|
Post by hapi2balj on May 18, 2015 17:08:46 GMT -5
Christina, Thanks. That's why I prefaced my comments with maybe this isn't appropriate - I'm not surprised to hear that but since I didn't know for sure, thought I'd inquire. Shows how much of a neophyte I am. Ironic, since I've had my eye on an ALJ position as an option for more than 30 years - but perhaps not from a very informed point of view. I supposed I won't be hearing back until after June 2 but I will be on pins and needles since then. I sure hope I didn't hit the wrong button but since it was beside "No, I am not interested" I am pretty sure I was careful enough to give the right answer! Now to work toward passage of the other levels and hopefully get on the register!! Good luck, everyone!! H2BALJ please make sure your email address on USAJobs is correct. Secondly, please carefully check your regular email along with any spam in your email account to make sure you do not miss the email from OPM this time. It is imperative you constantly check daily for an email (both regular and spam) for any testing links for Part 2 of the Examination. I hope this helps you get past this stage and to Part 3 in D.C. Once again, please always check your email prior to deleting anything in it, spam or otherwise, from your email account. Good luck! moopigsdad, thanks for the advice and I definitely will. I will note, though, that from the day I applied in 2013, I checked my e-mail and my spam folder each and every day without fail. I am quite confident I never received the e-mail from OPM.
|
|
|
Post by alrifle on May 18, 2015 18:50:11 GMT -5
Okay, you may disagree, but I was merely pointing out that the announcement makes it sound pretty final as to the online component as it states that if you are not in the higher scored subgroup, "you will no longer be considered". That sounds like finality to me, and the only prescribed solution for those in that situation - from the announcement - is an appeal. Now we hear differently, and I think that's fine. I am not sure what you are disagreeing with. In addition, you say that the WD/SI component had 'predetermined' minimum scores. Maybe, maybe not. If you have evidence that they were predetermined, please share. I don't pretend to have all the facts, or very many at all. As to your point about the word 'arbitrary', I am not sure why you are directing this at me, or at least at my post. I made a point in an earlier post to ackowledge that OPM was probably NOT arbitrary. As you call it a serious accusation, I feel it necessary to point out I made no such accusation. As to your final point, I fully agree and wish everyone the best in their quest, including hope2balj and this new class of contestants. You were not the only using the word arbitrary by any means but I can't quote more than one person. I wasn't trying to single anyone out. I quoted you to discuss what I believe (guess) are things you got wrong about the differences between SJT phase and the WD phase. I would argue that the substantive differences in the language mean something substantive is different between how the scores will be treated. Regarding my belief about the WD/SI minimum scores being preset that is based upon working with other testing regimes. A preset minimum score is not arbitrary nor capricious by virtue of being established before any candidate is known. Changing it to achieve different results could be considered arbitrary and capricious. Think of the Bar Exam if the passing score changed every time to ensure a certain percentage passed it would be arbitrary because it didn't guarantee a base standard of knowledge. This differs from subgroup scoring if the subgroup scoring was designed to be used to increase the size of the register. In other words they designed the process so that the top 25% is the higher scored subgroup, and each lower 25% is another subgroup that proceeds to testing when the register needs additional names. This way they don't spend all the money testing 4,000 people when they need 1,000. They can hold the remaining subgroups in reserve until the pool gets stale (to many people have left it for whatever reason) and a refresh becomes necessary. OPM and the agencies still have the SI/WD to ensure that their judginess standard is met. Gaidin:
I see and understand your subgroup scoring explanation, and it is illuminating and frankly I see no reason to question it.
And - you make a good point about the WD/SI minimums, and the bar exam, although this is not exactly the same, because for example, with the bar, at least you know at the outset what a passing score is.
A couple of minor points...
Trying again: my only use of the word 'arbitrary' was to point out that OPM was probably NOT arbitrary. Now I am accused TWICE of the crime of calling OPM 'arbitrary'.
Second, what things did I get "wrong about the differences between SJT phase and the WD phase"? If you've read any of my posts, I am fully aware of the differences between the two testing phases - in administration, organization and scoring, and in the way the phases are weighted.
