|
|
Post by costco on Mar 25, 2013 7:39:21 GMT -5
From March 15, "...she did tell me there are over 4000 applications so far. Ugh!"
Has anyone gotten an update since the open period closed?
|
|
|
|
Post by bowser on Mar 25, 2013 8:01:13 GMT -5
I have NO IDEA how applications are processed - why I was found not minimally qualified before I was hired on a later application. I and others have tried to make any sense out of why one but not the other of apparently equally qualified applicants were invited to proceed through the process. Folk have suggested every type of bias imaginable, but I've seen no evidence of it. The only way I was able to make sense of what seemed a horribly arbitrary initial step was to conclude that it is simply that - arbitrary. I imagine that whoever processes these simply does not want to carefully go through all of the applications received - 4000+ in this case. Having worked for the Agency for a number of years, I can well assume that al applicants are presumed to e minimally qualified. And there is less interest in identifying and hiring the BEST candidates, than simply hiring a number of adequate folk. I can readily imagine a directive that the number just be cut down to some more manageable number that they wish to test and interview, whether by an extremely superficial review, or simply rejecting every other application. Absolutely no basis for this scenario other than my twisted brain, but to me it makes a heck of a lot more sense than anything else I have been able to come up with. Of course, if I believe it was arbitrary for my previous applications to have been summarily rejected, mustn't I conclude that there was some arbitrariness involved in my ultimately being hired?  Just saying folk, don't take it too personally (hard as that may be when you are told your career does not make you minimally qualified and you are given a ZERO rating!) If this first step seems like a really lousy and arbitrary system, I - and many others - agree with you. |
|
|
|
Post by roggenbier on Mar 25, 2013 15:50:44 GMT -5
No. They indicated at ALJ Application Manager that they would respond by 4/23/13.
|
|
|
|
Post by deminimis on Mar 25, 2013 16:00:14 GMT -5
No. They indicated at ALJ Application Manager that they would respond by 4/23/13. I don't see anything to this effect in Application Manager. Could you tell us where you got this information? It seems likely to me that we'll hear about the next step within a month, but nevertheless I don't see any such assurances in Application Manager. |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Mar 25, 2013 16:31:21 GMT -5
No. They indicated at ALJ Application Manager that they would respond by 4/23/13. I don't see anything to this effect in Application Manager. Could you tell us where you got this information? It seems likely to me that we'll hear about the next step within a month, but nevertheless I don't see any such assurances in Application Manager. My guess is he's confused the date with the 4/24/2015 deadline in Application Manager. |
|
|
|
Post by deminimis on Mar 25, 2013 18:31:33 GMT -5
I don't see anything to this effect in Application Manager. Could you tell us where you got this information? It seems likely to me that we'll hear about the next step within a month, but nevertheless I don't see any such assurances in Application Manager. My guess is he's confused the date with the 4/24/2015 deadline in Application Manager. That's what I was thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by reallawyer on Mar 25, 2013 23:26:40 GMT -5
Wonder why they don't save themselves at least a small amount of trouble and automatically pass through candidates who are already on the register. They are obviously qualified.
|
|
|
|
Post by Buffalogal on Mar 26, 2013 6:15:37 GMT -5
Wonder why they don't save themselves at least a small amount of trouble and automatically pass through candidates who are already on the register. They are obviously qualified. That raises an interesting thought. For those of us on the register who now have four years more of relevant experience, suppose OPM decides we aren't qualified this time around. Best of luck everyone! |
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Mar 26, 2013 11:30:05 GMT -5
Current registar is irrelevant. New test equals different results.
|
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 26, 2013 12:33:01 GMT -5
Current registar is irrelevant. New test equals different results. It's not irrelevant at all as to this first screening level, which is licensure plus seven years qualifying experience. If we had it in 2009 (and later, for qualifying vets) we have it now. |
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Mar 26, 2013 14:54:45 GMT -5
Not to be a naysayer, but why is the Agency not using the current Register for another Cert if they think the applicants on the current Register are viable?? And will there be another small Cert from this Register as we were all led to believe??
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 26, 2013 19:20:23 GMT -5
Not to be a naysayer, but why is the Agency not using the current Register for another Cert if they think the applicants on the current Register are viable?? And will there be another small Cert from this Register as we were all led to believe?? SSA wants another pool to choose from--pure and simple. Whether or not they will be "forced" to request another Cert from the present Register for a small hire is, of course, the present question. The issue of a summer training class has been quiet here and that's a shame--which again (of course) would mean another hire off the present Register. Surely some folks here must know... |
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 26, 2013 19:28:29 GMT -5
I have NO IDEA how applications are processed - why I was found not minimally qualified before I was hired on a later application. I and others have tried to make any sense out of why one but not the other of apparently equally qualified applicants were invited to proceed through the process. Folk have suggested every type of bias imaginable, but I've seen no evidence of it. The only way I was able to make sense of what seemed a horribly arbitrary initial step was to conclude that it is simply that - arbitrary. I imagine that whoever processes these simply does not want to carefully go through all of the applications received - 4000+ in this case. Having worked for the Agency for a number of years, I can well assume that al applicants are presumed to e minimally qualified. And there is less interest in identifying and hiring the BEST candidates, than simply hiring a number of adequate folk. I can readily imagine a directive that the number just be cut down to some more manageable number that they wish to test and interview, whether by an extremely superficial review, or simply rejecting every other application. Absolutely no basis for this scenario other than my twisted brain, but to me it makes a heck of a lot more sense than anything else I have been able to come up with. Of course, if I believe it was arbitrary for my previous applications to have been summarily rejected, mustn't I conclude that there was some arbitrariness involved in my ultimately being hired? Just saying folk, don't take it too personally (hard as that may be when you are told your career does not make you minimally qualified and you are given a ZERO rating!) If this first step seems like a really lousy and arbitrary system, I - and many others - agree with you. This post made me smile. ;D NO ONE has any idea just how subjective the first cut is. One pass from one OPM 'analyst' is another's fail. Go figure.  |
|
|
|
Post by costco on Mar 26, 2013 20:07:17 GMT -5
The original post asked: how many applications were received by OPM by the end of the open period. We know from one poster that there were over 4,000 applications received by some time on the final day of March 15, 2013. What was the total count by the COB (and the closed of the open period)?
