|
Post by sealaw90 on Aug 6, 2014 13:24:40 GMT -5
Not news many might want to hear but an ALJ in our office who was supposed to teach the second session of training was told today that her training team had been cancelled. Apparently, there won't be enough new hires reporting in the second wave in September to justify 2 instructor teams each week. That makes it sound like they really aren't going to make 90 hires this round. WOW - this is potentially a bombshell. I didn't want to 'like' this post, because to many first-certers who are waiting for the call are going to be crying in their beer/drink of the day. So this is potentially bad news. However, what does two instructor teams really translate into? If there is only one instructor team, does that mean only 20 - 25 students instead of 40 - 45 students in the October class?? On the other hand, the scobies and scobie-wannabes should be happy. If they couldn't get enough hires from this cert, they may be pulling a bigger second cert, and may be able to pull the second cert in about 2 weeks and start the process all over again. No, it won't be for the October training class, but I am sure ODAR has learned a LOT with the new 'cert by city' system and will be adjusting accordingly. Or I could be completely worng and just wishfully thinking about the second cert and engaging in wild speculation. The true test is when the transfers start to happen again - this month would be a good time to work the list ODAR....
|
|
|
Post by cougarfan on Aug 6, 2014 13:38:58 GMT -5
Very interesting. It may be that they have found a way to do more than 45 in the September class. The offers of late have been with Aug starts. Perhaps, but the e-mail specifically stated that "the hiring numbers aren’t as significant as they once expected"
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 6, 2014 13:40:27 GMT -5
Very interesting. It may be that they have found a way to do more than 45 in the September class. The offers of late have been with Aug starts. Perhaps, but the e-mail specifically stated that "the hiring numbers aren’t as significant as they once expected" Yeah. Just saw your email in the new thread. Wow.
|
|
|
Post by saaao on Aug 6, 2014 13:45:41 GMT -5
Not news many might want to hear but an ALJ in our office who was supposed to teach the second session of training was told today that her training team had been cancelled. Apparently, there won't be enough new hires reporting in the second wave in September to justify 2 instructor teams each week. That makes it sound like they really aren't going to make 90 hires this round. WOW - this is potentially a bombshell. I didn't want to 'like' this post, because to many first-certers who are waiting for the call are going to be crying in their beer/drink of the day. So this is potentially bad news. However, what does two instructor teams really translate into? If there is only one instructor team, does that mean only 20 - 25 students instead of 40 - 45 students in the October class?? On the other hand, the scobies and scobie-wannabes should be happy. If they couldn't get enough hires from this cert, they may be pulling a bigger second cert, and may be able to pull the second cert in about 2 weeks and start the process all over again. No, it won't be for the October training class, but I am sure ODAR has learned a LOT with the new 'cert by city' system and will be adjusting accordingly. Or I could be completely worng and just wishfully thinking about the second cert and engaging in wild speculation. The true test is when the transfers start to happen again - this month would be a good time to work the list ODAR.... The thread Cougarfan started on this subject would seem to confirm this as would the fact they seem to be doubling back to cities they had already made offers for. If they aren't done making calls yet, I would think they will be done within a day or two. As a first certer this really doesn't bother me too much. The cities I was referred for were all pretty low on my personal desirability index, and I am more than happy to wait a few months to see what will be available on the next group of Certificates. Unless of course I dropped the ball on the one yard line. In that case it simply wasn't meant to be. Either way it will be nice to not worry about missed calls and how I am going to turn my life off with 6-3 weeks notice for a move to an unknown destination. Congratulations to all that did receive the call this round (assuming it really is over). I am sure you will all love the job!
|
|
|
Post by zepplin on Aug 6, 2014 14:19:42 GMT -5
What is the theory about cities on the certificate that have no indication of offers? Not hiring? Off-listers?
|
|
|
Post by saaao on Aug 6, 2014 14:45:26 GMT -5
What is the theory about cities on the certificate that have no indication of offers? Not hiring? Off-listers? Based on the wording of the e-mail, I would think they were mostly non-hires, though their probably are at least a few offers that weren't caught by the first or second hand reporting that the board has been using. Guesstimate that the 67 number on the poll doesn't have false positives and then figure about 10 hires that weren't captured and you have one full September class and an undersized October class That is consistent with the e-mail, and the shift to backfilling the September class on these last hires.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 15:10:04 GMT -5
1
|
|
|
Post by boredlilah on Aug 7, 2014 8:43:27 GMT -5
Hate to cause more edits -- but I can give more data. This board has given me so much useful info, I want to return the favor. And data is awesome.
I'm the Omaha vote Funky graciously posted (thank you very much, Funkyodar!!). I had gotten the offer but was about to travel out of town, didn't want to post here until I'd told my current office. (I know some of them read this board.) Thanks for all the congrats! And I voted in the polls.
non-vet agency insider but not ODAR and former plaintiffs' counsel 76.xx limited GAL Omaha was #2 preference thought I totally bombed the interview offer received July 31 report date September 22
Thanks to everyone on this board -- the discussion has been immeasurably helpful, and I expect it will continue to be. Looking forward to meeting some of you in person soon, and the rest later on!
