|
|
Post by morgullord on Jan 2, 2008 13:31:41 GMT -5
If memory serves, previously ALJ-candidates were able to prioritize (I hate that word) their hearing office selections. SSA is most pointedly not permitting us to do that. Since there is no sorting of choices, every city you marked is your top choice, as far as SSA is concerned.
Because of this, I believe that if the subject of assignment choices comes up at all it will be in the context of determining whether or not you wish to further exclude cities from your list.
Remember the game? 450 players--150 chairs. We will be given every possible opportunity to eliminate ourselves. I would not exclude any city at this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjones on Jan 2, 2008 13:54:53 GMT -5
as Lou Reed once sang, "cool it down." All you have to know is how not to act: don't present yourself as really, really wanting one certain locale or another. that's it. You can cite places you prefer as long as you are smart to preface the conversation by saying you are willing to go where sent. I worked in an undesireable/rural location for many years and I can't tell you what a bear it is to take the time to train new ALJs and just hear them complain and complain about the city and how they want out. It's a drain on the office as a whole and the regional office, as well. And before the "complainer" type even learns the job they may try to push out volumes of bad product, so they will seem hard working. In the interview they just want to test whether you are going to be one of these complainer-types, that's it.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadow on Jan 2, 2008 14:01:23 GMT -5
Good post morgullord! After reading the give and take, good points on both sides, I'm convinced to keep my trap shut at the interview about any preference I may have. I doubt if the interview panel can grant our wishes, and as suggested, expressing a preference could hurt a person's chances.
Besides, if you look like me [see avatar], you have that hurdle to overcome. Why take on a greater burden? LOL
P.S. the avatar will be short-lived . . .wouldn't ask y'all to look at me every time I say something.
|
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on Jan 2, 2008 14:47:09 GMT -5
Look, all I am saying is that ALL questions asked will reflect an institutional concern of SSA. Questions about large dockets reflect a fear you won't produce cases. Questions about dealing with difficult people shows their fear you will cause them problems rather than deal with such people. Questions about computers is the fear you will not learn to use efiles. Listen to each question carefully. A question about STRONG geographic preference should set off an alarm in your head. Yes, you can be careful and state a preference, but be very reassuring in doing so that you will "bloom where you are planted," which is a favorite saying of the agency. It is their concerns that are being addressed not your concerns. Your response should first be directed in allaying their fears; then you can mention a favorite. I honestly don't think it will be written down or used; but improbable things do occur.
I have always advocated choosing as many sites as you can in this process, but I also have said you should not select a site at which you don't think you could live. The government has twice given you a choice of sites to select. The first was inclusive and the second exclusive. It has every right to expect you to go to one of those sites. Unfortunately, experience has not always matched expectation. This is why I repeat that any question about preferences will reflect their worry over this issue.
My class was not given a chance to list preferences. Most ALJ's tell me they were not either. In the best of all worlds you would be allowed to list sites in order of preference. I wish SSA would allow it, with the clear understanding that preferences would not be binding. I suspect that when they allowed such a listing it caused more problems rather than less, but that is a guess.
