|
Post by kylearan on Jun 20, 2016 13:36:19 GMT -5
On the 'offer of proof' question, the least likely for me was to listen and then reverse my decision. I've been a hearing officer before and the biggest thing they taught us was to not 'overthink,' to not be agonizing over a decision already made.
|
|
|
Post by legaleagle74 on Jun 20, 2016 14:21:08 GMT -5
On the 'offer of proof' question, the least likely for me was to listen and then reverse my decision. I've been a hearing officer before and the biggest thing they taught us was to not 'overthink,' to not be agonizing over a decision already made. Thanks for sharing. What about ALJs inserting themselves into the process by questioning witnesses when it seems unnecessary? It seems to me like sticking with your decision or reversing - after considering the arguments - is a judgment call that can be argued either way. The insertion of questions by the ALJ seemed unnecessary when counsel was present. Not arguing but just trying to talk things through with you based on your previous experience.
|
|
|
Post by kylearan on Jun 20, 2016 14:46:26 GMT -5
Understood! In my old position we were expected to be the most active participant in the hearing, even when an attorney was present. The way I used to describe it was that the administrative tribunal was a seat of inquest, not like John Roberts' umpire calling strikes and fouls but actively being engaged to find the truth. Of course, at the agencies that federal ALJ's serve it might be completely different. But I was always a very active questioner. That reminds me of one of the funniest moments as a hearing officer, when I asked a party a question and his attorney said "Objection, irrelevant!" When the person who is going to be deciding the case asks a question, 'irrelevant' is usually not the right answer. (Oh and just to clarify - we're discussing the questions that were on the SAMPLE. I havent even looked at the real test yet. I figure I should go to Confession first just in case it gives me a heart attack, lol)
|
|
|
Post by monday on Jun 20, 2016 14:54:35 GMT -5
Am I the only one baffled by the sample question including a reference to opposing counsel? I'm not applying for a job that involves opposing counsel. Might as well ask how I'd approach a cow to milk it.
|
|
|
Post by kylearan on Jun 20, 2016 14:56:34 GMT -5
Well since it's just for the general register and not for any specific agency, an ALJ might get a case in which there are two opposing counsel. I think I read some in the Postal Service tribunal, where two parties were arguing over who should receive the mail addressed to a certain company, that both of them claimed ownership of.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 20, 2016 15:09:06 GMT -5
Well since it's just for the general register and not for any specific agency, an ALJ might get a case in which there are two opposing counsel. I think I read some in the Postal Service tribunal, where two parties were arguing over who should receive the mail addressed to a certain company, that both of them claimed ownership of. This is correct. ODAR hearings will not be adversarial; hearings before other agencies an ALJ might be hired in may be adversarial. OPM is not testing just for SSA ALJs.
|
|
|
Post by onepingonly on Jun 20, 2016 15:15:54 GMT -5
Am I the only one baffled by the sample question including a reference to opposing counsel? I'm not applying for a job that involves opposing counsel. Might as well ask how I'd approach a cow to milk it. Opposing counsel in some hearings/agencies: yes. Cows, not that I'm aware of, but at SSA, the past relevant work may include cow milker or other bovine occupations. I have had at least one contested hearing at SSA, but it was an unusual situation.
|
|
|
Post by floridaladylaw on Jun 20, 2016 15:33:29 GMT -5
On the 'offer of proof' question, the least likely for me was to listen and then reverse my decision. I've been a hearing officer before and the biggest thing they taught us was to not 'overthink,' to not be agonizing over a decision already made. Thanks for sharing. What about ALJs inserting themselves into the process by questioning witnesses when it seems unnecessary? It seems to me like sticking with your decision or reversing - after considering the arguments - is a judgment call that can be argued either way. The insertion of questions by the ALJ seemed unnecessary when counsel was present. Not arguing but just trying to talk things through with you based on your previous experience. Talking about samples only: I think the least likely for me was interrupting him and warning him that he was acting inappropriately because by interrupting him, I was not allowing him to make his record. Likewise, as I did not see anything inappropriate about making a proffer, I certainly would not admonish him either. I debated between these two least likely answers and decided that interrupting him was the least likely because of the need for him to make his record. The most likely for me was reversing my decision as he explained the relevance of the answer. I debated between sticking with my ruling but I do not think (IMO) that a judge should stick with a relevance ruling for the sake of being decisive when counsel shows that such testimony is indeed relevant. I think it is a likely scenario that a judge may not always see the relevance of a question/answer.
