Relevancy Of Scores At This Stage

[Pixie]

I have received a couple of private messages asking me why I say the scores are not that important at this point in the game. Also, some of the posts seem to indicate confusion. Mostly I have been saying that in the context of agency attorneys. For some, the score is very important. Veterans are a good example.

Assuming a veteran has the top score of the three being considered for a location, the agency may not pick a non veteran with a score below hers, absent justification and written permission from OPM to non select the veteran. The same with a veteran who has the second highest score. The candidate above her may be selected without justification and permission, but not the candidate below her.

If there is no veteran among the top three scores being considered, the agency may pick any of the three it chooses, irrespective of their scores. If a veteran is in the mix, the agency may not go below her score to pick a non veteran. If the veteran has the lowest score, then the agency may pick any of the three it chooses.

With the exception of the veterans' issue, the scores are not the determining factor when being considered for a position by the agency. The agency attorneys' big hurdle was getting past OPM. The agency will find a way to get them on board if it wants to. Of course a low score means that the candidate won't be in consideration for as many locations, and it will be more difficult to reach that candidate. Also, a candidate with a low score has a better chance of being bumped by a veteran.

Let's not forget that there are 150 locations in the hunt this time around; that gives the agency a whole lot of flexibility in making its choices. There will be proportionately more agency people hired from this certificate than if the class size consisted of thirty selectees, which used to be the norm.

I know some of you are tired of hearing me say it, but the agency will find a way to reach a candidate if it wants to, especially with a certificate this large. Of course the candidate must have selected enough locations to be reachable by the agency.

Hopefully this post will make the process a little more clear, but then it may just add to the confusion! Pix.


Edit note: As Jagghagg pointed out below, there are not 150 loacations, but rather 150 positions for 71 locations.

[3orangewhips]

thank you pixie.

the scores are not the end all be all, but they are still a very relevant part of the process even at this stage. the higher the score and the wider the geographic preference, the better the chance of getting selected.

[jagghagg]

pixie said:

...Let's not forget that there are 150 locations in the hunt this time around;

71 locations on the FEAI. Allegedly 150 slots to be filled at SSA.

[odarite]

Because the transfers, as kingfisher pointed out, are still ongoing, I see the possibility that the 71 locations may not be the final list and that the total of 150 may involve a supplemental certificate for some additional cities. I have no actual information that this will happen, however.

[emphyrio]

3orangewhips said:

thank you pixie.

the scores are not the end all be all, but they are still a very relevant part of the process even at this stage. the higher the score and the wider the geographic preference, the better the chance of getting selected.

I confess I am still confused. OPM sends SSA three names for every opening. If you have been contacted for an interview, you are going to be interviewed for one of SSA's openings. Therefore, if you are being interviewed you have a one in three chance of being selected.

Based on how deep into the register SSA's certificate has delved, it seems that they are interviewing 450 people for the 150 openings, which is consistent with a one-in-three chance of being selected. Presumably the interviewers have access to all or our application materials, including our scores. It is not clear to me how much weight, if any, SSA will place on the scores, as opposed to the interview, the "published articles," or the reference check.

[3orangewhips]

SSA does send three names for every opening, but it's not a pure 3 names for 1 opening scenario. SSA starts with city #1, lets say fargo. SSA pulls up the top scores/applicants for fargo, then selects one of the three. ***SSA then puts the other two not selected back into the general pool of applicants for futher consideration.*** Assuming those two people have the correct geographical preference, those two people will be considered AGAIN by SSA for another opening. Then applicants passed over twice are removed from consideration(I could be wrong and its 3 times, but still you get the idea)

If the SSA selection process were a true 3 names for 1 opening scenario, the other two names would be eliminated after being considered once. They are not, thus it's not a pure 3/1. Scores still matter because SSA will essentially be working from the top scores down the list. You have to somehow end up in the top three for one of the available cities to be selected.

