|
Post by marten77 on Jun 21, 2016 8:56:30 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. These are all very excellent points. A whole new test could very well mean a whole new approach to what OPM feels their needs are for the Register for good or ill. Stand by to stand by to wait and see what shakes out.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 21, 2016 9:43:47 GMT -5
I agree with Gaidin and Funky. I would only add the following:
In the 2013 JOA, OPM refers to online scores being "within the range for the higher-scored sub-group of all the eligible applicants" and to receiving "the required minimum score" for the WD and "the required minimum score" for the SI. This suggests that:
1. The online score necessary to move on to DC is not fixed in advance, but rather is determined by OPM after the online testing is completed in order to send through the number of applicants OPM wants to test in DC. It is after all a relative matter whether one is or is not in the "higher-scored sub-group." (I find confirming of this that OPM in 2015 sent through to DC the next higher-scored sub-group of 2013 applicants.)
As opposed to:
2. The WD and SI minimum scores necessary to get on the register, which (at least since the first group received their final numerical ratings) are fixed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2016 10:04:06 GMT -5
It just seems pretty arbitrary that a test score that would get you an interview 6-9 months ago won't avail you of the same opportunity now. I'm certainly not familiar with OPMs regs (sounds like some fun, post-Phase II reading) and I am sure there are definite logistical considerations OPM has to consider regarding number of applicants and the like. I find it interesting that the requirements to even move on to the next phase could be VERY different than it was for people who applied in 2013. I hadn't considered that before. But it is a new posting, so I guess it makes a least a modicum of sense.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 21, 2016 10:15:34 GMT -5
OPM does not have the resources to test something like 5,000 applicants in DC in a single round and be able to get results out in anything like a reasonable amount of time. Heck, in 2013/14 we found the time it took to get results out for the 1000 to 1200 of us who went to DC to be pretty unreasonable.
So the number of DC testing slots is a scarce resource OPM has to allocate in some way. The way they have chosen to allocate it for the current register is by sending through however many they want to test in DC based on who in the group scores highest on the online component.
Is it a perfect method to allocate the scarce DC testing slots? Undoubtedly not. However, I do think it's a big improvement over the prior register's method of opening up the application only until they got the number they wanted to test and then closing it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2016 10:28:00 GMT -5
Thanks for the insight - this is really helping me properly calibrate my expectations (which I shouldn't have any at all).
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Jun 21, 2016 10:49:51 GMT -5
Interestingly, the 2016 sample questions appear to be the same as 3 years before judging by the thread "situational examination".
(the comments to that thread were all dated 2013--plus ca change....)
Since then, has anyone parsed the mindset behind the questions? I realize that people can't divulge questions, but in the intervening three years has anyone thought "I wish I had approached this with the view that............." or "I wish I had had more depth in _______ and ______________?"
What I have in mind is the --seemingly perennial--example question of the person who is asked by the chief ALJ to cover a somewhat lengthy hearing but has a meeting the next morning. No information given about whether the meeting is extremely important/can't be rescheduled or a regular weekly meeting that requires no prep (assumption is that some prep is required but there again, that might be the gestalt of someone who believes all meetings, no matter how mundane, are elevated to the level of hearings or above. [Guess I just outed myself as unfit for an administrative position?]).
Seriously, my approach would be the job of the ALJ is to judge, that's what the public wants, the Chief Judge needs someone to handle it, do it.[At worst you'd show up to the meeting sleep deprived--make you feel young again].
However in the 3 years since it was discussed in 2013 don't see that anyone has cast light on what the mindset of reviewers is. Any illumination anyone who's been through it can shed (without divulging that which may not be divulged) would be greatly appreciated.
Enjoy the A/C this week!
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 21, 2016 10:54:15 GMT -5
OPM may keep the sample questions the same as in 2013 for the life of the current register so as to keep the playing field level as between 2013 applicants and those who follow.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jun 21, 2016 10:54:48 GMT -5
Interestingly, the 2016 sample questions appear to be the same as 3 years before judging by the thread "situational examination". (the comments to that thread were all dated 2013--plus ca change....) Since then, has anyone parsed the mindset behind the questions? I realize that people can't divulge questions, but in the intervening three years has anyone thought "I wish I had approached this with the view that............." or "I wish I had had more depth in _______ and ______________?" What I have in mind is the --seemingly perennial--example question of the person who is asked by the chief ALJ to cover a somewhat lengthy hearing but has a meeting the next morning. No information given about whether the meeting is extremely important/can't be rescheduled or a regular weekly meeting that requires no prep (assumption is that some prep is required but there again, that might be the gestalt of someone who believes all meetings, no matter how mundane, are elevated to the level of hearings or above. [Guess I just outed myself as unfit for an administrative position?]). Seriously, my approach would be the job of the ALJ is to judge, that's what the public wants, the Chief Judge needs someone to handle it, do it.[At worst you'd show up to the meeting sleep deprived--make you feel young again]. However in the 3 years since it was discussed in 2013 don't see that anyone has cast light on what the mindset of reviewers is. Any illumination anyone who's been through it can shed (without divulging that which may not be divulged) would be greatly appreciated. Enjoy the A/C this week! Probably because any such insight would come from taking the actual test and we are restricted from discussing the actual test. You will discover that as you proceed through the process you are generally limited from discussing anything that would have interested you before you went through that phase.
|
|
|
Post by hopingforalj on Jun 21, 2016 10:55:08 GMT -5
In thinking back to 2013, two things, I wished I had smoked a better cigar, and I wished I had poured a better glass of bourbon before I took the test, I think it would have helped my chances.
