|
Post by surfdude on Sept 13, 2013 11:57:17 GMT -5
Requesting candidates' GAL only at the very outset of the testing process (when many candidates had limited information about ALJ hiring) does not seem optimal for either the hiring agencies or the individuals who make it to the register. I'd bet many of the successful candidates would change their GAL to add or delete locations, if given the opportunity when testing is complete. Allowing candidates to update their GALs, either just before or just after NOR comes out, would seem to make rational sense from everyone's perspective, adding more current information to the ultimate screening and hiring process. What do others think? Any chance this may happen?
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Sept 13, 2013 12:05:41 GMT -5
I think the odds of that are slim and none. You will be able to delete locations if you get on a cert, and are then sent a list of cities covered on that cert. But, you will not be able to add cities until and unless the register reopens for new applications, or in a few years, if they do what they did a couple of years ago and let people change them. I think they thought (rightly so) that more people would expand their GALS than contract them, so they'd expand the register a bit without adding names. That won't happen again until this new register is in place for at least a couple of years, if then.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Sept 13, 2013 12:07:39 GMT -5
Requesting candidates' GAL only at the very outset of the testing process (when many candidates had limited information about ALJ hiring) does not seem optimal for either the hiring agencies or the individuals who make it to the register. I'd bet many of the successful candidates would change their GAL to add or delete locations, if given the opportunity when testing is complete. Allowing candidates to update their GALs, either just before or just after NOR comes out, would seem to make rational sense from everyone's perspective, adding more current information to the ultimate screening and hiring process. What do others think? Any chance this may happen? There are many many other threads on this issue. But to give the bottom line without all the long discourse of prior discussions: No additions are allowed unless there is a register refresh and that is rare. If you get on a certificate, you have the opportunity to further limit the GAL by NOT selecting the ones already on your list.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Sept 13, 2013 12:08:29 GMT -5
HA! Observer beat me to it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2013 12:13:34 GMT -5
Requesting candidates' GAL only at the very outset of the testing process (when many candidates had limited information about ALJ hiring) does not seem optimal for either the hiring agencies or the individuals who make it to the register. I'd bet many of the successful candidates would change their GAL to add or delete locations, if given the opportunity when testing is complete. Allowing candidates to update their GALs, either just before or just after NOR comes out, would seem to make rational sense from everyone's perspective, adding more current information to the ultimate screening and hiring process. What do others think? Any chance this may happen? Sorry dude, you missed the boat--and so did I on some cities that I would now consider-Smart move was to go wide and then narrow the GAL depending on your situation at the time provided you make the register and get on a cert. At this early point in time I do not see what the benefit would be to OPM or the agencies that hire from the new register to allow GAL changes--maybe in the future but who knows.
|
|
|
Post by surfdude on Sept 13, 2013 12:41:25 GMT -5
You guys are right about past practice, but given the more intense weeding-out process with three stages of testing this time, wouldn't it be in OPM's and the agencies' interests to permit high-scoring candidates to expand their GALs before the placement process commences? That would facilitate maximum placements of higher-scoring candidates, which would seem to be a goal of the merits-based testing and hiring process. Also, if a candidate makes the register but is or expects to be disappointed in his/her final rating, what harm is there in permitting that candidate to expand geographic availability? Allowing candidate GAL changes at the completion of testing would seem to maximize choice in the marketplace and enhance the merit selection process. I can't formulate a good argument against allowing this, even if the precedent at OPM, under former testing procedures, was different. So if OPM happens to read this posting, I think what I propose should be considered. Any others agree?
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Sept 13, 2013 13:41:24 GMT -5
Surfdude, the other wrinkle this time around is what appears to be a high number of outties, given that the application was open so long. Perhaps OPM will find that a large percentage of applicants have very narrow GALs, and decide a refresh is in order sooner rather than later. I'd certainly add a few more cities to mine if given the chance.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Sept 13, 2013 13:44:04 GMT -5
You guys are right about past practice, but given the more intense weeding-out process with three stages of testing this time, wouldn't it be in OPM's and the agencies' interests to permit high-scoring candidates to expand their GALs before the placement process commences? That would facilitate maximum placements of higher-scoring candidates, which would seem to be a goal of the merits-based testing and hiring process. Also, if a candidate makes the register but is or expects to be disappointed in his/her final rating, what harm is there in permitting that candidate to expand geographic availability? Allowing candidate GAL changes at the completion of testing would seem to maximize choice in the marketplace and enhance the merit selection process. I can't formulate a good argument against allowing this, even if the precedent at OPM, under former testing procedures, was different. So if OPM happens to read this posting, I think what I propose should be considered. Any others agree? Lots of things make sense, that just don't happen in this process. I'll stick with my original answer ---- 99.9999999 percent chance it won't happen, whether it makes sense or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2013 13:59:22 GMT -5
You guys are right about past practice, but given the more intense weeding-out process with three stages of testing this time, wouldn't it be in OPM's and the agencies' interests to permit high-scoring candidates to expand their GALs before the placement process commences? That would facilitate maximum placements of higher-scoring candidates, which would seem to be a goal of the merits-based testing and hiring process. Also, if a candidate makes the register but is or expects to be disappointed in his/her final rating, what harm is there in permitting that candidate to expand geographic availability? Allowing candidate GAL changes at the completion of testing would seem to maximize choice in the marketplace and enhance the merit selection process. I can't formulate a good argument against allowing this, even if the precedent at OPM, under former testing procedures, was different. So if OPM happens to read this posting, I think what I propose should be considered. Any others agree? Wishful thinking on your part, I am sure they will not have a problem filling any of the locations and they will get quality candidates for everyone of these locations since, as you point out, there has been intese weeding out of candidates. Most of us have been quite impressed with the folks that made it to the phase III testing--not to knock the folks who were cut at phase I and II. But if you want to start one of those White House petitions going, I will sign it!
