|
Rank
Apr 21, 2009 13:29:08 GMT -5
Post by buttercup on Apr 21, 2009 13:29:08 GMT -5
The emails sent to our references contain our name as well as a number. Looks like the number is our rank on the cert. This idea is confirmed by others. Just thought I'd put it out there.
|
|
|
Rank
Apr 21, 2009 13:36:32 GMT -5
Post by valkyrie on Apr 21, 2009 13:36:32 GMT -5
Lets not jump to conclusions. It could just be the number that the contractor assigned to each candidate for their own purposes. Then again...
|
|
|
Rank
Apr 21, 2009 13:53:00 GMT -5
Post by jagghagg on Apr 21, 2009 13:53:00 GMT -5
I think it is entirely possible that this number identifies when your paperwork was received and sent for investigation.
|
|
|
Rank
Apr 21, 2009 13:53:39 GMT -5
Post by buttercup on Apr 21, 2009 13:53:39 GMT -5
If anyone can prove this theory wrong, I'd love to hear it. High scorers should have low reference numbers. And vice versa.
|
|
|
Rank
Apr 21, 2009 14:06:41 GMT -5
Post by valkyrie on Apr 21, 2009 14:06:41 GMT -5
Shouldn't we also be looking at other variables like, reference # is 1, OPM score is 65, and last name is Aardvark?
Earthshaker: I agree with Jagghagg's theory.
|
|
|
Rank
Apr 21, 2009 14:24:45 GMT -5
Post by leprechaun on Apr 21, 2009 14:24:45 GMT -5
I noticed the number, too, and had a similar thought. However, our rank has been such a closely guarded secret that I'm a little doubtful that something like the numerical order would slip out. My references were only contacted very recently - so it makes sense that the (relatively large) number might have something to do with the order that references were contacted.
Personally, I think we're grasping at straws to try to read logic into the numbers assigned by the outsourced reference verification service.
|
|
|
Rank
Apr 21, 2009 14:26:15 GMT -5
Post by chieftain on Apr 21, 2009 14:26:15 GMT -5
I don't think a number such as rank on a cert is information that would be so easily given away. I agree with Valkyrie and Jagghagg. I think it's most likely some sort of internal control number for the contractor.
|
|
|
Rank
Apr 21, 2009 14:30:17 GMT -5
Post by Legal Beagle on Apr 21, 2009 14:30:17 GMT -5
All of my references got phone calls - no e-mails.
|
|
|
Rank
Apr 21, 2009 19:12:35 GMT -5
Post by pm on Apr 21, 2009 19:12:35 GMT -5
It doesn't seem likely to be our rank on the cert. It seems more likely to reflect when you sent in your paperwork. Here's my rationale.
My score should, if we believe the scores that have been reported here, put me in the top 100. My rank in the investigation is in the 320s. But I was one of the last to return my documents which would be consistent with a number in the 300s.
But here's what's really interesting - we may be able to figure out how many are on this cert. Who has the lowest rank that we know of? Does anyone have a rank below the 320s? If this cert is for 455, there should be some with ranks of 400+.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Rank
Apr 21, 2009 20:34:28 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2009 20:34:28 GMT -5
Wouldn't the background checks just be for people new to the cert? Presumably a significant number of people were interviewed and underwent the background checks last year. Thus, the reference numbers (if that is what they are) would reflect not everyone on the cert but only those people who are new for this year. Ne c'est pas?
Once again, I'm not judgin', I'm just sayin'.
|
|
|
Rank
Apr 21, 2009 20:39:59 GMT -5
Post by flannery on Apr 21, 2009 20:39:59 GMT -5
Diaboli--that sounds about right. I would think that revealing the candidates' rank would be a little like revealing personally identifiable information not otherwise justifiable by the reference-checking process. But, like you, I am not judging, but just a-sayin'. Perhaps someone better versed in personnel/ALJ hiring could weigh in?
|
|
|
Rank
Apr 21, 2009 20:42:18 GMT -5
Post by Orly on Apr 21, 2009 20:42:18 GMT -5
Wouldn't the background checks just be for people new to the cert? Nope, this is a new cert. So everyone is "new" to this cert, even if they were on last year's cert and were interviewed. Those candidates also had to fill out new paperwork and their references listed on this year's paperwork were contacted. The only thing they didn't have to do was showing up to interview again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Rank
Apr 21, 2009 20:52:23 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2009 20:52:23 GMT -5
My apologies. Once again, I was applying common sense to governmental processes. Of course, I suppose it is possible that someone over the past year was seduced to the devil's part and a second background check would be required to discover this fact.
|
|
|
Rank
Apr 21, 2009 22:05:35 GMT -5
Post by pm on Apr 21, 2009 22:05:35 GMT -5
Wouldn't the background checks just be for people new to the cert? Presumably a significant number of people were interviewed and underwent the background checks last year. Thus, the reference numbers (if that is what they are) would reflect not everyone on the cert but only those people who are new for this year. Ne c'est pas? Once again, I'm not judgin', I'm just sayin'. Everyone who is on the cert this time went through background checks.
|
|
|
Rank
Apr 21, 2009 23:16:02 GMT -5
Post by okeydokey on Apr 21, 2009 23:16:02 GMT -5
ODAR has to redo the reference check. Who knows what the candidates have been up to? Could have even posted to this website.
|
|
|
Rank
Apr 22, 2009 5:59:37 GMT -5
Post by wallace on Apr 22, 2009 5:59:37 GMT -5
FWIW, I received reference requests for two candidates.
The subject heading in the first email which I received on 3/27/09 was:
Social Security Administration-Administrative Law Judge Position
The subject heading in the second which I received yesterday:
SSA Adm Law Judge Position 350
|
|
|
Rank
Apr 22, 2009 8:38:12 GMT -5
Post by northeasterner on Apr 22, 2009 8:38:12 GMT -5
The email that my reference received did not have a number assigned to it at all. It was titled "SSA-Admininstrative Law Judge PositionĂ¾."
hmmmm I wonder if that means I'm a zero?
|
|
|
Rank
Apr 22, 2009 8:46:23 GMT -5
Post by valkyrie on Apr 22, 2009 8:46:23 GMT -5
No offense to Buttercup, but I really think this is a dead end. We are obviously well into the crazy, high anxiety period of the selection process where we all start seeing blackballs, blood of the lamb, and Templar symbols everywhere.
Was anyone else asked during the interview if their hand was larger than their face?
|
|
|
Rank
Apr 22, 2009 8:57:51 GMT -5
Post by morgullord on Apr 22, 2009 8:57:51 GMT -5
Last year during my interview I was asked if I were a neurotoxin, what kind would I be.
|
|
|
Rank
Apr 22, 2009 9:08:33 GMT -5
Post by aaa on Apr 22, 2009 9:08:33 GMT -5
Many years I interviewed for a staff attorney position with the IRS. It was an odd interview all the way around but many of the questions must have been a personality inventory type question. I distinctly remember them asking me if I went out to dinner and had the option of these three things for dessert, which would I order, fresh fruit, cheesecake or pie. I recall my answer being that at some times I might order any one of them or perhaps nothing at all. And no, I wasn't hired. The funding actually got cut and they didn't hire anyone.
|
|