|
Post by futurealj on Jun 24, 2016 21:09:01 GMT -5
Futurealj : congratulations on getting through. Maybe you'll get bonus points for "judicial management " and "self management" for getting it done before many. Any suggestions as to things that make 2 & 3 easier? (not in terms of the substance of questions, obviously, but such as their suggestion to have a calculator, for example) All the best for the summer and beyond. Thanks foghorn! I wish!! Lol (bonus points)...well I can tell you that you definitely do not need a calculator and I would suggest you read all the instructions carefully several times. Good luck to everyone! :-)
|
|
|
Post by Marty Moose on Jun 24, 2016 21:28:55 GMT -5
Well, I am done. Stayed late at work on a Friday, now I can go home and have some of that Situational Bourbon that everyone is so fond of around here. Best of luck to everyone!
|
|
Rose
Full Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Rose on Jun 24, 2016 22:47:56 GMT -5
Sorry for the double post. Somebody, ban me from this board! LOL. Come to think about it, I wonder if we all can even discuss the specific of the examples of the sjt. The examples were to sent applicants. As part of this confidential testing process, aren't we all supposed to not discuss these examples at all. These examples are not posted on OPM for the world to see, are they? Isn't everything supposed to be kept private except for what is public information or your opinions without disclosing specifics of any of the stuff you got from OPM via email regarding this whole examination process? I don't know. I think it's best to just discuss how you feel and what's posted publicly, not what you got via email for you as applicants only.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jun 24, 2016 23:02:43 GMT -5
Sorry for the double post. Somebody, ban me from this board! LOL. Come to think about it, I wonder if we all can even discuss the specific of the examples of the sjt. The examples were to sent applicants. As part of this confidential testing process, aren't we all supposed to not discuss these examples at all. These examples are not posted on OPM for the world to see, are they? Isn't everything supposed to be kept private except for what is public information or your opinions without disclosing specifics of any of the stuff you got from OPM via email regarding this whole examination process? I don't know. I think it's best to just discuss how you feel and what's posted publicly, not what you got via email for you as applicants only. You don't get banned for double posting. I might explain how to delete the duplicatve post so that I don't have to do it for you the next time, but no penalties attach. Pixie.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jun 25, 2016 6:39:28 GMT -5
There were posts on this back in 2013, and the Schultheis book mentions it as a hack, so if the administrators really thought it was unfair or inappropriate they'd have simply precluded that--once in you finish the question. They didn't in three years, so presumably it's not such a grey area? You get points for being ethically sensitive!(seriously, a valuable asset. I agree that doing so is inappropriate at best. It is true that OPM could have figured this out and corrected it but on the other hand the instructions are very clear: " do not use any device, trick or..." Also, the instructions state they removed the ability to cut and paste from a prepared document. All of that, coupled with the mere fact that it is timed, certainly makes it clear the intent of the test is to not allow you to think through your response off the clock. We are applying for a position as a Judge -- suppose to have integrity and the utmost honesty. So why can't OPM assume that we will not try to game the system? Personally, I see this as being very close to the line and therefore choose to not do it. Although it is certainly tempting and I am not judging anyone who does. Just my two cents. Well, I'll judge them. Been judging for over seven years now. And you know what? If applicants have no problem gaming the system and then averring their honesty and rectitude as a Federal ALJ, then God help them. I mean what part of this do these folks don't understand? To begin with it shows deceit. It is prima facie illegal. And as any parent knows, deceit has a funny way of surfacing in unexpected places and ways. Second, it shows incredible hypocrisy. So you become a Judge and then decrie the very deceit from the bench than you so gladly demonstrated in your exam. Do you not think there are consequences? Because if you don't you will experience the bad Karma, one way or another. I learned that a long, long time ago on the jungle floor. This lack of character, the deceit and hypocrisy may indeed be hidden at the time of your interviews at OPM and SSA. Maybe you are confident that you can pull it off. And maybe you do. But sooner or later it will pop up and while John Donne intoned that no man is an island, your self imposed deceitful character will isolate you to your own kind. And you will probably lack the ability to look within and see what is really there. And while this particular Scarlet Letter may be invisible to you, it will be neon to those around you.
