|
Post by Thru Hiker on Aug 10, 2016 21:43:45 GMT -5
In your judges robe, with shorts underneath, of course. Save some for St. Peter, I'm sure he like to tibble. St Peter would rather have the bloody wine. and cargo shorts, what's this about cargo shorts being unfashionable? okay, sorry Pixie, I know that is off-topic...
|
|
|
Post by Lawesome on Aug 10, 2016 22:03:02 GMT -5
I'm not a whiskey drinker but my spouse recommends Pappy van Winkle if you can get it. Of course, it may be that you would want to save it to toast achieving ALJ status. As difficult as it is to obtain, I'd save it to celebrate entering the Pearly Gates. I have them all except the 22 year. They are fantastic! Definitely a special occasion drink.
|
|
|
Post by hurryupandwait on Aug 10, 2016 22:22:37 GMT -5
Cheers to that. Hoping for some good news soon. Fingers crossed for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by futurealj on Aug 11, 2016 6:03:46 GMT -5
I was scared to open my emails this morning...
|
|
|
Post by marten77 on Aug 11, 2016 7:26:22 GMT -5
Touché, OPM, touché.... If this indeed is the new process that OPM is proceeding with in rejecting Phase II testers heading into Phase III, then we are in uncharted territory and precedence does not control since before in prior testing OPM went about by changing status in AM to See Details and then dropping the <insert your favorite acronym for the rejection email here> email on those who did not make it before rolling out invites to those who made it Phase III. (Pix, sorry for the references to the dreaded terms, but I thought it was relevant to the discussion at hand and the lack of such discussion in the Q&A about AM thread. If it is too much for this thread, then I can delete and repost in the Q&A thread about AM).
I'm wondering if anyone on the Board has information about a couple of points of clarification I am curious about that I was unable to glean from the other posts:
1. Are all of the individuals who have received the rejection emails July of 2016 online test takers? Or are any of those (or all of those) individuals 10-pointers who may have taken the online portion earlier? I'm guessing they are current July of 2016 online test takers, but I would like to exclude the 10-point testers who can test quarterly from the equation to determine the accuracy of this bizarre new twist in OPM's announcement scheme.
2. Has any of those that received the rejection email had a status change in AM to See Details? If they have not received that status change, then this really throws a wrench in expectations of what to expect for the future and will solidify that the only thing consistent about OPM is its inconsistency in how they are going about the testing process (which is already pretty much a given anyway).
If this is OPM's new way, then there is the high likelihood that the rejection emails will trickle in for a week or two, possibly even longer. I for one will be waiting patiently for my participation award email from OPM since I got cut at Phase II in 2013 (only to get called up in 2015) and I really don't know that I improved upon my responses enough three years later to allow for them to send me the invite.
As wvjabes indicated in an earlier post, this is no doubt nerve wracking. But it only gets worse from here. For those who have to dole out the cash to go to DC there is still the possibility of losing a significant chunk of change by not making a passing score on either the WD or SI. I can attest to how much that smarts. Even if you make the Register, you could still end up sitting for years watching others get the lotto tickets. At this point, your only investment is computer face time. Even though this is nerve wracking, keep the perspective and "Don't Panic."
Good luck to all.
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Aug 11, 2016 7:47:00 GMT -5
This may be wishful thinking but here is the way I see it. For anyone to get an email saying they do not get to phase 3 everyone's phase 2 stages have been scored. Otherwise how would you know who the top scorers were. Therefore if you have not received the dreaded email you are waiting on the email invite to DC. Well, I'm sure that's it. But, I thought there were threshold scores for some of this. They could be skimming off the ones that didn't make that level, if there are minimums. Given that 2013 had a group that ultimately went to DC only in 2015 due to lower scores, they only have to grade enough to know that there "is" a lower scoring subgroup to start eliminating some scores. i.e. once they've graded 500, if they are only testing 500 people (in terms of just capacity of the rooms), somebody can start to be eliminated. This is an unresolved debate. Some believe that there are indeed minimum scores while others believe that OPM just takes the top however many they can test. If the later, then they have to grade all of them before sending out emails. See the discussion at the end of this thread.
