|
Post by gary on Jun 13, 2015 10:38:13 GMT -5
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? 1. If you go to DC, and if you score well enough on the WD and SI, OPM will email you your NOR (i.e. score). 2. Your score includes the online components and the DC proctored testing components, but it is not a simple combination of those scores. How they are combined was a matter of debate on the Board. I had a theory but suffice it to say it was not universally agreed with. 3. What constitutes a good score depends in part on what you mean by "good." I'm taking it to mean what score is sufficient to get hired on a particular set of certs. That is complicated (and not completely knowable for us) in that with all the varying GALs of candidates and with the varying degrees of desirability for different locations, a good score for one city may not be good for another. Also, it is a moving target. (For example, a city of mine has been on all three sets of certs. My score was not high enough for the first time it was certed but was good enough for the second and third times.) As people are hired, higher scores come off the register. Also there is the operation of the three consideration rule that allows SSA in its discretion to not consider again a candidate thrice considered, which also moves lower scores up to the reachable level. There's been a lot of polling on this subject. There are several more you can look at, but here are a few: The first NOR poll giving an idea of what the register looked like when it was created: aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/2452/march-2014-general-surveyThe NOR poll for the May 2014 certs: aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/2556/score-cert-survey-2014The NOR poll for the 6/29 hiring class: aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/3395/june-2015-odar-hire-pollThese are not completely comparable (whole register/a poll on who made a set of certs/a poll about who was hired in a class), but they will give you an idea of how the scores necessary to be hired have generally come down. I am not sure how the new influx of candidates will affect the downward score trend. It might spike up a bit, then more downward score movement. I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by hapi2balj on Jun 16, 2015 11:45:09 GMT -5
I have read with interest the general discussions about the various stages of the process and the thoughts on what is or is not acceptable, i.e., ethical, re: preparation. I think I am inclined to prepare only to the extent that OPM has offered sample questions and information on what to expect, in terms of format, etc. Although it may not translate directly, I'm lucky enough to be one of those who typically does well on standardized tests, and I'm about to conclude that the best prep for me is just to make sure I get a good night's sleep and to try to approach the online component in as calm a frame of mind as possible. The window of opportunity is June 22-July 6 and unless I am ill, it'll be hard for me to wait beyond June 22 to complete this step!
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 16, 2015 11:51:16 GMT -5
I have read with interest the general discussions about the various stages of the process and the thoughts on what is or is not acceptable, i.e., ethical, re: preparation. I think I am inclined to prepare only to the extent that OPM has offered sample questions and information on what to expect, in terms of format, etc. Although it may not translate directly, I'm lucky enough to be one of those who typically does well on standardized tests, and I'm about to conclude that the best prep for me is just to make sure I get a good night's sleep and to try to approach the online component in as calm a frame of mind as possible. The window of opportunity is June 22-July 6 and unless I am ill, it'll be hard for me to wait beyond June 22 to complete this step! If you take tests well, your performance probably improves with pressure. So--just spitballing here--maybe you'd do your best if you waited until the last hour on July 6 and really sweated out being able to finish it.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jun 16, 2015 12:20:18 GMT -5
I have read with interest the general discussions about the various stages of the process and the thoughts on what is or is not acceptable, i.e., ethical, re: preparation. I think I am inclined to prepare only to the extent that OPM has offered sample questions and information on what to expect, in terms of format, etc. Although it may not translate directly, I'm lucky enough to be one of those who typically does well on standardized tests, and I'm about to conclude that the best prep for me is just to make sure I get a good night's sleep and to try to approach the online component in as calm a frame of mind as possible. The window of opportunity is June 22-July 6 and unless I am ill, it'll be hard for me to wait beyond June 22 to complete this step! I don't think there is anything unethical about reading up on SJTs and later the LBMT. I think there are study guides for tests like the LBMT and I think those are ethical. I don't think anybody here believes those are unethical because they aren't test prep materials created by someone who has gone through this battery of tests or is running a test prep service based upon this battery of tests. They are prep materials based upon these types of tests but not these specific tests. However, any prep materials written based upon these tests would by necessity violate the NDA we all signed at each step of the process and would demonstrate poor ethics in my opinion. Also pay close attention to your invites to the testing. Lots of good information there.gary reminded me of my own ethical obligations. I recommend a few situational bourbons to set the mood right before the test. You don't want to be stressed out or tense.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 16, 2015 12:59:38 GMT -5
I have read with interest the general discussions about the various stages of the process and the thoughts on what is or is not acceptable, i.e., ethical, re: preparation. I think I am inclined to prepare only to the extent that OPM has offered sample questions and information on what to expect, in terms of format, etc. Although it may not translate directly, I'm lucky enough to be one of those who typically does well on standardized tests, and I'm about to conclude that the best prep for me is just to make sure I get a good night's sleep and to try to approach the online component in as calm a frame of mind as possible. The window of opportunity is June 22-July 6 and unless I am ill, it'll be hard for me to wait beyond June 22 to complete this step! Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â I don't think there is anything unethical about reading up on SJTs and later the LBMT. Â I think there are study guides for tests like the LBMT and I think those are ethical. Â I don't think anybody here believes those are unethical because they aren't test prep materials created by someone who has gone through this battery of tests or is running a test prep service based upon this battery of tests. Â They are prep materials based upon these types of tests but not these specific tests. Â However, any prep materials written based upon these tests would by necessity violate the NDA we all signed at each step of the process and would demonstrate poor ethics in my opinion. Â Also pay close attention to your invites to the testing. Â Lots of good information there. Gaidin, Gaidin, Gaidin. Have I taught you nothing about not helping the competition?