|
|
|
Post by tonypitt on Jun 25, 2016 10:46:45 GMT -5
Any thoughts from the elders of the board will be greatly appreciated. I was buzzing along with my essay and ran out of time in the middle of the last sentence. Is this fatal? I'm really upset with myself because I really liked the content and the style of my essay.
|
|
|
Post by msp on Jun 25, 2016 10:51:49 GMT -5
tonypitt, check out the thread "writing sample timed out..." It should address your concern - fwiw, from what I understand, you should be fine. Good luck!
|
|
|
Post by tonypitt on Jun 25, 2016 10:53:38 GMT -5
Thank you so much. I hate how neurotic I've become during this process though I understand that it's par for the course.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 25, 2016 10:59:21 GMT -5
Thank you so much. I hate how neurotic I've become during this process though I understand that it's par for the course. Many don't become neurotic. Instead they become paranoid.
|
|
|
Post by hopingforalj on Jun 25, 2016 13:46:10 GMT -5
Or just plain coo coo.
|
|
|
Post by firehouse9 on Jun 25, 2016 13:57:30 GMT -5
Aa7 you are absolutely correct! I have just read the instructions and clearly it states you are on your honor (emboldened I might add) to complete the response "without interruptions, distractions, or disconnections" so those of you who intentionally disconnect from the response are cheating. That is my take on it. That's very helpful. If one goes to the link, are you able to read some or all of the instructions without starting the timer on any of the three parts? Or, if you go to the link, is it the case that the timer starts automatically on something?
|
|
|
Post by lawbird on Jun 25, 2016 14:17:25 GMT -5
You can read instructions off the clock. I print them out.
|
|
|
Post by cavaliertexan on Jun 25, 2016 14:20:07 GMT -5
I have not responded to the writing timer question, because in all honesty, I do not even know how it is a legitimate question. Having finished my SJT, and by the other logic used in other posts thereby becoming an "expert" on it since so few have taken it, it very clearly notes that your time on the system is monitored.
Now, I am very, very cognizant that my greatest weakness (perceived) as an attorney is that I am extremely black and white in my logic. I do not delve into areas of gray, but I do not see how anyone on here can justify what is very clearly cheating. And please spare me the justifications that I have seen in former posts; just because they have not specifically said "Hey you, in front of the computer there, please do not read the question and shut down the browser to collect your thoughts" does not give silent assent to doing so.
I am guessing that the people who wrote the directions are assuming that a group of professional adults, who deal daily with the law and the rules appertaining there to, and have taken oaths in fact to support the position of the rule of law, would be able to refrain.
I have spent a significant amount of time supporting the newer members on this board, but some of these posts are making that extremely difficult.
|
|
|
Post by lucy on Jun 25, 2016 15:47:54 GMT -5
Two down and one to go! With the controversy on here concerning whether it was ethical to log out and back in on the WD, I decided to read the directions and JUDGE for myself. I came to the conclusion that the directions clearly warned against disconnecting and that doing so just wouldn't pass the "smell test". So, I did the best I could do with the 35 minutes I had allotted and saved my answer with four seconds to go. Sure, I could have done better if I'd had taken time to think about everything I wanted to say and perfected my answer off the clock (who wouldn't, right?), but that really defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Jun 25, 2016 15:58:20 GMT -5
cavaliertexan--(or not so cavalier Texan?)--You seem to feel that those who ask questions are clearly infra dig morally. Call me a moral slouch, but I think making an inquiry as many of us have is a sign that we give a hoot about the ethics and don't just assume that because we think it's a "grey area" or rationalize that it's a white area it is. We are lawyers, are expected to reframe, rationalize, and zealously advocate for our clients. No surprise if we do so for ourselves--ask our spouses!
Seriously, my inquiry came as a result of board discussion but also the book I refererred to, which was written by Nicole Schultheis, a very experienced, able, and well respected Maryland attorney, not someone looked upon for a louche ethical lifestyle.
If, like the bar, we had a glim as to what would be asked then there'd be way fewer questions. Bar exam questions are discussed, used in preparation for the next iteration, and the world hasn't collapsed. In this venue, all are told not to discuss the questions and everyone has ethically not disclosed what is asked, how complicated the questions are--or not--so as a matter of human nature of the over educated, we obsess, get neurotic, and yes, ask questions about the limits.
