300 names -- not 450 -- will be calle up

[3orangewhips]

powerties said:

I wrote this in reply on another thread, but maybe it merits its own thread.

Pixie indicated -- I think -- that she would expect that two batches of 75 would be ordered up.

In other words, an initial list of 225 people.

Assuming 75 of those 225 are selected, the second list ordered up for the next 75 judges would be comprised of the 150 folks who were not selected in the first round, plus 75 fresh names next on the pecking order.

Thus, if 150 are hired in two batches, the list will "only" reach down as far as 300 names -- not the 450 some folks mention.

we will find out soon. I see it as a full hire of 150 separated into two training classes. Thus 450 is the number. but honestly, who really knows.....

[jep]

This is the exact language from OPM: :-/

"The total competency scores of all applicants were put on a 1 to 100 scale to establish each applicant's numerical rating, excluding veterans' preference. In this scale, the lowest possible score is 1 and the highest possible score is 100.

This numerical rating, plus any applicable veterans' preference points, is the final numerical rating noted on the NOR. Every applicant on the register has already exceeded an initial cut-off score because OPM identified the top qualified applicants after scoring the AR. Therefore, OPM did not employ any subsequent screen-out or passing score when establishing the new register.

As stated on the NOR, your name will be placed on the new register in rank order based on your final numerical rating. This list will be used as a source of names to make referrals to agencies for employment consideration."

It would seem that this statement means that I am on the register. But I do not know my standing with regards to other applicants. In short, I feel a bit confused by the "inside information" being passed on here that only 300 will be considered. I would imagine that geographic preference plays a part in this and therefore those with high scores who were picky about where they would work would be passed over if they did not ask for an office that will be hiring. All the possibilities lead to a very complicated picture.

Also, I thought the original cutoff was 650.

In any event, all I can conclude is that conjecture, while fun, is not necessarily imparting useful knowledge.

Me? I'm just going to continue to practice law and hope a call comes through.

[chris]

powerties said:

I wrote this in reply on another thread, but maybe it merits its own thread.

Pixie indicated -- I think -- that she would expect that two batches of 75 would be ordered up.

In other words, an initial list of 225 people.

Assuming 75 of those 225 are selected, the second list ordered up for the next 75 judges would be comprised of the 150 folks who were not selected in the first round, plus 75 fresh names next on the pecking order.

Thus, if 150 are hired in two batches, the list will "only" reach down as far as 300 names -- not the 450 some folks mention.

The 150 can be hired based on one list of 450 candidates. SSA interviews the 450, then gives a March start date to 75 and an April start date to 75. The advantage of doing it this way it that SSA will see more candidates. The disadvantage is that it costs more and takes more time.

[morgullord]

I agree with Chris; it is more cost-efficient for SSA to handle things as he describes.

[happy]

I also agree with Chris that it will be a single interviewing process for the whole "up to 150" that ODAR wants to hire. I disagree that doing it this way will cost more. Why? (1) The Agency only has to bring in two sets of panels for the 4-week period; (2) The Agency does not have to interview the same people twice, which saves man-hours; and (3) The Agency doesn't foot the cost of travel to bring those re-interviewees back to Falls Church for a second time. Although the result will perhaps be that 150 more people will be interviewed, a fair few of those are likely already in the DC metro area and, ultimately, the costs will be lower in addition to providing the Agency with a broader selection of candidates.

[chris]

Happy, I think you're right about the costs. I was just looking at the superficial up front cost of 450 versus 300, but as you note, in the long run, it may be cheaper to do the 450 at one time.

Chris