Relevancy Of Scores At This Stage

[doctorwho]

jagghagg said:

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.

Yes!!!!!!

[workdrone]

pixie said:

My Pixie-like mind is spinning in circles.

I concur. My circuit boards are fried after reading all those hypos. Reminds me of the logic questions when I took the LSAT all those years ago. I'll have to defer to higher wisdoms on this one.

[jagghagg]

dazedandconfused said:

(without concern for score) .

Not EVER gonna happen.

I think ya'll are over-thinking this; I really do.

[emphyrio]

This is not simply an academic exercise for me. I am looking at other employment opportunities at the moment, and it would be helpful to have some idea of my chances with SSA. Not that I expect to get a definite answer, of course -- heaven forbid SSA actually making the process transparent.

[jagghagg]

emphyrio - sent you a private e-mail in hopes of convincing you I am not taking your concerns lightly.

[mongo]

Speaking of transparent, exactly how transparent is the selection process? Once SSA interviews all 450 and makes the 150 selections, is the entire process reviewed by OPM to ensure that the proper procedures were followed before the offers are actually conveyed? Or is the process only really reviewed if someone complains? I raise this issue because I think it would be very difficult for someone who is not selected to come up with a legitimate complaint about his/her non-selection unless he/she knew exactly who was selected for each opening and each person's score. To quote jagghagg, "Individual hires are hard enough to conduct and defend...A hire on this scope is complicated," and I would think that a hire of this magnitude is also much more open to manipulation as well (other than when it comes to vets preferences). IMHO, those of us who end up not being selected will be faced with the same type of situation as those who received "low" scores from OPM. Assuming you aren't provided a "smoking gun", i.e. absolute proof that the Rule of 3 was not followed or vet preference rules were not followed, is anyone really prepared to file a lawsuit if you're not selected?

[jagghagg]

mongo said:

... exactly how transparent is the selection process? Once SSA interviews all 450 and makes the 150 selections, is the entire process reviewed by OPM to ensure that the proper procedures were followed before the offers are actually conveyed? Or is the process only really reviewed if someone complains?

I expect there will be an internal review of this process, but it will not be transparent unless there is an allegation of impropriety/prohibited personnel practice filed.

[emphyrio]

Jagghagg - believe me, no offense taken, and I appreciate your kind words. Don't take me too seriously, my frustration is showing too much. In fact, you get yet another exaltation!

I agree the process is completely opaque. I originally thought that there might be posters who had experience with hiring off a competitive certificate, that they could agree on the process this time around, and that it would shed some light on my chances. Obviously I was wrong -- as the saying goes, ask ten lawyers the same question, and you'll get eleven different answers.

[chris]

emphyrio said:

Jagghagg - believe me, no offense taken, and I appreciate your kind words. Don't take me too seriously, my frustration is showing too much. In fact, you get yet another exaltation!

I agree the process is completely opaque. I originally thought that there might be posters who had experience with hiring off a competitive certificate, that they could agree on the process this time around, and that it would shed some light on my chances. Obviously I was wrong -- as the saying goes, ask ten lawyers the same question, and you'll get eleven different answers.

I agree with jagghagg that people are overthinking this. I also agree with Pixie that scores are of limited importance. The most important thing at this point is how well you interview. Unfortunately 80% of attorneys seem to think they interview very well when probably about 20% interview well. That comes from years of hiring attorneys. Many very smart, very good, litigators, have no idea how to interview. Attorneys like to talk about how good they are when they should be listening carefully to the questions that are being asked and responding precisely to the exact question. I once did two back to back interviews where neither candidate answered a single question I asked. They were too busy spouting off their preprogrammed answers about their qualifications.

SSA is going to make a list of the people they like best after the interview. Score is probably completely irrelevant at this point. After they have made up the list of the people they want, they will go about seeing if they can manipulate people, scores and locations to get the people they want. Some people may be unreachable (for example, if you have a 56, are not a veteran and listed DC as your only location, you won't be getting an offer), but they will be able to reach many if not most of the people they want.

So while Pixie can tell you the rough odds of getting an offer based on your score, background and locations, she cannnot tell you how SA willl feel about you after you complete the interview. The focus at this point should be on the interview, not trying to predict who will get offers. There will be people in the 70s who will not get offers which opens things up for the people in the 50s and 60s. Who those people are that will not get offers, we do not know.

[nightowl]

I have been involved with the civil service process at the state level with the same rules. Pixie, ALJSouth, Chris and any other who I may be forgetting are correct. With 71 geographical locations and 150 positions to fill, SSA can certainly operate within the rules to get a high percentage of the people they want to hire. If you are in a rule of three with no vet, the agency can hire the third ranked person each time if that is what they want to do. Veterans will present a road block to this when they are ranked first or second. We have no idea where we rank with respect to geographical locations as some people certainly limited their geographical preferences.

[chris]

Very good point about the geographical preferences. Some of the people with lower scores keep forgetting that many of the people with higher scores have listed very few locations. Some of the people with higher scores on the register are not even on this certificate.

[cybear]

Chris,

Frankly, I would love to see everyone on this Board hired by ODAR or the Agency of his or her choice. Virtually every post I have read here has been thoughtful and sincere – the kind one would expect of ALJ-caliber people. Moreover, if SSA had the resources to replace those ALJs it has lost through attrition and to hire all of those needed to accommodate both its backlog and increased case receipts, it would need to make no apology in hiring the lot of us. Since the money is not there, I must beg for some clarification:

Maybe I'm especially obtuse; however, I find the "scores are totally irrelevant" idea somewhat difficult to understand. Theoretically, at least, scores were not assigned arbitrarily. If not, scores would presumably indicate one’s suitability for employment as an ALJ. If the foregoing is true, wholly to disregard scores now would appear to be capricious.

