Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2013 18:46:07 GMT -5
Private attorney, I think you paint too bleak a picture. Sure, there are many horror stories, but my point is that MOST of the people who made the 2009/2010 register, ultimately were offered a position. Is that not true? The truth is that I was one of those rare people who chose one city. It took years but I was ultimately interviewed for a position in that city. I didn't get it, but I can honestly say it wasn't because of some unfair circumstance. I pretty much know what interview answer killed my chances. Hindsight is 20/20. I personally know two new ALJs who were offered positions with scores in the 40s/50s in major cities, and I don't think they were anomalies. Your post did not answer the question. Isn't it true that most people who made the last register were ultimately offered a position?
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Aug 30, 2013 1:51:21 GMT -5
I tend to agree with privateatty, for a few reasons. First, there were already we don't know how many people on the register when it was refreshed in 2009-10, but certainly in the hundreds. As far as I know, we don't know how many hundred were added in that refresh. So, whether 50 percent plus one ultimately got offers-- I'll go out on that limb and say no.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2013 7:12:22 GMT -5
I tend to agree with privateatty, for a few reasons. First, there were already we don't know how many people on the register when it was refreshed in 2009-10, but certainly in the hundreds. As far as I know, we don't know how many hundred were added in that refresh. So, whether 50 percent plus one ultimately got offers-- I'll go out on that limb and say no.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2013 7:16:23 GMT -5
that is surprising. We have no way of verifying these numbers but I am told that some who scored in the 30s and 40s received offers. I cannot believe that not more than half achieved these scores with GALs that matched somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 30, 2013 8:15:32 GMT -5
In the "Total ALJs hired since 2008" thread, MPD linked to a OIG report from February 2013 that said 839 ALJs were hired from the register since 2008. Add the 30 to 35 that were just hired and somewhere around 870 appears right.
As observer noted, the 2009-10 refresh added hundreds to teh register that already had hundreds on it. Unless we can sleuth out the specifics on those numbers, we wont be able to figure any actual percentage of hires and non-hires.
|
|
oldschool
Full Member
Newbie FAQ Contributor
Posts: 101
|
Post by oldschool on Aug 30, 2013 8:31:04 GMT -5
My memory may be a bit off, but when the register was opened in 2007, OPM accepted the first 1250 applications, plus a few extra from 10 point vets, etc. It was "refreshed" twice, but I don't think OPM accepted as many as 1250 more applications each time. I think it was closer to 750 each time. The tricky part is figuring out how many of the candidates who got their applications in actually made it on to the register. I think from previous discussions a couple of years ago on this board the consensus was about half, which would mean about 1200-1300 people actually made it on to the register. If true, that would mean that the majority of people on the register received offers.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 30, 2013 9:36:48 GMT -5
From the unofficial timeline thread, when the opening first occurred in 2007 they allowed 1250 applicants. The refresh in 2008 allowed 600 applicants. The 2009 refresh allowed 900. So, the total applicants (plus some unknown number of vets that could apply at anytime) for the register that was created 07/08 was 2750.
If oldschool's memory and guesstimation is right and only around 50% of applicants actually made the register, that's 1375 total. If that number is right, and there were 870 hires from that register (2008 through this month)...63.27% of those on the register were eventually hired (though some waited almost 6 years and 505 went home empty handed).
Biggest "IF" is the percentage of applicants that actually made the register. Anyone with any insight on that?
Also, please remember that the hiring/budget situation during that time frame was waaaay different than what we have now and this new register was not limited to a total number of applications when testing was opened. Both of those facts will make a huge difference between the possibly better than 60% chance of eventually getting hired on the old register and our new reality.
