|
Post by marten77 on Aug 12, 2016 7:15:31 GMT -5
After going back through the thread some, I'm subscribing to the theory that someone flubbed the dub and pushed the button early since the rejection emails appear to have come from an OPM contractor. This makes the most sense to me. So, if/when my FOASH participation award comes in, I'll ride it like Major Kong:
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Aug 12, 2016 7:42:42 GMT -5
In the spirit of discussion, not argument, I ask: if they are using rolling grading and sending notifications before grading all of them, why did they just start going out and why only a very few? Even if they waited until they graded 2000 and are only taking the for sure top scorers and FOASHing the for sure low scorers, why do we only know about 4 or 5 FOASHs and 0 invites? Good theory but the evidence doesn't fit. If they are using a cut off score for the SJT, why the long wait and why only 4 or 5? The SJT should have been graded instantly. I still think it was just a mistake that a few were sent by accident. Somebody pressed the wrong button. If we assume 23 weeks is the correct overall testing period, is the number 25 per two day period, thus, 100 per week? So a total of 2300 DC testers...? IIRC, they (sophie?) "mathed" it in another thread based on the thru put from prior testing period x 23 weeks and the results were somewhere in the neighborhood of 3500. That was assuming they tested at the same pace as before and used the 23 weeks to capacity. Of course, the intel was that OPM had asked SSA for ALJs for the SI for less than 23 weeks and that in past iterations, the last weeks were not filled to capacity. So, 3500 is a good start but the potential deviation is quite large.
|
|
|
Post by marten77 on Aug 12, 2016 8:01:26 GMT -5
On the rolling grading issue, I forgot to mention in my earlier post that in reviewing the earlier posts in this thread, the information gary received was that OPM was soliciting ALJs for interviewing from the period of September to December but OPM was planning on 23 weeks of testing. Seems a likely scenario is that they may take the higher scoring subgroup first from September to December and the next higher scoring subgroup after that (perhaps January to March or early April?) with announcements and invites to the DC testing for the lower scoring subgroup to come sometime later in the fall after they have established a timeline for testing after the holidays. This could conceivably allow OPM to grade the higher scoring subgroup first with NORs in March or April and the next group to receive NORs roundabouts the beginning of summer to mid-summer 2017. Just a WAG though...
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Aug 12, 2016 8:08:00 GMT -5
On the rolling grading issue, I forgot to mention in my earlier post that in reviewing the earlier posts in this thread, the information gary received was that OPM was soliciting ALJs for interviewing from the period of September to December but OPM was planning on 23 weeks of testing. Seems a likely scenario is that they may take the higher scoring subgroup first from September to December and the next higher scoring subgroup after that (perhaps January to March or early April?) with announcements and invites to the DC testing for the lower scoring subgroup to come sometime later in the fall after they have established a timeline for testing after the holidays. This could conceivably allow OPM to grade the higher scoring subgroup first with NORs in March or April and the next group to receive NORs roundabouts the beginning of summer to mid-summer 2017. Just a WAG though... That makes sense to me but you are talking about rolling invites, not rolling grading. Under your scenario, OPM would grade all online components, invite the high subgroup, FOASH the low subgroup and leave the middle subgroup twisting in the wind for 4 months.
|
|
|
Post by sophie22 on Aug 12, 2016 10:59:47 GMT -5
This makes the most sense to me. Although I think it's possible that the middle group may get an email that says something along the lines of, "you will get an email later that details it, but you get to pay your own way to DC in the spring, so leave us the hell alone." Great. Now we will need yet another acronym for the middle group. FOFN? FOAW? This is way too much work. Fortunately for me, I have nothing better to do while I ponder the cause of the premature FOASHing.
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Aug 12, 2016 11:04:03 GMT -5
Because it's the stopping for another activity that makes banging your head against a wall so inviting (sic),* by way of diversion any permissable discussion as to what topics are covered in the DC testing? Are they centered on Social Security adjudication? Do they ask about administrative law principles?
Can those that have been there permissably say what they wished they had reviewed or were glad they reviewed?
We've discussed how we may get the message, where to stay, but when we get into the two locations......then what? Deer in headlights?
If the notification process seems obscure to totally opaque, what goes on in the DC testing seems if anything better protected than any other government secret. Rightly so but are there allowable discussions to be had?
*also cleaner, less violative of health regulations than divination of sheeps entrails.
Edit By Pixie: The above bolded topics are not permissible. It is best to stay away from all discussion of the testing and interviews. Pixie
|
|
|
Post by Ready-Now! on Aug 12, 2016 11:09:04 GMT -5
No discussion of substantive issues/topics which would include the topics covered at DC.
Edit By Pixie: Yes, thank you for catching this and mentioning it. I have been busy with other aspects of the Board. Pixie
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Aug 12, 2016 11:10:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by judgymcjudgypants on Aug 12, 2016 11:28:03 GMT -5
No, they can't say a word about topics because it would violate CONFIDENTIALITY. It is unfair to even ask because we are future competition for them for the same jobs, and we should neither ask nor expect them to give us an advantage over them.
PLEASE, Class of 2016, don't let this thread become the boundary pushing line of posts as the Phase 2 thread indulged in.