If someone were to find that out, then later, we many be able to determine whether everyone made it past step one, or just 95%, or only 80%. I think it would be interesting to know, but since I'm already an ALJ, I'm not interested enough to pick up the phone and call. I thought someone with skin in the game (as in, "the game is afoot") would want to know that. But, I guess I was wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 26, 2013 21:59:06 GMT -5
The original post asked: how many applications were received by OPM by the end of the open period. We know from one poster that there were over 4,000 applications received by some time on the final day of March 15, 2013. What was the total count by the COB (and the closed of the open period)? If someone were to find that out, then later, we many be able to determine whether everyone made it past step one, or just 95%, or only 80%. I think it would be interesting to know, but since I'm already an ALJ, I'm not interested enough to pick up the phone and call. I thought someone with skin in the game (as in, "the game is afoot") would want to know that. But, I guess I was wrong. We've never had more than about 35 percent participation on this board anyway, so finding out what percentage made what stage is really not possible. It might be an interesting factoid to know how many apps were submitted, but when it comes down to it, it would do nothing to solve the mysteries of how one gets scored on the register or, more so, how one gets hired. |
|
maybe
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by maybe on May 9, 2013 18:54:44 GMT -5
Didn't post this earlier because there seemed to be no reason to add to the stress but for what it's worth --no idea exactly how many applications were submitted but, according to the help desk (during a follow up call for a technical problem), 5,161 applications were considered complete and then moved on for review to see if they met the preliminary qualification screening. No idea how many cleared that screening and moved on to the current phase (SJT, Writing Sample, Experience Assessment).
Good luck to all! To any out there who haven't completed the current phase yet, get busy!
|
|
gman
Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by gman on May 10, 2013 8:07:14 GMT -5
Didn't post this earlier because there seemed to be no reason to add to the stress but for what it's worth --no idea exactly how many applications were submitted but, according to the help desk (during a follow up call for a technical problem), 5,161 applications were considered complete and then moved on for review to see if they met the preliminary qualification screening. No idea how many cleared that screening and moved on to the current phase (SJT, Writing Sample, Experience Assessment). Good luck to all! To any out there who haven't completed the current phase yet, get busy! As I recall, reports were that 4300 or so had submitted applications by the day before the deadline. I assumed that another 2,000 would land on the last day - I apparently overestimated the number of procrastinators. |
|
|
|
Post by justamessenger on May 10, 2013 9:39:35 GMT -5
Didn't post this earlier because there seemed to be no reason to add to the stress but for what it's worth --no idea exactly how many applications were submitted but, according to the help desk (during a follow up call for a technical problem), 5,161 applications were considered complete and then moved on for review to see if they met the preliminary qualification screening. No idea how many cleared that screening and moved on to the current phase (SJT, Writing Sample, Experience Assessment). Good luck to all! To any out there who haven't completed the current phase yet, get busy! As I recall, reports were that 4300 or so had submitted applications by the day before the deadline. I assumed that another 2,000 would land on the last day - I apparently overestimated the number of procrastinators. I was also expecting a far larger number...that is interesting... In my mind I had envisioned 8,000 or more applying. |
|
|
|
Post by cafeta on May 10, 2013 13:42:03 GMT -5
As I recall, reports were that 4300 or so had submitted applications by the day before the deadline. I assumed that another 2,000 would land on the last day - I apparently overestimated the number of procrastinators. I was also expecting a far larger number...that is interesting... In my mind I had envisioned 8,000 or more applying. Hard to say, but maybe 2000 more was not so much of an overestimate as 5,161 was the number that moved forward from the first step. Who knows how many did not. Although there are many examples on this here board of many that inexplicably did not move forward, both those with incredible levels of experience or missing e-mail notices, I have to believe there were probably many applications based on a "well it can't hurt to try," despite clear lack of experience. So who knows where the final number applicants falls, it could be well above 5,161. |
|
|
|
Post by cafeta on May 10, 2013 13:45:17 GMT -5
Sheesh, maybe I should post it one more time to be sure? Sorry, I am having troubles (clearly) with teh new system.
|
|
