What to expect at the Interview.

[extang]

Concerning the comment by dazedandconfused : "somewhere on this board you recently posted that for ODAR folks who have a reputation for production, the job is theirs to lose. Does that hold true for ODAR folks who are on this cert, but are probably towards the back of the bus score wise?"
If you were certified, you have managed to meet the rule of 3 criteria for at least one location. Given that, your score does not matter, unless you are up against a veteran with a higher score, and even there I would not bet against ODAR's ability to get around the problem if they really want you. If you are an insider and have made a good impression within the agency [do you have friends in management?], a low score should not be an insurmountable obstacle. {I meant this to be encouraging. I'm not sure I succeeded. Don't worry too much about your score if you made it on the certificate. I doubt that the people at ODAR give a damn about the scores. I had somewhat the opposite problem: I had a pretty high score especially for a non-veteran, and I thought it would mean something, but when I got to the interview very quickly gathered that it did not. I did get picked as an ALJ, but am pretty sure that it was not because I did well at the interview or had a high score; I did include some unpopular locations among my choices.}.

[jagghagg]

aljsouth said:

Good points. I had forgotten about the unruly claimant/attorney. I was asked that. Their fears will be shown by their questions. Your responses should be to allay those fears.

What they want to hear is someone who doesn't respond in kind and will get the number, oops, case out the door. Say you will suspend the hearing and give them time to cool off, then resume, stessing the importance to the claimant of having a hearing. Don't say you would cancel the hearing, or refuse to ever hear it, or nail the lawyer's tongue to the table (warning: odar managment has no sense of humor).

Also stress that you would seek advice from HOCALJ or mentor. In that regard, I was asked what I would do if staff member told me about problems with a decision, evidence or law. Wow! That really told me the fears that had there. Ranting or raving or complaining about staff behavior is not the correct response.

These points may ring a bell with most of us who when through the SI.

[privateatty]

extang:

Unless I was asleep at the wheel, this is the first that I've heard that if we made the cert for at least one city, we are among the "rule of three" three. That means I only gotta beat two others and (possibly) all the "all others" (sounds like a movie trailer) who are willing to go anywhere?

Suddenly I have odds I like. And if I may ask one more question, what was it about your interview that made you think you didn't do well? As I've posted here, I've learned since my SI...

Thanks for your post!

[Pixie]

Yes, in order to make the certificate, you must be among the top three for at least one location. Otherwise your name would not have been sent over.

A few comments related to the above posts: Once you make the top three, your score makes no difference to the decision makers, unless a veteran has one of the top two scores. The score is now irrelevant. They will pick who they want. If you are an ODAR attorney with a good reputation, they will try their best to bring you on board.

The interviews won't last two hours, as stated elsewhere on this board; they will be as they have been in the past, about an hour. You should, however, allow yourself two hours for the interview when making travel arrangements so you don't get caught in a time pinch. More on that closer to the time for the interviews.

The lead interviewer--probably a regional chief--will ask the questions from a list of prepared questions. The other two--probably a regional chief or a hearing office chief--may or may not ask follow up questions. One of them may actually take a more active role than the lead interviewer, who may only ask the initial questions. It's really nothing to worry about. If you have litigation experience, and are used to thinking on your feet, it will be a piece of cake, assuming you follow the advice given in the above posts. There is a lot of good information contained therein. Pix.

[3orangewhips]

pixie said:

Yes, in order to make the certificate, you must be among the top three for at least one location. Otherwise your name would not have been sent over.

Pixie, can you explain how this works. I was under the impression that the SSA cert contained the top 450 scores that selected at least one of the locations in which SSA is hiring. This would not necessarily mean that an individual was definitely in the top three somewhere.

Are you really saying that right now, everyone who made the SSA cert is in the top three in at least one of the 71 locations?

[dazedandconfused]

Pixie: I dont see how the math adds up either. I know of more than three people with scores higher than my own who chose "all locations". Therefore, I could not have a top three score in any one city. Additionally, SSA put out the bid for the private contractor to do background checks on "at least 400" ALJs before our OPM scores ever came out.

[hooligan]

pixie said:

Yes, in order to make the certificate, you must be among the top three for at least one location. Otherwise your name would not have been sent over.

With all due deference to your superior sources, I believe this is misleading.

This conclusion would suggest that each high scorer would get only one location to compete for. That is contrary to everything I have heard over the last 10 years. I was told there is one list, sites are selected randomly and assessed in order. The top three for the first site are evaluated, one is selected, two are declined. The two that are declined are returned to the pool and eligible for the next site unless they have already been passed over three times. The cert is 3x's the total number of openings for convenience. The very lowest scores may not actually be considered for a specific location, depending on how the selection and elimination process proceeds. What you are suggesting is the equivalent of 150 different lists

[3orangewhips]

hooligan said:

pixie said:

Yes, in order to make the certificate, you must be among the top three for at least one location. Otherwise your name would not have been sent over.