If they are doing what you say, that would imply that they just started grading the online component since the FOASH emails just started coming out. Even for OPM, that seems really slow.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Aug 11, 2016 8:14:41 GMT -5
Touché, OPM, touché.... If this indeed is the new process that OPM is proceeding with in rejecting Phase II testers heading into Phase III, then we are in uncharted territory and precedence does not control since before in prior testing OPM went about by changing status in AM to See Details and then dropping the <insert your favorite acronym for the rejection email here> email on those who did not make it before rolling out invites to those who made it Phase III. (Pix, sorry for the references to the dreaded terms, but I thought it was relevant to the discussion at hand and the lack of such discussion in the Q&A about AM thread. If it is too much for this thread, then I can delete and repost in the Q&A thread about AM). I'm wondering if anyone on the Board has information about a couple of points of clarification I am curious about that I was unable to glean from the other posts: 1. Are all of the individuals who have received the rejection emails July of 2016 online test takers? Or are any of those (or all of those) individuals 10-pointers who may have taken the online portion earlier? I'm guessing they are current July of 2016 online test takers, but I would like to exclude the 10-point testers who can test quarterly from the equation to determine the accuracy of this bizarre new twist in OPM's announcement scheme. 2. Has any of those that received the rejection email had a status change in AM to See Details? If they have not received that status change, then this really throws a wrench in expectations of what to expect for the future and will solidify that the only thing consistent about OPM is its inconsistency in how they are going about the testing process (which is already pretty much a given anyway). If this is OPM's new way, then there is the high likelihood that the rejection emails will trickle in for a week or two, possibly even longer. I for one will be waiting patiently for my participation award email from OPM since I got cut at Phase II in 2013 (only to get called up in 2015) and I really don't know that I improved upon my responses enough three years later to allow for them to send me the invite. As wvjabes indicated in an earlier post, this is no doubt nerve wracking. But it only gets worse from here. For those who have to dole out the cash to go to DC there is still the possibility of losing a significant chunk of change by not making a passing score on either the WD or SI. I can attest to how much that smarts. Even if you make the Register, you could still end up sitting for years watching others get the lotto tickets. At this point, your only investment is computer face time. Even though this is nerve wracking, keep the perspective and "Don't Panic." Good luck to all. I cringe but you are probably correct. I cringe because I know how quickly a thread can be consumed by the unmentionable topic. Pixie
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Aug 11, 2016 8:23:40 GMT -5
Well, I'm sure that's it. But, I thought there were threshold scores for some of this. They could be skimming off the ones that didn't make that level, if there are minimums. Given that 2013 had a group that ultimately went to DC only in 2015 due to lower scores, they only have to grade enough to know that there "is" a lower scoring subgroup to start eliminating some scores. i.e. once they've graded 500, if they are only testing 500 people (in terms of just capacity of the rooms), somebody can start to be eliminated. This is an unresolved debate. Some believe that there are indeed minimum scores while others believe that OPM just takes the top however many they can test. If the later, then they have to grade all of them before sending out emails. See the discussion at the end of this thread.
If they are doing what you say, that would imply that they just started grading the online component since the FOASH emails just started coming out. Even for OPM, that seems really slow.
In the old days there were true minimum scores. That was during the period when the register was open for applications at all times. Although not positive, I am pretty sure OPM now decides how many candidates can reasonably be tested given the resources at hand, and sets the minimum score to accommodate that number. The minimum required score is not quality dependent but is numbers driven. Pixie
|
|
|
Post by judgymcjudgypants on Aug 11, 2016 8:52:44 GMT -5
If you take into consideration the information about 23 weeks of testing starting in September, it would seem that a much larger group will pass through to DC. The only question is whether OPM will break it down into smaller subsets to make the process more manageable. And that could explain why a smaller percentage receive FOASH because our initial group will be the equivalent of both the 2013 and 2015 testers. Although, I am allowing for the possibility that the initial group will be done in two or more batches, so to speak. Arguably, the 2015 testers should never have gotten a FOASH and the 2016 subset equivalent may not ever get a FOASH, because OPM has a bigger scheme in mind this time, from the outset.
J
|
|
|
Post by hopingforalj on Aug 11, 2016 9:02:02 GMT -5
I think they are bringing a larger first batch, but based on the fact that they can only squeeze x amount into testing area, the weeks of testing will be extended to accommodate the value of x applicants per week, and that is my formula, although x is still a variable, so i have not solved for x.
|
|
|
Post by judgymcjudgypants on Aug 11, 2016 10:43:56 GMT -5
Now, there's no reason to play dirty by invoking algebra.
A lot of us went to law school to avoid solving for x, y, or z.
J
|
|
|
Post by Lawesome on Aug 11, 2016 10:48:45 GMT -5
I do know that A B C... is easy as 1 2 3.