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Jun 21, 2016 10:57:33 GMT -5
Great Idea! Unfortunately I posted before reading this....sorry.
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Jun 21, 2016 11:04:13 GMT -5
Granted that the test can't be discussed but can general "outlook " or skills /knowlege be mentioned? I'm wondering if the matrix for determining the "right" answers or some weighting of answers that gives more or less points has a certain mindset that informs what is determined to be "correct" --is it one of administration rules all, "the book is your friend, be nice to the book?" or one that deals with hearing skills, or administrative law issues. On administrative law, most court decisions tend to deal with policy rather than the nuts and bolts of hearings--what determines proper foundation/relevance/materiality, substantial evidence, etc. However there may some manual, even a novel that really gets to the soul(sic) of the examiners outlook that might, it seems, be revealed without in any way suggesting what the questions were about or even their manner of exposition.
In short, what's the layout and idiosyncracies of the away game field, not the lineup of the opposing side let alone their playbook.
But I digress......
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Jun 21, 2016 11:14:26 GMT -5
the posts from 2013 showed that reasonable minds could and did differ. What it suggests is that by focussing on one question only--one that has several "right" answers depending on facts that aren't stated--there's a tendency to get deer-in-the-headlight syndrome. This brings to mind a great teacher in a bar review course I took in a time long,long,ago--when you come to a question that you don't know, or is capapble of multiple solutions, go with your instict, then mutter "F___ it" and go on.
But if anyone has taken it and can, without divulging anything substantive about the questions or otherwise violating rules, suggest a better m.o. let me know. I think the best strategy is to realize you have a set time, allocate time for each question and if you are ahead allow yourself a minute or two more on a "difficult" question. However, looking at the examples, I'm not seeing any where the "right" answer jumps out at you.
So much for calm summer evenings and weekends.
|
|
|
Post by marten77 on Jun 21, 2016 11:34:17 GMT -5
I'll post one other morsel of food for thought for those new to the process.
For all of those new to this crucible, please take this into consideration whilst waiting for the Phase II results and even if you get the dreaded you were "not in the higher scoring sub-group" email whenever those come out:
Up to this point, you have little more than your time and hopes wrapped up in this adventure. If you don't move on after this phase or you don't get to do D.C. testing for a while because you are in the next higher scoring sub group (if OPM decides to do that this time around), you aren't really out anything beyond dashed hopes and dreams (which, I fully admit can hurt one's pride). But hurt pride heals. Time moves on. Additional chances present themselves.
To me, the real pain of this process does not really fully begin to set in until Phase III. At that point, you have laid out a sizeable chunk of change for D.C. testing in an effort to cash in your lottery ticket. Now, it is more real. Money that you were going to use to take your kids on vacation or fix something on the house or buy a newer car because your other car has been giving you fits? Well, now it has been reallocated for just a chance to get a job. If you blow that wad of cash, go to testing in D.C. and not pass (like I did last fall), the sting is pretty hard to take. But you will survive.
And it is not any easier for those who are already on the Register. The waiting is measured in years (which likely seems like eons for them) as cert after cert comes out and they have to sit by watching as others get the ticket they were so hoping for. You may, at this point, say to yourself, I'd gladly trade places with any of them, at least they are on the Register and have a chance. While this may be true, they have doled out the cash already, have been waiting for years with no return on the investment and have been seeing new names get added and picked up quickly while they patiently wait. There is always the very likely possibility that you can blow all that cash, make it on the Register and sit there until it expires in 2019 without any Agency ever giving you the time of day. I can't imagine the disappointment that must come with that, but I'm sure it is truly terrible.
So, take the online test. Love it. Or more likely hate it. But remember, this is the last stop before you really start investing more than some computer face time with this process. If you get cut at this phase, or are possibly delayed in testing at Phase II at a later date, you aren't out anything more than hurt pride. After this, the cuts are deeper and hurt more. And even if you make it to what would seem like Nirvana (the Register), happiness is not guaranteed.
Good luck everyone.
|
|
gino
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by gino on Jun 21, 2016 11:37:39 GMT -5
As a newbie and an outsider I probably have no business weighing in here. However what I have read through the threads is: the sjt is one third of the online component to be scored only to see who will be tested in DC in the Fall with other scores maybe considered later. For the one third sjt test I think it was created by psychologists creating a series of shitty work scenarios with five similarly less than ideal choices, then some select aljs answered what they would do and that profile is the benchmark for the score.
