|
|
Post by shadow on Feb 7, 2008 9:35:39 GMT -5
I suspected that the ODAR interview would be the most important last hurdle to overcome.
We've been maneuvering through this process for over nine months and now all we can do is wait. Globalpanda, I probably speak for everyone when I say your posts have been among the most enlightening. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Feb 7, 2008 12:18:16 GMT -5
The problem, as I see it, is the use of the word FAILED. By definition 2 out of 3 candidates will not be selected. I think if you read that paragraph as, "they know of at least 200 canditates that did not make the past the final selection hurdle", the story will make more sense. There are several ways they could "deselect" candidates. One, the candidate does poorly in the interview, or does not do as well as other candidates do. This is the biggest reason. Two, something comes up in your background check (bankruptcies, fraud convictions, unpaid student loan debts etc). Three, one or more of your references give you less than glowing recommendations. The decision will not be made based on one of these variable in isolation. Rather the selections will be based on a full combination of all the factors. The fact that half the candidates (so far) are reported to have failed should not come as a surprise. The only surprise here is how fast the information got out. At best what we are hearing here is the preliminary data indicating that they have come to initial conclusions, subject to revision, that they know the identities of several hundred candidates which they will most likely not select. The most recent post by globalpanda is, as usual, most informative and also puts things into perspective. A sobering perspective, eh wot? Scores of us who post here will not be selected. It goes without saying that I hope as do all of us, well most of us, that we are all selected, but alas, it is simply not possible. The ones not selected will have to wait to see if they are amongst the coveted 25 and then after that they will simply remain on the register. As what happened when the scores came out, there will be a lot of pain, admitted to or not. In light of the camaraderie that has been established on this board, I would urge all of us having interviewed posters to think about picking one of the posters to send a private message to and establish what ever kind of penpal relationship you may be comfortable with. Some of you have already and I suspect that you have benefited from that relationship. I'm concerned that there will be posters who will simply drop off the board as they have not gotten a call and could use a friendly, encouraging word from someone else. We are a select group and while we have family, offices and significant others to celebrate with and to comfort us, at the end of the day only we know what we have been through (as well as the ALJ's who are among us). When you look on the board, login and see if you have a PM and maybe send one too. My “song thread” has already established what we already knew: wildog and conanthebarbarian are two wild and crazy guys! And there are more, but I’ll get in trouble…  |
|
|
|
Post by judicature on Feb 7, 2008 12:55:17 GMT -5
My SSA interviewers advised that I would hear either way within 30 to 60 days from the interview - which was held on 1/25
|
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Feb 7, 2008 14:04:48 GMT -5
My SSA interviewers advised that I would hear either way within 30 to 60 days from the interview - which was held on 1/25 I was also told in my interview that I would be notified either way (although i was not given a timeframe), which I was glad to hear. |
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Feb 7, 2008 15:24:13 GMT -5
Thanks for the update judicature and propmaster. If it was told to me in my interview it went in one ear and out the other. Nice to know that folks won't be twisting in the wind...
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Feb 7, 2008 22:30:25 GMT -5
My SSA interviewers advised that I would hear either way within 30 to 60 days from the interview - which was held on 1/25 Yes, you will hear from them either way. If selected the notification will be done quickly and by telephone. If not selected, it will be done by letter and will take a month or so. Pix. |
|
|
|
Post by judicature on Feb 7, 2008 22:35:35 GMT -5
I gather then, Pixie, that those who are going to be successful may not have long to wait?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Feb 7, 2008 23:02:43 GMT -5
I gather then, Pixie, that those who are going to be successful may not have long to wait? Well, long is a relative term! I think I said in a post a few days ago you should hear something in two or three weeks. I really had not considered how big this hire is going to be, and that the backgrounds were ongoing. However, knowing the efficiency of the people on the project, I think that 2 to 3 weeks is still a pretty good estimate. They are lining up the ducks right now, and will be ready to move when the backgrounds are finished. I do think they will wait on the backgrounds before finalizing the decisions. A lot of information is being obtained this time around. Pix. |
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Feb 8, 2008 7:42:52 GMT -5
I suspected that the ODAR interview would be the most important last hurdle to overcome. We've been maneuvering through this process for over nine months and now all we can do is wait. Globalpanda, I probably speak for everyone when I say your posts have been among the most enlightening. Thanks! In re reading the post I would have used the word illiterate rather than enlightening, but thanks for the kind words. They are appreciated. And as far as keeping in touch with folks (as someone suggested) what a wonderful idea. Who knows- maybe some of those folks who got selected for OMHA will join in. And maybe some folk who will not be selected for SSA will get picked up by another Federal agency, and they will keep in touch as well. And by the way. Everyone who went to the interview will get a notice, one way or the other. Those that get selected should expect, if past practice is a guide, to get a phone call making the formal offer as well. I would caution however that this is a big hire, they may elect to forgo the phone call. So do not hold me to it.) What I do remember from my interview that I can advise is that I was told that Pat Rocheford, the lady whose name appeared on our notice, would be making the calls. |
|
|
|
Post by dazedandconfused on Feb 8, 2008 8:55:59 GMT -5
Pixie: how are those not selected notified?
|
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Feb 8, 2008 9:49:20 GMT -5
I see the background checks as leading to a "go/no go" report with no intermediate options. ODAR has had more than a month to sort the candidates by site and has, to my thinking at least, a notional ranking of individuals at each site. This notional ranking could change based upon references and background information.