|
|
Rose
Full Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Rose on Jun 20, 2016 16:03:50 GMT -5
Good for you, tt! Thanks for being the first one in; you are a brave soul. Did you do it all in one sitting? No technical problems?Yes, lawbird. yes, lawbird.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jun 20, 2016 16:21:49 GMT -5
I might suggest that you guys create another thread for discussing the practice questions. I think the discussions are completely appropriate but this thread is likely to get over run with cross talk and you might lose parts of the discussion. However, that is only a suggestion and I am just glad to see you guys talking.
|
|
|
Post by LadyJR on Jun 20, 2016 17:41:49 GMT -5
G- On page 3 of this thread I posted the link to the previous on point discussion in hopes that those who wished to discuss or share thoughts could do so. The questions appear identical.
|
|
|
Post by chudley on Jun 21, 2016 7:52:47 GMT -5
Is there agreement that the clock stops if you exit the writing sample to come back later (but your answer won't be saved)?
|
|
|
Post by marten77 on Jun 21, 2016 7:53:54 GMT -5
Not to be overtly religious in this post because when I think of this quote, I actually think of the Hunt for Red October (and hence the tie-in to "Battle Stations!!!!!), but:
"...there came forth a great voice out of the temple, from the throne, saying, It is done..."
In other words, online component: done. Timed out on the writing sample, so here's to hoping they got what I typed, that it was good enough and not full of typos.
Otherwise, it was as I remembered it from 2013. Now, it's time to get back into life's car, reset the cruise control for 8 to 10 weeks from next Friday when the test closes and before there can be any expectation of status changes to Phase 3 in D.C. Remember folks, OPM's process is akin to Continental Drift Theory, so 8 to 10 weeks is probably a conservative estimate but not unlikely given the 2013 turnaround time. Harkening back to a recent post I left in another thread, when people start seeing changes, and you have nothing to report:
"Don't panic." OPM does everything in waves. It could be a day (or three) before something changes for you. And there is no rhyme or reason as to how OPM releases their emails or status changes, so don't fret over that either. It could happen at 3 a.m. It has happened for others at that odd hour. So, unless you want to sit up all night checking email folders and logging in and out of That Which Shall Not Be Named for a few days on end, just relax (I know, it is hard). Que sera, sera...
Also, when the time comes and if you get the dreaded you were not in the "higher scoring subgroup" email for the Phase 2 testing:
"Don't panic." There were 5,000+ applicants. A percentage got dumped at Stage 1. At Stage 2, OPM skims the top off the pool containing the 10-pointers, a good number of 5-pointers and those non-vets they deemed to have scored high enough for their standards (don't ask what those standards are, only OPM knows). So, if you get this dreaded email, you may yet get a shot at Third Phase in D.C. sometime down the road once they have tested the first group. OPM can't possibly do the Third Phase in D.C. for everyone they could potentially test at this phase all at one time. (Remember, we are talking about thousands of people involved in this thing). It is just not logistically feasible. So, if you get this email, take heart, all hope is not lost. But, be prepared to wait a good long while though, as it was more than two years when they did this for the original 2013 applicants. I was a part of that group that miraculously got an email out of the blue from OPM in August of 2015 saying I could go blow a wad of money going to D.C. in a few weeks for fun testing. Admittedly, that 2-year period was lengthened by the filing of a lawsuit. But I think expecting a 2-year wait before any type of invite to the Third Phase in D.C. would be wise because it gives the agencies time to work the new additions to the Register. Remember... Continental Drift Theory.
Best of luck to those taking the test. Remember: "Don't panic."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2016 8:02:11 GMT -5
Also, when the time comes and if you get the dreaded you were not in the "higher scoring subgroup" email for the Phase 2 testing: "Don't panic." There were 5,000+ applicants. A percentage got dumped at Stage 1. At Stage 2, OPM skims the top off the pool containing the 10-pointers, a good number of 5-pointers and those non-vets they deemed to have scored high enough for their standards (don't ask what those standards are, only OPM knows). So, if you get this dreaded email, you may yet get a shot at Third Phase in D.C. sometime down the road once they have tested the first group. OPM can't possibly do the Third Phase in D.C. for everyone they could potentially test at this phase. (Remember, we are talking about thousands of people involved in this thing). It is just not logistically feasible.