That's about it.
|
|
maine
Full Member
Posts: 35
|
Post by maine on Aug 11, 2016 10:57:09 GMT -5
As I pointlessly stress about this, I realized even absolute 100% best case scenario (which statistically is not very likely) I wouldn't even get an ALJ position until at least a year out like September 2017. Am I correct in my understanding of the timing of this go-round? And if so, I feel kind of silly getting worked up now about Phase 3 invites, though without a doubt I am absolutely checking my email and this forum way, way too often now in anticipation of any news.
|
|
|
Post by weisstho on Aug 11, 2016 11:01:45 GMT -5
It truly is as easy as solving:
P = NP
|
|
|
Post by marten77 on Aug 11, 2016 14:17:29 GMT -5
If you take into consideration the information about 23 weeks of testing starting in September, it would seem that a much larger group will pass through to DC. The only question is whether OPM will break it down into smaller subsets to make the process more manageable. And that could explain why a smaller percentage receive FOASH because our initial group will be the equivalent of both the 2013 and 2015 testers. Although, I am allowing for the possibility that the initial group will be done in two or more batches, so to speak. Arguably, the 2015 testers should never have gotten a FOASH and the 2016 subset equivalent may not ever get a FOASH, because OPM has a bigger scheme in mind this time, from the outset. J Another interesting twist to this possibility is how long it will take for them to grade all of those tests if they really are going to do 23 weeks of testing. There was only 10 weeks of testing in the fall of 2015 and it took them roughly two and a half months to get the results out. If the 23 weeks of testing is for real, we could easily be looking at 5 to 6 months before NORs come out from the end of testing, which could be somewhere around late next summer to early fall. However, given OPM's new twist on notifying those who have been rejected, perhaps they have rolling grading tucked up their sleeve? Doubtful, but perchance a possibility given their recent unpredictability. It appears we are in a brave new world of OPM's ALJ testing...
|
|
|
Post by Ready-Now! on Aug 11, 2016 15:19:50 GMT -5
If you take into consideration the information about 23 weeks of testing starting in September, it would seem that a much larger group will pass through to DC. The only question is whether OPM will break it down into smaller subsets to make the process more manageable. And that could explain why a smaller percentage receive FOASH because our initial group will be the equivalent of both the 2013 and 2015 testers. Although, I am allowing for the possibility that the initial group will be done in two or more batches, so to speak. Arguably, the 2015 testers should never have gotten a FOASH and the 2016 subset equivalent may not ever get a FOASH, because OPM has a bigger scheme in mind this time, from the outset. J Another interesting twist to this possibility is how long it will take for them to grade all of those tests if they really are going to do 23 weeks of testing. There was only 10 weeks of testing in the fall of 2015 and it took them roughly two and a half months to get the results out. If the 23 weeks of testing is for real, we could easily be looking at 5 to 6 months before NORs come out from the end of testing, which could be somewhere around late next summer to early fall. However, given OPM's new twist on notifying those who have been rejected, perhaps they have rolling grading tucked up their sleeve? Doubtful, but perchance a possibility given their recent unpredictability. It appears we are in a brave new world of OPM's ALJ testing... IIRC there was a run at hiring many HRs a few months ago by OPM. Perhaps the thought was to hire more HRs to deal with a larger testing group. Also, I could be remembering incorrectly.
|
|
|
Post by DogLady on Aug 11, 2016 15:49:57 GMT -5
Since we had a lot of action with lurkers joining after receiving notices that they would not move forward to the online testing - so they could ask appeal questions etc... I think the fact that we are not having the same thing happen now means that the FOASH letters are paused due to some contractor related glitch and once the glitch is repaired - they will start up and we will see activity here.This seems plausible. It's just odd that there have been no other reports of FOASH emails. I find myself checking my email and this thread more often than I care to admit.
|
|
|
Post by judgymcjudgypants on Aug 11, 2016 15:52:18 GMT -5
Rolling grading is possible because they are almost obliged to use the same high water marks as they did for 2013 and 2015. Lawyers are a litigation happy bunch, as OPM knows all too well. OPM knows what those marks are, be it a score or a relative rank or some combination.
I think FOASH emails are slow because OPM is terrified of making a mistake and getting sued. Again.
That said, my guess is that there will be a three to five month delay after the end of testing for everyone before NOR notices roll out.
J
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Aug 11, 2016 16:36:18 GMT -5
Rolling grading and notifications make no sense to me. If they have a set cut off score, OPM could potentially end up with 4000 persons coming to DC. No way they do that. In the thread I linked to on the prior page, funkyodar makes a convincing case to me that the cutoff is based on the top x number of applicants, not all those above X score. OPM has the testing scheduled, they know their testing capacity and they are going to bring that many to DC. They have to grade all of the online component before they know who the higher subgroup is and who to invite. We started with 5500 applicants and between 50 and 160 are on this board. There could have been a substantial FOASH emails sent and we just don't know it. Granted, it is really odd that we don't have more than 4 or so that we know about. I agree with the thoughts that something happened that made them stop rather than the rolling grading/notices. Even if it were rolling grading/notices, we should have started seeing FOASH emails way way earlier than this week. I think there was some premature FOASHing and we will see invites the week of 29 August.
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Aug 11, 2016 16:45:25 GMT -5
Plus, as previously pointed out, by marten77 I believe, the lack of see details changes is a departure from prior practice. Another point in the column for a few FOASHs were sent prematurely.
|
|