|
Post by tripper on Feb 26, 2016 10:38:11 GMT -5
For that to happen, 3 important stars must align: First, your gal. The more cities you are competing for the better. Especially if some of those are the less popular locales. Second is your score. If you make a cert you are technically hireable somewhere. But the higher your score the more locales you will eventually be in a top 3 for and ssa has more options on when and where they hire you. Finally, your interview and references. If those sink you and garner you a dreaded "nnot recommended" from the hiring committee, it doesn't matter what your score is. If you get a "recommended" (which is essentially a "we could live with this person") you could be hired or not. If there is someone they want more in direct competition with you, you're toast. But, if hiring you some where allows one they want more to move up to a spot where they can reach that person, congrats you are a judge. If you are that person they really want, i.e. you got the coveted "highly recommended" classification, odar will take the path that allows them to get to you. Good luck. Exciting times. Funk Just wondering the opinion of those who have watched this process for some time. Imagine everything was about the same as Funky: decent score, highly productive insider, good references and interview BUT a smaller GAL, still containing a very undesirable location. By narrowing the GAL to say 5 cities, but none very popular, do you increase your chances of getting that (to others) undesirable location? Thanks for your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Feb 26, 2016 10:54:55 GMT -5
If by "good references and interview" you mean you got a highly recommend then, in my opinion you are golden.
If you just got a "recommended"...maybe. probably not on the first round of certs and you may end up wishing you were competing for more cities.
Again, all just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Judicially Imployed on Feb 26, 2016 11:14:15 GMT -5
As usual gary and stretch are absolutely right right. As a less hypothetical example, I offer myself. I had a wide open, go anywhere gal. My score was a 74.99, just slightly above the first rounders mean score but undoubtedly not high enough to be in any cities top 3 on the first cert. But I was on the first cert. Everyone on a cert interviews (unless you were interviewed on a previous cert, you only get one). I interviewed and then watched multiple days of offers go out to other folks with higher scores. I assumed I was just filler and would have to hope for a second cert. Ultimately, I got the call on the first cert. They could not have hired me unless I eventually made it into one of my gal cities top 3. So, I must have. How that happened had to be a result of two things.... Well done funky! This is a "drop the mic and walk off the stage" post. Btn Gary, Stretch and this gem by funky, we should create a new topic and sticky these posts. It should also be required reading when you join the board. Especially, around this time as people new to the application process join. RULE OF THREE / THREE TIMES CONSIDERED - here is the answer everytime it gets asked.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Feb 26, 2016 11:14:17 GMT -5
Tripper: Why would you delete the other sites from consideration, limiting yourself to 5 "undesirables"? When I went through the process, I had a similar profile to Funky, but in determining the sites I would consider, I looked at travel time home. Any site where I could get home within 8 hours by auto or air was considered. It ended up being about 15 offices.
Remember when you limit your GAL to those 5 offices, you are shutting yourself out of consideration of other places you would accept. The selector is not aware of your reasoning and could care less. To the selector, no site is undesirable in the job offers. It is just a vacancy that needs to be and can be filled. And if filled, the person accepting the job will be there for a while. No quicky transfers as was the case in the past.
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Feb 26, 2016 11:24:39 GMT -5
The reason I would consider limited myself to 5 is that all 5 are more acceptable to me than any others and none of them are particularly desirable to the general pool of applicants, one of them being one of the dreaded craplands. I'd rather crapland#1 over prettyniceplace#1. Just trying to figure out how I maximize my chance to land there. I'm ok with staying there for two years or more.
|
|
|
Post by numbersix on Feb 26, 2016 12:34:48 GMT -5
Thanks Gary and Funky. You two rock.
|
|
|
Post by hopeitsme on Feb 26, 2016 13:13:12 GMT -5
I have only 2 cities listed both of which are completely undesirable (or at least I think so). I cannot relocate due to family circumstances..... and I will never leave either post if ever offered. I am sure this wasn't the best positioning but it was the only one I had and didn't want to be considered for a position that I knew I would never accept. Not that I will have a great score anyways...
|
|
|
Post by worrywart on Feb 26, 2016 13:58:33 GMT -5
So the next test is a refresh of the existng registry, right? How many people are estimated to be on the registry currently? When they close a registry does that mean everyone who was on it has to start all over to be on a new registry? I take it that 2013 was a new registry? So, if this is a refresh any thoughts how long it will be open?
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Feb 26, 2016 14:00:57 GMT -5
So the next test is a refresh of the existng registry, right? How many people are estimated to be on the registry currently? When they close a registry does that mean everyone who was on it has to start all over to be on a new registry? I take it that 2013 was a new registry? So, if this is a refresh any thoughts how long it will be open? I recall reading here that the existing registry currently expires in 2018. Confirmation?
