|
Post by Mjǿlner on Jun 29, 2016 9:39:00 GMT -5
If you test in DC, you will take the WD/LBMT on one day and have your SI the following day. The WD/LBMTs are administered Mon-Thur and the SIs occur Tues-Fri. The following intel is from a very reliable source: 1. OPM has solicited SSA management for ALJs to be on panels for the SI. 2. OPM needs 8 ALJs a week for 23 weeks. This is the request being made of SSA--other agencies may have also received a like request but that is beyond the source's knowledge. 3. 8 ALJs is enough for 4 panels (2 ALJs + 1 OPM employee each). 4. Volunteers have been told they will be assigned a week between the beginning of September and the end of December. Thanks for the information; however, it seems to be internally inconsistent.There aren't 23 weeks in September through December. By my count there are 15 weeks from September through the end of December, if I start counting after the week that Labor Day occurs in. Given that it is unlikely that much is going to be accomplished the week of Thanksgiving or Christmas, I doubt that testing would take place then and I can't imagine that too many ALJs are going to want to travel to DC to be part of this process during those weeks, that leaves 13 weeks for the DC process this year.
Is it possible that the source mistyped "23" when they meant "13"? or, will this process really go own for 23 weeks, which will take it well into March of 2017?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 29, 2016 9:44:23 GMT -5
Nope. It's definitely 23.
My thought is they are currently soliciting volunteers for the period through December and will later solicit volunteers for post-December SIs. That's just my guess and does not come from the source.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jun 29, 2016 9:55:09 GMT -5
I knew gary hadn't made a mistake. I was just waiting for his reply. I am surprised mjoiner would have called him on it. Pixie
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jun 29, 2016 10:27:43 GMT -5
I took it to mean, each week of DC testing will have smaller numbers. So same total number, just more weeks, for smaller groups per week. Somehow that is supposed to be more efficient. Yes, and I don't know that it would be necessarily be more efficient. It may allow for better grading, though, by allowing a steady stream of exams to grade rather than staring at a massive pile day after day. I believe the original schedule in 2013 was 9-11 weeks long. This is an enormous departure from that. The most likely explanation is that they're planning on cutting far fewer folks at this stage in the process and having a much larger group in DC this fall/winter. makes sense to have a larger group. i for one would have liked that back in 2013! so onward my friends i hope to DC!
|
|
|
Post by Topperlaw on Jun 29, 2016 10:53:01 GMT -5
Could it be that they will test the higher scoring subgroup in October to December so they can get started on scoring them and get them placed on the register first--say in April or May. Then, they could test the lower scoring subgroup in January to March with their scores not coming onboard until more like August. That would allow the higher scoring subgroup to have the register (mostly) all to themselves for a couple of certs in the Spring/Summer before the lower scoring subgroup makes the register.
If, on the other hand, they are simply going to test and score one large group, and testing is truly going to take 23 weeks, then testing won't be complete until March 2017 at best, and scoring for that large of a group certainly wouldn't be able to be completed until June/July.
My SWAG based on all of this new intel is that Social Security is not going to get its refreshees until June 2017 at the earliest, and so if they want to hire 250 in fiscal 2017, they are going to have to hire a good 100 people or more off of the current register before the refreshees come onboard. There just won't be enough time left in the fiscal year to wait and do all of the hiring after the refresh is finished.
|
|
|
Post by sophie22 on Jun 29, 2016 10:59:20 GMT -5
Do the volunteer ALJs also grade the tests? Or does someone else grade? Just wondering if grading is done on site, as the tests are completed, or perhaps they are placed in a database and graded remotely? I assume the most tedious part of the grading process is the WD.
|
|
|
Post by lucy on Jun 29, 2016 11:05:23 GMT -5
Wow. Hadn't expected that interviews would be starting as early as September. That would be a really quick turnaround.
|
|
|
DC Testing
Jun 29, 2016 11:41:49 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by backtoeden on Jun 29, 2016 11:41:49 GMT -5
I read the posts in the math thread before this one. Now things make more sense. I do think it's possible that more people will be allowed to go forward to DC. However, the JOA as well as the instructions from the online testing phase clearly indicates that there will be a higher scoring subgroup.