And so some evening this week I will light a cigar, enable a plate of cookies and have at it.
As Funky said, it's just a job.
|
|
|
Post by msp on Jun 21, 2016 11:47:52 GMT -5
My thoughts on this current component, FWIW: we're being tested throughout this process on becoming an ALJ. So, I continue to refer back to the vacancy announcement and study what it is TPTB are looking for in a candidate; i.e. the duties described and the description given of the SJT.
What do you believe are the qualities that will make up the complete package of an ALJ? The announcement says: "The purpose of these remaining components is to evaluate the competencies, or knowledge, skills and abilities essential to performing the work of an ALJ."
It goes on to list those competencies - so we know what's being tested - it's just a matter of sorting out for each question, "which competency (ies) are being tested for this question?" It may be one, it many be a few. Know those competencies inside and out, my guess is you'll be as prepared as you can be.
One suggestion: answer every question, even if you know that all of the choices are garbage.
Good luck to all of us at this stage - 1st timers and repeat offenders (me included)!
|
|
|
Post by lawbird on Jun 21, 2016 12:19:37 GMT -5
the posts from 2013 showed that reasonable minds could and did differ. What it suggests is that by focussing on one question only--one that has several "right" answers depending on facts that aren't stated--there's a tendency to get deer-in-the-headlight syndrome. This brings to mind a great teacher in a bar review course I took in a time long,long,ago--when you come to a question that you don't know, or is capapble of multiple solutions, go with your instict, then mutter "F___ it" and go on. But if anyone has taken it and can, without divulging anything substantive about the questions or otherwise violating rules, suggest a better m.o. let me know. I think the best strategy is to realize you have a set time, allocate time for each question and if you are ahead allow yourself a minute or two more on a "difficult" question. However, looking at the examples, I'm not seeing any where the "right" answer jumps out at you. So much for calm summer evenings and weekends. Dearest foghorn You are nibbling around the edges of propriety. There is a discussion of the sample questions on the "prepping for the SJT" thread. Those who have done this before are not going to tell you the kinds of things you want us to. Everything you need to know is in the instructions. That's my tip, plus read those instructions multiple times, as I have. As was also suggested in this thread, focus on the specific competencies they have told you they are looking for. For those still unhappy about or puzzled by the focus on litigation, you have passed phase 1, and, if you recall, you were asked about your litigation experience. It is also been explained elsewhere that other ALJs in other agencies, although few, run their hearings in an adversarial fashion, more trial-like, with counsel representing both parties.
|
|
|
Post by sophie22 on Jun 21, 2016 13:22:58 GMT -5
Anyone have an educated guess on how OPM weighs the scores from the 3 components? For instance, does it seem like in the past, those with less than 10 years experience got cut after round 2, meaning that perhaps the experience assessment is more important than the other tests? Or were those with 20 years experience cut after round 2, meaning that perhaps experience is weighed less?
Just wondering if there are any guesses out there???
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Jun 21, 2016 13:27:20 GMT -5
Guys, the SJT isn't supposed to be hard. It's been suggested that it was put together by psychologists of some ilk or another and, in fact, is more a personality test than anything else. The questions are arranged so pretty much every answer is right to some degree.
The object is to choose the one you, personally, would most likely do and/or would least likely do.
So...sure you can game the system. You can try to read into the question or answers and guess what the "right" or "wanted" answer is. But that isn't the purpose. The purpose is for you to say what you would actually do. That should be easy.
Now, you say, "but Funkster, I want them to rate me high and what I might actually do may not be what they want me to say I will do."
"Well," Dr. Funkinheimer says in response, "they are looking for people that will make good judges. So, say you lie and get through and land the job. Are you intending to continue to go against your natural instincts and personality for the rest of you career?"
"No!" says You, "Once I am a judge I will do what I really want and no one can stop me!"
"Nice evil laugh" says Funkenstein
"Why thank you" says You.
"You know that wont work," says Funklicious
"Who are you kidding?" asks You, "I've heard of the judge that crapped himself in the hall, kicked it under the copier and kept walking. If he can William Shatner the copier and not get fired, I can do whatever I want!"
"Touche," meekly responds Sir Funkalot, "Proceed as you wish."
|
|
|
Post by lawbird on Jun 21, 2016 13:45:20 GMT -5
Anyone have an educated guess on how OPM weighs the scores from the 3 components? For instance, does it seem like in the past, those with less than 10 years experience got cut after round 2, meaning that perhaps the experience assessment is more important than the other tests? Or were those with 20 years experience cut after round 2, meaning that perhaps experience is weighed less? Just wondering if there are any guesses out there??? nobody knows. There is no way of knowing. Guesses are not useful. Just take the darn test and do your best. We'll have much more to talk about when we know whether or not we're going to DC. Sorry if I seem a little impatient with the newbies, but you guys are obsessing about things to an unhealthy and astonishing degree.
|
|
kan
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by kan on Jun 21, 2016 13:45:31 GMT -5
Realizing there will variation, what amount of time should I estimate it will take to complete the Experience Assessment?
|
|