|
Post by 71stretch on Apr 3, 2014 12:48:22 GMT -5
I get where you are coming from. I was just being obnoxious. If I was right where you are I'd be at least curious about it myself. Edit: Oh, and also, I lost a big trial yesterday, so my big litigator ego is bruised just a little. I'm sitting in my office today staring at the wall saying things to myself like "high-risk, high-reward," and "make sure your witnesses are sober," and "even a dog knows when he's been tripped over and when he's been kicked." Or, as a friend of mine likes to say, quoting his army colonel dad, "You've got to expect losses in a big operation". As baglady said so well, we pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and start on the next adventure (every day is one, large or small).
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 3, 2014 12:50:13 GMT -5
I get where you are coming from. I was just being obnoxious. If I was right where you are I'd be at least curious about it myself. Edit: Oh, and also, I lost a big trial yesterday, so my big litigator ego is bruised just a little. I'm sitting in my office today staring at the wall saying things to myself like "high-risk, high-reward," and "make sure your witnesses are sober," and "even a dog knows when he's been tripped over and when he's been kicked." Damn, I remember days like that. You are gonna love gov work.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Apr 3, 2014 12:54:12 GMT -5
I get where you are coming from. I was just being obnoxious. If I was right where you are I'd be at least curious about it myself. Edit: Oh, and also, I lost a big trial yesterday, so my big litigator ego is bruised just a little. I'm sitting in my office today staring at the wall saying things to myself like "high-risk, high-reward," and "make sure your witnesses are sober," and "even a dog knows when he's been tripped over and when he's been kicked." Damn, I remember days like that. You are gonna love gov work. Except when you get emails about the National Journal.
|
|
|
Post by ok1956 on Apr 3, 2014 13:15:16 GMT -5
I've been reading this thread as comments have posted and just thought I'd add my two cents (probably worth actually less than that) -- I have an insider friend who went through the process whenever the last full round of testing was (2007/2008?? I'm too lazy to go back and check here) - at that time only "x" number of applications were going to be accepted - she took of work (with SSA) to get hers in while one of her co-workers did not. By the time the co-worker got online to submit an application that evening, the applications had already closed. I'm thinking the greatest impact this time is that the application period was open for much longer and, as someone earlier pointed out, it gave us outsiders a greater opportunity to participate. Does that mean outsiders are better? Of course not. It just means there was much greater competition, both from insiders and outsiders, due to the much larger volume of applications. Did the process get changed in a way that was detrimental to insiders? I don't know - I don't read the requirements (I went back and checked) as limiting applicants to just those with significant litigation experience, but it certainly sounds like the current requirements did change, perhaps dramatically (again, I don't actually know)- but seems that would impact insiders and outsiders equally. Were insiders potentially mislead into believing they had an advantage or were somehow assured of being on the register because they were insiders? I don't know - but it reminds me of back when I was an associate at a major law firm in town - all us newbies were told that the "partnership track" was 6 - 7 years if we stayed with the firm, leaving us all to believe that we would be a partner in 6 to 7 years. After 7 years, only two of us had made partner - some who were passed over stayed, some left the firm. Those who stayed, by and large, ultimately made partner. I hope that those insiders who are disappointed with the process don't let it adversely affect their work and/or attitude over the long run. I agree with Baglady - get up, dust yourself off, and keep going forward! I am just so happy to be part of the group!
PLEASE understand I'm not trying to argue either side of the issue - just providing my thoughts - because I know, through my friends years ago who didn't make partner as "promised," how difficult that can be - but also know that you can get past the disappointment and try again....
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 3, 2014 13:34:27 GMT -5
Nobody I know was ever guaranteed a slot on a future register when they hired on at odar. I was told, as were others that came in with me, that you wouldn't be punished for working at odar, that your experience would count and that you would have a fair shot to make judge.
Under the old process, the accomplishment record process, one may have got no points under litigation, but there were points for admin experience. Equal footing. Not just points to get you past the 7 years threshold, but points that went toward getting you in the higher scored subgroup that goes to DC.
the new process removed those points and replaced it with the EA that only cared about litigation. Pretty easy to see the difference.
I really believe in the never say die get up dust off and trudge on philosophy. But realize, we aRe talking about folks that have devoted themselves to years of public service with the one hope of making judge, maybe, one day. How many of them you think can just leave the job to go in search of litigation experience at this point in their career?