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Aug 7, 2014 9:39:25 GMT -5
Hate to cause more edits -- but I can give more data. This board has given me so much useful info, I want to return the favor. And data is awesome. I'm the Omaha vote Funky graciously posted (thank you very much, Funkyodar!!). I had gotten the offer but was about to travel out of town, didn't want to post here until I'd told my current office. (I know some of them read this board.) Thanks for all the congrats! And I voted in the polls. non-vet agency insider but not ODAR and former plaintiffs' counsel 76.xx limited GAL Omaha was #2 preference thought I totally bombed the interview offer received July 31 report date September 22 Thanks to everyone on this board -- the discussion has been immeasurably helpful, and I expect it will continue to be. Looking forward to meeting some of you in person soon, and the rest later on! Welcome to the Board, boredlilah, and congratulations!
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Aug 7, 2014 16:20:53 GMT -5
So now that this phase is complete I am turning into a lurker. That xcel sheet bothers me a lot. I understand the desire for compiling "hard" information amidst a lot of speculation, but several months from now, if I am lucky enough to get an offer, I don't want to find myself as a line on a spread sheet with all kinds of data about me gleaned from prior posts and speculation based on timing of poll responses. I just don't want that type of info introducing me to a new office. It has been fun everyone - all the best to the new ALJs and good luck to the rest of us in the second round. I may do a little PM or hit "like" now and then just to let you all know I still care.
|
|
|
Post by mikeinthehills on Aug 7, 2014 17:34:08 GMT -5
So now that this phase is complete I am turning into a lurker. That xcel sheet bothers me a lot. I understand the desire for compiling "hard" information amidst a lot of speculation, but several months from now, if I am lucky enough to get an offer, I don't want to find myself as a line on a spread sheet with all kinds of data about me gleaned from prior posts and speculation based on timing of poll responses. I just don't want that type of info introducing me to a new office. It has been fun everyone - all the best to the new ALJs and good luck to the rest of us in the second round. I may do a little PM or hit "like" now and then just to let you all know I still care. mamaru, I have to respectively disagree with you on this. I reviewed the spreadsheet. It was comprehensive and included information on a lot of members. But, it's generally anonymous. And I didn't think it revealed any information that I would be offended that someone in my new office knew (unless I chose the wrong screen name ). If I were a vet, or had an 82.xx, a 72.xx or a 62.xx, I don't see there being info I would care if someone in the office was privy too. Maybe I'm naive, but would anything on that spreadsheet be water cooler material at my first office?
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Aug 7, 2014 17:37:23 GMT -5
So now that this phase is complete I am turning into a lurker. That xcel sheet bothers me a lot. I understand the desire for compiling "hard" information amidst a lot of speculation, but several months from now, if I am lucky enough to get an offer, I don't want to find myself as a line on a spread sheet with all kinds of data about me gleaned from prior posts and speculation based on timing of poll responses. I just don't want that type of info introducing me to a new office. It has been fun everyone - all the best to the new ALJs and good luck to the rest of us in the second round. I may do a little PM or hit "like" now and then just to let you all know I still care. Yeah, I wasn't too keen on the whole name matched with all the data in one report where we can all be identified in real life without much of a leap. It is the public that I worry about, future claimants, reps, etc. I wouldn't mind so much if it were limited to just "us" folks who are in the hunt, but to be out there for anyone to read....not so much. I gave a grimace when I saw it but don't want to make too big of a deal about it either. But I hear exactly what you are saying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2014 20:45:45 GMT -5
1
|
|
|
Post by futuressaalj on Aug 7, 2014 21:17:10 GMT -5
I took down the spreadsheet to err on the side of caution regarding offending board members. I believe some of you are being to sensitive. I have not revealed (and neither have most folks) anything personal about my family or where I lived or my history that I would not tell you if I met you on a subway and we struck up a conversation. I stand by whatever opinions I may have expressed here and if there is an opinion I want to keep to myself then I do not post it here. I do not really care who knows what my score is as long as I land the gig--that is what is important. I rather have a 60 and the ALJ gig versus a 90 and no ALJ gig. I have not posted anything that I would deny saying to management, co-workers or claimant's reps. Once your name shows up on that disability judges website they can data mine your information from the internet and find other details that go well and above what they might find here. Some of you have shared insider information but I do not believe you were under a gag order not to do so. If you promised that you would not reveal the information and you did post it on here then yes, I would want to remain annonymous. Also, if I had done a lot of trash talking about people, former jobs, ODAR, politics etc then I would not really reveal publically what job offer I got and where I was going to work. Wannabe2012, that was a lot of work that you put into compiling the information, it gives a big picture on the first cert hiring and I personally want to thank you for doing it and taking the time to share.
|
|
|
Post by cheesy on Aug 7, 2014 21:30:10 GMT -5
Wannabe2012, that was a lot of work that you put into compiling the information, it gives a big picture on the first cert hiring and I personally want to thank you for doing it and taking the time to share. Something I read in a government office building once... And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. It's interesting that a long list of individually searchable posts are somehow viewed differently than a compendium of information. Thanks for taking the time to make such a resource; with that level of analytical abilities, I fully expect you to make the next cert -- and the job. Once I'm selected, I intend to push out as much data as reasonable to help others up the ladder as well. If plaintiffs' counsel want to use that information (or any other information gleaned from the Internet), they do so at their peril.