[emphyrio]

3orangewhips said:

SSA does send three names for every opening, but it's not a pure 3 names for 1 opening scenario. SSA starts with city #1, lets say fargo. SSA pulls up the top scores/applicants for fargo, then selects one of the three. ***SSA then puts the other two not selected back into the general pool of applicants for futher consideration.*** Assuming those two people have the correct geographical preference, those two people will be considered AGAIN by SSA for another opening. Then applicants passed over twice are removed from consideration(I could be wrong and its 3 times, but still you get the idea)

If the SSA selection process were a true 3 names for 1 opening scenario, the other two names would be eliminated. They are not, thus it's not a pure 3/1. Scores still matter because SSA will essentially be working from the top scores down the list. You have to somehow end up in the top three for one of the available cities to be selected.

So why are they scheduling so many interviews? It seems unlikely that even SSA would waste their resources interviewing 450 people, knowing that actually only need to interview, say, 200.

[emphyrio]

3orangewhips said:

SSA does send three names for every opening, but it's not a pure 3 names for 1 opening scenario. SSA starts with city #1, lets say fargo. SSA pulls up the top scores/applicants for fargo, then selects one of the three. ***SSA then puts the other two not selected back into the general pool of applicants for futher consideration.*** Assuming those two people have the correct geographical preference, those two people will be considered AGAIN by SSA for another opening. Then applicants passed over twice are removed from consideration(I could be wrong and its 3 times, but still you get the idea)

If the SSA selection process were a true 3 names for 1 opening scenario, the other two names would be eliminated after being considered once. They are not, thus it's not a pure 3/1. Scores still matter because SSA will essentially be working from the top scores down the list. You have to somehow end up in the top three for one of the available cities to be selected.

I'm sorry if I'm not being clear about this. Obviously the interview is relevant.

But if 3OW's description of the process is correct, then SSA could theoretically fill the entire class of 150 by conducting fewer than 200 interviews. As an example, if the top 150 scorers all selected all 71 sites, then SSA could fill the entire class without interviewing anyone much lower than number 150.

In fact, according to the process 3OW describes, they would be required (in my hypothetical) to fill the class without going much below 150. If they could fill all 150 openings without interviewing past number 150 or so, then interviewing those between 150 and 450 accomplishes nothing. So why would they even bother to interview number 450?

My point is this: the fact that about 450 have been called for interviews suggests that the process is not being done as 3OW describes, and that number 450 on the certificate has about the same chance of getting an offer as number 1 (all else equal, of course).

[aljsouth]

emphyrio said:

3orangewhips said:

SSA does send three names for every opening, but it's not a pure 3 names for 1 opening scenario. SSA starts with city #1, lets say fargo. SSA pulls up the top scores/applicants for fargo, then selects one of the three. ***SSA then puts the other two not selected back into the general pool of applicants for futher consideration.*** Assuming those two people have the correct geographical preference, those two people will be considered AGAIN by SSA for another opening. Then applicants passed over twice are removed from consideration(I could be wrong and its 3 times, but still you get the idea)

If the SSA selection process were a true 3 names for 1 opening scenario, the other two names would be eliminated after being considered once. They are not, thus it's not a pure 3/1. Scores still matter because SSA will essentially be working from the top scores down the list. You have to somehow end up in the top three for one of the available cities to be selected.

I'm sorry if I'm not being clear about this. Obviously the interview is relevant.

But if 3OW's description of the process is correct, then SSA could theoretically fill the entire class of 150 by conducting fewer than 200 interviews. As an example, if the top 150 scorers all selected all 71 sites, then SSA could fill the entire class without interviewing anyone much lower than number 150.

In fact, according to the process 3OW describes, they would be required (in my hypothetical) to fill the class without going much below 150. If they could fill all 150 openings without interviewing past number 150 or so, then interviewing those between 150 and 450 accomplishes nothing. So why would they even bother to interview number 450?

