Message from OPM about grading

[sealaw90]

Mar 21, 2014 12:10:57 GMT -5 privateatty said:

Mar 21, 2014 12:09:08 GMT -5 sealaw90 said:

funky, the other number that the 6,000 apps remind me of - the number of them who are a "1" on the NOR.  That would be the 2,000 or so who didn't make it past the initial application - I'm feelin' real smart with my giant bell curve of a score

As well you should. Now do the final lap and keep your cool and your sense of humor.

Sir, yes Sir. 

[Propmaster]

I've been polling this group of people for nigh on 6 years, and I reject the contention that our polling is suddenly self-limited by embarrassment or other anamolies.

First of all, several people seem to have made the mistake of missing the word "would" in "a score of 1 would..." It is clearly an example, and I believe it was expressly included to tell people exactly what it said - your 62 or 65 or 69 does not mean you wold have a "C-" in school, it just means other people were better (i.e. scored more highly by the reviewers) than you. Remember to approach this e-mail as a bureacrat doing his or her best to tell everyone something (probably at something of the last minute) without getting very specific, probbaly to mollify the applicants' outrage at the low score they think they did not deserve.

We have a bell curve on our response polling. I am 100% convinced that this reflects a bell curve in the ratings given to people on the test. If "ratings" ranged from 1 to 100, the bell curve would be at 50, and we would have the end of a parabola from 60-90, which we don't. Thus, the bell curve located at what appears to be just about the middle of the range of scores reported to us means that a number of scores were simply added together - that's 1 way you get a nice bell curve, especially if there are otherwise limited scoring options in a test scenario.

The description early in the e-mail of "placing the scores in numerical order" before cutting off the low scorers in step 1 is gobbledygook, since the numbers already put the scores in numerical order. If you work with people, as I do, who often try to phrase things "all sophisticated like," you end up with people typing 14 words in 2 sentences when you could have done it with 3 words. The entire e-mail is bloated with useless language - the fact that the highest scores were "moved on" already implies they were somehow identified, there is no need to point that out as if it was an accomplishment. Obviously, they eliminated the lowest scoring people, having given vet preferences. Observation: the initial scoring was probbaly on a scale of 1-100 to allow vet add-on.

To the extent more of the remainder of the e-mail is gobbledygook as well, it reflects poor drafting, not a nefarious process. The people who discussed converting the raw scores to a scaled score of 100 (remember forced medians from law school? That's how mine was grades - median = 86 in every class) are surely correct. Resulting in our poll.

[funkyodar]

Excellent points propmaster and I think your analysis of the email and poll results is dead on. I have never bought into the theory there is some mass of below 55 scoring, embarrassed candidates that made the register but refuse to anonymously post their score.

That said, I do believe there are a pantload of candidates that made the register that don't know about the board. Saw too many in DC for that to not be. I'd also imagine those candidates that apparently didn't bother to even google the job may have been more ill prepared than some that study the process thru the board. Thus, I'd think their scores may be lower. Though, if they made the register I believe they slot between the highs and lows of your poll. Maybe there are enough of them to move the crest of that curve back a fraction. Maybe not.

I think where the existence of the mass of less knowledgeable registrees will be felt is not so much in the scores, but in the gals. Without this board and advice from fellow insiders, there is no way I'd have known how much gal matters. I'd have likely picked only a few cities under the assumption that, if its listed on the announcement, there must be an opening that will be filled there. We, board addicts, simply know that isn't true and a wider gal equates to more shots at a moving target.

I appreciate all your hard work doing the polls. Thanks for keeping it up, its invaluable.

[FlaTreeFarm]

"gobbledygook" is probably the best description I have seen. I'm sure we have over-analyzed the "gobbledygook" but that's what people (especially lawyers) do when there is a gap in the information!

[JudgeRatty]

This was a 2014 post. Is there a question? Just saw Gaidin's post and wondering the same thing. We can help if here is a question.

[Pixie]

I don't understand the reason for the quote either. This poster does this frequently, but usually does another post immediately following the quoted post where he makes his point. I have deleted his quote of Gaidin and Gaidin's post asking why he was quoted. It gets unwieldy. Pixie.

[aljwishhope]

Sorry Pixie. Just sharing for others who may be illiterate phone forum posters. I have been pressing quote instead of the title of subject in order to get the reply to button. For anyone at OPM reading this (JK) I am very computer literate. It is just this old phone. To prove my point my phone just randomly started capitalizing all words (i deleted). To be considerate i will be more careful in future. Maybe Google posting in forums for dummies.

Edit by Pixie: Good explanation; now I understand. Thanks. Pixie.

[Gaidin]

Jan 28, 2016 8:26:00 GMT -5 aljwishhope said:

Sorry Pixie. Just sharing for others who may be illiterate phone forum posters. I have been pressing quote instead of the title of subject in order to get the reply to button. For anyone at OPM reading this (JK) I am very computer literate. It is just this old phone. To prove my point my phone just randomly started capitalizing all words (i deleted). To be considerate i will be more careful in future. Maybe Google posting in forums for dummies.

