|
Post by aintgottaclue on Mar 19, 2014 22:13:54 GMT -5
If one wrote a clear concise and cogent decision and stayed within the parameters of the question presented...how does one "downgrade" or "score" the particular findings of fact and conclusions? The facts were finite and there was no "right or wrong" conclusion. Actually, do we know that there was not, in fact, a "right" conclusion to be reached? Given the generally high quality and lucidity of the postings on this board - maybe even especially amongst those who unfortunately were DQ'd on the WD - I find it inconceivable that anyone here could have "failed" based on sheer quality of writing. I am inclined to think Occam's Razor applies, and IMO the two simplest explanations for a "failure to achieve minimum score" are: (1) technical snafu with the laptop, CD, etc., or (2) there was indeed a "right" answer (in OPM's eyes, anyway), and some people got it wrong (again, in OPM's eyes). I say this because I got a score (albeit below average for this board) and I'm pretty sure I was still typing as the 4 hours ran out. So there was at least one unfinished sentence in my submission. Even more importantly, I really wasn't "done" with what I was writing. Trying to keep this vague because of the confidentiality agreement, but let's just say what I wrote had an intro, a middle, and a conclusion, and let's further say my "middle" consisted of points A, B, C, and D (I don't even remember the number - this is just for illustration purposes) with explanations for each point. I remember "finishing" (to my satisfaction, anyway) the intro, the conclusion, and points A & B, but I'm pretty sure I hadn't written all I wanted for point C, and had only cursorily explained point D. Heck, there may even have been a point E that I could/should have made. My point is, I turned in what I considered at the time to be a somewhat unfinished product, although I felt I at least had organized it properly, written it well, and kept it as free as possible of spelling/punctuation/grammar errors. But I would bet that at least some and maybe all of the people who've reported not meeting the minimum WD score did the same, and "finished" their submissions to boot. So what would be left to distinguish me from them? Long time lurker, first time poster (and first time applicant). I wish all the best of luck with their appeals.
|
|
|
Post by aljwishful on Mar 19, 2014 22:33:27 GMT -5
This is probably graded in the same way as the bar exam. The graders have a checklist of what the answer should contain. They assign the points from the outline and that is it. In an exam like this, and given the number of applicants, I would think that's the way OPM handled this.
|
|
|
Post by Disenchanted on Aug 30, 2015 1:40:33 GMT -5
Simple question.... Hopefully a response won't violate the confidentiality agreement. There is a lot of discussion about the WD final product. Several of you opined that errors could include spelling and grammar. Is the WD written on a lop top that has Word? Or some other word processing system that will offer spelling choices or underline possible grammar issues like we have in the real world? If not, I probablly should not sit for the test this fall.
|
|
|
Post by lizdarcy on Aug 30, 2015 4:30:01 GMT -5
This might not be helpful to you, but here's my answer to your question: I just can't remember, beyond the laptop. I do not ordinarily use Word -- I use WordPerfect -- and therefore usually have difficulty working in Word. I do not remember having difficulty that day. Maybe I was just concentrating so hard. Anyway, I think you ought to ask OPM that question. Allegedly, they're there to help you.
You should never not take an exam you were invited to take because of spelling.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 30, 2015 7:22:47 GMT -5
I'm not positive the program used is covered by the CA, but that thing was so broad and all encompassing it probably is.
Beyond that, to answer question would be fundamentally unfair. I'm not picking on you, but those that went before you, many of whom you will be on the register with and in competition with for jobs, had to go in that room cold (literally and figuratively) and face whatever opm had caged in there.
This is a friendly and helpful community and I wish everyone the best, but have respect for those that didn't have two years worth of investigative reporting.
|
|
|
Post by phoenixrakkasan on Aug 30, 2015 8:32:21 GMT -5
Just buy an easy button and stay at a Holiday Inn. Fear can serve as a motivator, but can also eliminate many from the competitive process. Good luck, which is preparation meeting opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Aug 30, 2015 9:19:38 GMT -5
I'm not positive the program used is covered by the CA, but that thing was so broad and all encompassing it probably is. Beyond that, to answer question would be fundamentally unfair. I'm not picking on you, but those that went before you, many of whom you will be on the register with and in competition with for jobs, had to go in that room cold (literally and figuratively) and face whatever opm had caged in there. This is a friendly and helpful community and I wish everyone the best, but have respect for those that didn't have two years worth of investigative reporting. Yes, I agree with the Funk. Best to move on and not ask any more questions touching on the testing protocol. Pixie.