With all due deference to your superior sources, I believe this is misleading.

This conclusion would suggest that each high scorer would get only one location to compete for. That is contrary to everything I have heard over the last 10 years. I was told there is one list, sites are selected randomly and assessed in order. The top three for the first site are evaluated, one is selected, two are declined. The two that are declined are returned to the pool and eligible for the next site unless they have already been passed over three times. The cert is 3x's the total number of openings for convenience. The very lowest scores may not actually be considered for a specific location, depending on how the selection and elimination process proceeds. What you are suggesting is the equivalent of 150 different lists

this is closer to what I thought about the process. It is possible to be considered for multiple sites but definitely be in the top three for one. However, that seems very difficult for OPM to figure out before they send the cert to SSA.

[chris]

hooligan said:

pixie said:

Yes, in order to make the certificate, you must be among the top three for at least one location. Otherwise your name would not have been sent over.

With all due deference to your superior sources, I believe this is misleading.

This conclusion would suggest that each high scorer would get only one location to compete for. That is contrary to everything I have heard over the last 10 years. I was told there is one list, sites are selected randomly and assessed in order. The top three for the first site are evaluated, one is selected, two are declined. The two that are declined are returned to the pool and eligible for the next site unless they have already been passed over three times. The cert is 3x's the total number of openings for convenience. The very lowest scores may not actually be considered for a specific location, depending on how the selection and elimination process proceeds. What you are suggesting is the equivalent of 150 different lists

I agree. There is one list, not multiple lists. There are many people on this one list who are not in the top 3 for any location. I don't know exactly how the list is complied but I imagine OPM at some point makes sure that the top three for each location are on the list. Then they add more people, starting with the next highest score, until they total 450. If you listed only the top three for each city, you could only have exactly 450 people for a list of 150 openings if everyone could only list one city. But if people can list more than one city, a list of the top three candidates only would have to be less than 450 people.

The reason OPM lists more than 3 per city is because so many people are on more than one list and if only the top three on each city were listed, SSA would run out of names for some cities.

[Pixie]

Yes, that is right. There is only one list, and names are added because many candidates are being considered for multiple locations. If not, then the top three names, if they selected all locations, would be the only ones on the certificate for 150 locations. Obviously there will be more than three names on the certificate. There will be about 450 so as to give the selecting agency enough names to pick from the top three, even after a bunch of selections have been made. Of course before selections are made for the first locations, which will eliminate candidates from the pool, there may be ten or more names for many of the locations. Sorry for not making it clear.

I have found some information I had squirreled away that shows the number of candidates selecting each geographic location back before the register was closed. Although it isn't current, it does give a good idea of how many indicated availability for certain locations. I think you will be surprised at the number of candidates on the register who indicated a willingness to go to some of the "undesirable" locations we have been discussing on the board. I am going out tonight, and I don't have time to post some of the cities before I leave, but I will start a new thread either later tonight when I get back or tomorrow with the information. Pix.

[Waffle]

Thank you, Pixie. You have sure done a great deal for all of us, and we really appreciate it.

[counselor95]

Powerties, your recap assumes all on the certificate selected all locations. The top three scorers for the first location will compete against each other, and assuming the person selected accepts the job, the two other candidates will go back into the master pool. Someone passed over three times may be removed from further consideration. For each location, those with the top scores (3 for one vacancy, 6 for two vacancies, etc.) will compete against each other. Between those considered three times and not considered further, those hired, those who decline, and those who indicated availability for only a few locations, the very lowest scorers may be reached. Those with higher scores, but limited availability, may also find they are not reached.

[Pixie]

counselor95 said:

Powerties, your recap assumes all on the certificate selected all locations. The top three scorers for the first location will compete against each other, and assuming the person selected accepts the job, the two other candidates will go back into the master pool. Someone passed over three times may be removed from further consideration. For each location, those with the top scores (3 for one vacancy, 6 for two vacancies, etc.) will compete against each other. Between those considered three times and not considered further, those hired, those who decline, and those who indicated availability for only a few locations, the very lowest scorers may be reached. Those with higher scores, but limited availability, may also find they are not reached.

Just a minor correction to this analysis. You wrote: "The top three scorers for the first location will compete against each other, and assuming the person selected accepts the job, the two other candidates will go back into the master pool."

The only thing I would comment on is that ODAR doesn't wait on someone to actually accept the job before moving on to the next location. Someone chosen for a location is removed from the pool, and the other two names are returned to the pool for consideration for any other location in which they will be in the top three.

Now, this doesn't mean that Falls Church (actually Bailey's Crossroads) won't consider someone as the first choice for more than one location, especially if that someone is highly regarded. Nothing wrong with it, just a way they can give desirable candidates more than one bite at the apple.

Hope this doesn't confuse anyone as did one of my prior posts. Pix.

