|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 8, 2022 15:35:15 GMT -5
The emails for those with and without emails/interviews are the same, so I think this is just OPM washing its hands of its duty to post this job, aggregate the respondents, and provide them to SSA…. who then made the decisions I agree this is OPM washing its hands. But the bigger question is whether the email is saying SSA is going to hold onto these applications and treat them as a defacto register list to pull from when they want to hire for other geographical locations, or if they will reopen the process again for what ever next round occurs. Unfortunately exegesis of the email could lead to both conclusion IMHO. Does anyone seriously believe SSA won't use these applications to pull from in the future? And does anyone believe OPM would give them another batch of names when only a hundred or so have been chosen from this batch of 1000 applications. It is a lot of work by OPM to get these candidates together and present them to SSA. Unfortunately for bayou and the others who missed the train this time around, SSA will be working these current applications for the next number of hiring cycles. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by theadjudicator on Jul 8, 2022 18:33:24 GMT -5
I agree this is OPM washing its hands. But the bigger question is whether the email is saying SSA is going to hold onto these applications and treat them as a defacto register list to pull from when they want to hire for other geographical locations, or if they will reopen the process again for what ever next round occurs. Unfortunately exegesis of the email could lead to both conclusion IMHO. Does anyone seriously believe SSA won't use these applications to pull from in the future? And does anyone believe OPM would give them another batch of names when only a hundred or so have been chosen from this batch of 1000 applications. It is a lot of work by OPM to get these candidates together and present them to SSA. Unfortunately for bayou and the others who missed the train this time around, SSA will be working these current applications for the next number of hiring cycles. Pixie Thanks for kinda agreeing with my earlier post Pixie... This batch of 1200'ish applicants will likely be the future of SSA.... just saying... Also... I don't appreciate u hating on me for letting u know that those cold DC months will likely be filled with new ALJ blood and along with it many unskilled motorists that are not used to "driving in the snow" 😄 |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 8, 2022 19:28:58 GMT -5
Does anyone seriously believe SSA won't use these applications to pull from in the future? And does anyone believe OPM would give them another batch of names when only a hundred or so have been chosen from this batch of 1000 applications. It is a lot of work by OPM to get these candidates together and present them to SSA. Unfortunately for bayou and the others who missed the train this time around, SSA will be working these current applications for the next number of hiring cycles. Pixie Thanks for kinda agreeing with my earlier post Pixie... This batch of 1200'ish applicants will likely be the future of SSA.... just saying... Also... I don't appreciate u hating on me for letting u know that those cold DC months will likely be filled with new ALJ blood and along with it many unskilled motorists that are not used to "driving in the snow" 😄 Unless there is some overriding need to bring judges onboard during the winter, I don't think those months will be used for training. But then things sometimes work out differently than what I predict. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Jul 8, 2022 21:22:51 GMT -5
I agree this is OPM washing its hands. But the bigger question is whether the email is saying SSA is going to hold onto these applications and treat them as a defacto register list to pull from when they want to hire for other geographical locations, or if they will reopen the process again for what ever next round occurs. Unfortunately exegesis of the email could lead to both conclusion IMHO. Does anyone seriously believe SSA won't use these applications to pull from in the future? And does anyone believe OPM would give them another batch of names when only a hundred or so have been chosen from this batch of 1000 applications. It is a lot of work by OPM to get these candidates together and present them to SSA. Unfortunately for bayou and the others who missed the train this time around, SSA will be working these current applications for the next number of hiring cycles. Pixie Yup! The only question I have is how quick they work through the list. Obviously, TPTB cannot control the “quality" of the applicants. The percentage of applicants in the 1200 that meet whatever criteria TPTB have will determine how long they use this list. I cannot imagine that they can't find at least 200 that the like out of 1200. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 9, 2022 8:09:37 GMT -5
Does anyone seriously believe SSA won't use these applications to pull from in the future? And does anyone believe OPM would give them another batch of names when only a hundred or so have been chosen from this batch of 1000 applications. It is a lot of work by OPM to get these candidates together and present them to SSA. Unfortunately for bayou and the others who missed the train this time around, SSA will be working these current applications for the next number of hiring cycles. Pixie Yup! The only question I have is how quick they work through the list. Obviously, TPTB cannot control the “quality" of the applicants. The percentage of applicants in the 1200 that meet whatever criteria TPTB have will determine how long they use this list. I cannot imagine that they can't find at least 200 that the like out of 1200.Agreed. The question then becomes once SSA has, in its mind, depleted the list, will OPM be willing to go through the gathering of applications process if it feels there are a sufficient number of applicants remaining? SSA may be stuck with a "depleted" list with no relief from OPM. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by jlawj on Jul 9, 2022 11:39:36 GMT -5
Recalling the days of the register... if I remember correctly, in 2016 and 2018, we all expected a register to comprise some 1200 people. We all also expected that list to last years into the future.