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Feb 26, 2016 14:15:02 GMT -5
I have only 2 cities listed both of which are completely undesirable (or at least I think so). I cannot relocate due to family circumstances..... and I will never leave either post if ever offered. I am sure this wasn't the best positioning but it was the only one I had and didn't want to be considered for a position that I knew I would never accept. Not that I will have a great score anyways... And that's exactly how you should have done it. Everyone needs to remember not to get caught up in the game of getting hired. In the end it's just a job. For some it's a job worth moving across the country for, or leaving your family for a while for. Others, not so much. I was an insider with no desire to go back to private practice. Thus, alj was my only way up a ladder. That made it worth going anywhere. But had I other options....probably wouldn't have been so willing to move. As to the register (sorry but "registry" reminds me of a wedding) how many are on it is hard to pin down. New names are added everytime vet pref candidates that can apply anytime make it, after the Oct group made it and after the Dec group is finally scored. Names are removed with hiring. It has an expiration date in 2018 but usually they extend that multiple times. They will only let it expire when and if they want to revamp the testing like they did in 2013. A refresh isn't a revamp. I doubt they revamp for a long while giving the expense and the fact that they haven't done even the first refresh of this one yet. But, yes, in a revamp it expires and everyone starts over from scratch.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Feb 26, 2016 14:26:53 GMT -5
Back to Tripper's trying to maximize the chances of being selected. I am not so sure that limiting your availability to 5 places you think are less desirable will have the result you want, and in the end may come back to haunt you. There are just too many variables at play. As there is a certificate for each office, you have to know where your score puts you on each one. Then there is the order in which the vacancies are filled, and the new twist of your getting to list your preferences of placement.
It seems to me that the object of the game would be to keep your name in contention for as long as possible to increase your odds of being in the top 3 or even the number 1 for a vacancy. I am not advocating a wide open GAL if there are places you would not consider. I simply suggest that you make yourself available for every office where you are willing to be placed.
You never know how it will work out. You could end up like me. I was placed in the office I wanted to be in--100 feet down the hall from where I was working.
|
|
|
Post by minny on Feb 26, 2016 14:30:11 GMT -5
I have only 2 cities listed both of which are completely undesirable (or at least I think so). I cannot relocate due to family circumstances..... and I will never leave either post if ever offered. I am sure this wasn't the best positioning but it was the only one I had and didn't want to be considered for a position that I knew I would never accept. Not that I will have a great score anyways... I understand because I has the same problem when I applied initially, but my circumstances changed over time. That is the thing that I would keep in mind. If you cannot accept it today but you might be able to accept it before the expiration of the register in 2018, consider adding it if given the opportunity. I feel very fortunate that they allowed the GAL expansion.
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Feb 26, 2016 14:30:46 GMT -5
Back to Tripper's trying to maximize the chances of being selected. I am not so sure that limiting your availability to 5 places you think are less desirable will have the result you want, and in the end may come back to haunt you. There are just too many variables at play. As there is a certificate for each office, you have to know where your score puts you on each one. Then there is the order in which the vacancies are filled, and the new twist of your getting to list your preferences of placement. It seems to me that the object of the game would be to keep your name in contention for as long as possible to increase your odds of being in the top 3 or even the number 1 for a vacancy. I am not advocating a wide open GAL if there are places you would not consider. I simply suggest that you make yourself available for every office where you are willing to be placed. You never know how it will work out. You could end up like me. I was placed in the office I wanted to be in--100 feet down the hall from where I was working. Really? I got the impression that that rarely happens (being placed in your existing office). Lucky you redryder! And thanks for the advice.