Don't they have to, though? Now that they used a lower score to bring more people into DC last year, isn't that the baseline score for the Third Phase this year? Or is that just an assumption that I am making?
|
|
Rose
Full Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Rose on Jun 21, 2016 8:09:48 GMT -5
Is there agreement that the clock stops if you exit the writing sample to come back later (but your answer won't be saved)? yes. That's correct!!!!
|
|
|
Post by marten77 on Jun 21, 2016 8:10:19 GMT -5
Also, when the time comes and if you get the dreaded you were not in the "higher scoring subgroup" email for the Phase 2 testing: "Don't panic." There were 5,000+ applicants. A percentage got dumped at Stage 1. At Stage 2, OPM skims the top off the pool containing the 10-pointers, a good number of 5-pointers and those non-vets they deemed to have scored high enough for their standards (don't ask what those standards are, only OPM knows). So, if you get this dreaded email, you may yet get a shot at Third Phase in D.C. sometime down the road once they have tested the first group. OPM can't possibly do the Third Phase in D.C. for everyone they could potentially test at this phase. (Remember, we are talking about thousands of people involved in this thing). It is just not logistically feasible.
Don't they have to, though? Now that they used a lower score to bring more people into DC last year, isn't that the baseline score for the Third Phase this year? Or is that just an assumption that I am making?
My short answer to that good questions is: I have no clue. But, were I to throw my best guess at it though, given that this is a new examination starting over at Phase 1, my best guesstimate is that they will use the same scoring scheme employed from the 2013 Phase II with benchmark cutoffs as was done in 2013 for this stage. They really have no reason to deviate from that procedure since this is a brand new test. But, admittedly, I am speculating and have nothing to back that assertion up. It is just my best guess. I would actually hope for them to go with the most recent scoring scheme from 2015 because then I would have a whole lot better chance.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jun 21, 2016 8:10:54 GMT -5
Also, when the time comes and if you get the dreaded you were not in the "higher scoring subgroup" email for the Phase 2 testing: "Don't panic." There were 5,000+ applicants. A percentage got dumped at Stage 1. At Stage 2, OPM skims the top off the pool containing the 10-pointers, a good number of 5-pointers and those non-vets they deemed to have scored high enough for their standards (don't ask what those standards are, only OPM knows). So, if you get this dreaded email, you may yet get a shot at Third Phase in D.C. sometime down the road once they have tested the first group. OPM can't possibly do the Third Phase in D.C. for everyone they could potentially test at this phase. (Remember, we are talking about thousands of people involved in this thing). It is just not logistically feasible.
Don't they have to, though? Now that they used a lower score to bring more people into DC last year, isn't that the baseline score for the Third Phase this year? Or is that just an assumption that I am making?
I don't have actual knowledge but I would argue "no". I believe the initial score cut off is designed to achieve a number of test takers that OPM can test in a manageable amount of time not to get everyone who meets the minimum score on the online portions. I do not believe that whatever they set as the minimum score for the next lower scoring subgroup will change. However, the minimum number for being in the higher scoring subgroup is not set.
|
|
|
Post by futurealj on Jun 21, 2016 8:28:04 GMT -5
I finished Part 1 and Part 2 and decided to take some time to complete Part 3. I definitely did things differently than I did last time. I am just praying I changed the right stuff...since they do not tell you what you did wrong...they just tell you that you did not score high enough.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Jun 21, 2016 8:38:45 GMT -5
I don't like using "minimum score" in relation to the online component. There is the "minimal requirements" of Phase 1. Essentially a pass or fail.
Then there are "minimum scores" on the Phase 3 written demonstration and structured interview. Fail to achieve those minimums and you don't get on the register.
But, there is no official "minimum score" on the online component.
Everyone takes the tests and gets a score. Then OPM decides how many they want to test in the first wave. This is likely a combination of how many they feel they need to add to the register and the logistics of how many they can test at one time, in one week, and in whatever period they have available.
Say that number is 1000. They simply take the top 1000 scorers (perhaps a handful more if number 1000 is tied with others) and that's your "highest scoring subgroup" that moves on in the first wave. Later, as marten noted, they may decide they want to add more to the register so they have a decision. Do the full refresh and reopen the entire exam, or take "the next highest scoring subgroup" from the phase 2 testees. In theory, even later if they wanted to add more they could take a third subgroup. But, at least last time, they decided to go no further than the second subgroup and then do a complete refresh.
Therefore, there is no minimum score and the cutoff point for which subgroup you are in could be drastically different than the 2013 group. The top 1000 or so in this group may have an average score considerably higher or lower than the 2013 group. They may only want to do 500 at a time and to be in the highest group your score has to be significantly higher than the first group from 2013. They may take not two subgroups but 3, 4 or 5.
Who knows? But, the online is not a pass fail. It just slots you into score order and how fast you go to DC or if your slot is so low you never get that invite is entirely up to OPM and I don't think can be guesstimated based on what happened in 2013.
|
|
|
Post by hopingforalj on Jun 21, 2016 8:55:44 GMT -5
Good luck Future, I am in the same boat as you, I am taking the exam Saturday am, best of luck.
|
|