But maybe it's good to have judges who have a bit of the human in them.
|
|
|
Post by alohastate on Jun 25, 2016 17:49:37 GMT -5
Well, that was a fun and interesting process. Knocked out the three stages of the online testing this morning, and found it interesting and challenging. Even a tad bit exhilarating. Of course, I have no idea how I did, but I feel good that I delivered an honest representation of myself and my ability, in the form the OPM testers have seen fit to measure. On the written portion of the test, I have to worry a little for folks who felt a need to create more time for themselves by resort to the "logout" method. The writing sample was devised to be done in 35 minutes or less. If a person can't accomplish that, or doubts their ability to do so, they are going to have a hard time managing a caseload of 500 to 700 cases in a year, since there's no way to fake that one. Further, if a person is sufficiently insecure about their ability to devise and a compose a written product within an allotted time, then I suspect I can be competitive against such a person regardless of any additional time they have bought themselves. In my experience, a person is either a good writer, or they are not a good writer. Additional time seldom masks actual ability in that regard. That said, I'm glad to be done with this phase, good luck to each and every one of us! Aloha!
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jun 25, 2016 18:16:46 GMT -5
tonypitt, check out the thread "writing sample timed out..." It should address your concern - fwiw, from what I understand, you should be fine. Good luck! This is a good example of what I have been telling the new members. There is a thread directly on point that is current and is on the same page as the post by tony, actually within a few threads of it. A simple glance at the first page would have revealed the correct thread with the answer therein. No searching required, no looking at back pages, just a cursory glance at the current page. So, I will say it again, and with a smile on my pixie like face, do a little homework before posting a question. I'm not getting on to anyone, don't want anyone to feel intimidated and I don't intend to hurt any sensitive feelings, just trying to tell you newbies how the board operates. This isn't difficult. Pixie.
|
|
|
Post by cavaliertexan on Jun 25, 2016 20:33:32 GMT -5
cavaliertexan--(or not so cavalier Texan?)--You seem to feel that those who ask questions are clearly infra dig morally. Call me a moral slouch, but I think making an inquiry as many of us have is a sign that we give a hoot about the ethics and don't just assume that because we think it's a "grey area" or rationalize that it's a white area it is. We are lawyers, are expected to reframe, rationalize, and zealously advocate for our clients. No surprise if we do so for ourselves--ask our spouses! Seriously, my inquiry came as a result of board discussion but also the book I refererred to, which was written by Nicole Schultheis, a very experienced, able, and well respected Maryland attorney, not someone looked upon for a louche ethical lifestyle. If, like the bar, we had a glim as to what would be asked then there'd be way fewer questions. Bar exam questions are discussed, used in preparation for the next iteration, and the world hasn't collapsed. In this venue, all are told not to discuss the questions and everyone has ethically not disclosed what is asked, how complicated the questions are--or not--so as a matter of human nature of the over educated, we obsess, get neurotic, and yes, ask questions about the limits. But maybe it's good to have judges who have a bit of the human in them. Well played with the not so cavalier, but I was using the noun, not the adjective. (And I am being serious, made me laugh.) I guess I offer this scenario in rebuttal. You are the greatest scorer the SJT has ever seen and they immediately ask you to come to DC. During your Interview, they note that during monitoring your written exam they noticed that you disconnected for an hour and then came back on to finish. When they ask you why you disconnected for an hour, are you gonna saddle up those steel balls of yours and tell them that it was because you wanted to collect your thoughts and provide them with a well thought out article; or in the alternative, is that steel pair gonna shrivel up inside you while you tell them that your internet was down? And I was going to try some witty rebuttal with foghorn leghorn, but in reality I am tired from testing, and then working, and then fathering. So now I am going to sit down, have a beer or two, and watch Jurgen Klinsmann and the USMNT finish pooping the bed against Colombia. Cav
|
|
|
Post by JenMPR on Jun 25, 2016 20:50:30 GMT -5
Well, I'm done with the first two parts. I think I've done enough thinking for a Saturday. I'll finish the third section tomorrow...Good luck to all!
|
|
gino
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by gino on Jun 25, 2016 21:48:09 GMT -5
Well I plowed through the whole thing tonight. Best time I've had on a Saturday night in a long time. I'm going to enjoy a situational cigar now out on what I think is a nice evening in DC.
|
|