|
|
|
Post by surfdude on Sept 13, 2013 14:00:31 GMT -5
Still, so far it seems that everyone agrees it would be logical and make good sense to allow the successful post-phase three candidates to finalize their GAL choices at the conclusion of the testing process. After all, filling in the GAL before testing got underway was a hypothetical exercise, and, indeed, most candidates (I assume) were winnowed out of the process before reaching this point. If OPM can change its testing procedures (as it did this cycle), OPM also could allow the candidates who survive the new, more rigorous testing process to update their GAL choices. Seems that most of us still in the game would like to have this opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Sept 13, 2013 14:21:29 GMT -5
I'm not entirely sure why OPM would need to do this. They tell you up front in the application that you should choose your locations carefully where you would accept an appointment because you won't likely be able to change your preferences down the road. The number of applicants that have a change in circumstances to suddenly free them to choose new locations has to be extremely small. And as another poster indicated, they're going to have plenty of qualified applicants for every locale. A higher score is not necessarily going to translate into a better judge.
|
|
|
Post by bhappy on Sept 13, 2013 14:22:26 GMT -5
Surfdude, others can confirm or add to my memory. In July 2012, those of us on the registry were allowed a one-time opportunity to add to our GALs. Weeks later, as I recall, there was a new cert. At that time, the existing registry was pretty picked over. I understand that the opportunity to modify the GAL was a one-time anomaly, unlikely to repeat until an upcoming registry is exhaustively picked over. So, my guess is an opportunity to add to your GAL is either unlikely or years away.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Sept 13, 2013 14:25:07 GMT -5
Still, so far it seems that everyone agrees it would be logical and make good sense to allow the successful post-phase three candidates to finalize their GAL choices at the conclusion of the testing process. After all, filling in the GAL before testing got underway was a hypothetical exercise, and, indeed, most candidates (I assume) were winnowed out of the process before reaching this point. If OPM can change its testing procedures (as it did this cycle), OPM also could allow the candidates who survive the new, more rigorous testing process to update their GAL choices. Seems that most of us still in the game would like to have this opportunity. It is NOT a "hypothetical exercise". It is part of the process in applying for federal employment that is used for HUNDREDS of positions in all sorts of job classifications that are found in multiple cities, whether they have a testing process to make the register or not. As noted above by hopefalj, the agencies will have plenty of qualified candidates to choose from. There is no reason for OPM to deviate from standard procedure at this stage of the proceedings. Bhappy is correct, it might happen in a few years IF OPM needs to make the register last a bit longer before a refresh. It's not going to happen before the NORs.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Sept 13, 2013 14:38:07 GMT -5
Given that so many of the folks testing in Washington have limited GALs, they might do one cert and then offer a chance to expand. It's less expensive than opening it up again. They are not at all likely to open GALs that quickly. We really don't know what the overall GAL picture is, but I doubt very much that the overall GAL picture is that different than in 2009. (or 2007). So, putting that time frame on it, no GAL change or refresh for at least 2 years.
|
|
|
Post by surfdude on Sept 13, 2013 14:57:06 GMT -5
Good one devildog!
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Sept 13, 2013 15:10:25 GMT -5
When you apply for a position you chose where you would be willing to work, not after your testing and interview. If you had been a member of this Board you would have known this fact. If you are a late arrival, it is your own fault for not seeking out the Board and its wisdom earlier. Any good attorney searches for all sources of law or information prior to proceeding to trial. He doesn't go to trial and then research the law.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Sept 13, 2013 19:35:07 GMT -5
I'm not entirely sure why OPM would need to do this. They tell you up front in the application that you should choose your locations carefully where you would accept an appointment because you won't likely be able to change your preferences down the road. The number of applicants that have a change in circumstances to suddenly free them to choose new locations has to be extremely small. And as another poster indicated, they're going to have plenty of qualified applicants for every locale. A higher score is not necessarily going to translate into a better judge. This is exactly right. It was in the original instruction and a little effort doing a google search would lead folks to this board where the issue is discussed ad nauseum. Sorry peeps but hindsight in discovering that an expanded GAL upfront was the thing to do is not doing anyone any good. OPM is not going to change and trying to add logic into what would be best is not going to make them change either. I don't mean to be harsh here but it is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Sept 13, 2013 19:38:23 GMT -5
When you apply for a position you chose where you would be willing to work, not after your testing and interview. If you had been a member of this Board you would have known this fact. If you are a late arrival, it is your own fault for not seeking out the Board and its wisdom earlier. Any good attorney searches for all sources of law or information prior to proceeding to trial. He doesn't go to trial and then research the law. Bingo!
|
|
harry
Full Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by harry on Sept 13, 2013 20:30:56 GMT -5
"When you apply for a position you chose where you would be willing to work, not after your testing and interview. If you had been a member of this Board you would have known this fact. If you are a late arrival, it is your own fault for not seeking out the Board and its wisdom earlier. Any good attorney searches for all sources of law or information prior to proceeding to trial. He doesn't go to trial and then research the law."
Good grief. Spare the lectures. I think there was a simple question about expanding the GAL. Bottom line, nobody knows what will happen. If it is in OPM's best interests, it will just do what it wants.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Sept 13, 2013 20:59:31 GMT -5
Good grief. Spare the lectures. I think there was a simple question about expanding the GAL. Bottom line, nobody knows what will happen. If it is in OPM's best interests, it will just do what it wants. I know what will happen harry, no GAL expansion for a couple of years. Sorry!
|
|