If you are using the app then there is a reply button at the top and bottom of the page.

[Propmaster]

So, why are we looking at this?

Are we praising me or something?

That's OK, if that's what we're doing...

[ba]

Maybe in light of the age of this post locking would be helpful. Pix, do you agree?

[Pixie]

I kinda agree, but someone may come back with a valid question, or aljwishhope may get his phone figured out and finish her thought process. Pix.

[blondswede]

My two cents, being a newbie here. Seeing the letter from OPM, even though it was almost 2 years ago, was helpful for me. There are so many threads in this forum, it's really impossible to go back into all of them to find one particular bit of information. I'm sure it gets annoying and tedious for those of you who have been in this forum and dealing with getting on the register for several years to see all of us latecomers ask our novice questions. But, information about the process is helping me accept that it is going to be a while before I get any kind of answer about whether I will have the chance of being an ALJ at all.

So, for all of you who are attempting to help those of us who still don't even have an NOR yet, I thank you on behalf of myself and my similarly situated colleagues, for any insight you can give. Please remember how dumb and unaware you were when you started this process, whenever that was (I imagine what I must've looked like almost 30 years ago when I first walked into the office as a lawyer, after having been sworn at him by our Supreme Court. Boy, I knew nothing!)

[Gaidin]

I linked to the thread in another thread so that those waiting for NORs could see what the scoring information provided by OPM would say. That being said I didn't mean to resurrect the thread with new posts.

[gary]

Jan 28, 2016 16:04:11 GMT -5 Gaidin said:

I linked to the thread in another thread so that those waiting for NORs could see what the scoring information provided by OPM would say. That being said I didn't mean to resurrect the thread with new posts.

Troublemaker.

[wingnut]

I knew it was Gaiden's fault. I just knew it.

[sealaw90]

Jan 28, 2016 15:51:37 GMT -5 blondswede said:

My two cents, being a newbie here. Seeing the letter from OPM, even though it was almost 2 years ago, was helpful for me. There are so many threads in this forum, it's really impossible to go back into all of them to find one particular bit of information. I'm sure it gets annoying and tedious for those of you who have been in this forum and dealing with getting on the register for several years to see all of us latecomers ask our novice questions. But, information about the process is helping me accept that it is going to be a while before I get any kind of answer about whether I will have the chance of being an ALJ at all.

So, for all of you who are attempting to help those of us who still don't even have an NOR yet, I thank you on behalf of myself and my similarly situated colleagues, for any insight you can give. Please remember how dumb and unaware you were when you started this process, whenever that was (I imagine what I must've looked like almost 30 years ago when I first walked into the office as a lawyer, after having been sworn at him by our Supreme Court. Boy, I knew nothing!)

Just wait till the new newbies show up when the job announcement shows up, then you'll know how we feel sometimes
... It's all good, the discussion and the questions, even if they've been asked before:)

[brpesq]

Thank you for the email regarding the grading. I am a little befuddled however (and that is probably quite telling as to why I did not advance beyond Step 2!).   Apparently, despite the fact that only those who proceeded past Step 2 actually received their grades, it appears from the email that those of us who did not proceed were, in fact, graded. It would have been most helpful if OPM had given us our scores which I argued in my appeal.   I would rather know what sunk my chances...whether it was my experience, writing sample or situational judgment so that if I decided to reapply at some time in the future, I could perhaps increase my chances of selection. 

While I am very happy for all who did advance and for the new ALJs and all who are still in the running, in my humble opinion, I do not think the process was entirely fair or transparent.  

This board has been a great resource and I will continue to chime in now and again.  Best wishes to all.

[Pixie]

Jan 29, 2016 10:32:14 GMT -5 brpesq said:

Thank you for the email regarding the grading. I am a little befuddled however (and that is probably quite telling as to why I did not advance beyond Step 2!).   Apparently, despite the fact that only those who proceeded past Step 2 actually received their grades, it appears from the email that those of us who did not proceed were, in fact, graded. It would have been most helpful if OPM had given us our scores which I argued in my appeal.   I would rather know what sunk my chances...whether it was my experience, writing sample or situational judgment so that if I decided to reapply at some time in the future, I could perhaps increase my chances of selection. 

While I am very happy for all who did advance and for the new ALJs and all who are still in the running, in my humble opinion, I do not think the process was entirely fair or transparent.  

This board has been a great resource and I will continue to chime in now and again.  Best wishes to all.

You have echoed the feelings of most everyone who has gone through the process. Welcome to the Club. I doubt that it will ever change. Pixie.

[ProScribe]

Just stumbled across this string and compared my June 2017 NOR to the one Gaidin posted, above. Interestingly, none of the information about how the scores were developed was included. Just another example of the value of this board.

[gary]

Aug 13, 2017 10:10:18 GMT -5 ProScribe said:

Just stumbled across this string and compared my June 2017 NOR to the one Gaidin posted, above. Interestingly, none of the information about how the scores were developed was included. Just another example of the value of this board.

The email Gaidin posted to start this thread was not an NOR email. It was a separate email that came a bit later titled in the subject line, "Understanding Your ALJ Final Numerical Rating."