Third, I suppose that you concede your disagreement with my earlier post, and you now see that the new testing spoken of herein was not something contemplated by the vast majority of us, and not explicitly stated in the job announcement.
|
|
|
Post by ok1956 on May 18, 2015 19:14:25 GMT -5
H2BALJ please make sure your email address on USAJobs is correct. Secondly, please carefully check your regular email along with any spam in your email account to make sure you do not miss the email from OPM this time. It is imperative you constantly check daily for an email (both regular and spam) for any testing links for Part 2 of the Examination. I hope this helps you get past this stage and to Part 3 in D.C. Once again, please always check your email prior to deleting anything in it, spam or otherwise, from your email account. Good luck! moopigsdad, thanks for the advice and I definitely will. I will note, though, that from the day I applied in 2013, I checked my e-mail and my spam folder each and every day without fail. I am quite confident I never received the e-mail from OPM. Another option is to be a squeaky wheel - if you don't hear anything by email, send a follow-up or try calling. At worst you find out they haven't sent you anything yet and you avoid the "lost" email happening! Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on May 18, 2015 19:39:45 GMT -5
I have nothing to add. But I will note that the term, "judginess," was originally mine (at least thru this incarnation of the Reg). Gaidin, you may pay royalties to my agent, JudgeRatty.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 18, 2015 19:44:30 GMT -5
I have nothing to add. But I will note that the term, "judginess," was originally mine (at least thru this incarnation of the Reg). Gaidin, you may pay royalties to my agent, JudgeRatty. Good to see you again, your judginess. How was the first day at your new salt mine?
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on May 18, 2015 20:15:18 GMT -5
I have nothing to add. But I will note that the term, "judginess," was originally mine (at least thru this incarnation of the Reg). Gaidin, you may pay royalties to my agent, JudgeRatty. I have retained gary, esq. to represent me in this trademark infringement suit. Good to hear from you @anotherfed I hope your first day was better than your lat day at your previous job.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on May 18, 2015 20:45:05 GMT -5
After thinking it over and digesting this information, I have come to the conclusion that this is actually terrible news for most applicants, and certainly myself (i.e. those cut off at the experience step or low scorers on the SJ online portion). Those selected for the WD/SI will, on the average, have lower scores than those currently on register. So while they get on, it really doesn't mean much in terms of getting a job. There will be exceptions of course, but the net effect of this will only be to delay reopening the application process, which I had already anticipated to be 2019-2025ish. I will have aged out of realistic consideration at that point, so this news is actually the death knell of my hopes of becoming an ALJ, which, of course, were slim to none anyway. If you are already on the register, I would think this news is pretty much no news. Good luck to you, and please don't suck at your job if you get it, it makes mine so much harder when you do. The register will open again before 2019, no matter how this new wrinkle plays out. Hope your right, but I am not sure how anyone could predict such a hing with any confidence. Remember the decade with no opening of the application process? With so many young judges coming on, I don't see it happening until 2020's, at least. This was the make or break year or two when everyone retires. I think if you miss this boat and are over 40, the ship has sailed, IMH(and relatively uninformed)O.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on May 18, 2015 21:29:29 GMT -5
The register will open again before 2019, no matter how this new wrinkle plays out. Hope your right, but I am not sure how anyone could predict such a hing with any confidence. Remember the decade with no opening of the application process? With so many young judges coming on, I don't see it happening until 2020's, at least. This was the make or break year or two when everyone retires. I think if you miss this boat and are over 40, the ship has sailed, IMH(and relatively uninformed)O. Monty, over 40, what I wouldn't give to be 40! Considering that this is a lifetime appointment we're trying to obtain, and many ALJs work into their 70s, I don't see any doors closing. If it is 2020 till the next register (which I don't believe at all) I will still be in my 50s and would welcome the opportunity to serve the public as an ALJ.