The analogy of a law firm is a bit flawed, I think. Waiting the reaquisite time for partnership consid then not making partner is akin to the old method. Lots of insiders didn't make it under that method and just have to deal with it.
What happened to insiders this time was more like, on the eve of considerations for partnership, the firm announces only attorneys from a specific division in the firm will have any real shot at partnership. You guys that did tax law or domestic law, sorry we led you to believe you'd be in competition for the last 7 years. Whoops, now head on back to your office and churn out some more billables for our new partners. Oh, and if you wanna be considered in another 7 years, maybe you should try and find a slot in our criminal division.
|
|
|
Post by ok1956 on Apr 3, 2014 14:11:22 GMT -5
Thanks for the clarification, Funky. I do say it stinks, but I hope, as many have said previously to folks who got cut along the way, that these folks, while disappointed, realize this doesn't mean they aren't good or worthy - I really do think the much bigger numbers in terms of applications had a big impact, throughout the process.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 3, 2014 14:32:39 GMT -5
Laugh, laugh, snicker, snicker!
Oh boy is this thread taking me down memory lane! There is a great big gap between the Candidate Scoring Coronations and the Heart-Breaking Week of Offers. Last time around we had the same fights and arguments about the candidate scores. The high-scoring people were just sure that the OPM scoring methodology, while painful to some, was a fair and balanced system that probably got things just about right. The low scoring people were just sure that OPM was staffed with nothing but drunks, chimps, and trade-school drop-outs. Then the offers started coming and there were spurned people with high scores just sure that SSA was staffed with nothing but drunks, chimps, and trade-school drop-outs, and new ALJs with low scores who felt that Justice had been done!
There were many of us on the Inside that had the advantage of not just knowing a large number of other candidates, but also knowing the details of each other's resumes, so that we could make a pretty good assessment of OPM's scoring. We found that the OPM scoring was horrifically arbitrary. Then the offers started, and we found, not surprisingly, that SSA knew who the most qualified candidates were, and that SSA would get them offers no matter how low their scores were. One thing that has not really changed over the years has been the selection rules, and the SSA people doing the selecting know how to work those rules without breaking them in a way that will be found out. So, argue all you want foolish mortals, what will be will be as SSA decides it will be.
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Apr 3, 2014 14:45:12 GMT -5
" Then the offers started, and we found, not surprisingly, that SSA knew who the most qualified candidates were, and that SSA would get them offers no matter how low their scores were" Valkyrie, what an interesting post. Let's suppose you're right--all this testing has been a formality, and an SSA "Star Chamber" has chosen the Anointed despite scoring. Can you share what the characteristics were that you discovered SSA used to determine "who the most qualified candidates were"?
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 3, 2014 14:46:41 GMT -5
" Then the offers started, and we found, not surprisingly, that SSA knew who the most qualified candidates were, and that SSA would get them offers no matter how low their scores were" Valkyrie, what an interesting post. Let's suppose you're right--all this testing has been a formality, and an SSA "Star Chamber" has chosen the Anointed despite scoring. Can you share what the characteristics were that you discovered SSA used to determine "who the most qualified candidates were"? I'm hoping funk level is pretty high on the criteria.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Apr 3, 2014 14:51:50 GMT -5
Laugh, laugh, snicker, snicker! Oh boy is this thread taking me down memory lane! There is a great big gap between the Candidate Scoring Coronations and the Heart-Breaking Week of Offers. Last time around we had the same fights and arguments about the candidate scores. The high-scoring people were just sure that the OPM scoring methodology, while painful to some, was a fair and balanced system that probably got things just about right. The low scoring people were just sure that OPM was staffed with nothing but drunks, chimps, and trade-school drop-outs. Then the offers started coming and there were spurned people with high scores just sure that SSA was staffed with nothing but drunks, chimps, and trade-school drop-outs, and new ALJs with low scores who felt that Justice had been done! There were many of us on the Inside that had the advantage of not just knowing a large number of other candidates, but