My point is this: the fact that about 450 have been called for interviews suggests that the process is not being done as 3OW describes, and that number 450 on the certificate has about the same chance of getting an offer as number 1 (all else equal, of course).

First, as Pixie said, SSA does not want to appear to have preselected the candidates. Hence the interview of so many.

Second, you may be presuming the same people are on all the sites. This is not true. Some people may be first on one, second on another, and fifth on another; but on no others. Yet, because of placements, will be offered the site on which they are fifth. Also remember some sites are trying to get multiple judges. Rumor has it that the Louisiana sites are trying to obtain around 13 judges total, with three La. sites getting all but one of those. If your name is on all of those sites you will have a greater chance even if you are much lower than third on the list for that site. Hence the need for more than 200 interviews.

Third, people refuse offers. I have heard from too many involved in the procedure that a refusal, in a very real and practical way, bumps you off the list. This won't be written down anywhere, but SSA is free to make offers to people in other sites while you ponder accepting or refusing. If you refuse, they will not go back and revoke someone's offer at another site. You will be out of luck at that site. Indeed, without a veteran's preference AND a higher score than others I can almost promise you won't be selected somewhere else. I honestly don't blame SSA if they do this. You wll have twice told the gov. you would go to site X and now refuse that offer.

[jagghagg]

Ah, the Rule in Shelley's Case, the Rule Against Perpetuities, and the infamous Rule of Three.....all so confusing.

The application was important to get you enough points to take the written exam and the structured interview; the combined score from those endeavors is what gives you your ranking; your choice of locations provides the opportunities; so the job for the agencies - and especially SSA, it seems - is to match the ranking on the Cert/Register, the selections off the FEAI with the "slots" (for want of a better word) being filled without violating the Vet Preference rules. An agency may well cease seriously considering an applicant after a few times they come in second or third, but the only way that applicant is no longer considered at all is if they turn down an offer for that location. One interview will suffice for your consideration at all locations for which you have indicated availability. (For example, I have one interview on the 18th and it will be for 3 locations. Someone else who said they would go anywhere will be interviewed once for 71 locations.) After the interview takes place, SSA will wave it's HR wand, rank people again with the interview thrown in, check the Vet preference and the Rule of Three, throw in a dash of "gee-who-do-we-REALLY-want" along with wing of bat and eye of newt, and - voila !!! - make offers.

That is how my feeble mind understands this.

3Ow is in the hunt this time around, despite his view of his score. He may even be in the top three for a given location. If he interviews as well as he says he does, then he may easily surprise himself...and the agency! And, if not this time around when SSA fills 150 slots, then next time a cert is issued when 150 people are then OFF it. Besides, SSA is not the only agency looking - DOL is looking for ALJs; HUD is looking for ALJs; OHMD is looking for ALJs - people are going to be leaving the Register for all those agencies, again - giving others a "chance" (if you want to look at it that way).

It is too soon for anyone on the Register to be "singing the blues"...("Nobody knows the trouble I've seen......")

[doctorwho]

pixie said:

Emphyrio: SSA will give the scores zero weight. It will apply whatever criteria it wishes in making the selections. Pix.

Now Pixie, if that is truly the case, we know SSA is running afoul of a number of laws and that would be a serious no no. These are competitive positions. SSA cannot simply throw out the scores. It has to be more artful than that.

[3orangewhips]

jagghagg-if they can get to my score, I can get the job. I just have a hard time thinking that SSA will reach the bottom third of the scores. Hope I'm wrong, we will see....

doctorwho- correct. I can't see SSA completely throwing out the scores for the reasons you mentioned. It would cause a lawsuit blizzard.