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Aug 8, 2014 7:12:06 GMT -5
To make it clear, I was not offended by the spreadsheet. I think its value vs. it's risk is something upon which reasonable minds can differ. I agree that it took a lot of work to put all of this information together. I know for those of you more invested in data mining than I am, it has been a huge source of information/entertainment/whatever. It was not my intent that it be removed. I simply made a personal choice to distance myself.
Yes, I may be too sensitive. I was a neutral before coming to the agency and the post a few days ago by an ALJ advising caution hit home. I have been in that position. As a result, I am very careful about what I share for public consumption. Not having been in private practice as an advocate I have not had to put myself "out there" to get business so I come from a different place on that than many of you, I'm sure. So far, I have not posted anything that I wish I had not, but I think all of the informal stuff "Drink of the Day," etc., that we have done to take the edge off during the wait has lulled me into a false sense of complacency - that we are among friends and a mutual support system. I tend to forget sometimes that this is a PUBLIC forum, not a group closed to ALJs and prospective ALJs. That's just me.
As for the water cooler talk, of course scores will be fair game, at least where I work. This has been a competitive and controversial process. If I am fortunate enough to get an offer and end up in an office where those left behind are bitter, I would just as soon maintain the mystery of my score, in case it happens to be lower than the score of someone who was not selected with whom I will need to work. I have no problem with people who want to share their scores. I am concerned about scores being "attributed" to folks who have not posted their scores.
As to the truth, I also have a concern about accuracy of the spreadsheet. Imagine the surprise of a fellow board member who had never confirmed anything but the fact that she had accepted an offer when I sent a pm congratulating her and welcoming her to our office. She is not coming to our office and wondered where I got that information. I referred her to the spreadsheet where she is listed as one of our two new judges.
I would have no objection whatsoever if the spreadsheet included only that information actually supplied to the group by a board member, directly or through a trusted source. It's going beyond that that troubles me. We all have different feelings about what we consider private and public. I just feel that, in a good faith effort to make some sense out of what has been a confusing process, the spreadsheet went a little too far in "filling in the blanks."
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Aug 8, 2014 8:05:17 GMT -5
I took down the spreadsheet to err on the side of caution regarding offending board members. It was not offensive to me at all, it just gave me pause to see all that data compiled on all the board members who reported acceptance etc. That's all. It was a great deal of work and I know most do appreciate it. It was just that seeing the names beside everyone else's in a comparative way made me do the grimace face....but not offended. But hey, I am not even on the first certs so I really do not even have a say so on this! If the members who are on the spreadsheet have nothing to say, then that's that. All the information was all out there ready to grab and collect. It is a good reminder to everyone that what goes on this board is truly out there for any purpose to others as well. I certainly didn't mean for you to take down the spreadsheet and I am only speaking for myself here. So please do not think you offended me! I just understood the point of view that it was a bit unnerving. That's all. Heck it won't be any different seeing our stats (as an ALJ) on various websites with the REAL names right there with percentages! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by hopeful41 on Aug 8, 2014 8:09:39 GMT -5
To paraphrase an age-old mantra: thou shall not put anything on the interwebs that thou do not wish to see on the front page of the Washington Post.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Aug 8, 2014 8:14:05 GMT -5
Reading this thread and seeing the comments about scores reminds me of an old saw: What do you call the person who graduated first in his class in med school and has a license? Doctor. And the person who graduated last and has a license? Doctor.
The score is your access to an interview. After that, it is no bearing in the kind of judge one is or isn't. The sitting ALJ with the lowest score is doing the same job for the same pay as the one with the highest score, and may prove to be the better adjudicator.
One of the richest men to ever graduate from my law school graduated last in his class. I doubt his clients ever asked him about his GPA or LSAT.
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Aug 8, 2014 9:06:48 GMT -5
Reading this thread and seeing the comments about scores reminds me of an old saw: What do you call the person who graduated first in his class in med school and has a license? Doctor. And the person who graduated last and has a license? Doctor. The score is your access to an interview. After that, it is no bearing in the kind of judge one is or isn't. The sitting ALJ with the lowest score is doing the same job for the same pay as the one with the highest score, and may prove to be the better adjudicator. One of the richest men to ever graduate from my law school graduated last in his class. I doubt his clients ever asked him about his GPA or LSAT. I think that is very important to keep in mind here, where the score that OPM provided could not possibly be any less representative of how good one will be as an SSA ALJ, given that it weighed and evaluated practically no skills that are ever utlized in the hearing room, or in the decision making process, and completely discounted skills and work history that actually would make one much more likely to be successful.
|
|