Good luck to all in the interview.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jan 2, 2008 15:00:42 GMT -5
Chris, we simply disagree, o.k.? Doctorwho, I keep posting in response to you not in an attempt to change your mind, or even to argue with you, but to give another viewpoint to others here who might think there is some validity to your approach. If you make decisions that lessen your chances at becoming an ALJ that is your concern and I have no problem with that. Good luck to you. You will live or die based on your choices. But if your posts might encourage others to hurt their chances at becoming an ALJ, I am going to post to alert them to the possible problems with your approach. I respect your dedication to your viewpoint, which is the perspective many employees have with respect to interviews, but I don't think you fully understand the management perspective regarding interviews. You're right. I just don't understand the management perspective. After all, I've only been a member of the SES for 6 years, have hired dozens and dozens of lawyers, and work on a daily basis with several ALJs -- not at SSA, true enough. If that's not enough, I've been a labor and employment litigator for over 16 years and have handled hundreds of matters regarding hiring (cert and non cert, union and non union, etc). The problem rests in your apparent presumptive belief, Chris, that there is no validity whatsover to my point and that others need incessant assistance to alert them to potential problems with it. I do understand the management perspective. Please respect that other people bring unique perspectives to the table regardless of whether or not you agree with them. Moreover, stating that you feel the need to alert "other posters" of potential problems with my posts really smacks of paternalism as I am sure others can form their own opinions free from your assistance. Thanks. I keep posting in response to your posts, to alert readers to the fact that other than speculation and support from people that do not actually know why the question would be asked (like myself), there is, at least, one additional reason for asking: they could want to know. A failure to recognize that simple alternative reveals a tunnel vision created, in part, by the way this entire application process has been handled. If you choose to believe, however, that the entire system is designed to figure out how SSA can scr*w with you, so be it. I say, listen to the questions being asked. Answer honestly as I've suggested above and at the same time indicate a willingness to go wherever you've indicated [after all, how many people can truly make an "I'll go anywhere" argument stick if you're married with kids?]. However, as you said, "if you make decisions that lessen your chances at becoming an ALJ that is your concern and I have no problem with that." Good luck to you. |
|
mongo
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by mongo on Jan 2, 2008 15:12:32 GMT -5
Well, there's certainly nothing like spirited discourse! And, on the subject of locations, I thought everyone who listed Metairie and New Orleans (and I'm in that group) would find this news story interesting/frightening/whatever: www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/02/nola.homicide.ap/index.html |
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jan 2, 2008 16:12:56 GMT -5
If you make decisions that lessen your chances at becoming an ALJ that is your concern and I have no problem with that. Good luck to you. You will live or die based on your choices. Easy, guys, easy --- put your hands down and back awaaaay from the keyboards..... we are all of above-average intelligence; most of us have some experience we federal service; there seems to be a healthy dose of paranoia available for everyone who wants one. Although it is far and above my favorite form of communication, there is not a lot of need to get sarcastic. We've said our part and people may take from it what they may. I missed the sarcasm. There was none in my post. |
|
|
|
Post by emphyrio on Jan 2, 2008 16:37:43 GMT -5
As an alternative to Peejay's suggested answer, what about this: if the interviewers ask about a preferred location, say:
(1) "I am willing to go to any of the hearing offices I checked on my FEAI," and
(2) "I have no reason to seek a transfer if I am assigned to any of those hearing offices I checked."
Is that too direct?
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jan 2, 2008 16:41:54 GMT -5
Most of the people I saw at my written test and interview appear to be over 50. I would imagine that most candidates have family and friends and some obligations. If I asked someone if they had any preference as to where they wanted to live in the U.S. and they answered that they had none, I would think that they were a freak. There is nothing wrong with really wanting the job and having a willingness to work anywhere but having a preference does not indicate flakiness or inconsistency. I interview attorneys for positions in six cities in three states. If any of them ever expresses a geographic preference for only one city, I'm fine with that, but I will usually not consider them for another city, and I have a lot of reasons for taking that approach. But that is still not the situation we are discussing with SSA. This SSA discussion is about whether expressing a preference during your interview that is inconsistent with your previously expressed geographic availability may be an indication of flakiness. By the time you have had your interview with SSA you have already been asked twice what your preferences are and you have listed those cities. If you are asked that question a third time during your interview and you indicate that you really aren't that excited about all the cities that you have twice indicated a preference for, then it is quite possible that the interviewer could consider you to be flaky. It makes no difference whether you actually are flaky. The interviewer could still come to that conclusion. In part it depends upon how you present your answer but in part it also depends upon the interviewer, their preconceived notions and what happened the last time they went through this process. But whether they consider you to be inconsistent or flaky or not, if you give a preference for one city during the interview, you may be hurting yourself in two other ways: 1. They may construe your response to mean that you are only seriously interested in your preferred city and eliminate you from consideration for other cities or 2. They may see you as someone who will try to transfer out of any city that you did not express a presence for, and will thus eliminate you from consideration for those cities. If anyone on this board wants to express a preference for a city during their interview, they can certainly do so. What I am here to tell you is that there is very possibly a down side to doing so. |
