|
Post by cheesy on Jun 6, 2015 1:10:43 GMT -5
Or the female Terminator.
Wait, are we all talking about the same avatar?
|
|
|
Post by Missundaztood on Jun 6, 2015 6:01:53 GMT -5
You look like a movie star--maybe Tom Hanks in Cast Away. Or the caddy from Happy Gilmore. Or Phil in the first couple of episodes of "The Last Man on Earth," which are the only episodes worth watching.
|
|
|
Post by hapi2balj on Jun 7, 2015 11:57:46 GMT -5
Or the caddy from Happy Gilmore. Or Phil in the first couple of episodes of "The Last Man on Earth," which are the only episodes worth watching. I love all of the above - except maybe the female Terminator?? Re: the Cast Away comment, ironically there's a close-up of me on the beach pointing, with sand on my finger and in my beard, that my family and friends have always called my Cast Away picture. People tell me I look like Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) but more than anything I think that's because my hair is parted in the middle. When I first heard that, I joked, "You must have seen me without my shirt" which is a huge joke since Jackman is built well. Then I remembered what he looked like on the chain gang in "Les Mis" and I thought maybe that was the reason - HA OK, enough from me anyway about my appearance. I think we've established that, from the bench, I would at least appear "interesting."
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 7, 2015 12:09:17 GMT -5
Or Phil in the first couple of episodes of "The Last Man on Earth," which are the only episodes worth watching. I love all of the above - except maybe the female Terminator?? Re: the Cast Away comment, ironically there's a close-up of me on the beach pointing, with sand on my finger and in my beard, that my family and friends have always called my Cast Away picture. People tell me I look like Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) but more than anything I think that's because my hair is parted in the middle. When I first heard that, I joked, "You must have seen me without my shirt" which is a huge joke since Jackman is built well. Then I remembered what he looked like on the chain gang in "Les Mis" and I thought maybe that was the reason - HA OK, enough from me anyway about my appearance. I think we've established that, from the bench, I would at least appear "interesting." When you get the gig, you'll need to have someone take a photo of you in your hearing room in your robe with full beard and a volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by cheesy on Jun 9, 2015 8:42:29 GMT -5
The female Terminator comment was directed to donk. Just reminding that petite blonde females can also be rather imposing. It's the personality, not the person.
|
|
|
Post by owl on Jun 9, 2015 10:52:13 GMT -5
Cross-posting this from the other active appeal thread as I believe it will apply to people following this thread as well: The following is showing on OPM's ALJ page (http://www.opm.gov/services-for-agencies/administrative-law-judges/#url=Notices): Online Component (OC) open period June 22 – July 6, 2015 - Applicants who were contacted on or about June 10, 2015 regarding participation in the OC of the ALJ examination and 10-point preference eligibles who applied in the previous quarter for the closed ALJ examination have been sent notices containing the OC open period (June 22-July 6, 2015) and additional related details. If you were contacted and have not received such notification, send an inquiry to aljapplication@opm.gov and include a copy of your June 10, 2015 message. If you did not receive the June 10, 2015 message with the subject line: “ALJ Online Component Time-Sensitive Link” then this message does not apply to you.
In other words...check your email TOMORROW folks. It looks like, going forward, OPM is going to attempt to address the problem of missing/unreliable emails by posting notices when it sends out critical emails? So it's probably a good idea to bookmark OPM's ALJ page and check it regularly. Good luck, appellants!
|
|
|
Post by hapi2balj on Jun 10, 2015 14:22:18 GMT -5
Hallelujah! Got it! Time stamp = 2:38 p.m. Eastern. "ALJ Online Component Time-Sensitive Link." Whew!! Now...must pass with a good score...must pass with a good score. One step at a time but so glad to have received this e-mail. Good luck everyone!!!