Considering the very quick, "insider baseball" application process this time around, I have to imagine that a great majority of the 1200 people who applied are actually qualified.
There are, I'm sure, a number of people who didn't get the recent e-mail for various technical reasons (I know someone personally who didn't get it). That being said, even if there are some 800-900 people who meet the minimum requirements and each hiring class is somewhere around 25-35 people, this new and updated "let's not call it a register" register could be used for years and years to come.
By my calculations, SSA needs to hire about 300 judges. IMHO there are plenty of good, qualified insiders, experienced attorneys, etc. who made it through this process to accommodate that need and still have plenty of applicants left over to fill voids.
I agree with Pixie (I think), there will likely be no new application process for quite some time as there really is no need.
My guess is 4-5 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 9, 2022 15:36:47 GMT -5
Recalling the days of the register... if I remember correctly, in 2016 and 2018, we all expected a register to comprise some 1200 people. We all also expected that list to last years into the future. Considering the very quick, "insider baseball" application process this time around, I have to imagine that a great majority of the 1200 people who applied are actually qualified. There are, I'm sure, a number of people who didn't get the recent e-mail for various technical reasons (I know someone personally who didn't get it). That being said, even if there are some 800-900 people who meet the minimum requirements and each hiring class is somewhere around 25-35 people, this new and updated "let's not call it a register" register could be used for years and years to come. By my calculations, SSA needs to hire about 300 judges. IMHO there are plenty of good, qualified insiders, experienced attorneys, etc. who made it through this process to accommodate that need and still have plenty of applicants left over to fill voids. I agree with Pixie (I think), there will likely be no new application process for quite some time as there really is no need. My guess is 4-5 years. Probably a good guess. Now the problem arises as to what to call this list of names that isn't a register. We could call it a listing, roll, roster, index, directory or any number of other names for a register. I kind of like the word directory. It is descriptive and sounds important, just like "register." What say you? I realize this is off topic, but this is the Application Manager thread (there, I said it), so who cares, really? Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by ARobeByAnyOtherName on Jul 9, 2022 16:13:28 GMT -5
I’m picturing binders. Whole binders full of applicants.
|
|
|
|
Post by dshawn on Jul 9, 2022 16:15:06 GMT -5
I vote for “The List Formerly Known as The Register.” We can then come up with a cool symbol a la Prince. The “TLFKTR.” Rolls right off the tongue, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by dshawn on Jul 9, 2022 16:20:09 GMT -5
Or perhaps, “The Loom of Fate.”
|
|
|
|
Post by jlawj on Jul 9, 2022 17:01:34 GMT -5
I like listing... for a loooooot of reasons!!!
How about
Listing 20.22 Individuals With Anticipatory Impairment Tendencies (IWAIT List)
|
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Jul 9, 2022 17:38:20 GMT -5
I’m picturing binders. Whole binders full of applicants. A very 2012 idea...  . |
|
|
|
Post by socalatty on Jul 10, 2022 23:16:25 GMT -5
I reviewed the original posting and based on the language under the “Locations” section, it does sound like this list will be used for multiple hires.