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on May 18, 2015 21:41:10 GMT -5
The register will open again before 2019, no matter how this new wrinkle plays out. Hope your right, but I am not sure how anyone could predict such a hing with any confidence. Remember the decade with no opening of the application process? With so many young judges coming on, I don't see it happening until 2020's, at least. This was the make or break year or two when everyone retires. I think if you miss this boat and are over 40, the ship has sailed, IMH(and relatively uninformed)O. I'm not sure I'd call the entire group of candidates "young" - inexperienced at Judginess (TM) (my new favorite word, with obvious nods the the "truthiness" of Colbert), perhaps. SOME of us were over 40 when the last ship or two sailed and then got held up by litigtaion. This position is one in which there seems to be very little age discrimination. But you don't seem to be taking into account the pent-up demand from the period in which hires were frozen by litigation nor the yearly attrition, estimated to be about 100 judges a year (http://aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/3255/hiring-aalj-newsletter). This latest move on OPM's part seems a patent attempt to get more people on the register - and that would only happen if they foresee the need for more people on the register - during, basically, the FIRST YEAR of hiring from it. I just don't think that OPM has enough on the current register to last 5 years (into the 2020's) if there's a need to revamp to get more candidates in the 1st year.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on May 18, 2015 21:43:02 GMT -5
Hope your right, but I am not sure how anyone could predict such a hing with any confidence. Remember the decade with no opening of the application process? With so many young judges coming on, I don't see it happening until 2020's, at least. This was the make or break year or two when everyone retires. I think if you miss this boat and are over 40, the ship has sailed, IMH(and relatively uninformed)O. Monty, over 40, what I wouldn't give to be 40! Considering that this is a lifetime appointment we're trying to obtain, and many ALJs work into their 70s, I don't see any doors closing. If it is 2020 till the next register (which I don't believe at all) I will still be in my 50s and would welcome the opportunity to serve the public as an ALJ. Kind of my point though. They want to get max mileage out of every hire. Why hire someone you are only getting 10-15 years out of instead of 20-30. I can only speak form what i have seen, as I am not a muckety muck, but of all the 09 and 13 hires I know, maybe one was over 45. Of course, my experience is limited to SSA, but frankly who else matters?
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on May 18, 2015 21:46:30 GMT -5
The register will open again before 2019, no matter how this new wrinkle plays out. Hope your right, but I am not sure how anyone could predict such a hing with any confidence. Remember the decade with no opening of the application process? With so many young judges coming on, I don't see it happening until 2020's, at least. This was the make or break year or two when everyone retires. I think if you miss this boat and are over 40, the ship has sailed, IMH(and relatively uninformed)O. 71stretch is right. That long break with no ALJ hiring was due to litigation, Azdell. That is not the norm. We have a catch up game to fill positions right now, and there will always be attrition of about 100-120 a year. I suspect a refresh within a couple of years even with this new influx of candidates. Remember, it takes a long time to get people from application to actual hiring, so if a refresh were to be in 2016 or 2017 at the latest, it would still be a year or so before candidates would be on a register. Bringing in candidates like they are doing now will at least cut down some time and get people on the register faster to fill the immediate needs.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on May 18, 2015 21:49:02 GMT -5
Monty, over 40, what I wouldn't give to be 40! Considering that this is a lifetime appointment we're trying to obtain, and many ALJs work into their 70s, I don't see any doors closing. If it is 2020 till the next register (which I don't believe at all) I will still be in my 50s and would welcome the opportunity to serve the public as an ALJ. Kind of my point though. They want to get max mileage out of every hire. Why hire someone you are only getting 10-15 years out of instead of 20-30. I can only speak form what i have seen, as I am not a muckety muck, but of all the 09 and 13 hires I know, maybe one was over 45. Of course, my experience is limited to SSA, but frankly who else matters? Age plays zero role in the hiring of new ALJs.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on May 18, 2015 21:51:05 GMT -5
Hope your right, but I am not sure how anyone could predict such a hing with any confidence. Remember the decade with no opening of the application process? With so many young judges coming on, I don't see it happening until 2020's, at least. This was the make or break year or two when everyone retires. I think if you miss this boat and are over 40, the ship has sailed, IMH(and relatively uninformed)O. I'm not sure I'd call the entire group of candidates "young" - inexperienced at Judginess (TM) (my new favorite word, with obvious nods the the "truthiness" of Colbert), perhaps. SOME of us were over 40 when the last ship or two sailed and then got held up by litigtaion. This position is one in which there seems to be very little age discrimination. But you don't seem to be taking into account the pent-up demand from the period in which hires were frozen by litigation nor the yearly attrition, estimated to be about 100 judges a year (http://aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/3255/hiring-aalj-newsletter). This latest move on OPM's part seems a patent attempt to get more people on the register - and that would only happen if they foresee the need for more people on the register - during, basically, the FIRST YEAR of hiring from it. I just don't think that OPM has enough on the current register to last 5 years (into the 2020's) if there's a need to revamp to get more candidates in the 1st year. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on May 18, 2015 21:52:25 GMT -5
Monty, over 40, what I wouldn't give to be 40! Considering that this is a lifetime appointment we're trying to obtain, and many ALJs work into their 70s, I don't see any doors closing. If it is 2020 till the next register (which I don't believe at all) I will still be in my 50s and would welcome the opportunity to serve the public as an ALJ. Kind of my point though. They want to get max mileage out of every hire. Why hire someone you are only getting 10-15 years out of instead of 20-30. I can only speak form what i have seen, as I am not a muckety muck, but of all the 09 and 13 hires I know, maybe one was over 45. Of course, my experience is limited to SSA, but frankly who else matters? Well, actually that kind of analysis is actually age discrimination (and has also doubled for gender discrimination "why hire a girl who's going to get married/pregnant after a few years and leave when we can hire a guy who won't?") - basically an illegal basis upon which to make hires. AND the truth of the matter is that for any job there's an average tenure - both men and women, both "young" and "old" - move on for various reasons after a while. It can be argued that the "young" will leave sooner for other/better/upgraded job prospects and the "older" employees may stay put longer.