I think if the intel is right about 23 weeks, we will likely see the higher scoring subgroup tested in DC through December, and possibly the next higher scoring subgroup tested some time later. I believe they can score the first group and get NORs out in the spring of 2017. Based on the congressional testimony, SSA is looking for the refreshed register in the spring.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jun 29, 2016 11:44:37 GMT -5
Do the volunteer ALJs also grade the tests? Or does someone else grade? Just wondering if grading is done on site, as the tests are completed, or perhaps they are placed in a database and graded remotely? I assume the most tedious part of the grading process is the WD. I believe the grading is done by retired ALJs or at least was in the past.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 29, 2016 12:25:58 GMT -5
Do the volunteer ALJs also grade the tests? Or does someone else grade? Just wondering if grading is done on site, as the tests are completed, or perhaps they are placed in a database and graded remotely? I assume the most tedious part of the grading process is the WD. 1. I would be shocked if the SI ALJs graded the WDs. 2. Whether the WDs are graded on a rolling basis or after everyone has taken the WD is a subject that was kicked around in 2013/14. I don't recall us truly resolving that question.
|
|
|
Post by marten77 on Jun 29, 2016 13:01:55 GMT -5
Do the volunteer ALJs also grade the tests? Or does someone else grade? Just wondering if grading is done on site, as the tests are completed, or perhaps they are placed in a database and graded remotely? I assume the most tedious part of the grading process is the WD. 1. I would be shocked if the SI ALJs graded the WDs. 2. Whether the WDs are graded on a rolling basis or after everyone has taken the WD is a subject that was kicked around in 2013/14. I don't recall us truly resolving that question. I would also be surprised if WDs were graded by the SI ALJs. As for grading WDs on a rolling basis, I think that theory got canned after last fall's testing of the next higher scoring subgroup that I was in. We took our tests spread out over two and a half months but received our NORs at the same time. I'm curious if this time around they will schedule the DC testing for everyone that moves on without input from the testers (as they did in 2013) or allow self-schedule by the testers (as they did in 2015)? On a related note, perhaps it is premature, but it might be worth putting up a new sticky for the inevitable questions on where the best places to stay are in relation to OPM and the Embassy Suites. That topic was pretty thoroughly discussed in 2013 and again in 2015 as I recall. May head off some additional questions that are likely to surface in the next weeks or months. I would do it myself, but I honestly don't know how to "sticky" something. Perhaps it isn't that hard, but I admit my ignorance of it.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 29, 2016 13:20:43 GMT -5
I think Pixie or ALJD would have to sticky it.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jun 29, 2016 14:29:38 GMT -5
As hopefalj said the WD in the past were graded by retired ALJs.
If it got stickied, that would mean no one would read it. I don't think most of this new class even knows what the stickies are, or where they are. Pixie.
|
|
|
Post by phoenixrisingALJ on Jun 29, 2016 14:34:39 GMT -5
If it got stickied, that would mean no one would read it. I don't think most of this new class even knows what the stickies are, or where they are. Pixie. Ok now Pixie - this is an example of snark. When a newbie commented that there was some snark on another thread - you asked for examples... so cough cough....mirror.... Just saying - please don't hurt me...lol. I happen to agree with you - many new people are not taking the time to read threads - read rules. NEW people - PLEASE do not stop reading a thread just because it is long and dense and then just ask a question. Read the whole thread. You are correct it may not apply to us now - but still read it all - why you ask? Because it supplies CONTEXT - also history in how OPM has handled things that may help you understand what is happening now and/or why it is handled a certain way. Also, towards the end of those threads IS usually newer information from 2013-15 that is totally on point. ALSO - read these older threads out of respect for those that created this board - a lot of time and effort went into this board. There is a lot of information there - at least TRY to read through it. More experienced board members do not mind answering questions if it looks like you tried to find the answer or you just don't understand something... at least that has been my experience as folks have very kindly answered questions.
|
|
|
Post by Mjǿlner on Jun 29, 2016 16:39:02 GMT -5
I knew gary hadn't made a mistake. I was just waiting for his reply. I am surprised mjoiner would have called him on it. Pixie Gary, I didn't mean to "call you" on this, and apologize if that is they way my post was perceived. I just wanted to foster further analysis, based on my newbie analysis of what you reported; however, in light of your subsequent clarification, I'm off to start new thread on this apparently unprecedented 23 three weeks of the SI process, entitled "SImageddon."
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 29, 2016 16:45:43 GMT -5
I knew gary hadn't made a mistake. I was just waiting for his reply. I am surprised mjoiner would have called him on it. Pixie Gary, I didn't mean to "call you" on this, and apologize if that is they way my post was perceived. I just wanted to foster further analysis, based on my newbie analysis of what you reported; however, in light of your subsequent clarification, I'm off to start new thread on this apparently unprecedented 23 three weeks of the SI process, entitled "SImageddon." I did not take it as you calling me out on it, but rather as fair and reasonable questioning of what the intel means.
|
|
|
Post by owl on Jun 29, 2016 17:09:31 GMT -5
Sorry, I'm not buying "23 weeks" of DC testing. Not questioning anybody's veracity in reporting what was conveyed to them or their ability to read what OPM sent to SSA. I am, however, questioning the rationality of OPM saying to SSA we need you to give us volunteer ALJs for 23 weeks and saying those volunteers will be assigned between September and December. Doesn't compute.
