|
|
Post by jagghagg on Feb 15, 2008 6:10:25 GMT -5
Well, I guess I'm lucky. In my office, I have about 600 cases assigned to me at any given time and I am the manager of the unit, which means I oversee about 200 unassigned cases and consult on 800 more. I'm also the network administrator, do community education, do most of the drafting for court, design and print about half the publishing (brochures, newsletters), etc. I think we're talkin' about a difference in practice. I'm a federal court litigator - it's all I do now. All my professional references are AUSAs - also litigators. In that regard, carrying a "caseload" of 25-30 currently-being-litigated-cases, complete with discovery, depo prep, depos, status conferences, motion practice, jury selection and trial would be more than enough for one person. So when they get asked if someone can handle 500-700 cases, that's their reference concept - not 500-700 case decisions stemming from 1 hour hearings and case reviews with senior attorneys as support. [I'm not denigrating it; just saying it is different.] A'hm just sayin' that the question may seem direct but is a bit ambiguous. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Feb 15, 2008 7:30:03 GMT -5
JH: In order to understand why the question was asked, and the weight to be given to the answer, we have to know that the question was designed for one specific group of candidates. The answers from the references for that specific group will be given great weight. For all of the others, such as yourself, the answers really aren't that relevant. As we know, if the question is asked of one candidate, or about one group of candidates, it is wise to ask the question of all candidates. Pix.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Feb 15, 2008 7:45:16 GMT -5
JH: In order to understand why the question was asked, and the weight to be given to the answer, we have to know that the question was designed for one specific group of candidates. The answers from the references for that specific group will be given great weight. For all of the others, such as yourself, the answers really aren't that relevant. As we know, if the question is asked of one candidate, or about one group of candidates, it is wise to ask the question of all candidates. Pix. You know, Pix - I understand all that. I, myself, don't think these reference checks are the "end-to-be-all" as others seem to feel; and I don't feel they are worth much angst in this time of trial and tribulation. I'm only passing on information, experience, and context. |
|
|
|
Post by judicature on Feb 15, 2008 9:23:44 GMT -5
I am an outsider, and my references tell me that much of the inquiry was related to productivity and they were specifically asked about my ability to handle a caseload of 500 to 700 per year.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Feb 15, 2008 10:02:26 GMT -5
Logistics question: If references are make or break, and we are going to be notified starting late next week, how is SSA weighing the statements our references made? There are at least 6 or 7 references. I have been told that the caller took down their responses verbatim. Calls for my references lasted 15-20 minutes and consisted of about 7 questions. How can they review and weigh all that information? Or is it a check box form that is provided to SSA?  |
|
|
|
Post by tdtksbp on Feb 15, 2008 10:29:36 GMT -5
I guess I got worried for nothing and am now able to breath a little easier. I know of at least 2 judicial references and two opposing counsel references that were checked yesterday. Thanks to everyone for helping me and others deal with this process.
|
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Feb 15, 2008 10:52:54 GMT -5
Well, I guess I'm lucky. .... I think we're talkin' about a difference in practice. I'm a federal court litigator - it's all I do now. All my professional references are AUSAs - also litigators. In that regard, carrying a "caseload" of 25-30 currently-being-litigated-cases, complete with discovery, depo prep, depos, status conferences, motion practice, jury selection and trial would be more than enough for one person. So when they get asked if someone can handle 500-700 cases, that's their reference concept - not 500-700 case decisions stemming from 1 hour hearings and case reviews with senior attorneys as support. [I'm not denigrating it; just saying it is different.] A'hm just sayin' that the question may seem direct but is a bit ambiguous. I didn't mean to be comparing workloads. I literally meant I was lucky to be in a job where the numbers could accidentally be corresponding for my references so that there would be no gasps. After I started writing, I got unable-to-close-mouth disease and kept writing. We have an attorney in our office who does both Social Security and consumer protection. I have seen a consumer case of hers take literally 50 times the work of a Social Security case - so I didn't mean to appear to be comparing apples and oranges at all. |
|
|
|
Post by testtaker on Feb 15, 2008 11:50:09 GMT -5
I have a question for y'all. When I was talking to the judges and lawyers who were called by Yale, they all indicated that the woman who called them told them that others were saying the same things about me. For example, after talking to references A and B, she called reference C and during the questioning, would mention a bit of what others said. Nothing specific, but I felt it verged on a breach of privacy.
