|
Post by cowboy on Jan 25, 2013 1:06:15 GMT -5
I received some news from a friend recently appointed as an ALJ who spoke directly to the top. However, even those at the top are tentative about their plans for obvious bugetary reasons. For those anticipating for the next round of hiring, prepare yourselves:
OPM anticipates the new exam will be ready to put to use by late summer, perhaps fall. They plan to have a longer application period open for candidates submitting an application online. Apparently a day and a half is not really enough time for notice to those interested as most of us already know. It likely means that they will need a longer period to review these applications because they do not anticipate (OPM) interviews until next year. Remember, this is separate from the specific agency interviews, SSA being the largest.
TPTB are looking very strongly at asking for another cert from the existing pool of candidates on the register. They are concerned about the quality of candidates remaining on the register. Apparently the last class was referred to as "scraping the bottom of the barrel." Lovely. It will not be a large hire, but they are still attempting to deal with attrition from retiring/transferring ALJs. Looks like they also don't want to wait for the next exam.
Transfers will of course precede the hire, should their be one, but it will be limited as hiring will be limited. Specifically, transfers to (and within?) California (and possibly the rest of the western states) are simply not going to happen as California has been deemed by the Agency to be overflowing with ALJs; at least in comparison to the relative need of other places in the country.
I found this last point interesting especially since it was made very clear in the message and specific to California. It confirms an earlier post I made this past summer noting that hires to regions 8, 9 & 10 were vastly smaller than hires in the eastern portion of the country (specifically regions 3, 4 & 5) in the past few years. The last smaller hire in September seemed to be an anomaly where 5 ALJs were hired in Northern California alone. I hope everyone strongly considered expanding their GAL this last summer. Those of you waiting for the new exam, take note. If you apply for only a few California cities, or even a few in some western states, it is very likely you won't be hired no matter how well qualified you are.
That's all the information I have, so any questions on this information will probably result only in more speculation (and yes I added some of my own speculation so don't shoot the messenger). I really don't anticipate anything definite until the budget process has smoothed it's way through Congress. Based on events from the past few years that looks to be March or April.
|
|
|
Post by sandyeggan on Jan 25, 2013 4:10:03 GMT -5
Cowboy, thanks for the update. I see this as hopeful, but any news, even non-committal news, is better than the silence we've been having.
|
|
|
Post by booney58 on Jan 30, 2013 8:58:03 GMT -5
Thanks for the information! I agree with sandy, any news is better than zilch. Appreciate you remembering those of us who have yet to get our hats in the ring... even though that ring seems to be a mysterious, crazy place.
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Jan 30, 2013 18:28:06 GMT -5
A friend told me today that his Region is asking about available ALJ offices. Usually that's a sign that a cert request to OPM is likely to happen soon. I have no additional info, so I hope this little bit helps.
|
|
|
Post by interestedinalj on Jan 31, 2013 11:01:31 GMT -5
Cowboy, I was very happy to read your post about California. I have a high score and have been on several certs. However, my GAL was limited to parts of California, Oregon, and Florida. I did not know about the effect of limiting the GAL on one's chances when I first applied four years ago. I have now opened my GAL to almost anywhere. I hope this works. Hats off to the person who lobbied to get the GAL opened again. It does make sense.