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 10, 2015 14:24:12 GMT -5
Hallelujah! Got it! Time stamp = 2:38 p.m. Eastern. "ALJ Online Component Time-Sensitive Link." Whew!! Now...must pass with a good score...must pass with a good score. One step at a time but so glad to have received this e-mail. Good luck everyone!!! Good luck!
|
|
|
Post by northbend on Jun 10, 2015 14:24:52 GMT -5
Hallelujah! Got it! Time stamp = 2:38 p.m. Eastern. "ALJ Online Component Time-Sensitive Link." Whew!! Now...must pass with a good score...must pass with a good score. One step at a time but so glad to have received this e-mail. Good luck everyone!!! Yes, good luck everyone!
|
|
|
Post by pumpkin on Jun 10, 2015 14:37:55 GMT -5
If it helps anyone, my email was time-stamped more than a half-hour later than Hope2b's, so if there's not anything in your in-box yet, don't give up hope. Don't forget to check your spam folder. The sender is listed as assessments(at)usahire(dot)opm(dot)gov and the subject line is ALJ Online Component Time-Sensitive Link. Good luck!
|
|
|
Post by RichterScale on Jun 10, 2015 14:42:46 GMT -5
The E-mails are coming folks. Received mine 3:21pm EST.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jun 10, 2015 14:42:47 GMT -5
If it helps anyone, my email was time-stamped more than a half-hour later than Hope2b's, so if there's not anything in your in-box yet, don't give up hope. Don't forget to check your spam folder. The sender is listed as assessments(at)usahire(dot)opm(dot)gov and the subject line is ALJ Online Component Time-Sensitive Link. Good luck! This is an important point. Like everything so far, ALL emails are NOT sent at the same time. They are sent one at a time and people get them over a period of hours, sometimes days depending on the type of email. So don't panic yet and check SPAM!
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 10, 2015 14:55:34 GMT -5
If it helps anyone, my email was time-stamped more than a half-hour later than Hope2b's, so if there's not anything in your in-box yet, don't give up hope. Don't forget to check your spam folder. The sender is listed as assessments(at)usahire(dot)opm(dot)gov and the subject line is ALJ Online Component Time-Sensitive Link. Good luck! This is an important point. Like everything so far, ALL emails are NOT sent at the same time. They are sent one at a time and people get them over a period of hours, sometimes days depending on the type of email. So don't panic yet and check SPAM! Now for a dissenting view: Panic! Run around in circles! Head for the hills! It couldn't hurt and, who knows, maybe like a rally cap it will make the difference.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jun 10, 2015 15:49:21 GMT -5
Did I miss something or does anyone have a WAG or even better, an opinion as to why OPM is sending a second invite? Is it really a service issue (software or computer glitch) or did they find out that some person screwed up royally?
I mean, who could make this stuff up? If you put it in a screenplay the dang thing would never sell.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jun 10, 2015 16:20:14 GMT -5
Did I miss something or does anyone have a WAG or even better, an opinion as to why OPM is sending a second invite? Is it really a service issue (software or computer glitch) or did they find out that some person screwed up royally? I mean, who could make this stuff up? If you put it in a screenplay the dang thing would never sell. At the very beginning of the thread, we found out that OPM needs more names on the register because they did not anticipate so many ALJ hires and more are needed. In order to efficiently expedite names quickly, they lowered the threshold level for the 2nd step in the process thereby increasing the number of folks who can proceed to the next step.
In addition to that process, some appeals are going forward and some people who had a simple glitch like not receiving the email that they should have received to proceed on so those people are getting to move on as well.
There are a couple of different things happening here and all are discussed in this thread and people are in different situations with different levels of progression. The bottom line is that people who thought they were out are not and get to keep moving through the gauntlet.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jun 10, 2015 16:39:11 GMT -5
Did I miss something or does anyone have a WAG or even better, an opinion as to why OPM is sending a second invite? Is it really a service issue (software or computer glitch) or did they find out that some person screwed up royally? I mean, who could make this stuff up? If you put it in a screenplay the dang thing would never sell. At the very beginning of the thread, we found out that OPM needs more names on the register because they did not anticipate so many ALJ hires and more are needed. In order to efficiently expedite names quickly, they lowered the threshold level for the 2nd step in the process thereby increasing the number of folks who can proceed to the next step.
In addition to that process, some appeals are going forward and some people who had a simple glitch like not receiving the email that they should have received to proceed on so those people are getting to move on as well.