Did this happen to anyone else?
|
|
|
|
Post by corrina on Feb 15, 2008 12:04:18 GMT -5
Yes testtaker. When they called a Judge/Supervisor a second time, Yale indicated that a former litigation supervisor -- also called for the second time -- liked me very much. I wonder -- would they have shared a supervisor's negative sense of me?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Feb 15, 2008 12:30:24 GMT -5
I am an outsider, and my references tell me that much of the inquiry was related to productivity and they were specifically asked about my ability to handle a caseload of 500 to 700 per year. Ask a question about one individual, or one group, then ask it of all. |
|
|
|
Post by testtaker on Feb 15, 2008 13:20:57 GMT -5
Yes testtaker. When they called a Judge/Supervisor a second time, Yale indicated that a former litigation supervisor -- also called for the second time -- liked me very much. I wonder -- would they have shared a supervisor's negative sense of me? Your former supervisors were called TWICE? |
|
|
|
Post by corrina on Feb 15, 2008 13:54:14 GMT -5
Yes, they were called twice. I posted it awhile ago. The humorous reply was that it probably reflected Yale dysfunction. I appreciated the laugh very much, but it did make me nervous.
Interview first week; first round of calls immediately thereafter; second calls maybe ten days later. Think it's a bad thing?
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Feb 15, 2008 13:57:49 GMT -5
Yes, they were called twice. I posted it awhile ago. The humorous reply was that it probably reflected Yale dysfunction. I appreciated the laugh very much, but it did make me nervous. Interview first week; first round of calls immediately thereafter; second calls maybe ten days later. Think it's a bad thing? Nah, they were thinking, "Can she really be THAT good ??" |
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Feb 15, 2008 14:18:36 GMT -5
Yes, they were called twice. I posted it awhile ago. The humorous reply was that it probably reflected Yale dysfunction. I appreciated the laugh very much, but it did make me nervous. Interview first week; first round of calls immediately thereafter; second calls maybe ten days later. Think it's a bad thing? Nah, they were thinking, "Can she really be THAT good ??" The answer is of course yes. We are all that good, self analysis notwithstanding...  |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Feb 15, 2008 16:38:04 GMT -5
Yale is making phone calls to the people you listed for employment background and for reference background. If the same person is on both lists, then she will be contacted twice.
Yale has finished, or is in the process of finishing the background checks and will send the results to OCALJ. Hopefully all of your people were contacted.
Witz, please check your private messages. Pix.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Feb 15, 2008 16:55:11 GMT -5
Logistics question: If references are make or break, and we are going to be notified starting late next week, how is SSA weighing the statements our references made? There are at least 6 or 7 references. I have been told that the caller took down their responses verbatim. Calls for my references lasted 15-20 minutes and consisted of about 7 questions. How can they review and weigh all that information? Or is it a check box form that is provided to SSA? OCALJ has had everything except the information from Yale for awhile. I imagine the tentative selections have been made by now. All that remains is to check the selections against the material provided by Yale. Should be finished up a few days after getting the Yale results. All of the material won't have to be gone through. Only the top one or two selectees for each location will need to have the background checks looked at. If the production, and other questions, are OK, move to the selectee for the next location. If not, then take a look at the next person on the list for that location. You have to remember that these are smart and very organized people with support staff to help them through this process. It will get done in a timely manner. Pix. |
|
|
|
Post by conanthebarbarian on Feb 15, 2008 17:59:17 GMT -5
Pixie: Well said as always. CTB
|
|
|
|
Post by deadwood on Feb 16, 2008 9:09:06 GMT -5
Yes testtaker. When they called a Judge/Supervisor a second time, Yale indicated that a former litigation supervisor -- also called for the second time -- liked me very much. I wonder -- would they have shared a supervisor's negative sense of me? Your former supervisors were called TWICE? Mine were too. Once as employers. Once as references. |
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Feb 17, 2008 15:06:05 GMT -5
Logistics question: If references are make or break, and we are going to be notified starting late next week, how is SSA weighing the statements our references made? There are at least 6 or 7 references. I have been told that the caller took down their responses verbatim. Calls for my references lasted 15-20 minutes and consisted of about 7 questions. How can they review and weigh all that information? Or is it a check box form that is provided to SSA? OCALJ has had everything except the information from Yale for awhile. I imagine the tentative selections have been made by now. All that remains is to check the selections against the material provided by Yale. Should be finished up a few days after getting the Yale results. All of the material won't have to be gone through. Only the top one or two selectees for each location will need to have the background checks looked at. If the production, and other questions, are OK, move to the selectee for the next location. If not, then take a look at the next person on the list for that location. You have to remember that these are smart and very organized people with support staff to help them through this process. It will get done in a timely manner. Pix. This kind of throws a wrench in my recent hope that outstanding references would help me rise - it sounds like they really only help keep people from falling on the lists. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Feb 17, 2008 20:35:44 GMT -5
That's about the way it will work out, Propmaster.
|
|
