'm a newbie to all of this and have a question about qualifying legal experience. If, in 1 job, I have both administrative and litigation experience (for 10 years total), and it was split pretty evenly, would I give percentages of 50% qualifying litigation experience and 50% administrative experience? Or would both text boxes state 100% qualifying experience, but that seems odd since it would be 200% for 1 job? Or are the percentages even necessary since it is not mixed with non-qualifying and qualifying? Any thoughts are appreciated. Welcome aboard. We can't answer that. You must answer and submit your application materials in the way YOU interpret the question. Level playing field and all that. . . Got it - didn't realize that. I appreciate the information and will withdraw the question.
|
|
|
Post by aljhopeful2 on Mar 9, 2016 16:00:28 GMT -5
Prop, great analysis! My only quibble is that the fonts you used probably don't accurately reflect the various pool sizes. They surely don't make a font small enough for "alj" to reflect the final pool from the number of "Qualified Lawyers" and on through the process. It's kind of like our solar system ... the distance from start to finish is more like the distance from the Sun to Neptune, that's hard to put to scale in a post like Prop's .... If you have 7 minutes, this video probably gives you a better perspective on your odds, and it's a really cool video in its own right. Enjoy! Awesome video. And to think, the thousands of folks who recently applied for the astronaut program, you actually have a better chance of making ALJ than they have of becoming an astronaut! I wonder what the chances are of becoming a NASA ALJ are (if there even is such a thing). And if there is such a thing, will we one day get the opportunity to add Mars to our GALs? :-)
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Mar 9, 2016 17:33:37 GMT -5
Actually it says "New ALJ Application," which is correct. It then says "and Exam," which is correct as it doesn't say it is a new exam. Plus, I can't actually change the name of the thread; once established it is set in stone. I have, however, found a way to correct egregious errors in the title, such as spelling, but it isn't a simple process. The original poster must start a new thread with the spelling errors corrected (hopefully). I then move all of the posts over to the new thread. I think that will work OK when it arises in the future. Pix. Let us now digress into a debate about coordinate nouns and one adjective Yes, I thought of that when I was typing the post but I was making an argument for the OP, so I forged ahead, hoping no one would call me on it. Last hopes die hard. Pixie.
|
|
|
Post by intothewild on Mar 10, 2016 16:04:49 GMT -5
EEOC AJs got an email today from EEOC HR chief to be on the lookout for an upcoming ALJ exam. Quite strange. Is anyone hearing anything about EEOC moving to ALJs? That is not likely to happen. If anything it is simply providing an opportunity for EEOC AJs to move on. I still think it is pretty sad that EEOC AJs are only GS 14. EEOC probably needs some new blood, maybe this will encourage the older AJs to move on so that younger Feds can move in =).
|
|
|
Post by onepingonly on Mar 18, 2016 22:40:53 GMT -5
EEOC AJs got an email today from EEOC HR chief to be on the lookout for an upcoming ALJ exam. Quite strange. Is anyone hearing anything about EEOC moving to ALJs? That is not likely to happen. If anything it is simply providing an opportunity for EEOC AJs to move on. I still think it is pretty sad that EEOC AJs are only GS 14. EEOC probably needs some new blood, maybe this will encourage the older AJs to move on so that younger Feds can move in =). My guess is that it was merely a courtesy to the EEOC AJs, not a portent of anything.
|
|
dvsw
Full Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by dvsw on Apr 26, 2016 13:19:01 GMT -5
Does having an ALJ certification via a national ALJ school help? (To get selected assuming all else passed)
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Apr 26, 2016 15:07:22 GMT -5
It certainly won't hurt.
As this thread is past its expiration date, I am going to lock it. If anyone has a real desire to post further in it, let me know by PM. Pixie.
|
|