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Feb 26, 2016 14:32:52 GMT -5
As to the register (sorry but "registry" reminds me of a wedding) how many are on it is hard to pin down. New names are added everytime vet pref candidates that can apply anytime make it, after the Oct group made it and after the Dec group is finally scored. Names are removed with hiring. Spot on, Funk. Our best guess was the initial application of ~5000 in Spring 2013 yielded a "new" register of approximately 1000 folks with NORs the following year (give or take 150). This excludes a decent number (estimated at 100 to 200) of folks who went all the way to D.C. on their own nickel and were not given a final numerical score. Since that time, there were some successful appeals and so forth, they tested late summer and were placed on the register, along with quarterly 10-pointers - and I've seen no credible estimates of what their normal pace is or how many that can be. I would assume that the current register - from ODAR's perspective, anyway is generally considered depleted. There was a glimmer for some of the frequent flyers that at least 1 was hired in the most recent round, after being passed over on every previous ODAR certificate since Summer 2014. However, this appears to be the exception. Almost all the new hires were from the last Summer testers - the most recent "bulk" addition to the register. Having said that, from OPM's perspective, with - give or take under 400 hires from all agencies from the register, and the additions, I estimate there are between 900 and 1000 folks on the current register, the vast majority of whom have received 3 bonafide considerations from ODAR and are no real threat (could possibly get the call, though) to either the most recent register entries (tested last year) or the folks who are dangerously close to receiving their NORs from the Fall. And, as usual, this is all wild speculation, relying solely on my memory, outright guesses and things that I just made up and is probably completely wrong.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Feb 26, 2016 14:37:05 GMT -5
As to the register (sorry but "registry" reminds me of a wedding) how many are on it is hard to pin down. New names are added everytime vet pref candidates that can apply anytime make it, after the Oct group made it and after the Dec group is finally scored. Names are removed with hiring. Spot on, Funk. Our best guess was the initial application of ~5000 in Spring 2013 yielded a "new" register of approximately 1000 folks with NORs the following year (give or take 150). This excludes a decent number (estimated at 100 to 200) of folks who went all the way to D.C. on their own nickel and were not given a final numerical score. Since that time, there were some successful appeals and so forth, they tested late summer and were placed on the register, along with quarterly 10-pointers - and I've seen no credible estimates of what their normal pace is or how many that can be. I would assume that the current register - from ODAR's perspective, anyway is generally considered depleted. There was a glimmer for some of the frequent flyers that at least 1 was hired in the most recent round, after being passed over on every previous register since Summer 2014. However, this appears to be the exception. Almost all the new hires were from the last Summer testers - the most recent "bulk" addition to the register. Having said that, from OPM's perspective, with - give or take under 400 hires from all agencies from the register, and the additions, I estimate there are between 900 and 1000 folks on the current register, the vast majority of whom have received 3 bonafide considerations from ODAR and are no real threat (could possibly get the call, though) to either the most recent register entries (tested last year) or the folks who are dangerously close to receiving their NORs from the Fall. And, as usual, this is all wild speculation, relying solely on my memory, outright guesses and things that I just made up and is probably completely wrong. Bear in mind that the stuff Ace hallucinates is usually more accurate than my best estimates based on credible sources.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Feb 26, 2016 18:23:14 GMT -5
I have only 2 cities listed both of which are completely undesirable (or at least I think so). I cannot relocate due to family circumstances..... and I will never leave either post if ever offered. I am sure this wasn't the best positioning but it was the only one I had and didn't want to be considered for a position that I knew I would never accept. Not that I will have a great score anyways... I understand because I has the same problem when I applied initially, but my circumstances changed over time. That is the thing that I would keep in mind. If you cannot accept it today but you might be able to accept it before the expiration of the register in 2018, consider adding it if given the opportunity. I feel very fortunate that they allowed the GAL expansion. Exactly! I started with only 3 cities and only got on one cert last summer for 1 city. My situation has changed somewhat and I greatly expanded my GAL. perhaps I didn't need to because if I wasn't even in the top 3 for that one city I have never even been consider and rejected. I figure more cities is better, but only if it works for you and your family.
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Feb 26, 2016 18:36:03 GMT -5
The reason I would consider limited myself to 5 is that all 5 are more acceptable to me than any others and none of them are particularly desirable to the general pool of applicants, one of them being one of the dreaded craplands. I'd rather crapland#1 over prettyniceplace#1. Just trying to figure out how I maximize my chance to land there. I'm ok with staying there for two years or more. You maximize by including them both - you just never know. I think the wisdom of the Board is that 5 is a very narrow GAL, regardless of the locations involved.
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Feb 26, 2016 18:47:31 GMT -5
The reason I would consider limited myself to 5 is that all 5 are more acceptable to me than any others and none of them are particularly desirable to the general pool of applicants, one of them being one of the dreaded craplands. I'd rather crapland#1 over prettyniceplace#1. Just trying to figure out how I maximize my chance to land there. I'm ok with staying there for two years or more. You maximize by including them both - you just never know. I think the wisdom of the Board is that 5 is a very narrow GAL, regardless of the locations involved. Thanks Mamaru, I appreciate yours, and others, advice.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Feb 26, 2016 18:51:07 GMT -5
The reason I would consider limited myself to 5 is that all 5 are more acceptable to me than any others and none of them are particularly desirable to the general pool of applicants, one of them being one of the dreaded craplands. I'd rather crapland#1 over prettyniceplace#1. Just trying to figure out how I maximize my chance to land there. I'm ok with staying there for two years or more. You maximize by including them both - you just never know. I think the wisdom of the Board is that 5 is a very narrow GAL, regardless of the locations involved. Yes, 5 is very narrow. With a high score and veteran's points, it might work out. Otherwise the conventional wisdom is to open as wide as possible. Pixie
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Feb 26, 2016 19:05:58 GMT -5
But if you actually really want for example, Harlingen or Metairie or Mt. Pleasant I was worried that the addition of other places might hinder your shot at getting your preferred Crapland.
I really appreciate and history here.
|
|