As to quality of the person hired,we are all top notch people in a "new normal" economy. Good luck to all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2013 12:06:53 GMT -5
Cowboy, I was very happy to read your post about California. I have a high score and have been on several certs. However, my GAL was limited to parts of California, Oregon, and Florida. I did not know about the effect of limiting the GAL on one's chances when I first applied four years ago. I have now opened my GAL to almost anywhere. I hope this works. Hats off to the person who lobbied to get the GAL opened again. It does make sense. As to quality of the person hired,we are all top notch people in a "new normal" economy. Good luck to all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2013 12:10:11 GMT -5
As to quality of the person hired,we are all top notch people in a "new normal" economy. Good luck to all.[/quote]
We are all top notch people in any economy. If others consider us the bottom of the bunch because we are still on the registry at this point in time, then they don't understand the complexity of the selection process. I also expanded my GAL, and am cautiously hopeful. Really, the point is that those still waiting are just as highly qualified as anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Jan 31, 2013 13:22:37 GMT -5
I don't want to sound mean or harsh, but obviously everyone is not equally as highly qualified as everyone else, or else others would not be hired at locations on your GAL before you were. Part of the problem with society today is we pretend everybody is equal and always winners. No one is equal. We all bring our own unique qualities to what ever endeavor we approach. The hiring process is very competitive and ranks people for hiring. I don't want to bust your bubble, but... it is what it is..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2013 14:12:29 GMT -5
I don't want to sound mean or harsh, but obviously everyone is not equally as highly qualified as everyone else, or else others would not be hired at locations on your GAL before you were. Part of the problem with society today is we pretend everybody is equal and always winners. No one is equal. We all bring our own unique qualities to what ever endeavor we approach. The hiring process is very competitive and ranks people for hiring. I don't want to bust your bubble, but... it is what it is.. WOW! That sure is a harsh rebuke. I believe you missed my point, which is that for some of us, our GAL limits us considerably. Those who have a more open GAL can often obtain a position with a lower score than would allow one to obtain a job with a smaller GAL. I understand this is the system, and that it's my choice to limit my GAL. My point was, and is, that is therefore incorrect to assume that someone still waiting isn't as qualified as someone else. As has been discussed numerous times on this Board, the scoring can also be quirky, and so having a lower score doesn't necessarily mean that you are less qualified for the job. Yes, you are less "qualified" in the actual hiring process, which no one really understands, but you aren't necessarily less qualified for the job. Not in this economy, or any other.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Jan 31, 2013 14:24:45 GMT -5
well, your limited GAL would seem to make you less qualified for certain locations by removing you from the pool of possibles. Your GAL is one of your own unique qualities that you brought to the table. To be competitive one has to bring as much to the table as possible. It is well accepted that the Agency is scraping the bottom of the barrel at this point. That is a God send for some. It's not harsh, it is what it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2013 14:43:25 GMT -5
"well accepted" and "accurate" are two entirely different things. Peace to you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2013 15:59:51 GMT -5
Just a word or two, if I may be permitted, from the bottom o' the barrel. Although I generally agree with Bartleby (Good name, BTW) in the abstract, I do not believe the problem he describes is at work in the ALJ hiring process. First, the bar to entry is set reasonably high. Having graduated college, finished law school, passed the bar, and survived seven years of practice, one would expect to find few, if any, actual dolts or dullards in the candidate pool. Therefore, I suspect without knowing that OPM's numerical grading scale describes, at best, a fairly narrow range of differences.
It perhaps may be the case that every sitting ALJ holds their position by virtue of their keen intellect, winning personality, and their masterful prose style, not to mention the movie star good looks. Perhaps, but I do not know. In fact, my experience with the ALJ hiring process has been that it is almost entirely opaque. Data are fed into one side of a machine, and a number is spit out the other end. Before I assume that number tells me anything essential about the person to whom it is assigned, I should like to know a great deal more about the workings of the machine.
I commend to everyone's reading Thinking, Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel prize winning psychologist. In it, Dr. Kahneman recounts how, as a young man serving with the IDF, he was part of a team tasked with evaluating the leadership skills of officer candidates Despite the care taken with the evaluations and the confidence in the judgments, Dr. Kahneman discovered that the predictive value of his team's evaluations was negligible, little better than a blind guess. In thinking of the time, effort, and money OPM has sunk into the ALJ hiring process and its several iterations, I sometimes smile imagining that they might have done just as well tossing darts at a wall.