|
|
|
Post by Disenchanted on Aug 30, 2015 12:19:48 GMT -5
Lizdarcy, thank you for your kind and helpful response. To the other responders, it is Interesting the posts above my question deal with the WD substantive respone, form and process (not content) but my question of whether there is spell check is deemed by Funk to be disrespectful and by Pixie to be forbidden because it touches on protocol. While I respect Pixies comment on protocol, I find Funk's response not only unhelpful but arrogant. While he claims that this is a friendly community, he deemed it his job to put me in my place by inferring disrespect for asking if there is spell check. My inquiry invited a response that my question was possibly covered by the confidality agreement. A simple acknowledgement that you find the question covered by the agreement would have been sufficient. Please note that I have not yet seen, therefore have not agreed to the terms of the confidentiality agreement and therefore do not know what is or is not covered on it. I am uncertain if others find my question disrespectful. In the future, I will limit my inquiries to finding out the vintage of wine served on Thursdays at the Embassy Suites. So much for a "friendly and helpful community."
|
|
|
Post by phoenixrakkasan on Aug 30, 2015 12:28:53 GMT -5
Funky entered the marketplace of ideas and shared his opinion. Nothing wrong wth that.
Edit Note By Pixie: I have deleted a portion of this message. Things have changed on this board in the intervening years. Pix.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 30, 2015 12:34:04 GMT -5
I don't know how the WD may or may not have changed since 2007-09, or what if any CA they may have had to sign then. In my opinion some of the posts in the linked thread would violate the 2013 CA we signed.
|
|
|
Post by phoenixrakkasan on Aug 30, 2015 12:36:51 GMT -5
Yet, they remaiin. I offered them to show the strengths of the search function. If the violate the CA, I vote for deleting them.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 30, 2015 12:39:28 GMT -5
I agree they should be deleted.
|
|
|
Post by auroraborealis on Aug 30, 2015 12:48:17 GMT -5
Just another thought on this--whomever made those posts years ago would be the ones who violated any CA right? In addition, if the CA may have changed and those posts at the time didn't violate the CA is the Board at large responsible for making sure nothing violates the current iteration of the CA? I don't see the harm in keeping them after all these years. The community at large should have access to the same information others have had in prior testing rounds. For the record I don't think there is anything earth shattering noted ---I could have asked any non-lawyer what would likely be on the WD and this is what I think majority of people would have guessed.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 30, 2015 12:58:09 GMT -5
I'm not so sure incorporation by reference (which linking is the equivalent of) lets the incorporator off the hook of the CA.
More fundamental though is Funky's point about the unfairness of subsequent testees having information earlier testees didn't. And keep in mind not everyone testing will be on this Board before going to DC.
|
|
|
Post by ok1956 on Aug 30, 2015 13:10:46 GMT -5
I'm not so sure incorporation by reference (which linking is the equivalent of) lets the incorporator off the hook of the CA. More fundamental though is Funky's point about the unfairness of subsequent testees having information earlier testees didn't. And keep in mind not everyone testing will be on this Board before going to DC. What Gary said. I, for one, discovered the board after finishing DC testing and interview (please withhold comments about stupid or lazy - I just never considered looking until an ALJ friend told me about it - I'm sort of a "do it ion my own" kind of girl I guess). The support of finding others dealing with the stress of waiting was fabulous. But everyone takes the confidentiality very seriously, as they should.
|
|
|
Post by auroraborealis on Aug 30, 2015 13:10:42 GMT -5
Fair enough but I guess I'm using funky's logic on why to keep it. If it was there for prior testers to peruse shouldn't it remain for future ones? As far as the CA goes and whether or not it violates, I'm not in a position to really know what would/would not. It just seems odd that the CA would have changed so much (if it did at all) to now make those posts a breach of the agreement.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 30, 2015 13:15:35 GMT -5
If it hasn't changed, some of those posts violate it.
I don't say they do violate the CA of that era because I don't even know if there was a CA then. Perhaps OPM realized there was a problem after those posts and the CA was subsequently required to prevent recurrence of the problem. I don't know. I do know the posts are problematic now.
|
|
|
Post by auroraborealis on Aug 30, 2015 13:58:56 GMT -5
I leave that ultimate decision up to those of you who have signed/read it.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 30, 2015 14:04:23 GMT -5
The reason there is a CA at all is basic fairness to all testees, so if it is violated it doesn't just put the violator in jeopardy. It potentially hurts others.
|
|
|
Post by cafeta on Aug 30, 2015 15:04:05 GMT -5
I have to say, after reading this thread from beginning to end, I found myself thinking "whoa, that has to be close to violating the CA." But having no exposure to the CAs from then or now (yet), I would have to agree deletion of the thread might be appropriate.
Of course, after writing that, I now wonder if that would be seeking an advantage over other who have not read this thread? Even if a minuscule advantage.
And after writing the above sentence, have I now piqued more interest that the thread really merits!
And then, I have to ask myself, how much am I over thinking this?
I leave the first questions to those more senior here; I deal with the remaining questions! :-)
|
|