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jun 16, 2015 13:29:12 GMT -5
I don't think there is anything unethical about reading up on SJTs and later the LBMT. Â I think there are study guides for tests like the LBMT and I think those are ethical. Â I don't think anybody here believes those are unethical because they aren't test prep materials created by someone who has gone through this battery of tests or is running a test prep service based upon this battery of tests. Â They are prep materials based upon these types of tests but not these specific tests. Â However, any prep materials written based upon these tests would by necessity violate the NDA we all signed at each step of the process and would demonstrate poor ethics in my opinion. Â Also pay close attention to your invites to the testing. Â Lots of good information there. Gaidin, Gaidin, Gaidin. Have I taught you nothing about not helping the competition? I love it Gary. Two thumbs up for your hilarious answer. However, since Gaidin brought up the LBMT, I think he should get 50 lashes with a wet noodle for reminding me of "THAT" part of the exam. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jun 16, 2015 14:13:36 GMT -5
I have read with interest the general discussions about the various stages of the process and the thoughts on what is or is not acceptable, i.e., ethical, re: preparation. I think I am inclined to prepare only to the extent that OPM has offered sample questions and information on what to expect, in terms of format, etc. Although it may not translate directly, I'm lucky enough to be one of those who typically does well on standardized tests, and I'm about to conclude that the best prep for me is just to make sure I get a good night's sleep and to try to approach the online component in as calm a frame of mind as possible. The window of opportunity is June 22-July 6 and unless I am ill, it'll be hard for me to wait beyond June 22 to complete this step! So long as you're not getting help from someone else or obtaining information related to the content or structure of the tests from someone else, you should be ethically fine. I certainly studied for the various parts of the test prior to actually sitting for the tests, although the DC portion was much easier to study for than the online portion. That said, it's not as if my NOR suggested total dominance over the testing.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Jun 16, 2015 15:22:29 GMT -5
I'm with Gary on this one. I studied the worm in the bottle of tres agave before I launched into the DC portion, and I made the list near the top of the bell curve, so if it worked for me, it might work for you!
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jun 16, 2015 15:58:59 GMT -5
I don't think there is anything unethical about reading up on SJTs and later the LBMT. I think there are study guides for tests like the LBMT and I think those are ethical. I don't think anybody here believes those are unethical because they aren't test prep materials created by someone who has gone through this battery of tests or is running a test prep service based upon this battery of tests. They are prep materials based upon these types of tests but not these specific tests. However, any prep materials written based upon these tests would by necessity violate the NDA we all signed at each step of the process and would demonstrate poor ethics in my opinion. Also pay close attention to your invites to the testing. Lots of good information there. Gaidin, Gaidin, Gaidin. Have I taught you nothing about not helping the competition? See above.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Jun 17, 2015 10:59:26 GMT -5
I'm with Gary on this one. I studied the worm in the bottle of tres agave before I launched into the DC portion, and I made the list near the top of the bell curve, so if it worked for me, it might work for you! "There's no GUARANTEE it will go up in value --- but all the OTHER ones have ...!!" -- Peg Bundy (Married ... With Children) talking about an Elvis Commemorative Plate available on the Shopping Channel from the Franklin Mint ... be sure to use a conspiratorily self-satisfied voice when reading it, and to giggle victoriously at the end (while dialing).
|
|
|
Post by hapi2balj on Jun 19, 2015 15:16:30 GMT -5
Ok, on an entirely different note - at least for me - I've seen lots of talk about folks being "done in" by references. Since March 2013 is a tad longer ago than yesterday, I just checked the references I used on my application. While they're all still fine, some of the contact info has changed, and (if, optimistically when, I move forward) I wouldn't mind providing some other references which are more current. Is there an opportunity anywhere down the road to update references? And when we speak of those who may have said bad things about a candidate, are we talking provided references or perhaps former supervisors who weren't (perhaps for good reason) listed by the ALJ hopeful?