[jagghagg]

I don't think Pix ever intended to indicate the scores will become irrelevant once you make it to the interview. They DO become less important because once you are referred, you are considered and your score up to that point is part of the mix. The interview is added to the mix. 3Ow is confident that if he can get to the interview, he can get the job. That's confidence. (For some reason, I am hearing Julie Andrews sing "I Have Confidence" but it's early back here in Alaska and I am sure that will go away soon. The voices....those voices......) Seems all of us would be better off preparing for the interview and letting SSA do their job - you can do nothing about that which you can do nothing about. Right now, there is no way to evaluate what or how SSA is going to conduct a hire of this magnitude. Individual hires are hard enough to conduct and defend (just ask me; I've been defending them for 22 years.) A hire on this scope is complicated. Let's just see how this plays out.

[doctorwho]

jagghagg said:

Seems all of us would be better off preparing for the interview and letting SSA do their job - you can do nothing about that which you can do nothing about. Right now, there is no way to evaluate what or how SSA is going to conduct a hire of this magnitude. Individual hires are hard enough to conduct and defend (just ask me; I've been defending them for 22 years.) A hire on this scope is complicated. Let's just see how this plays out.

Exactly!

[dazedandconfused]

Back on December 1st I started a thread titled: How Will SSA Manipulate the Scores: I asked,

"How can/will SSA arrange some 450 people into 150 openings at 71 locations to best fit their needs? After all the interviews are done, they will no doubt go into a smoke filled room and start moving around the pieces to the puzzle. Is the following scenario possible?

City X has 3 openings. Pick the top 9 candidates for that city. Those 9 are now out of the pool of the remaining 450. Next is City Y. It has 2 openings. SSA puts the 6 high scorers into this slot. They to are now out of the remaining pool. Next, City Z. 4 openings, so the 12 high scorers for this city are selected. And so on and so on. When there are 3 people for all 150 slots, then the offers go out. This is the only rational to interview 450 people.

Even though one of the candidates for City X would also have been selected for City Z (because he/she selected both) SSA can ignore them, because they have already slotted them for an opening.

If this method of selection is permissible, it gives SSA a huge amount of maneuverability, because depending on which cities they "fill" first, they can put people (especially those with wider choice selection than others) where they know they will have a chance at selection, especially if they slot many of the high score folks first.

Before you tell me I am wrong, consider how time consuming any other selection process will be for 150 people. If they only fill City X, and three are picked for the ALJ Corps, and the other 6 go back into the pool of 450, and only then SSA considers City Y, it could take quite a while to wait 24 hours to see who accepts and declines before moving onto the second choice (and only then moving onto the next office), and there really is no reason to waste the time and money to interview over 400 people".

Anyways, that was my thinking on December 1st. Not sure if I am any more clear.

[jagghagg]

dazedandconfused said:

City X has 3 openings. Pick the top 9 candidates for that city. Those 9 are now out of the pool of the remaining 450. Next is City Y. It has 2 openings. SSA puts the 6 high scorers into this slot. They to are now out of the remaining pool. Next, City Z. 4 openings, so the 12 high scorers for this city are selected. And so on and so on. When there are 3 people for all 150 slots, then the offers go out. This is the only rational to interview 450 people.

Well, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, Dazed, because your construct assumes SSA will interview FOR a location. That the panel will interview 9 people for City X's 3 slots. That would mean that someone who said they would go ANYWHERE would get one interview per city and it would mean that SSA would only interview and hire for one location before moving to the next. We are getting ONE interview with SSA for any and all locations for which we have indicated availability - the voodoo that SSA will use AFTER the interviews are complete will be a mix of merit ranking, interview performance, vet preference and the rule of 3 (with, as I said, a dash of subjective "who-do-we-want-where?") It is my bet that offers will go out to all 150 within the same week. If I get an offer at all, it will be for only ONE of my three location preferences and someone else will get an offer for my other two locations. If someone who indicated availability for all 71 locations gets an offer, it will be for one of those 71 locations. (I could be wrong - they may get a letter saying they can go anywhere they want, but since that would be a logistical nightmare for SSA, I kinda doubt that's gonna happen.) The acceptances and declinations will pour back in, SSA will fill on the acceptances, discard names on the declinations, and return to the top 3 left for a second offer to fill. That's my educated guess as a labor and employment lawyer.