If OPM knows it is going to need volunteers for 23 weeks, and that they are starting in September, then they also know that they're going to need them into February (or let's be real, March, since it is nearly inconceivable that there will be testing in DC in those weeks around the holidays). Why would they send a request to SSA that completely ignores this basic fact? If they know they are going to have to come back later and ask for more volunteers for January, February, and March, I see no rational reason why they wouldn't at least mention that now (not even a "please note that we will be sending a similar request later for the remainder of the 23-week period"?) - or frankly, just ask for the whole needed complement of volunteers at once.
Additionally, 23 weeks of DC testing would likely mean no NORs until June or July 2017 at the earliest, unless OPM out of the blue manages to act with an alacrity heretofore undemonstrated - and even that assumes that they can grade roughly twice the number of tests in the same ~3.5 month period it took them before. SSA has said it is expecting the new cohort of register additions to arrive in the spring, not the summer. Frankly, as someone currently on the register, it's in my personal interest to see the testing process drag out, but 23 weeks is such a departure from past practice that it seems dubious on its face.
Finally, as is being sussed out in the math thread, 23 weeks of full-bore DC testing would yield far more additions to the register than OPM's first run through the process - including the revival of the Oct.-Dec. 2015 testers. I thought we had intel that 5500 applied in 2013 and about 6000 applied this time, or at any rate, that there wasn't a truly dramatic increase in the application numbers. Given that OPM ultimately must apply the same (lowered) bar for passing to the DC phase in 2016 as they did in 2015, there is no reason to believe that this group of applicants is so qualitatively different that they are going to surmount that bar in grossly higher numbers. Now, I suppose OPM could lower that bar yet again, in an attempt to pass on more folks, but wouldn't that mean they would have to go back and apply that bar to yet another subgroup of long-dormant 2013 applicants? Or at least those who did not reapply this time?
To me, it's more likely that OPM told SSA "23" (which was duly reported here as such, and thankfully so) when they meant "13." The gymnastics we have to go through to make "23 weeks" plausible are not as likely as a simple typo somewhere. But time will tell, I guess. Good luck to all!
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jun 29, 2016 19:21:54 GMT -5
I knew gary hadn't made a mistake. I was just waiting for his reply. I am surprised mjoiner would have called him on it. Pixie Gary, I didn't mean to "call you" on this, and apologize if that is they way my post was perceived. I just wanted to foster further analysis, based on my newbie analysis of what you reported; however, in light of your subsequent clarification, I'm off to start new thread on this apparently unprecedented 23 three weeks of the SI process, entitled "SImageddon." The calling out comment was tongue in cheek. We all know you weren't "calling him out." Pixie.
|
|
|
Post by Prrple on Jun 29, 2016 19:24:31 GMT -5
If these numbers are accurate, or even close, I think its a clear indication that OPM's response to SSA's complaint in the congressional hearing that the register just doesn't have enough names on it to meet SSA's hiring goals has been taken seriously. This suggests the response to that complaint is to expand the register drastically. I suppose that's good news for those wanting to get on the register. But remember, all getting on the register gets you is a sense of accomplishment... not even a t-shirt. .... Clearly you haven't been to my Etsy Store, featuring the highly popular "I made it onto the OPM ALJ register, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" design. Available in a variety of colors and styles, including crewneck, v-neck or tank top. I'm considering adding coffee mugs and baseball caps.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jun 29, 2016 19:34:48 GMT -5
If it got stickied, that would mean no one would read it. I don't think most of this new class even knows what the stickies are, or where they are. Pixie. Ok now Pixie - this is an example of snark. When a newbie commented that there was some snark on another thread - you asked for examples... so cough cough....mirror.... Just saying - please don't hurt me...lol. I happen to agree with you - many new people are not taking the time to read threads - read rules. NEW people - PLEASE do not stop reading a thread just because it is long and dense and then just ask a question. Read the whole thread. You are correct it may not apply to us now - but still read it all - why you ask? Because it supplies CONTEXT - also history in how OPM has handled things that may help you understand what is happening now and/or why it is handled a certain way. Also, towards the end of those threads IS usually newer information from 2013-15 that is totally on point. ALSO - read these older threads out of respect for those that created this board - a lot of time and effort went into this board. There is a lot of information there - at least TRY to read through it. More experienced board members do not mind answering questions if it looks like you tried to find the answer or you just don't understand something... at least that has been my experience as folks have very kindly answered questions. Not so much snark as trying to get their attention and let them know there is a lot of information on the board they should be reading. I have been a moderator here since the inception of the board. Never before have I felt it necessary to resort to comments such as I have been making in the past couple of months. It is most frustrating. Thank you for "getting it" phoenixrisingALJ. And thank you for laying it out for them. You are in the top three of your class! Pixie.
|
|