Locations: The locations identified in this vacancy announcement include locations where the Agency anticipates vacancies for this position for as long as the Agency makes selections pursuant to this announcement. The Agency may continue to make selections pursuant to this announcement in multiple applicant-review cycles for various geographic locations. Not every geographic location listed above will be considered during each applicant-review cycle. When applicants select a city with multiple office locations, they will be considered for both locations.
|
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Jul 11, 2022 5:06:11 GMT -5
...I have to imagine that a great majority of the 1200 people who applied are actually qualified .... That being said, even if there are some 800-900 people who meet the minimum requirements and each hiring class is somewhere around 25-35 people, this new and updated "let's not call it a register" register could be used for years and years to come. By my calculations, SSA needs to hire about 300 judges. IMHO there are plenty of good, qualified insiders, experienced attorneys, etc. who made it through this process to accommodate that need and still have plenty of applicants left over to fill voids. I agree with Pixie (I think), there will likely be no new application process for quite some time as there really is no need. My guess is 4-5 years. The two unknowns are what TPTB deem qualified applicants and locations matching applicants. There is no doubt that many good attorneys applied but how well those pegs fit in the holes that TPTB have drawn remains to be seen. I suspect there will be many that fit but still, it is a bit of an unknown of just how they will do hiring without the previous restrictions. There is also the issue of having enough of those qualified applicants for specific locations that need ALJs which then takes you down the rabbit hole of how willing they are to shift around cases and/or judges versus hiring for specific locations. Regardless, in a year or so I could see a targeted announcement for specific hard to fill locations. Finally, there's the issue that any applicant list gets stale relatively quickly. It doesn't matter how many people say they really want the job now, life circumstances change for many people so that they're not willing to move for the job in a couple of years. My wag is a 2 year wait for a broad announcement. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 11, 2022 7:40:25 GMT -5
Based on past experience, I imagine there are at least 4 or 5 names for each location, probably more. Some locations may have 15 or 20 or more. As bayou noted above, it remains to be seen how well the Agency thinks those 4 or 5 will be a good fit for the Agency. Additionally, with OPM still in the mix, the Agency will be constrained in having more names added to the directory. OPM may well decide that 4 or 5 names for not so popular locations is sufficient. It is, after all, a big undertaking for OPM. We shall see. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by hillsarealive on Jul 11, 2022 9:17:41 GMT -5
Based on past experience, I imagine there are at least 4 or 5 names for each location, probably more. Some locations may have 15 or 20 or more. As bayou noted above, it remains to be seen how well the Agency thinks those 4 or 5 will be a good fit for the Agency. Additionally, with OPM still in the mix, the Agency will be constrained in having more names added to the directory. OPM may well decide that 4 or 5 names for not so popular locations is sufficient. It is, after all, a big undertaking for OPM. We shall see. Pixie It seems to me that the biggest "known unknown" at this time is whether the agency is looking at preferred locations (second question numbered 1 on the application) or entire GALs (question 15) or some combination of both. Along the same lines, whether the agency will permit applicants to update their responses to these questions at certain intervals in the future, which wouldn't necessarily require OPM's involvement. I would like to hear some WAGs on these issues. If the agency is looking at preferred locations only, with no refresh, then I would guess this 'register' will be played out pretty quickly. For me, I don't think the agency is looking at preferred locations only. This is based on anecdotes. The people I know who were invited to interview had broad GALs. The people who were not interviewed had narrow GALs (1-2 locations). All applicants had the same preferred location as far as I know. But this is a small sample size, based on one preferred location and what a handful of people have told me. |
|
|
|
Post by gazoo on Jul 11, 2022 9:55:00 GMT -5
I think that just including the target locations in your GAL gets you in the game, with bonus points if it’s your preferred location. They would miss out on a lot of candidates if they only considered preferred location.