|
|
|
|
Post by hopeful2 on Feb 8, 2008 10:47:49 GMT -5
Re: productivity......When they asked our current supervisor about our productivity, specifically how many cases we closed each month.......will they take into account the type of cases we hear and deal with? Mine are adversarial, complex issues, there are discovery issues, multiple motions, conferences, the hearings last from one day to eight days, and we write our own decisions and notices and rulings, etc. Obviously the judges in my agency do not close but a fraction of what SSA ALJs can close in a month. I am however, the most productive at my office. And I was always one of the top producers when I worked for ODAR (then known as OHA). I tried to emphasize this on my application and during my interview, but I understand that there were specific questions to our references and supervisors about numbers, and that is comparing apples to oranges....or whatever two different products you wish to choose as examples of extremely different though in the same general category. Guess I am getting the waiting jitters, as I have waited a long time for this. I left OHA to get experience so I could return someday as an ALJ and really think I could hit the ground running as I did before, and would be as productive as I was before. We are all so qualified, and I would not expect many to be eliminated for not passing muster, unless they don't take into account that some of us could never close as many cases in our current jobs as we would for SSA.
|
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Feb 8, 2008 10:54:55 GMT -5
I have no special insight here but I am of the opinion that, while productivity is important, being a team player may be equally important.
|
|
|
|
Post by odarite on Feb 8, 2008 11:07:23 GMT -5
Hopeful2, don't get too caught up in numbers. Productivity will not be measured by raw numbers alone, or even perhaps at all. More likely, it will be done by whether the source (for non SSA folks) said your productivity was excellent, good, or poor. After all, 50 oranges may or may not be equivalent to 10 apples, you need to know a lot more about the apples and oranges to judge. And even for SSA folks, the raw numbers don't tell the whole story, there may be other things going on that the questions asked of your supervisors and other references may bring to the table.
|
|
knownuthin
Full Member
Out of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
Posts: 114
|
Post by knownuthin on Feb 8, 2008 16:53:23 GMT -5
One of the interviewing HOCALJs told me that the interviews were graded as follows: Good, Average, Poor. He further said he thought the hiring notifications would begin in early March. He gave me the impression that a poor interview would be difficult to overcome given the high quality of candidates.
|
|
|
|
Post by gromit on Feb 8, 2008 20:37:22 GMT -5
One of the interviewing HOCALJs told me that the interviews were graded as follows: Good, Average, Poor. I heard we were graded as follows:  I, unfortunately, am bound to fall in the "ugly" category ;D |
|
|
|
Post by counselor95 on Feb 8, 2008 20:57:09 GMT -5
Now, now, Gromit, you are far too modest. After meeting you the day of the interview, I was (and still am) sure you are in the "good" category! I, on the other hand, are still wondering about my interview rating . . .  Regards, C95 |
|
|
|
Post by nothingventured on Feb 9, 2008 0:46:05 GMT -5
We can't all be Clint Eastwood handsome. Some of us have faces made for telephonic hearings. ; )
|
|
cybear
Full Member
sic semper ursi
Posts: 57 
|
Post by cybear on Feb 9, 2008 3:39:56 GMT -5
Re: productivity......When they asked our current supervisor about our productivity, specifically how many cases we closed each month.......will they take into account the type of cases we hear and deal with? Mine are adversarial, complex issues, there are discovery issues, multiple motions, conferences, the hearings last from one day to eight days, and we write our own decisions and notices and rulings, etc. Obviously the judges in my agency do not close but a fraction of what SSA ALJs can close in a month. I am however, the most productive at my office. And I was always one of the top producers when I worked for ODAR (then known as OHA). I tried to emphasize this on my application and during my interview, but I understand that there were specific questions to our references and supervisors about numbers, and that is comparing apples to oranges....or whatever two different products you wish to choose as examples of extremely different though in the same general category. Guess I am getting the waiting jitters, as I have waited a long time for this. I left OHA to get experience so I could return someday as an ALJ and really think I could hit the ground running as I did before, and would be as productive as I was before. We are all so qualified, and I would not expect many to be eliminated for not passing muster, unless they don't take into account that some of us could never close as many cases in our current jobs as we would for SSA. I reiterate my concern that if the people hired by the people hired to perform these background checks have discretion to do much more than check boxes and fill in blanks, there's no telling what their reports will show. |
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Feb 9, 2008 9:53:35 GMT -5
testtaker was the subject of flippant remarks from a past Employer who sounded as if he/she knew how the ODAR system works, a point that may or may not have been lost on the OMNI folks. I don't think that in and of itself was particularly detrimental given that it was the tone of the remarks that seems or must have seemed odd to the questioner, not what was said.
Some of us have no idea what opposing counsel said about us, we can only hope it was positive. For me, asking these people what was said would be to show them weakness, and that I cannot do, for reasons that are obvious to any litigator. I just have to trust that I chose wisely, it is too late to fret now. There have been posts that given that you chose these people, a purely negative response is most likely detrimental and probably, in the grand scheme of things, that is appropriate.
There are concerns that are just plain worry/fretting and with all due respect (because we can all succumb to it--and I count myself in that category), plainly counter-productive. I think the OMNI lady I spoke to was no dummy. Over-worked, yes. But certainly capable of making a judgment or two. What judgments are they making? I don't know and I don't think anyone but them and their supervisors know. Will they knock a few/more than few folks out--well, yes, given that as was posted we are all of high caliber and are in tough competition.
Ultimately, I think from what I have learned here and what I feel from the interview, the SSA Folks who are choosing us know who they want from the interview. A weird box or comment from OMNI may well support the obvious--this person kicked alot of butt in many, many courtrooms for a lotta years and takes no prisoners. Or this person is more mediator than litigator. You know who you are and if they don't by now it ain't their fault, its yours. Yes, we were nervous in the interview, so what? You know if you overcame it or not.
I think just staying positive is the best and obviously, all you can do as this point. That's why I love "Oddball" from "Kelly's Heroes." Wuff-wuff (with apologies to Gromit).
|
|