J
|
|
|
Post by aa7 on Aug 12, 2016 11:34:43 GMT -5
Ya...looks like there is no way to log in and log out quickly like in Phase 2. ;-/
|
|
|
Post by queenie262 on Aug 12, 2016 11:37:37 GMT -5
On the rolling grading issue, I forgot to mention in my earlier post that in reviewing the earlier posts in this thread, the information gary received was that OPM was soliciting ALJs for interviewing from the period of September to December but OPM was planning on 23 weeks of testing. Seems a likely scenario is that they may take the higher scoring subgroup first from September to December and the next higher scoring subgroup after that (perhaps January to March or early April?) with announcements and invites to the DC testing for the lower scoring subgroup to come sometime later in the fall after they have established a timeline for testing after the holidays. This could conceivably allow OPM to grade the higher scoring subgroup first with NORs in March or April and the next group to receive NORs roundabouts the beginning of summer to mid-summer 2017. Just a WAG though... That makes sense to me but you are talking about rolling invites, not rolling grading. Under your scenario, OPM would grade all online components, invite the high subgroup, FOASH the low subgroup and leave the middle subgroup twisting in the wind for 4 months. No, both the highest and middle "(next highest")subgroups could receive their invites to DC at the same time, but for different periods, i.e. highest for Sept-Dec and middle for Jan-Feb. The first group could receive their NORS in the spring and the second group thereafter. This would roughly accord with what actually happened with the 2013 applicants, though presumably OPM wouldn't wait as long to add the middle subgroup to the mix.
|
|
|
Post by hopingforalj on Aug 12, 2016 11:48:23 GMT -5
In 2013 some emails went out late Friday and showed up on Sat morning, some of us will be at the end, and others at the beginning of the end, and technically a GPS satellite might travel back in time if only by a millisecond if it is not adjusted for the movement of the third rock from the sun, or something like that. Gooood luck to all.
|
|
|
Post by Ready-Now! on Aug 12, 2016 11:51:49 GMT -5
No, they can't say a word about topics because it would violate CONFIDENTIALITY. It is unfair to even ask because we are future competition for them for the same jobs, and we should neither ask nor expect them to give us an advantage over them. PLEASE, Class of 2016, don't let this thread become the boundary pushing line of posts as the Phase 2 thread indulged in. J We also would not want to deprive anyone of the fun. So no spoilers.
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Aug 12, 2016 12:11:47 GMT -5
You will find that they delivered some pretty impressive threats against anyone testing who violates confidentiality with regard to what's tested or asked. If I recall correctly, they said they'd eliminate one from federal job consideration, fire you if you are a current federal employee, and some sundry statutory threats. I can't remember if they threatened to kick my dog as well, but the point is the confidentiality is a serious matter to TPTB! Therefore, if you want to be an ALJ, please don't press on the confidentiality pledge. If you really must have the advantage of knowing what's coming - tank the DC testing this time around and hope to get there again with the next ALJ job announcement down the road 3-years.
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Aug 12, 2016 12:26:54 GMT -5
That makes sense to me but you are talking about rolling invites, not rolling grading. Under your scenario, OPM would grade all online components, invite the high subgroup, FOASH the low subgroup and leave the middle subgroup twisting in the wind for 4 months. No, both the highest and middle "(next highest")subgroups could receive their invites to DC at the same time, but for different periods, i.e. highest for Sept-Dec and middle for Jan-Feb. The first group could receive their NORS in the spring and the second group thereafter. This would roughly accord with what actually happened with the 2013 applicants, though presumably OPM wouldn't wait as long to add the middle subgroup to the mix. Putting aside your overly optimistic view of OPM functioning in a logical manner by choosing to be upfront and clear about any part of this opaque process, I think that OPM would want to be very careful about needing to draw a distinct line between the two groups because you are talking about putting some on the register before others. They could do that with an appropriately drafted email.
Also, I think it possible that OPM will want the results from the highest subgroup's DC testing before deciding how many in the second subgroup to invite to DC. If 2500 are invited as part of the first group and an abnormal % make it past the cutoff score, they may only invite a small second group or not have a second group.
What you say would be a reasonable logical way to do it. However, until I see a significant departure from the process used from 2013-16, I don't expect there will be anything different subject to the caveat below. The "its how we have always done it" is an extremely powerful force in the federal government, right up there with gravity and the sun.
Caveat: I do think more will be invited to DC in the first group and there is a good chance there will be no second group. IMO, the second group was invited because OPM made a mistake and filtered out too many during the first cut so they ended up with a register that didn't have enough names to keep pace with SSA hiring. That was the first time OPM went through this process and that is the most obvious correction they can make.
