|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 10, 2009 15:44:35 GMT -5
"I've been watching these boards for awhile. (Valkyrie, are you Ahab to Jagghagg's white whale?). I don't think she can answer that question without violating the confidentiality agreement."
I really don't see how answering my question would breach a confidentiality agreement if the detail of what she has already posted did not. I have never heard of SSA having its own scoring system, so her post caught my attention. If SSA has a scoring system for the interview, maybe they have a system for the candidate backgrounds too. And for the record, I have never called Jagghagg a "white whale."
|
|
|
Post by rhino on Apr 10, 2009 16:03:56 GMT -5
Haven't read "Moby D##k," have you? It just seems you're right on her tail when she posts and to be fair, she seems to circle the ship of your posts... Anyway, it is my understanding that what Jagghagg outlines is correct: the SSA interviewers grade the interviewee in 14 areas; there are 3 levels assigned to each; and I don't know, but I would expect "experience" figures into all of that somewhere. Sounds pretty logical to me.
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on Apr 10, 2009 19:00:13 GMT -5
It does not matter what a candidate knows about the scoring formula if they cannot satisfactorily answer whatever it is the interviewers are seeking in each graded area. Everyone just needs to rest up, do your best and don't work yourself into a tizzy before you even get there. At this point in our careers, we are who we are and it is a just a matter of being the right fit at the right place and time. As can be seen by PF getting snapped up by an agency where he was the best fit after he was not the best fit at ODAR. It does not mean he was a "bad" candidate at ODAR, just not what they wanted at whatever particular time he was considered. He could have been picked up by them later or not at all. None of us will ever figure all of this out in the way that inquiring lawyer minds would like to solve the puzzle.
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Apr 13, 2009 15:35:25 GMT -5
On to a slightly different slant on the interview. As I look over my travel arrangements, I ponder this. If video hearings are the wave of the future and if video hearings are adequate for ALJs to evaluate a claimant's credibility, why don't they conduct the interviews via video conferencing? ODAR has the technology. It would be cheaper to the agency to have candidates go to their nearest ODAR office and plug in. Shoot, they could even let the regional cheifs stay put.
I just saw some irony there.
P.S. Good luck everyone.
|
|
|
Post by northwest on Apr 13, 2009 15:38:41 GMT -5
OMHA is doing its interviews by telephone.
|
|
|
Post by pm on Apr 14, 2009 11:16:47 GMT -5
On to a slightly different slant on the interview. As I look over my travel arrangements, I ponder this. If video hearings are the wave of the future and if video hearings are adequate for ALJs to evaluate a claimant's credibility, why don't they conduct the interviews via video conferencing? ODAR has the technology. It would be cheaper to the agency to have candidates go to their nearest ODAR office and plug in. Shoot, they could even let the regional cheifs stay put. I just saw some irony there. P.S. Good luck everyone. Definitely some irony. Video interviews are not adequate. That's why ODAR and OPM refuse to use them for ALJ candidates.
|
|
EagleJAG
Full Member
ALJ...a high-G career field worth the fight
Posts: 36
|
Post by EagleJAG on Apr 15, 2009 22:39:50 GMT -5
Interview Intel based on my interview today:
- 10 interview teams of 2 interviewers each; no scribe...the interviewers take their own notes in the multi-page interview notebook
- Each team has 4 interviews/day, starting at 9 AM going to 6 PM; last interview is scheduled for Apr 24th; admin staff indicated a total of approx 360 interviews were scheduled
- One interviewee had plane connection problems on Tues so interview was done by VTC yesterday
- My interviewers (one RCALJ and one HOD) were very friendly, very comprehensive in their questions
- Interview started 40 minutes late and went 2hrs, 30 min; I think this is atypical because I saw other interview teams finishing early and the admin staff indicated the shortest so far had been 1 hr, 15 min.
- Almost missed my flight out of DCA due to the interview ending a total of 70 min longer than what should've been the 2-hr point; however, even w/rainy wx in DC/Falls Church at rush hour, I somehow made it. Thank God. - Admin staff was very friendly in every regard and more than willing to book a room for me if I'd missed my flight out of DCA
- OVERALL: no big surprises but no clue how I did; not sure if I saw one interviewer wrestling with proper whether "dog doodoo" was 2 words or should be 3 words in describing some of my answers. while it may be no fun for us as the interviewee, I actually felt sympathetic to the plight of the interviewers having to sit (AND take notes...and appear interested in) 8 hours of atty babble for 4 days, much less those that volunteered to do the same thing next week for 5 more days.
|
|
krid
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by krid on Apr 15, 2009 22:56:58 GMT -5
In general I second the comments of eaglejag. My interview was today at 4 pm. The staff there were very helpful and even encouraging. The weather was nasty.