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jan 2, 2008 17:14:39 GMT -5
Doctorwho, I keep posting in response to you not in an attempt to change your mind, or even to argue with you, but to give another viewpoint to others here who might think there is some validity to your approach. If you make decisions that lessen your chances at becoming an ALJ that is your concern and I have no problem with that. Good luck to you. You will live or die based on your choices. But if your posts might encourage others to hurt their chances at becoming an ALJ, I am going to post to alert them to the possible problems with your approach. I respect your dedication to your viewpoint, which is the perspective many employees have with respect to interviews, but I don't think you fully understand the management perspective regarding interviews. You're right. I just don't understand the management perspective. After all, I've only been a member of the SES for 6 years, have hired dozens and dozens of lawyers, and work on a daily basis with several ALJs -- not at SSA, true enough. If that's not enough, I've been a labor and employment litigator for over 16 years and have handled hundreds of matters regarding hiring (cert and non cert, union and non union, etc). The problem rests in your apparent presumptive belief, Chris, that there is no validity whatsover to my point and that others need incessant assistance to alert them to potential problems with it. I do understand the management perspective. Please respect that other people bring unique perspectives to the table regardless of whether or not you agree with them. Moreover, stating that you feel the need to alert "other posters" of potential problems with my posts really smacks of paternalism as I am sure others can form their own opinions free from your assistance. Thanks. I keep posting in response to your posts, to alert readers to the fact that other than speculation and support from people that do not actually know why the question would be asked (like myself), there is, at least, one additional reason for asking: they could want to know. A failure to recognize that simple alternative reveals a tunnel vision created, in part, by the way this entire application process has been handled. If you choose to believe, however, that the entire system is designed to figure out how SSA can scr*w with you, so be it. I say, listen to the questions being asked. Answer honestly as I've suggested above and at the same time indicate a willingness to go wherever you've indicated [after all, how many people can truly make an "I'll go anywhere" argument stick if you're married with kids?]. However, as you said, "if you make decisions that lessen your chances at becoming an ALJ that is your concern and I have no problem with that." Good luck to you. There absolutely is validity to your viewpoint. It is the viewpoint that is common among those without management experience. Even some with management experience will have your viewpoint, as you have demonstrated. But I do not find it to be a common viewpoint among management types, and my experience in that arena exceeds yours. If we talked to all of the people doing interviews there would also be a divergence of viewpoints. But here's the bottom line: which is the safer approach to take, possibly being labeled a flake and/or being removed from consideration for some cities for expressing a preference, or just keeping your mouth shut about preferences and saying you are willing to work in any of your previously listed cities? As I have previously indicated, of course they are asking this question because they want to know the answer. That's not the issue. The reason they want to know the answer, is the issue. I doubt they are asking the question because of their overriding concern for your happiness. As with most, if not all, of the other questions they are going to ask, they are trying to find out if you are going to be a problem child. They are addressing their fears with their questions, not your happiness. As for your personal criticisms of me, I am not concerned. If trying to give advice to others makes me paternalistic, then exactly what are you doing? Lots of people give advice on this board. We all have different legal training and different life experiences. I gladly take advice from many others on this board on many topics and I thank them for their "paternalism". We are all free to take it or leave it as we like. We all have opinions and I will keep expressing mine whether you agree with them or not. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jan 2, 2008 17:23:01 GMT -5
thread=1199200876 post=1199304042] There absolutely is validity to your viewpoint. It is the viewpoint that is common among those without management experience. Even some with management experience will have your viewpoint, as you have demonstrated. But I do not find it to be a common viewpoint among management types, and my experience in that arena exceeds yours. If we talked to all of the people doing interviews there would also be a divergence of viewpoints. But here's the bottom line: which is the safer approach to take, possibly being labeled a flake and/or being removed from consideration for some cities for expressing a preference, or just keeping your mouth shut about preferences and saying you are willing to work in any of your previously listed cities? As I have previously indicated, of course they are asking this question because they want to know the answer. That's not the issue. The reason they want to know the answer, is the issue. I doubt they are asking the question because of their overriding concern for your happiness. As with most, if not all, of the other questions they are going to ask, they are trying to find out if you are going to be a problem child. They are addressing their fears with their questions, not your happiness. As for your personal criticisms of me, I am not concerned. If trying to give advice to others makes me paternalistic, then exactly what are you doing? Lots of people give advice on this board. We all have different legal training and different life experiences. I gladly take advice from many others on this board on many topics and I thank them for their "paternalism". We are all free to take it or leave it as we like. We all have opinions and I will keep expressing mine whether you agree with them or not. I have grown bored with this. Carry on as you will. |
|
|
|
Post by judicature on Jan 2, 2008 17:56:55 GMT -5
The exchange between Chris and doctorwho is instructive for the rest of us. As experienced managers and interviewers, both Chris and doctorwho ask questions for different reasons.