But that’s just my WAG.
|
|
|
|
Post by badger on Jul 11, 2022 11:03:24 GMT -5
Based on past experience, I imagine there are at least 4 or 5 names for each location, probably more. Some locations may have 15 or 20 or more. As bayou noted above, it remains to be seen how well the Agency thinks those 4 or 5 will be a good fit for the Agency. Additionally, with OPM still in the mix, the Agency will be constrained in having more names added to the directory. OPM may well decide that 4 or 5 names for not so popular locations is sufficient. It is, after all, a big undertaking for OPM. We shall see. Pixie It seems to me that the biggest "known unknown" at this time is whether the agency is looking at preferred locations (second question numbered 1 on the application) or entire GALs (question 15) or some combination of both. Along the same lines, whether the agency will permit applicants to update their responses to these questions at certain intervals in the future, which wouldn't necessarily require OPM's involvement. I would like to hear some WAGs on these issues. If the agency is looking at preferred locations only, with no refresh, then I would guess this 'register' will be played out pretty quickly. For me, I don't think the agency is looking at preferred locations only. This is based on anecdotes. The people I know who were invited to interview had broad GALs. The people who were not interviewed had narrow GALs (1-2 locations). All applicants had the same preferred location as far as I know. But this is a small sample size, based on one preferred location and what a handful of people have told me. I'm also interested in whether this is the only shot for those with interviews or if their names will be put back in the hiring pool next time around. |
|
|
|
Post by hillsarealive on Jul 12, 2022 9:35:04 GMT -5
It seems to me that the biggest "known unknown" at this time is whether the agency is looking at preferred locations (second question numbered 1 on the application) or entire GALs (question 15) or some combination of both. Along the same lines, whether the agency will permit applicants to update their responses to these questions at certain intervals in the future, which wouldn't necessarily require OPM's involvement. I would like to hear some WAGs on these issues. If the agency is looking at preferred locations only, with no refresh, then I would guess this 'register' will be played out pretty quickly. For me, I don't think the agency is looking at preferred locations only. This is based on anecdotes. The people I know who were invited to interview had broad GALs. The people who were not interviewed had narrow GALs (1-2 locations). All applicants had the same preferred location as far as I know. But this is a small sample size, based on one preferred location and what a handful of people have told me. I'm also interested in whether this is the only shot for those with interviews or if their names will be put back in the hiring pool next time around. Yeah, I have the same question. My guess is that if a candidate seems desirable and "ALJ worthy" when all is said and done, but he or she isn't placed in this round because superior candidates were available, then the agency would keep that candidate in the mix for future rounds. But if a candidate looks bad on closer inspection, his/her application goes in the metaphorical 'reject' pile and SSA doesn't contact him/her again in future rounds. So I think if you have a solid showing in this round, you would remain in the mix even if not hired. Just a guess. |
|
|
|
Post by trp888 on Jul 12, 2022 13:35:49 GMT -5
Based on past experience, I imagine there are at least 4 or 5 names for each location, probably more. Some locations may have 15 or 20 or more. As bayou noted above, it remains to be seen how well the Agency thinks those 4 or 5 will be a good fit for the Agency. Additionally, with OPM still in the mix, the Agency will be constrained in having more names added to the directory. OPM may well decide that 4 or 5 names for not so popular locations is sufficient. It is, after all, a big undertaking for OPM. We shall see. Pixie It seems to me that the biggest "known unknown" at this time is whether the agency is looking at preferred locations (second question numbered 1 on the application) or entire GALs (question 15) or some combination of both. Along the same lines, whether the agency will permit applicants to update their responses to these questions at certain intervals in the future, which wouldn't necessarily require OPM's involvement. I would like to hear some WAGs on these issues. If the agency is looking at preferred locations only, with no refresh, then I would guess this 'register' will be played out pretty quickly. For me, I don't think the agency is looking at preferred locations only. This is based on anecdotes. The people I know who were invited to interview had broad GALs. The people who were not interviewed had narrow GALs (1-2 locations). All applicants had the same preferred location as far as I know. But this is a small sample size, based on one preferred location and what a handful of people have told me. Interesting… because the people I know interviewing ONLY put a few offices on their list all within a single city metro area/2hr drive radius (no more than 5-6 offices total). Says to me they have specific offices in mind to hire for this round. |
|
.
