anon
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by anon on Aug 4, 2008 13:29:54 GMT -5
I thought I saw on the current application that if you had appealed your score on the 2007 test than you *could* submit a new application (and the appeal and prior score would end). Because the current application is no longer available online, I haven't been able to verify that. Did anyone else see that, or something related?
|
|
|
Post by notherapp on Aug 4, 2008 15:08:26 GMT -5
On 7/30, PM wrote: "Why is the process a sham? The process has always favored applicants with higher scores. That's the point of having a competetive process."
Ah, there are none so blind ...
If that were the case, then there should have been a numerical cutoff (60, 65, 70; you choose) as with other tests (think bar exam), so that the OPM could say that although you applied you failed to make the cut. That was not the case - those who went thru the process made the cut. Now that the (arguably) better applicants have been hired, those of us now at the top will witness others taking their places. Anyone who has taken statistics knows (1) the concept of inter-rater reliability would call into question whether those getting a 72 and 74 by different scorers or panels were really different, and (2) those getting a 72 and 74 by the same scorers or panels a year apart are really different.
If everyone on the register is supposedly qualified, then the register should have been depleted until such time as there were an insufficient number of candidates to satisfy agency clients. (Miss Manners once wrote that one could use a straw to get at the bottom of a milkshake until he/she made two of those offensive sounds one gets when you have run out of shake, at which time one had to give it up as ill-mannered.) We were nowhere near the bottom of the shake. There were plenty of good candidates left who will again be window dressing to other, new candidates whose scores -- because of the vagaries of large numbers of applicants engaged in a social (as compared to a hard) science test -- may well not reflect that they are better candidates.
I suggest to pm that the next time he uses a "20 items or less" checkout line at the supermarket (and hopefully on a day when he has nothing better to do), that he allow those with fewer items than his 19 to go ahead of him in line. After all, would that not be a more efficient use of the checker's resources, and is not efficiency the purpose behind those lines in the first place?
Again, in the universe of qualified applicants, there were only 400 who were prohibited from reapplying. As in other types of scores (such as ACT or SAT), it is hard to imagine that they would not have bettered their score had they the opportunity to apply this time. Moreoever (as in my case), the additional experience I have acquired since I last applied would have likely bettered my score even had my WD and SI scored remained the same.
|
|
|
Post by carjack on Aug 4, 2008 16:23:56 GMT -5
Personally, I was relieved not to be able to retake the test. More brain damage on the ap, another grand spent on going to DC for several days of brain damage and the possibility that I'd get the same score, since I still don't know how they do the scoring. I increased my geo availability to include places I'd rather not go to, but I assume might provide the best chance, so I'll see if that helps - it couldn't hoit.
|
|
|
Post by arlene25 on Aug 4, 2008 17:19:00 GMT -5
Anon, I think you were dreaming--
|
|
|
Post by johnthornton on Aug 4, 2008 18:58:59 GMT -5
On 7/30, PM wrote: " If that were the case, then there should have been a numerical cutoff (60, 65, 70; you choose) as with other tests (think bar exam), so that the OPM could say that although you applied you failed to make the cut. That was not the case - those who went thru the process made the cut. Now that the (arguably) better applicants have been hired, those of us now at the top will witness others taking their places. Anyone who has taken statistics knows (1) the concept of inter-rater reliability would call into question whether those getting a 72 and 74 by different scorers or panels were really different, and (2) those getting a 72 and 74 by the same scorers or panels a year apart are really different. I can only speak from personal experience. I applied in 1996. After one year, I decided to "recompete" to improve my score. I spent several months working with an alleged "expert" to improve my SQS. And my amended SQS *was* significantly better than my original SQS. However, I received a score that was two points lower (on a thirty point scale). So, while I agree with you about the reliability of whether scores from different scorers or panels are really different, I don't think it is a given that everyone who reapplies will get a better score.
|
|
|
Post by pm on Aug 4, 2008 20:46:18 GMT -5
On 7/30, PM wrote: "Why is the process a sham? The process has always favored applicants with higher scores. That's the point of having a competetive process." Ah, there are none so blind ... If that were the case, then there should have been a numerical cutoff (60, 65, 70; you choose) as with other tests (think bar exam), so that the OPM could say that although you applied you failed to make the cut. That was not the case - those who went thru the process made the cut. Now that the (arguably) better applicants have been hired, those of us now at the top will witness others taking their places. Anyone who has taken statistics knows (1) the concept of inter-rater reliability would call into question whether those getting a 72 and 74 by different scorers or panels were really different, and (2) those getting a 72 and 74 by the same scorers or panels a year apart are really different. If everyone on the register is supposedly qualified, then the register should have been depleted until such time as there were an insufficient number of candidates to satisfy agency clients. (Miss Manners once wrote that one could use a straw to get at the bottom of a milkshake until he/she made two of those offensive sounds one gets when you have run out of shake, at which time one had to give it up as ill-mannered.) We were nowhere near the bottom of the shake. There were plenty of good candidates left who will again be window dressing to other, new candidates whose scores -- because of the vagaries of large numbers of applicants engaged in a social (as compared to a hard) science test -- may well not reflect that they are better candidates. I suggest to pm that the next time he uses a "20 items or less" checkout line at the supermarket (and hopefully on a day when he has nothing better to do), that he allow those with fewer items than his 19 to go ahead of him in line. After all, would that not be a more efficient use of the checker's resources, and is not efficiency the purpose behind those lines in the first place? Again, in the universe of qualified applicants, there were only 400 who were prohibited from reapplying. As in other types of scores (such as ACT or SAT), it is hard to imagine that they would not have bettered their score had they the opportunity to apply this time. Moreoever (as in my case), the additional experience I have acquired since I last applied would have likely bettered my score even had my WD and SI scored remained the same. I'll only mention one thing, because your illogical and irrational ramblings are not worth any more time. The register is no longer a satisfactory register because it can not accomodate the expected hiring of 150 new SSA ALJ candidates next year. Next time, take a course in logic rather than a course in statistics. It will be much more helpful in the legal world.
|
|
|
Post by jandea on Aug 5, 2008 11:48:37 GMT -5
Anon wrote: "I thought I saw on the current application that if you had appealed your score on the 2007 test than you *could* submit a new application (and the appeal and prior score would end). Because the current application is no longer available online, I haven't been able to verify that. Did anyone else see that, or something related? "
Dear Anon, The people who got their application in on time in May 2007 but who received a zero rating or were excluded on a technicality had the right to appeal and many of us did. Maybe some of those appeals are still pending. If so, those people had the right to retest and give up their pending appeal. Does this explain the misunderstanding? As I understand it, there were two different appeal steps. An appeal of a zero rating and an appeal of a score following written examination/interview.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
float
Full Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by float on Aug 5, 2008 18:07:24 GMT -5
|
|