Therein lies the danger for the interviewee . . . you don't know for certain why the question is being asked nor how the person asking the question may view your response. Heck, the interview panel itelf may well have a split opinion on your response!
As with many other questions you will be asked, there may not be a correct answer to a question, but there may be a correct way to answer the question. Be enthusiastic and personable, but also thoughtful and cautious.
Don't overthink your response, however, or you will be paralyzed with fear . . . and then you really will bomb the interview.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jan 2, 2008 18:36:24 GMT -5
The exchange between Chris and doctorwho is instructive for the rest of us. As experienced managers and interviewers, both Chris and doctorwho ask questions for different reasons. Therein lies the danger for the interviewee . . . you don't know for certain why the question is being asked nor how the person asking the question may view your response. Heck, the interview panel itelf may well have a split opinion on your response! As with many other questions you will be asked, there may not be a correct answer to a question, but there may be a correct way to answer the question. Be enthusiastic and personable, but also thoughtful and cautious. Don't overthink your response, however, or you will be paralyzed with fear . . . and then you really will bomb the interview. Excellent! Excellent! Excellent! |
|
|
|
Post by Waffle on Jan 2, 2008 20:01:22 GMT -5
Chris:
You wrote:
"This SSA discussion is about whether expressing a preference during your interview that is inconsistent with your previously expressed geographic availability may be an indication of flakiness. "
Actually, if you re-read my original posting, it is not about that at all. It is about whether or not we may be asked what our geographic "top pick" is among those places we already indicated we would go. No inconsistency involved in that at all.
Just wanted all to be clear on that point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jan 2, 2008 22:29:09 GMT -5
I believe we are overly concerned with this topic.
ALJSouth and Hooligan gave succinct and accurate responses on the first page of the thread.
If anyone is asked by the interviewers for a location preference , you can believe they aren't asking the question to benefit the interviewee. If the question is asked, they have their own motive for asking it, which doesn't include helping the interviewee get where she really wants to go.
By now I believe all of you understand how lucky you are to have gotten to this point and would willingly accept an appointment to any of the locations still on your "short" list. That is the answer I would give, assuming it is true.
Rather than debating this arcane topic, in my opinion you would be better off reading the thread on what to expect at the interview.
This thread is not closed, and you may continue to debate until it rages on past the Midnight Hour. Only when Wilson Pickett logs on will it be time to put it to bed. Pix.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jan 3, 2008 8:09:22 GMT -5
"I'm gonna wait till the midnight hour That's when my love comes tumbling down
I'm gonna wait till the midnight hour When there's no one else around ..."
It's clear that there are those on this thread who think that the SSA is a nefarious organization, whose only goal in asking questions is to "get" you; and there are those who think that it is possible that this relatively new and humongous process SSA is going through to hire 150 people all at once may well result in some questions that may just be posed to make the procedure just a bit easier. Bottom line is that there are those of us, such as myself, who narrowed location options. There are those of us who said "anywhere, anyplace, anytime." We all have been given the opportunity to narrow that further with regard to the 71 locations on the FEAI. If you are asked, you are asked - if you said you'd go anywhere, then repeat you'll go anywhere. Serve the needs of the SSA - that's your job. If they press, then either stick with the party line or say something like, "if pressed, then X; but I'm a happy camper to work with anybody in any office." And seriously, folks, you may have researched every location through every resource on line all the way to the Farmer's Almanac, the truth of the matter is - as every military person knows ('cuz we go wherever they send us...) - a location is what you make of it. While there are regional differences in food and weather and geography, for the most part, people are the same wherever you go; every place has the WORST drivers and every place reveals pockets of civility and kindness that will surprise you.
|
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Jan 3, 2008 8:48:22 GMT -5
Amen to that, Jagghagg. I have spent extended periods of time living in places that would make the average citizen cringe yet found them all to be decent places to live (well, except for Khartuom, maybe).
Those who suggest that you approach a new location with an open mind are absolutely correct. I am a transplanted Yankee but I, too, get tired of new-comers telling me how screwed up Atlanta is and how they do things in Ann Arbor or Minneapolis. Your new
city just may pleasatly surprise you.
|
|