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Aug 30, 2013 10:46:05 GMT -5
From the unofficial timeline thread, when the opening first occurred in 2007 they allowed 1250 applicants. The refresh in 2008 allowed 600 applicants. The 2009 refresh allowed 900. So, the total applicants (plus some unknown number of vets that could apply at anytime) for the register that was created 07/08 was 2750. If oldschool's memory and guesstimation is right and only around 50% of applicants actually made the register, that's 1375 total. If that number is right, and there were 870 hires from that register (2008 through this month)...63.27% of those on the register were eventually hired (though some waited almost 6 years and 505 went home empty handed). Biggest "IF" is the percentage of applicants that actually made the register. Anyone with any insight on that? Also, please remember that the hiring/budget situation during that time frame was waaaay different than what we have now and this new register was not limited to a total number of applications when testing was opened. Both of those facts will make a huge difference between the possibly better than 60% chance of eventually getting hired on the old register and our new reality.
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Aug 30, 2013 10:48:20 GMT -5
that was the gravamen of my post and I thank you for your sage analysis as always funk. 50/50 odds ain't bad. And even with the diminished odds we expect with the new register - I'll take 'em.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Aug 30, 2013 10:50:17 GMT -5
From the unofficial timeline thread, when the opening first occurred in 2007 they allowed 1250 applicants. The refresh in 2008 allowed 600 applicants. The 2009 refresh allowed 900. So, the total applicants (plus some unknown number of vets that could apply at anytime) for the register that was created 07/08 was 2750. If oldschool's memory and guesstimation is right and only around 50% of applicants actually made the register, that's 1375 total. If that number is right, and there were 870 hires from that register (2008 through this month)...63.27% of those on the register were eventually hired (though some waited almost 6 years and 505 went home empty handed). Biggest "IF" is the percentage of applicants that actually made the register. Anyone with any insight on that? Also, please remember that the hiring/budget situation during that time frame was waaaay different than what we have now and this new register was not limited to a total number of applications when testing was opened. Both of those facts will make a huge difference between the possibly better than 60% chance of eventually getting hired on the old register and our new reality. I don't think anyone here has more than speculation about how many made the reigster each time. I had remembered the application number in 2009 as 1100, but even if it was 900, it was more than that, as they took applications through midnight EST on the day the 900th app was received. That ended up being midnight on the day after applications opened... less than 48 hours. So, I suspect there were more than 900. Anyway, you are entirely correct that the hiring/budget picture for the future is VERY different than what we saw in the last five years. Many new offices were opened in that time frame, I don't think there are any on the horizon now. I don't think predicting the future based on the past will work very well here.
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Aug 30, 2013 12:21:34 GMT -5
there are many unknown factors, e.g., how many dropped out voluntarily or rejected an offer. But I think it is fair to speculate that in the past 1 out of 2 who made it to the register, got offered a position. In the future, it could be 1 in 3 or 1 in 5. But it is helpful for me at least to speculate - not to seek a magic bullet, but to have a sense of whether or not I'm wasting my time. 1 in 5 odds are much better than what Vegas gives you, and in this case you gain the experience if nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Aug 30, 2013 12:22:32 GMT -5
there are many unknown factors, e.g., how many dropped out voluntarily or rejected an offer. But I think it is fair to speculate that in the past 1 out of 2 who made it to the register, got offered a position. In the future, it could be 1 in 3 or 1 in 5. But it is helpful for me at least to speculate - not to seek a magic bullet, but to have a sense of whether or not I'm wasting my time. 1 in 5 odds are much better than what Vegas gives you, and in this case you gain the competitive experience if nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Aug 30, 2013 13:21:12 GMT -5
Assuming that the current register comes in somewhere around 1,100 and there are 300 openings that are filled during the life of the register then you are looking at slightly better than 1 in 4 odds.