also knowing the details of each other's resumes, so that we could make a pretty good assessment of OPM's scoring. We found that the OPM scoring was horrifically arbitrary. Then the offers started, and we found, not surprisingly, that SSA knew who the most qualified candidates were, and that SSA would get them offers no matter how low their scores were. One thing that has not really changed over the years has been the selection rules, and the SSA people doing the selecting know how to work those rules without breaking them in a way that will be found out. So, argue all you want foolish mortals, what will be will be as SSA decides it will be. For the benefit of the OPM and SSA monitors of this Board, I don't think any of you are drunks, chimps, or trade school dropouts. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Apr 3, 2014 14:53:43 GMT -5
Hi Val, long time no see. I tell them and tell them, ODAR does as ODAR does, but no one wants to believe me. Are you doing okay? Been missing you.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 3, 2014 14:56:57 GMT -5
Laugh, laugh, snicker, snicker! Oh boy is this thread taking me down memory lane! There is a great big gap between the Candidate Scoring Coronations and the Heart-Breaking Week of Offers. Last time around we had the same fights and arguments about the candidate scores. The high-scoring people were just sure that the OPM scoring methodology, while painful to some, was a fair and balanced system that probably got things just about right. The low scoring people were just sure that OPM was staffed with nothing but drunks, chimps, and trade-school drop-outs. Then the offers started coming and there were spurned people with high scores just sure that SSA was staffed with nothing but drunks, chimps, and trade-school drop-outs, and new ALJs with low scores who felt that Justice had been done! There were many of us on the Inside that had the advantage of not just knowing a large number of other candidates, but also knowing the details of each other's resumes, so that we could make a pretty good assessment of OPM's scoring. We found that the OPM scoring was horrifically arbitrary. Then the offers started, and we found, not surprisingly, that SSA knew who the most qualified candidates were, and that SSA would get them offers no matter how low their scores were. One thing that has not really changed over the years has been the selection rules, and the SSA people doing the selecting know how to work those rules without breaking them in a way that will be found out. So, argue all you want foolish mortals, what will be will be as SSA decides it will be. For the benefit of the OPM and SSA monitors of this Board, I don't think any of you are drunks, chimps, or trade school dropouts. Just saying. And gary would know. He'd see them at the reunions.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Apr 3, 2014 15:57:27 GMT -5
For the benefit of the OPM and SSA monitors of this Board, I don't think any of you are drunks, chimps, or trade school dropouts. Just saying. And gary would know. He'd see them at the reunions. Bwahahahaha!
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 3, 2014 16:26:10 GMT -5
" Then the offers started, and we found, not surprisingly, that SSA knew who the most qualified candidates were, and that SSA would get them offers no matter how low their scores were" Valkyrie, what an interesting post. Let's suppose you're right--all this testing has been a formality, and an SSA "Star Chamber" has chosen the Anointed despite scoring. Can you share what the characteristics were that you discovered SSA used to determine "who the most qualified candidates were"? Did you really think that SSA would just let some twits at OPM decide who will be an ALJ at SSA? I mean come on man! Do you know how much trouble an ALJ can cause SSA? They're not just going to let a random combination of GALs and OPM scores make the decisions for them! The scores will only determine which candidates they can reach. I believe last time around you needed a score in the mid-50s for them to reach you. Don't think of it so much as a "Star Chamber," (that sounds kind of ominous!), as maybe a poor man's version of the NFL draft with a Big Board. SSA is no different from any other business in that they would rather hire people that can be vouched for by people they trust. Anyone in HR with half a brain will tell you that. Some people get hired for a great resume and interview, some so OPM won't get suspicious, but most are hired because a respected manager or official in a local, regional, or national location is willing to say, "I think he/she knows the program well, gets their work done, and plays well with others." This isn't rocket science. Its hiring in a way that will reduce the Agency's chances of getting burned by a Whack-a-doo. I'm doing well Bartleby! Hope you're doing well too! They are going to have to learn like all the rest...