If the second group that was invited to DC in 2015 was simply to correct OPM's overly strict filtering of candidates, it isn't reasonable for us to assume there will be a second group this time. If it is a feature of the process by which OPM will do a quasi refresh of the applicant stream without actually having to do an actual refresh, then we can expect it. So, in short, we don't have enough data points to determine that now. How they handle the 2016 applicants will show whether they intend to always use a second group or not.
|
|
|
Post by peanutfancy on Aug 12, 2016 12:29:38 GMT -5
I would probably repress any recollection of threats against my dog as well. Here's to continued compliance!
|
|
|
Post by seaside on Aug 12, 2016 12:37:33 GMT -5
I've been mum on this topic for three plus years, since I first ran the gauntlet all the way to DC. I understand that people are getting antsy waiting on word from TPB about whether they move on, but all this wild speculation about how OPM is proceeding, as well as the (once again) revived questions about the phase 3 process are scratching a nerve.
I will repeat myself and say again that I GET IT. You're anxious to hear. Bantering back and forth the various "what ifs" of this mysterious process helps pass the time. But I'm at a point where I cringe every time I see a new post on this thread only to discover that it doesn't really contain any useful information. No offense intended. I enjoy reading the banter AFTER the flurry of emails about next-phase invites, certs and offers are over.
For those still fishing for inside info on the testing process, I say this: keep your wits and ethics about you. You're asking others to compromise both the integrity of the process and their personal integrity by asking clearly self-serving questions. Please refrain. In the words of my wise 3-year old, let it go, let it gooooo!
I try to view this entire process as part of the test--how well I handle the stress of long waits (which is nothing compared to the wait of SSA claimants who wait for a hearing and then a decision); my temperament--how well do I handle the strain of gearing up for testing, then waiting...then gearing up again for another round of testing, then waiting yet again...and how will I handle the news - good OR bad - because either way, it's life-altering news that takes some time to fully process. Also, fielding all the well-meaning questions from family about whether I've heard yet and what does OPM stand for again?? (LOL) and finally, maintaining a sense of humility about the fact that I'm still EARLY in this process even at 3 years in and IF I'm lucky, I'll get to wait a whole lot more. It beats the alternative.
I fully commiserate with you all. But it's Friday. Ima grab a cold libation and call it a weekend. Maybe catch up some sports. I hear some big thing going on in Brazil right now. Maybe catch a movie, play with my kids. You know, do life. The news will come when it comes.
|
|
|
Post by queenie262 on Aug 12, 2016 12:55:07 GMT -5
No, both the highest and middle "(next highest")subgroups could receive their invites to DC at the same time, but for different periods, i.e. highest for Sept-Dec and middle for Jan-Feb. The first group could receive their NORS in the spring and the second group thereafter. This would roughly accord with what actually happened with the 2013 applicants, though presumably OPM wouldn't wait as long to add the middle subgroup to the mix. Putting aside your overly optimistic view of OPM functioning in a logical manner by choosing to be upfront and clear about any part of this opaque process, I think that OPM would want to be very careful about needing to draw a distinct line between the two groups because you are talking about putting some on the register before others. They could do that with an appropriately drafted email.
Also, I think it possible that OPM will want the results from the highest subgroup's DC testing before deciding how many in the second subgroup to invite to DC. If 2500 are invited as part of the first group and an abnormal % make it past the cutoff score, they may only invite a small second group or not have a second group.
What you say would be a reasonable logical way to do it. However, until I see a significant departure from the process used from 2013-16, I don't expect there will be anything different subject to the caveat below. The "its how we have always done it" is an extremely powerful force in the federal government, right up there with gravity and the sun.
Caveat: I do think more will be invited to DC in the first group and there is a good chance there will be no second group. IMO, the second group was invited because OPM made a mistake and filtered out too many during the first cut so they ended up with a register that didn't have enough names to keep pace with SSA hiring. That was the first time OPM went through this process and that is the most obvious correction they can make.
If the second group that was invited to DC in 2015 was simply to correct OPM's overly strict filtering of candidates, it isn't reasonable for us to assume there will be a second group this time. If it is a feature of the process by which OPM will do a quasi refresh of the applicant stream without actually having to do an actual refresh, then we can expect it. So, in short, we don't have enough data points to determine that now. How they handle the 2016 applicants will show whether they intend to always use a second group or not.
1) I am not "overly optimistic" about anything--I said OPM "could" not OPM "would;" 2) If OPM has most to fear from not treating all members of the register similarly, then it would be well advised to have 2 groups for the 2016 applicants, similar to what it had for the 2013 applicants--after all, the 2013 applicants entered the register in 2 phases and the "next highest scoring subgroup" missed several certs; 3) My speculation that they will invite both groups at once but grade the first group's tests earlier is primarily based upon the fact that they are under pressure to add new bodies to the register ASAP (though as someone currently idling on the register, I certainly don't *want* this); 4) seaside--I "hear" you too...often I am not in the mood to hear speculation or to speculate, but today I am! Have a few drinks for us both. Go Simones!
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Aug 12, 2016 14:21:36 GMT -5
There is another thread for DC INVITES. Pixie
|
|
|
Post by litigator52 on Aug 13, 2016 10:23:13 GMT -5
And my observation from 5 years working in close association with the AC (don't they choose the new ALJs?) is that what they value in their own staff is productivity speed -- not accuracy, not depth of knowledge, not leadership skills or 'social function' skills, and certainly not extra-SSA experience. They can look up the productivity stats pretty quickly on the insiders and be shed of 250 in one fell swoop.
LIT52 with my new game face
|
|