I doubt multiple refreshes are necessary this time (one maybe) but the initial group of applicants was so much larger than prior pools it shouldn't need multiple refreshes before exhaustion.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Aug 30, 2013 14:01:56 GMT -5
Assuming that the current register comes in somewhere around 1,100 and there are 300 openings that are filled during the life of the register then you are looking at slightly better than 1 in 4 odds. I doubt multiple refreshes are necessary this time (one maybe) but the initial group of applicants was so much larger than prior pools it shouldn't need multiple refreshes before exhaustion. Except for the fact that the weeding out process this time around has cut the numbers substantially (extrapolating on what's been posted here). Without taking into account the appeals on that process, they may end up with a register that is not that different in size than what they had in mid 2010.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 30, 2013 14:20:46 GMT -5
I think at best there was probably a 40-45% hire rate from the previous Register and Refreshes. I think at the very best you might see a 25-30% hire rate from the Register being created now. I would say a 1in 4 or a 1 in 5 chance is about right. It is still decent, but you are competing against the best of the best. If you make the Register consider yourself extremely smart and lucky. If you receive an offer consider yourself extra lucky.
|
|
|
Post by crab on Aug 30, 2013 20:59:11 GMT -5
I think at best there was probably a 40-45% hire rate from the previous Register and Refreshes. I think at the very best you might see a 25-30% hire rate from the Register being created now. I would say a 1in 4 or a 1 in 5 chance is about right. It is still decent, but you are competing against the best of the best. If you make the Register consider yourself extremely smart and lucky. If you receive an offer consider yourself extra lucky. Yup, considering all the weeding (don't forget that the WD and SI require an ambiguous minimum score so there is likely further culling from the numbers going to DC), I'll tip my hat to whomever makes this register. And to those who get offers, I'll drink to your success and prosperity.
|
|
|
Post by southeastalj on Sept 5, 2013 12:16:20 GMT -5
For those that care about such things, judges hired this round went to-
Newark Charleston WV Huntington Morgantown Greenville 2 Knoxville Macon Middlesboro Paducah Tupelo Columbus Fort Wayne Indianapolis Mt pleasant 2 Toledo 2 Valparasio Alexandria Dallas north 2 Shreveport 2 Columbia MO Omaha St. Louis 2 Eugene
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Sept 5, 2013 15:14:46 GMT -5
thank you SoutheastALJ. I have been tremendously humbled by this process and seeing one of my cities on this list has humbled me further. I could easily say this is all just a crap-shoot, but that would be whistling in the dark. The selection process is probably a very sensible one that meets ODAR's needs. I am very capable but so is everyone else and I may just not have what it takes to make the grade. I will keep trying.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Sept 5, 2013 16:00:55 GMT -5
thank you SoutheastALJ. I have been tremendously humbled by this process and seeing one of my cities on this list has humbled me further. I could easily say this is all just a crap-shoot, but that would be whistling in the dark. The selection process is probably a very sensible one that meets ODAR's needs. I am very capable but so is everyone else and I may just not have what it takes to make the grade. I will keep trying. I'm going to just keep repeating myself and others on this Board. If you receive an NOR, OPM has declared you worthy of being an ALJ. That you didn't get one simply means that you learned enough to get one on another try. When you get an NOR but stay in limbo, its almost akin to passing the Bar, but due to economic and other issues out of your control, you can't practice law. Only unlike private practice, you need to get hired. It just sucks when you don't. The system was not developed to reward political or agency connections, but it does. It was not set up to to allow a vengeful former or current associate or supervisor to deep-six a candidate, but it does. As ol Blue Eyes, would say, ''that's life." As deltajudge can attest, it was not that long ago that you took a test, got interviewed and got hired. The exam process was always open. All of you are high achievers and successful. Just look at the reports from DC that are being posted, like "...wow, met a smart bunch of guys and gals." Hold your heads high and keep your powder dry. You are all MUCH better lawyers for this whole process. If nothing else it has brought out a part of you that has stayed buried these many years.
|
|
|
Post by ed on Sept 5, 2013 16:45:35 GMT -5
I wish I were a math whiz, but alas I am not. However, the idea that 50% of those who made the register were accepted, seems a little high to me. If the info was correct that there had to be 3 names for each position, that alone would militates against a 1 to 2 ratio. But as I said I am not a math person, and I am not accounting for the register vs the cert. Maybe EpicOego can help me with the numbers, if he or she cares.
|
|