[Pixie]

The more I try to explain, the worse it gets!

Dazed's post above is fairly accurate, except that the number two and number three candidates for location #1 are not eliminated from the pool. They will be available for consideration if they appear in the top three for another location. The selectee (number one) for location #1 will be removed from the pool (unless the agency really wants her, but that is another topic we don't need to go into here).

The best way to conceptualize the rule of three, and my comments about the importance of the scores, is to consider the rule's application to a single location: Three names are received. Absent a veteran in the top two, the agency may pick whomever it pleases, scores notwithstanding. Of course with multiple locations, different dynamics are considered, and those dynamics are most complex.

And to Whips, I say again, I think you will be in consideration for at least one office. Obviously none of us here can give you a definitive answer, but you can probably get an answer at the interview. They will more than likely have the information with them, and should not mind answering your question.

I agree with JaggHagg and Dr.Who. Pix.

_______

[dazedandconfused]

jagghagg: sorry if I was not clear. They will interview all 450 without concern for location. After the interviews are done, they will decide which are the 150 they really want (without concern for score) and they map out the board, moving people here and there, to get the people they want into as many slots as possible. Of course scores and veteran status will frustrate this, but it gives SSA maximum flexibility.

[happy]

Hypothetical Questions:

Assume the candidates for the following locations are ranked thusly:

New York -- A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K
New Jersey -- A, B, C, F, H, and K
Newark -- A, B, C, G, H, and J
Dover -- A, B, C, J, K, M, O, Q, S and T
Huntington -- A, B, C, K, M, O, Q, R and S

Question One:

If the Agency has 2 vacancies in New York, may it:
a) Select 2 candidates from among A, B, C, D, E, and F;

b) Select 1 candidate each from the sets "A, B & C" and "D, E & F;" OR

c) Select 1 candidate from the set "A, B & C" (e.g., A) and then the "Top 3" becomes "B,C & D" and the 2nd selection must be made from that set?

Question Two:

If the Agency selects A for New York, B for New Jersey, and C for Newark, which of the following is true:

a) The "Top 3" for Huntington becomes K, M, and O; OR

b) The Agency can select anyone off of the list for Huntington because the top three have already been selected for other locations?

[Pixie]

happy said:

Hypothetical Questions:

Assume the candidates for the following locations are ranked thusly:

New York -- A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K
New Jersey -- A, B, C, F, H, and K
Newark -- A, B, C, G, H, and J
Dover -- A, B, C, J, K, M, O, Q, S and T
Huntington -- A, B, C, K, M, O, Q, R and S

Question One:

If the Agency has 2 vacancies in New York, may it:
a) Select 2 candidates from among A, B, C, D, E, and F;

b) Select 1 candidate each from the sets "A, B & C" and "D, E & F;" OR

c) Select 1 candidate from the set "A, B & C" (e.g., A) and then the "Top 3" becomes "B,C & D" and the 2nd selection must be made from that set?

Question Two:

If the Agency selects A for New York, B for New Jersey, and C for Newark, which of the following is true:

a) The "Top 3" for Huntington becomes K, M, and O; OR

b) The Agency can select anyone off of the list for Huntington because the top three have already been selected for other locations?

My Pixie-like mind is spinning in circles. Maybe someone else can answer your questions while I do something else. I will take a look at it this evening or this weekend. Pix.

OK, I looked at the situation, and it isn't as complicated as it first appears.

Question One, the answer is a) Only the top three may be reached. Here we have the top six because of two vacancies. Only the top six may be reached. This is the way we did it and never had a problem with personnel. It is the way I understand the rule of three.

Question Two, the answer is a) A B and C will be made offers for other locations, and normally they will be removed from the pool for consideration at the other locations.

I did this hurriedly and reserve the right to change my answer after I read it again at some point in the future. Pix.