My interview ran just over 2 hours. A HOCALJ and a HOD. It was actually an enjoyable experience. While it is true that they were following the rather lengthy script, they exerted some effort to make it more of a colloquy than a grilling. They seemed genuinely interested and were quite personable throughout the entire time. I'm an insider and have been with ODAR for nearly 20 years. The HOCALJ seemed to really enjoy swapping stories about "the old days."
I rode back to DCA with a lady who said that her interview only took 40 minutes. In comparing notes with her we concluded that her interviewers must have skipped some questions in the script. She was also an outsider, and I wondered aloud if this might have played a part in the brevity of her experience.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Apr 16, 2009 8:16:11 GMT -5
Two of the above noted that there was a HOD in the two person interview "team". That speaks volumes about what the ODAR hiring process has become. !5 years ago it was the Dep Chief ALJ or a Regional Chief and 2 HOCALJ's per interview. I hope the HOD was at least an attorney or the process has degenerated into a complete "management" default. Those of you from "outside" SSA probably don't appreciate the concept but its just one more example of the transition from OHA to ODAR and another arrogant example of a total rejection of any concept of due process. The inmates have seized control of the institution!
|
|
|
Post by puravida on Apr 16, 2009 9:01:41 GMT -5
Nuts! I do not buy the "insider vs. outsider" bias theory. I think they like certain kinds of experience and certain quality of experience, and they have the opportunity to know the quality of individual insiders' experience. Good or bad. I'm an outsider and have talked to other outsiders after their interviews. I think the length of your interview has a lot to do with our behavior and responses, and our experience. If you have only had one or two jobs in your career and are young, you don't have as much to draw on as people who have had many different jobs with varied kinds of experience. Also, if you have adjudicatory experience, the conversation is different than if you have advocacy experience. And I don't think the length of the interview is significant. Heck, it may be considered neqative if your interview was lengthy; it may show that you can't focus or be concise. As to the woman referenced by krid, perhaps her response to one question was so thorough that it answered the following 2 or 3 questions (which often were repetitive, no?). Relax, people! We cannot second-guess the significance of all these things.
|
|
|
Post by lawcat on Apr 16, 2009 9:01:54 GMT -5
As an "outsider", I too found this post to be a little troubling. It smacks a little of the "good ol boy" mentality that is all too common in the private sector. If indeed Krid's interview was as pleasant and chummy as he states, I think it goes more to the style of the interviewers rather than the bias for insiders. At least that's what I hope, and won't allow myself to become concerned that the deck is stacked against me at this point. I hope that the "lady" Krid was comparing notes with won't begin to doubt her chances at being hired based on what I consider to be insensitive comments by her cab mate.
|
|
|
Post by Orly on Apr 16, 2009 10:01:00 GMT -5
My interview was probably about an hour and twenty minutes, and I felt I answered all the questions clearly and throughly. In fact, on some of the questions, the interviewers read it off and said, "oh, you answered it already in one of your previous answers" and then we went on to the next one. So it wasn't a long interview, but I felt I got a fair review.
Having interviewed quite a few job candidates as a part of interview panels in my current job, I can tell you that the length of interview is really pointless. For example, there are two type of short interviews. One is where the candidate is so good that the panel blows through the questions. The other is where the candidate is so bad that there just isn't much to go with.
Same with long interviews. There were long interviews that worked out very well for the candidate. However, I once sat on a panel with someone who's really verbose, and we ran across a candidate who was also quite talkative. So a 30 minute interview took almost an hour and twenty. After it was done, we didn't recommend the person for a position even though the other interviewer had a great time chatting with the candidate.
So don't think too much about the interview length. It's about as meaningful as the length of the bar exam essay you wrote.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 16, 2009 12:20:35 GMT -5
With regard to the difference between insider and outsider interviews, my initial theory was that the insider interviews would be shorter, since there would be little point in providing an in-depth explanation of the responsibilities of an ODAR position to an ODAR employee. Honestly though, I think a lot more depends on other variables, such as the style of the interviewers, the candidates style, and potentially even the time of day and/or date of the interview. I think it is way too easy to read too much into the relevance of the length of the interview. If it is a serious concern though, maybe one of the more technically adept can start a poll of interview time length?