Finally, although OPM undoubtedly has hired many competent and conscientious judges, there have also been a few exceptions to the rule. If memory serves, an ALJ from San Antonio allegedly was bringing underage prostitutes into the US from Mexico because apparently Mexican brothels did not meet his exacting personal standards for comfort and cleanliness. I recall reading of a California ALJ who argued to the MSPB, that although he had pornographic images on his government computer, he thought it would be OK if he just "sneaked a peek" every now and again. Thus, giving rise to the "sneak-a-peek" defense, a defense which rivals neither the "guardsman's defense" for efficacy nor the "twinkie defense" for sheer entertainment value. Recently a Pennsylvania ALJ was charged with indecent assault for allegedly groping the breasts of a female security guard. Whatever else may be said of the ALJ hiring process, we can see by these examples that it is not foolproof.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jan 31, 2013 16:08:07 GMT -5
Okay. I'm curious enough to make my first post on this forum: wondering how many of you are in the same boat as I. My first and only time on a cert was last February. Went to Falls Church for an interview but was not offered a position. Anyone care to come forward? It should be helpful to all remaining on the register to have an idea about the number in competition. That is, if there is a soon-to-be cert. Thanks. You won't get any valid idea of the "number in competition" this way. We only have about a 30-35 percent representation of people "in the hunt" for ALj positions on this board in the first place. Then you factor in different GALs,(and in particular the expansion of the GALs last summer, which changed the picture that existed in February) different scores, and a number of other factors that come in to determining how many are actually "in competition" with you. It's theoretically a number in the hundreds. No way to even get a good guess.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jan 31, 2013 17:30:06 GMT -5
First, the bar to entry is set reasonably high. Having graduated college, finished law school, passed the bar, and survived seven years of practice, one would expect to find few, if any, actual dolts or dullards in the candidate pool. Clearly you haven't dealt with too many lawyers or have been fortunate to avoid meeting the bulk of them.
|
|
|
Post by ssaer on Jan 31, 2013 20:20:13 GMT -5
It is well accepted that the Agency is scraping the bottom of the barrel at this point. That is a God send for some. It's not harsh, it is what it is. One of the things that I loved about this board, during the ALJ selection process and before I was selected as an ALJ in 2009, was the sense of comraderie and the supportive environment during a challenging and at times stressful process. Bartleby's comment is the antithesis of this, and I can't fathom any manner in which needlessly insulting ALJ aspirants and recently selected ALJs could be construed as positive or beneficial. Let's not descend to the level of insult that once characterized that minority of posters who, thankfully, are no longer among our ranks.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Jan 31, 2013 21:17:03 GMT -5
I wish each and every one of you the very best, but I am so tired of this fake comraderie of we're all just the bestest of the best. We are all very, very good, but we don't need to sit around and needlessly blow smoke up each other's arse.. I am tired of people hanging onto a narrow GAL through the 4th inning and then bemoaning why it isn't fair. At this point we all know what it takes to get hired and getting hired on a small GAL is very unusual. For those of you that haven't been hired I would like to share with you the qualifications of some hired. Prior medical professionals, prior judges, State and Federal, prior military with 10 point preference, prior political appointees. The competition is much harder than it first appears. Very few get hired with minimal qualifications. I am not insulting any ALJ aspirants unless you choose to live in an unrealistic world of warm and fuzzies. If so, you probably couldn't do the job anyhow. If hiring someone with a score of 40 isn't scraping the bottom of the barrel, I don't know what your standards are. I have been supportive and helpful to almost all on this board and the other Board for years before this Board was here. It may be time for a reality check for some. Good luck to all.