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jun 19, 2015 15:36:13 GMT -5
Ok, on an entirely different note - at least for me - I've seen lots of talk about folks being "done in" by references. Since March 2013 is a tad longer ago than yesterday, I just checked the references I used on my application. While they're all still fine, some of the contact info has changed, and (if, optimistically when, I move forward) I wouldn't mind providing some other references which are more current. Is there an opportunity anywhere down the road to update references? And when we speak of those who may have said bad things about a candidate, are we talking provided references or perhaps former supervisors who weren't (perhaps for good reason) listed by the ALJ hopeful? I don't think my app references were ever contacted. The references people are talking about are the nine ODAR asks you for when you make a cert. You'll definitely have a chance to give new references when that time comes.
|
|
|
Post by lizdarcy on Jun 19, 2015 17:39:33 GMT -5
Some of the references you will be asked for when you make a cert will be supervisors, including your current supervisor, if I am remembering correctly.
|
|
|
Post by ba on Jun 19, 2015 20:39:12 GMT -5
Some of the references you will be asked for when you make a cert will be supervisors, including your current supervisor, if I am remembering correctly. As I recall you have to list your supervisors for all positions and provide three judicial, adversarial and other professional references in addition to the listed supervisors. But I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jun 19, 2015 20:56:57 GMT -5
Ok, on an entirely different note - at least for me - I've seen lots of talk about folks being "done in" by references. Since March 2013 is a tad longer ago than yesterday, I just checked the references I used on my application. While they're all still fine, some of the contact info has changed, and (if, optimistically when, I move forward) I wouldn't mind providing some other references which are more current. Is there an opportunity anywhere down the road to update references? And when we speak of those who may have said bad things about a candidate, are we talking provided references or perhaps former supervisors who weren't (perhaps for good reason) listed by the ALJ hopeful? The references you put on your applications are NOT the ones they will contact if you get on the register and then get on a cert. If you make it to a cert, you will be sent a questionnaire to fill out which will ask for NINE references (and ask if they can contact your current supervisor). You also list your employment history with supervisor name for the last ten years. The nine are three each judiciary, adversary, and non-adversary. (If you don't have adversary (opposing counsel) references, you can use more non-adversary. You can use former supervisors from outside that ten year period as non-adversary (or judiciary, if they fit there). Anyway, those references and supervisor(s) get shipped out to a contractor who makes the calls and asks the same questions of all of them. The nine references need to be chosen carefully. You can change your references with subsequent certs, as well.
|
|
|
Post by Missundaztood on Jun 19, 2015 23:24:38 GMT -5
Ok, on an entirely different note - at least for me - I've seen lots of talk about folks being "done in" by references. Since March 2013 is a tad longer ago than yesterday, I just checked the references I used on my application. While they're all still fine, some of the contact info has changed, and (if, optimistically when, I move forward) I wouldn't mind providing some other references which are more current. Is there an opportunity anywhere down the road to update references? And when we speak of those who may have said bad things about a candidate, are we talking provided references or perhaps former supervisors who weren't (perhaps for good reason) listed by the ALJ hopeful? The references you put on your applications are NOT the ones they will contact if you get on the register and then get on a cert. If you make it to a cert, you will be sent a questionnaire to fill out which will ask for NINE references (and ask if they can contact your current supervisor). You also list your employment history with supervisor name for the last ten years. The nine are three each judiciary, adversary, and non-adversary. (If you don't have adversary (opposing counsel) references, you can use more non-adversary. You can use former supervisors from outside that ten year period as non-adversary (or judiciary, if they fit there). Anyway, those references and supervisor(s) get shipped out to a contractor who makes the calls and asks the same questions of all of them. The nine references need to be chosen carefully. You can change your references with subsequent certs, as well. To be clear, you cannot overlap prior supervisors with the professional, judicial, and adversary references. So no double-dipping.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jun 20, 2015 2:57:25 GMT -5
The references you put on your applications are NOT the ones they will contact if you get on the register and then get on a cert. If you make it to a cert, you will be sent a questionnaire to fill out which will ask for NINE references (and ask if they can contact your current supervisor). You also list your employment history with supervisor name for the last ten years. The nine are three each judiciary, adversary, and non-adversary. (If you don't have adversary (opposing counsel) references, you can use more non-adversary. You can use former supervisors from outside that ten year period as non-adversary (or judiciary, if they fit there). Anyway, those references and supervisor(s) get shipped out to a contractor who makes the calls and asks the same questions of all of them. The nine references need to be chosen carefully. You can change your references with subsequent certs, as well. To be clear, you cannot overlap prior supervisors with the professional, judicial, and adversary references. So no double-dipping. Thanks for adding that info! For those of us who only had one job in that 10 year period, the no double dipping is not an issue. For others, it is.
|
|
|
Post by Missundaztood on Jun 20, 2015 7:28:07 GMT -5
To be clear, you cannot overlap prior supervisors with the professional, judicial, and adversary references. So no double-dipping. Thanks for adding that info! For those of us who only had one job in that 10 year period, the no double dipping is not an issue. For others, it is. It was definitely a challenge for me, especially in the short turn around time to return the form. I thought that I would be able to use the three judges who I worked for as judicial references. And in comparing the forms from the last register to this one, it was added specifically this time that I couldn't do that.
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Jun 20, 2015 8:35:27 GMT -5
Interesting. One more way to focus on people with trial experience.
|
|
|
Post by ba on Jun 20, 2015 8:42:19 GMT -5
Interesting. One more way to focus on people with trial experience. ALJs count as judicial references.
|
|