There are a couple of different things happening here and all are discussed in this thread and people are in different situations with different levels of progression. The bottom line is that people who thought they were out are not and get to keep moving through the gauntlet.
Thank you sr, but I was thinking specifically about the "glitch". I thought it was a spam folder issue or an AOL issue, that was what was reported on these issues. My point is this: if OPM didn't "serve" notice, how can they pretend that it wasn't their fault and that they are now essentially fixing their mistake? Of course their email stating that they suspect service was not effected is the best we can hope for in this litigous society...
|
|
|
Post by hapi2balj on Jun 13, 2015 8:12:17 GMT -5
OK, I'm ready to confess my ignorance on yet another point. How do 'certs' work? Let's say I make the register and I have three cities on my GAL. How do these two things work together? If it hasn't been abundantly clear from my previous posts over the past couple of years, you need to spell it out for me in A-B-C fashion please! Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 13, 2015 8:43:40 GMT -5
OK, I'm ready to confess my ignorance on yet another point. How do 'certs' work? Let's say I make the register and I have three cities on my GAL. How do these two things work together? If it hasn't been abundantly clear from my previous posts over the past couple of years, you need to spell it out for me in A-B-C fashion please! Thanks. When SSA requests certs (i.e. certificates) it must request one for each city in which it wishes to consider candidates to hire. OPM prepares a list of eligibles for each cert. It puts on the list of eligibles for a city every candidate on the register who has that city on her/his GAL and has a score that is reachable. If they pulled certs for all three of your cities, your score could land you on the lists of eligibles for none, one, two, or all three cities.
|
|
|
Post by hapi2balj on Jun 13, 2015 9:51:00 GMT -5
OK, I'm ready to confess my ignorance on yet another point. How do 'certs' work? Let's say I make the register and I have three cities on my GAL. How do these two things work together? If it hasn't been abundantly clear from my previous posts over the past couple of years, you need to spell it out for me in A-B-C fashion please! Thanks. When SSA requests certs (i.e. certificates) it must request one for each city in which it wishes to consider candidates to hire. OPM prepares a list of eligibles for each cert. It puts on the list of eligibles for a city every candidate on the register who has that city on her/his GAL and has a score that is reachable. If they pulled certs for all three of your cities, your score could land you on the lists of eligibles for none, one, two, or all three cities. Thanks, Gary. If you (and others) will please indulge me a bit further - is the score a compilation of rounds 2 and 3, or is it just the latter - as in once you make it past the online component, the scoring is based on the DC interview/testing? And what is consensus on what (ball park) is a "good" score? I've seen discussion of scores in the 70's but it's all Greek to me. When and how does a candidate become aware of his/her score?
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Jun 13, 2015 10:18:52 GMT -5
It's my understanding that the final score is a compilation of rounds 2 and 3, but I don't think we know for sure. If someone does, please jump in.
You receive your score, called a NOR, after you have completed testing in DC, if you pass. I understand that if you don't pass, you don't get a score. If you pass, you do not get a breakdown of what you scored on the individual components. Ditto, if you are invited to come to DC, you don't know what your scores were on the Step 2 tests. Again, I don't think anybody knows how the parts are weighted at Steps 2 and 3. The only thing we know is that the Logic test in DC can help your score, but not hurt it - how much is a mystery.
As for a "good" score, it's relative. This is my first time in the process, but I understand that, in the past, everyone who went to DC testing ended up with a NOR and some individuals with very low scores (like in the 40's) eventually got hired. This time there evidently was a cutoff somewhere south of 60 and it seems like they have pretty much run down the list at this point. As has been pointed out, by the time you are invited to the SSA interview the score is only relevant in that it dictates the order in which you are considered. That isn't to say it isn't important. If all the slots are full by the time they get down to you, you won't be hired. However, a high score does not guarantee you an offer if your interview or reference or background check is problematic.
At some point somebody did a bell curve of the NORs and you might want to take a look at that (sometimes it does pay to check out the history on the board)to get an idea of how the scores sort out. As I recall 70 was at the top of the curve, but I could be wrong about that.
And always keep in mind that how good a score is depends on an individual cert. It's all relative to the candidate pool for that city.
|
|