Naturally, the Agency will want the best people it can find. Presumably, one may enhance or detract from his or her position with a good or bad interview. What I fail to see is why the Agency would be wholly disinterested in applicants' scores, unless the Agency believes the scoring process to have been a sham and without merit. One would also think that OPM would expect at least Agency lip service to its scoring system, else why go to the trouble to set up a scoring system other than “pass-fail”? Please enlighten me. I must be missing something.

[counselor95]

Maybe it would help to think of the simplest possible scenario: just one location -- with the top three scoring candidates, none with veterans' preference -- then the scores of those candidates don't matter (once they are on the short list of three) because they are all considered equally qualified, so any of the three may be chosen.

As for why there are scores anyway, OPM used to administer a Civil Service examination for most of the civilian positions open in the government. A high score afforded the opportunity to be considered for an vacant position, but SSA even then had a "meet and deal" panel requirement -- one job applicant interviewed by several agency folks around a big table -- to weed out people unsuited for high pressure jobs with lots of public contact.

I, for one, don't think I am more qualified for the ALJ position than someone with a lower score, just based on this mysterious number, and I am not ready to concede that someone with a higher score would necessarily be a better ALJ.

[Pixie]

Cybear: The issue raised in your question is the reason I started this thread. We have come full circle. I will not attempt to go through it again.

Just realize that OPM is the agency that comes up with the scores and rates candidates accordingly. SSA is a separate agency that has its own agenda that does not include hiring based on the scores promulgated by OPM. The agency will make its own assessments of the candidates based on its own perception of their abilities and not slavishly follow the grades assigned by OPM.

I repeat: SSA has its own agenda, and that agenda does not include hiring based strictly on the scores developed by OPM. Their agenda very much includes hiring who it wants to hire, irrespective of the scores assigned by OPM. The agency will work within certain regulatory parameters to accomplish this goal. This is normal practice and is well accepted. If you have a question, PM me, and I will attempt to answer it. Pix.

[morgullord]

The primary importance of your score is to place you in the pecking order for OPM when it sends out lists of names. After that, it depends upon the agency.

[chris]

Cybear, it helps to have some understanding of the background of SSA's relationship with OPM on the issue of hiring ALJs. SSA has complained for many years that they do not like the OPM testing process because it discounts SSA agency experience and gives high scores to individuals who may have no SSA knowledge and no medical knowledge. SSA has said on more than one occasion that they would like to either have their own register or have more input in the testing process. Until this year OPM has ignored SSA because OPM is testing for the best overall ALJs they can find without regard to any specialized agency experience, whether it is SSA experience or DOL experience. This year it appears as if OPM decided to give some added weight to administrative law experience, which was presumably a bone they threw to SSA, but does that satisfy all of SSA's concerns.? Not even remotely.

You can score an 80 in the OPM process without having any SSA experience, any medical experience or any judicial experience. The OPM application process seemed vaguely designed to pick out the most experienced attorneys. The WD did involve some writing ability and analytical ability but SSA ALJs don't write anyway so how important is that to SSA? And apparently the WD was a small part of the score. And the less said about the OPM interview the better. No part of the OPM exam process was oriented toward SSA's needs.

Here's just one look at SSA's concerns about OPM:

www.ssab.gov/documents/ALJ_Issue_Brief_3.pdf

This "issue brief" is in large part driven by OPM's failure to make a new register prior to April 2007 but SSA's complaints about the testing procedure predate the internet and predate the Azdell litigation.

If you say that SSA should give weight to OPM's scores you are essentially telling SSA that they don't know how to evaluate their own candidates, but of course they think they do, and they think they can do it better than OPM. The OPM testing procedure means very little to SSA. SSA thinks that they can look at your work experience and evaluate your interview with them and come up with a much better estimate of your value to SSA than the OPM score. And they are almost certainly correct. While I'm sure that SSA recognizes that someone with a 90 might be a better judge than someone with a 45, generally speaking I think SSA views the OPM scores as a hindrance rather than a help.

[nightowl]

Kudos to Morgullord! Chris, as far as testing for specific knowledge, I know state agencies that do exactly that. I do not believe that is fair to people outside the agency. Some people outside the agency can do just as well or better than some people inside the agency. My colleagues and I have discussed the testing process for years. In short, there is no perfect system. However, I wholeheartedly agree with SSA, Morgullord and Counselor95 that the test score is simply a way of ranking people. It does not mean you will be a good ALJ or even fit in with the agency. Every agency will attempt to reach those people on the inside who they know are good employees. Who can blame the agency? They are hiring a known quantity. SSA knows what we all know. The scores rank people, but they are not an indication of future work performance.

[chris]

I agree totally. I have in the past interviewed with some of those state agencies and the tests are balanced so heavily in favor of insiders that it is a wonder that an outsider ever gets in. And some of those insiders are lousy attorneys but they get the jobs anyway because they have specialized knowledge.

I actually think the present OPM system works as well as any. SSA may complain but they still get to evaluate the candidates and make their own decisions about most of them. And the blame for most of the really bad judges, which SSA likes to blame on OPM, has to rest partially with SSA because they can reject anyone if they want to work at it.

[lurker]

chris said:

The focus at this point should be on the interview, not trying to predict who will get offers. There will be people in the 70s who will not get offers which opens things up for the people in the 50s and 60s. Who those people are that will not get offers, we do not know.

So any advice regarding how to prepare for the interview? Given that there are several panels of judge doing the interviews and each interview is expected to last about an hour, I'm assuming the interviews will be structured, with a standard questionnaire. What type of questions should we expect? How much attention will be paid to our individual resumes? What tips are out there for best method to prepare for an interview?

[chris]

There is a thread called "what to expect at the interview". You should read that thread thoroughly.