[aljsouth]

If you turn down a location, don't get wrapped up in the three turn down rule. Unless you are a vet with with high score SSA can easily pass over you; and may be able to work around it even then.

Pixie pointed out that SSA does not make an offer then wait around for days waiting for you to decide. They move on to other sites and other offers. Unless you are known and thought well off at Falls Church, turning down an offer may as a practical matter end your chances for this certificate.

You can't blame those making the selections. You have told OPM you would go to that site, then before the interview you reaffirmed to Falls Church that you would go to that site. Then when offered that site you turn it down. Don't expect them to exercise their discretion to assist you after that. It would be only human for them to do otherwise if they could.

[privateatty]

Post Note: I put this under the NY Times thread, but it belongs here. Please accept my apologies...

ALJs:

This article brings to mind an issue that hasn't seen much, if any, play here.

Being an ALJ means that you see alot of pain. Not numbers, not theoretical stuff, but people who don't have a roof over their heads, nor food to eat--who live in desperation and shame. I have done both sides of this equation and I gotta tell you, when I started having clients who used to have phones, roofs, and food to eat, it was a real wake-up call. I started to lose sleep over some of them and then I had to steel myself into "that other place" you all know so well.

My question is, does SSA just play lip service to this portion of their enormous responsibility--particularly on light of this horrendous backlog? Do we express just an academic interest in this subject at the interview? I am afraid if I were to tell them that I am really upset about all this and would be happy to work 60 hour weeks to help they would think me a bald faced liar and a bleeding heart--and buzz goes the "down the hatch" buzzer. But I mean it.

I would love to hear your comments 'cuz the interview is so important now in light of recent posts...

[emphyrio]

I predict we may get questions about the "human factor," because it plays a significant role in a lot of administrative adjudication, and not just with SSA. I suspect Department of Labor and Medicare frequently hear cases where the claimants live in desperation, even if those agencies have no backlog at all. This is one reason why the application asked about dealing with persons who have serious problems.

But I think we also have to assume that the backlog stands by itself as an even bigger issue, especially because the interviewers are going to be management ALJs who worry about the backlog every day.

If I walk in there and truthfully say, backed up by examples, that I worked long hours when I was a government lawyer, I work long hours in private practice, and I expect to work long hours as an ALJ because I want to be part of the solution and not part of the problem, am I not truthfully saying exactly what they want to hear? I hope they would not consider me a bald faced liar, because I would not be, and I doubt that being concerned about due process and good government makes one a bleeding heart.

[gordonlee]

You've got it. The point of the interview is to weed out anyone who is unwilling to work hard, pitch in and help out other judges, accept that efficiency and productivity are important goals, and anyone who thinks they will be an article III judge and that everyone should kiss their ass.

You would be surprised how many people cannot get thru a cordial 20 minute interview without revealing these attitudes.

For instance, they will certainly ask you whether it is better to get out 50 decisions that are "legally defensible" or 10 decisions that are perfectly written. The answer is "50," or maybe "quality is important to me and I will strive to do a good job, but I recognize that the backlog is immense and it is our obligation to the public, the claimants, and the agency to make reducing the backlog a priority"; the answer is not, I owe each claimant a perfectly written decision without regard to the backlog because the backlog is someone else's problem."

Basically you must approach this interview the way you did the first interview for a job in high school or college when you had nothing to offer but hard work and good attitude.

Once you get the job you can still turn into a jerk, and they know that, but if you can't get thru an interview without showing it, they do not want you.

[deadwood]

gordonlee said:

Once you get the job you can still turn into a jerk, and they know that, but if you can't get thru an interview without showing it, they do not want you.

That's hysterical, but so very true. I have worked with around 50 ALJs in my time with SSA, and I have no idea how about a quarter of them faked their way through the interview.

[aljsouth]

privateatty wrote:

"My question is, does SSA just play lip service to this portion of their enormous responsibility--particularly on light of this horrendous backlog? Do we express just an academic interest in this subject at the interview? I am afraid if I were to tell them that I am really upset about all this and would be happy to work 60 hour weeks to help they would think me a bald faced liar and a bleeding heart--and buzz goes the "down the hatch" buzzer. But I mean it."

I would not promise to work 60 hour weeks. You are not supposed to donate time. I would show a willingness to try all methods to speed up the process. VTC, bench decisions, all the buzz phrases currently loved by ODAR.

The harsh reality is that the number of filings has doubled and the number of ALJ and staff is the same or lower (especially staff). All the magic wand waving with computers, vtc, bench decisions and other initiatives can only speed up the process so much. In some cases it actually slows it down.

My best advice is to show willing, but don't overplay the problems with the backlog.

[morgullord]

Expect to find at least one of the two active interviewers to be irritating and surly, perhaps even rude. They will want to see that you have a tolerance for irritable people. I cannot offer any advice on how to handle him/her but be warned of this possibility.