As for candidates and interviewers talking about the "good ol' days," and other small talk, please lets not forget about human nature and just making an attempt to lighten the mood and make a candidate comfortable. I don't think that we have seen anyone indicate that any of the interviewers were in any way hostile or otherwise unfriendly.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 16, 2009 12:29:00 GMT -5
"Two of the above noted that there was a HOD in the two person interview "team". That speaks volumes about what the ODAR hiring process has become. !5 years ago it was the Dep Chief ALJ or a Regional Chief and 2 HOCALJ's per interview. I hope the HOD was at least an attorney or the process has degenerated into a complete "management" default. Those of you from "outside" SSA probably don't appreciate the concept but its just one more example of the transition from OHA to ODAR and another arrogant example of a total rejection of any concept of due process. The inmates have seized control of the institution!"
I think having a HOD there to interview makes a lot of sense. The HOD is the only accountable manager in a hearing office, with limited, if any control over the ALJs, and the ultimate responsibility to clean up any messes created by a loose cannon. While the limited control is appropriate, it would make sense to have a HOD's perspective as to whether a candidate would work well with others in a hearing office, and not abuse the independence inherent to the position.
|
|
krid
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by krid on Apr 16, 2009 18:39:48 GMT -5
As an "outsider", I too found this post to be a little troubling. It smacks a little of the "good ol boy" mentality that is all too common in the private sector. How does geniality between interviewer/ee "smack of a good ol' boy" mentality? If indeed Krid's interview was as pleasant and chummy as he states, I think it goes more to the style of the interviewers rather than the bias for insiders. What? You think I made it up? ...won't begin to doubt her chances at being hired based on what I consider to be insensitive comments by her cab mate. Insensitive? You're kidding, right? Since when do potential facts need to be soft-pedaled to lawyers? I posted merely to provide the benefit of my own experience with the interview. To be sniped at in this manner appears to be precisely the kind of behavior which the admins recently decried. Having been censored before on this board, I perceive a clear double standard in the enforcement of "civility." Perhaps the arbiters hereof should reexamine just how even-handed they have been when it comes to admonitions regarding "civility."
|
|
EagleJAG
Full Member
ALJ...a high-G career field worth the fight
Posts: 36
|
Post by EagleJAG on Apr 16, 2009 23:24:18 GMT -5
Re the insider/outsider bias, I took a few minutes at the end to ask a question about the issue. They told me as an outsider I'd get 9 months to spool up to full productivity while the learning curve for insiders was 4 months. I commented that if SSA is trying to tackle/resolve a case backlog by 2013 it would seem then that insiders would be favored over outsiders...i.e., less time for them to become a full-up round. The RCALJ said my logic was flawed. How so? He said for every insider they gain (as an ALJ), they lose an experienced insider (staff atty).
We didn't have time to discuss how long it takes to get a staff atty up to speed or how easy it is to find/recruit productive ones, but the distinct impression he left was that there wasn't an institutional bias in favor of either insiders or outsiders...at least as far as productivity interests go.
|
|
float
Full Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by float on Apr 17, 2009 7:14:31 GMT -5
Thank you for that, EagleJAG, it is reassuring. And a reminder to not worry about things that are out of my control.
|
|
|
Post by extang on Apr 17, 2009 8:33:01 GMT -5
"He said for every insider they gain (as an ALJ), they lose an experienced insider (staff atty)." Just a minor comment regarding this assertion: "insiders" includes not only current ODAR staff attorneys, but also former ODAR staff attorneys and OGC attorneys. Hiring these insiders would have no deleterious impact on ODAR. Obviously, staff attorneys who are now working as group supervisors as HODs and group supervisors could be hired with no problem, since, as we all know, HODs and GSs don't do anything [[this last comment, by the way, is meant as a JOKE. OK, OK, so it isn't funny, sue me.]]
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 17, 2009 8:35:22 GMT -5
"Re the insider/outsider bias, I took a few minutes at the end to ask a question about the issue. They told me as an outsider I'd get 9 months to spool up to full productivity while the learning curve for insiders was 4 months. I commented that if SSA is trying to tackle/resolve a case backlog by 2013 it would seem then that insiders would be favored over outsiders...i.e., less time for them to become a full-up round. The RCALJ said my logic was flawed. How so? He said for every insider they gain (as an ALJ), they lose an experienced insider (staff atty)."
There are three areas where a hearing office's case flow can bottleneck, the clerks, the attorneys, and the ALJs. EagleJag's interviewer brought up an important point that has actually been brought up on this board before, that there is a productivity price to be paid for every experienced staff attorney that is hired as an ALJ. Its a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul. ODAR needs to be careful not to "overharvest."
|
|
|
Post by ed on Apr 17, 2009 9:39:21 GMT -5
There was no confidentiality statement to be signed at the interview, but in all candor there is really nothing to study for. They are wanting candid answers to test for a proper fit. Good luck to all.
|
|