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on May 18, 2015 21:59:27 GMT -5
Of course, THAT just smacks of an invitation for a poll on how old everyone is, doesn't it? My personal SWAG estimate is that the age range of those that made the register - with the requisite 7 years litigation experience - is about is about 37 to 65. My SWAG is that the majority are over 40, and I'll even venture to guess that the majority are over 45.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on May 18, 2015 22:05:53 GMT -5
Of course, THAT just smacks of an invitation for a poll on how old everyone is, doesn't it? My personal SWAG estimate is that the age range of those that made the register - with the requisite 7 years litigation experience - is about is about 37 to 65. My SWAG is that the majority are over 40, and I'll even venture to guess that the majority are over 45. Sorry, I'm not touching that one. I don't think age really matters in their decision making and I don't ask folks their age because my mom taught me it was rude.
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on May 18, 2015 22:17:37 GMT -5
It's not only who makes the register but who (age wise) has been selected by the hiring agency.
|
|
|
Post by ba on May 18, 2015 22:18:13 GMT -5
Kind of my point though. They want to get max mileage out of every hire. Why hire someone you are only getting 10-15 years out of instead of 20-30. I can only speak form what i have seen, as I am not a muckety muck, but of all the 09 and 13 hires I know, maybe one was over 45. Of course, my experience is limited to SSA, but frankly who else matters? Well, actually that kind of analysis is actually age discrimination (and has also doubled for gender discrimination "why hire a girl who's going to get married/pregnant after a few years and leave when we can hire a guy who won't?") - basically an illegal basis upon which to make hires. AND the truth of the matter is that for any job there's an average tenure - both men and women, both "young" and "old" - move on for various reasons after a while. It can be argued that the "young" will leave sooner for other/better/upgraded job prospects and the "older" employees may stay put longer. Um...yeah. I was thinking, "because it violates federal law?"
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on May 18, 2015 22:23:38 GMT -5
Kind of my point though. They want to get max mileage out of every hire. Why hire someone you are only getting 10-15 years out of instead of 20-30. I can only speak form what i have seen, as I am not a muckety muck, but of all the 09 and 13 hires I know, maybe one was over 45. Of course, my experience is limited to SSA, but frankly who else matters? Well, actually that kind of analysis is actually age discrimination (and has also doubled for gender discrimination "why hire a girl who's going to get married/pregnant after a few years and leave when we can hire a guy who won't?") - basically an illegal basis upon which to make hires. AND the truth of the matter is that for any job there's an average tenure - both men and women, both "young" and "old" - move on for various reasons after a while. It can be argued that the "young" will leave sooner for other/better/upgraded job prospects and the "older" employees may stay put longer. Call it whatever, I call it reality. Just like SSA reaches for the people they want. Not fair, but it is what it is. When I see a bunch of 50 and 60 year olds getting hired, I'll reconsider my position. A poll is a great idea. But probably going to be small sample size, since I would guess most folks quit this board after they get hired.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on May 18, 2015 22:26:23 GMT -5
Well, actually that kind of analysis is actually age discrimination (and has also doubled for gender discrimination "why hire a girl who's going to get married/pregnant after a few years and leave when we can hire a guy who won't?") - basically an illegal basis upon which to make hires. AND the truth of the matter is that for any job there's an average tenure - both men and women, both "young" and "old" - move on for various reasons after a while. It can be argued that the "young" will leave sooner for other/better/upgraded job prospects and the "older" employees may stay put longer. Um...yeah. I was thinking, "because it violates federal law?" I'm just relating what I see. Obvi, no one is going to say that out loud, but is has certainly been an observable phenomenon. Please point me to all the olds being hired, I'll eat my words. I would love to be wrong, and remember, I'm not even 40 yet!
|
|