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Apr 3, 2014 16:34:46 GMT -5
Valkyrie said: "...most are hired because a respected manager or official in a local, regional, or national location is willing to say, "I think he/she knows the program well, gets their work done, and plays well with others." So there you go, Funky. Looks like insiders' chances are good.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Apr 3, 2014 16:38:32 GMT -5
Valkyrie said: "...most are hired because a respected manager or official in a local, regional, or national location is willing to say, "I think he/she knows the program well, gets their work done, and plays well with others." So there you go, Funky. Looks like insiders' chances are good. If you make a cert, yes. The problem for a lot of insiders was even getting on the register.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2014 16:39:11 GMT -5
I do agree that most people should have at least a working knowledge of SSA law and regulations, if they expect to work for SSA. However, I am sure many of those who may have made the Register based solely upon their litigation experience don't have that SSA knowledge and may likely not get a "highly recommend" by the SSA interviewers. Really, I didn't know how to wash dishes in an all-night truck stop until Ms. Sparks taught me how to do the job at the age of 12, a job that I kept for the next 4 years. I did not know one thing about leading and marching soldiers in a formation before I became a squad leader as a 17 year old high school drop out and stayed 20 years longer and was promoted to E-8 in with a company of over 500 enlisted soldiers under my supervision.
I didn't know anything about navigating a ship on the ocean before the Army trained me to do that job and I successfully landed 100s of Marines, tanks and equipment on the beaches of Kuwaiti. I didn't know anything about the law until I graduated in the top of my law class, law review, and 6 Cali awards for academic excellence and now I am SHOCK and SURPRISE to learn that a "working knowledge" of SSA is what it will takes to get a "highly recommend".
IMHO, if you have a proven track record of success and leadership skills, then you will get the "highly recommend", but I could be wrong and all of the insiders could be right about us Vets/ outside litigators. We will see soon enough.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 3, 2014 16:57:17 GMT -5
This job ain't washing dishes (though it can feel that way) and about the only thing its further away from than leading a company of soldiers is litigating.
will they care if you know the specifics of ssa law and how to get around the computer sytems, sure. But anybody with a law degree can pick that up relatively quickly.
What they don't want is somebody with such high self value that its likely they get the "black robe disease." The look what I've done, look who I am types that can easily forget that the only way they succeed is being a team player and prefer to take the high and mighty approach.
Newsflash, odar judges don't get the high and mighty treatment. They are important members of a team that moves a case from point A to point B. They want a nice, productive, humble team player that slides right into the machine without making the wheels squeak.
Come across as someone they think has too much arrogance to take the institutionalized crap that comes with the job without being able to handle it with humility and understanding and I think its a safe bet your phone won't ring.
As odd as it sounds, and I may be wrong, but they aren't interviewing for leaders. They are interviewing for widget pushers that can productively do the job without taking offense when an sct calls them by their first name at the coffee pot instead of "your honor."
JMHO
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Apr 3, 2014 17:01:46 GMT -5
Laugh, laugh, snicker, snicker! Oh boy is this thread taking me down memory lane! There is a great big gap between the Candidate Scoring Coronations and the Heart-Breaking Week of Offers. Last time around we had the same fights and arguments about the candidate scores. The high-scoring people were just sure that the OPM scoring methodology, while painful to some, was a fair and balanced system that probably got things just about right. The low scoring people were just sure that OPM was staffed with nothing but drunks, chimps, and trade-school drop-outs. Then the offers started coming and there were spurned people with high scores just sure that SSA was staffed with nothing but drunks, chimps, and trade-school drop-outs, and new ALJs with low scores who felt that Justice had been done! There were many of us on the Inside that had the advantage of not just knowing a large number of other candidates, but also knowing the details of each other's resumes, so that we could make a pretty good assessment of OPM's scoring. We found that the OPM scoring was horrifically arbitrary. Then the offers started, and we found, not surprisingly, that SSA knew who the most qualified candidates were, and that SSA would get them offers no matter how low their scores were. One thing that has not really changed over the years has been the selection rules, and the SSA people doing the selecting know how to work those rules without breaking them in a way that will be found out. So, argue all you want foolish mortals, what will be will be as SSA decides it will be. Val, you have no pf now and I can't even get to the 1 meter bar in this discussion. That being said and not to deter you from further posts as you always butter everyone's popcorn--or should I say serve up a bucket o' same, this time around what worked for you and didn't work for me (apparently) no longer applies. IOW, high scores may rule! No carrots for you my friend. This debate may well be front loaded.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Apr 3, 2014 17:04:54 GMT -5
Hi Val, long time no see. I tell them and tell them, ODAR does as ODAR does, but no one wants to believe me. Are you doing okay? Been missing you. And yes I will be redundant! Could we miss you more? I think not.
|
|