|
|
|
Post by cowboy on Feb 1, 2013 0:52:08 GMT -5
On the other hand I know some ALJs that have little more experience than as a senior attorney, a private practice with very little courtroom experience and some applicants were hired in their mid 30s, obviously indicating not a long legal career. And yet those ALJs are very knowledgeable about the rules, have good writing and understand proper analysis. This is more than very few ALJs. I think everyone who has received a score understands it is not a reflection of the quality of the applicant. One of the lowest scorers I have seen is a very good attorney in OGC with a great legal history and knows more about the law and the process than many ALJs I know. It is simply a number seemingly arbitrarily assigned after combining the application, the written exam and the interview. Keep in mind that we know some of the scoring is performed by individuals with no legal experience and no connection to the agency (i.e. independent contractors). Some ALJs had a very low score the first time they tested, and got a dramatic increase the second time they tested, again indicating that the score has little to do with the quality of the applicant, but reinforcing that there is too much error in the scoring process. Those ALJs were later hired with the higher score. The phrase "scraping the bottom of the barrel" was very poorly chosen as it assumes that those with higher scores are better applicants than lower scores. Frankly, it is a terrible way to quantify applicants particularly because of the error involved. Standards should be placed on the quality of the writing, the legal analysis used, the experience of the applicant and the professional standards that applicant maintains, as well as other important factors I couldn't think to include at the moment. These standards simply cannot be reflected in a number. The number is purely OPMs method of ranking the applicants they already determined qualified.
This is not blowing smoke. There is simply no way anyone can know what makes a good candidate and what unique qualifications will place an applicant on the register because OPM will not disclose their testing procedures or scoring standards. Everyone has a chance to be hired because no one knows if their own unique career background, writing sample, interview, references and particular GAL will be enough to cause them to be selected over someone else. The only "minimal qualification" I have seen is the 7 year experience requirement. Thus, I say apply away! Sharpen up your pencils, dust off your resume and make some good contacts with your references whilst you wait for the exam to open. You have nothing to lose by trying and everything to gain.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Feb 1, 2013 8:42:35 GMT -5
The make or break in the hiring process is the SSA interview. It is a fairly long interview with all asked the same questions and some respond better than others. Sorry about the bottom off the barrel, you are all "Spot On" and it is ODAR's errors and loss that you are not already wearing your coveted robes. And now for something else to convince you that you are all "Spot On". This is from the ABA Journal Newsletter today, and you may note that due to an overpopulation of attorneys and out of sight tuition, our competition may decrease in the future. You may return to your warm and fuzzies knowing you are well loved and more valuable than yesterday, and yes, Bartleby cares about you. He can't help himself..
‘Massive layoffs’ predicted in law schools due to big drop in applicants
Posted Jan 31, 2013 6:27 AM CST By Debra Cassens Weiss
A plunge in the number of applicants to law schools will likely lead to closures and faculty layoffs, according to law professors following the statistics.
Based on current trends, the number of law school applicants for the 2013 school year is expected to number between 53,000 and 54,000, a 30-year low. In 2004, for example, 100,000 people applied to law schools, the New York Times reports. “Responding to the new environment,” the Times says, “schools are planning cutbacks and accepting students they would not have admitted before.”
Experts attribute the drop in interest to higher tuition costs and a decline in high-paying law firm jobs. University of Southern California law and economics professor Gillian Hadfield told the Times there is “a significant mismatch between demand and supply.” According to Hadfield, the problem is not an overproduction of lawyers. “Actually, we have an exploding demand for both ordinary folk lawyers and big corporate ones,” she said. But general practitioners dealing with matters like mortgages and divorce have a hard time making a living, she said. Big companies, on the other hand, aren’t satisfied with law schools’ emphasis on academics at the expense of practical training, she said.
Change is afoot, according to other law professors interviewed by the newspaper. University of Chicago law professor Brian Leiter expects up to 10 law schools will close in the next 10 years, and half to three-quarters will cut faculty, staff and class sizes.
Indiana University law professor William Henderson said the changes could occur as early as this fall. “In the ’80s and ’90s, a liberal arts graduate who didn’t know what to do went to law school,” Henderson told the Times. “Now you get $120,000 in debt and a default plan of last resort whose value is just too speculative. Students are voting with their feet. There are going to be massive layoffs in law schools this fall. We won’t have the bodies we need to meet the payroll.”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2013 9:02:01 GMT -5
mean, sarcastic, hostile, insulting and demeaning personal attacks directed at other members of this Board are uncalled for and not appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Feb 1, 2013 9:21:50 GMT -5
Reality and hostility are two separate things. I haven't seen much of the latter in recent posts.
|
|