|
DC Testing
Dec 17, 2016 10:59:46 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by gary on Dec 17, 2016 10:59:46 GMT -5
Thanks but I don't have anything like the sources and insight Funky has.
|
|
|
DC Testing
Dec 19, 2016 10:59:53 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Gaidin on Dec 19, 2016 10:59:53 GMT -5
Have you guys got an estimate on how many have tested so far?
|
|
|
Post by Ready-Now! on Dec 19, 2016 11:13:05 GMT -5
there is a stats thread but it is a little behind
|
|
|
Post by msp on Dec 19, 2016 11:42:16 GMT -5
I think it's getting close to 1300; last I counted (a few days ago), it was around 1250. I believe there are more open slots in February/March, as the testing winds down. My best guess is that we're more than halfway through the number of testers.
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Dec 19, 2016 12:16:45 GMT -5
Have you guys got an estimate on how many have tested so far? 1308 as of 8 Dec. Link to Stats Thread There has only been one report for last week, so 1330 is pretty close. Reports at the end of the scheduling period indicated that there were open slots throughout the Jan - Mar part of the testing period, so I expect both the number of testers to start to drop, as well as reports from board members.
msp you don't have to count - Sophie is counting in the first post.
|
|
|
DC Testing
Dec 19, 2016 13:30:32 GMT -5
via mobile
msp likes this
Post by judgymcjudgypants on Dec 19, 2016 13:30:32 GMT -5
You need to subtract one for every week of testing to reflect those who cut and run at lunch!
|
|
|
Post by gary on Dec 19, 2016 13:40:16 GMT -5
You need to subtract one for every week of testing to reflect those who cut and run at lunch! Are you sure they weren't told they did so well in the morning that OPM was putting them on the register forthwith?
|
|
|
Post by wvjabes on Dec 19, 2016 13:45:29 GMT -5
Even though the DC testing poll didn't show much reporting of scheduled testing in 2017, I'm wondering if that's just a product of board members being, 'hyperaware" of the ALJ examination process, i.e., we were likely to be the people who scheduled right at midnight day 1, took the early dates, etc.
When I tested back in September, I probably spoke with half of the 30 people testing with me. Of that half, only one person was a board member, who I already knew from the board before even going to DC. The others, I'd say, fell into two general categories. They were either completely unaware of the board OR aware of the board, but were simply disinterested becoming board members. In fact, of the latter group, at least from a few people I spoke with, I got a sense of cynicism about the board ... almost a perception that us board members were considered a neurotic bunch ... LOL! Anyhow, my point is out of 15 people testing with me in DC, with only 1 of those 15 being a board member, I wonder how much this board is capturing of the total DC test takers. My guess is 10%, maybe 15% of the total number of DC 2016 testers. If that's a fair estimate, then it's very possible that testing January through March 2017 will be equally as full and there will be no drop in testers.
|
|
|
Post by msp on Dec 19, 2016 13:52:27 GMT -5
bayou...thank goodness for sophie22 and her math skills! I completely blew past the total tally at the top of her daily tally - I am encouraged, however, that my guestimate math was close to her actual math!
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Dec 19, 2016 14:47:54 GMT -5
Even though the DC testing poll didn't show much reporting of scheduled testing in 2017, I'm wondering if that's just a product of board members being, 'hyperaware" of the ALJ examination process, i.e., we were likely to be the people who scheduled right at midnight day 1, took the early dates, etc. When I tested back in September, I probably spoke with half of the 30 people testing with me. Of that half, only one person was a board member, who I already knew from the board before even going to DC. The others, I'd say, fell into two general categories. They were either completely unaware of the board OR aware of the board, but were simply disinterested becoming board members. In fact, of the latter group, at least from a few people I spoke with, I got a sense of cynicism about the board ... almost a perception that us board members were considered a neurotic bunch ... LOL! Anyhow, my point is out of 15 people testing with me in DC, with only 1 of those 15 being a board member, I wonder how much this board is capturing of the total DC test takers. My guess is 10%, maybe 15% of the total number of DC 2016 testers. If that's a fair estimate, then it's very possible that testing January through March 2017 will be equally as full and there will be no drop in testers. I'm not sure I follow you reasoning. The stats from the #s that have tested are coming from board members who were actually at the testing. I expect we are capturing well north of 90% of the actual number. As for testing reports after the new year, I expect that will drop off as there will be more days on which no board member is present to report.
As for the speculation that there won't be full compliments of testers after the new year, that is based on reports from the end of the scheduling period that showed there were still open slots from Jan - Mar. So it is very reasonable to assume that there won't be full compliments of testing on each day. As for how many, hopefully we will get enough to permit a reasonable guesstimate.
|
|
|
Post by wvjabes on Dec 19, 2016 17:21:30 GMT -5
I agree we're capturing accurate numbers for each testing date. I also agree that reported open slots just before scheduling closed suggests some 2017 DC testing will be in less than full classrooms. Still, I just wouldn't be surprised if the testing doesn't drop off all that much going forward. Board members make up such a small sampling of total DC testers, if consensus is that 2500 or more people received the same invite. I'm pretty sure board members numbering in the low 200's reported getting the DC invite to test. We also have the DC scheduling week poll, aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/4045/dc-2016-17-opm-testing, which for the most part is relatively useless. After all, I don't think it's a surprise that board members overwhelmingly preferred to test before the end of 2016 (with 118 reported scheduling their DC testing September through December 2016, but with only 23 reported scheduling January through March 2017). I wonder if non-board members had any such preference. Selfishly I'm hoping that we get reports that classrooms are half empty (or worse) in the coming months. Still, I won't be shocked if the little reporting we get reflects classrooms that are close to full each day.
|
|
|
Post by judgymcjudgypants on Dec 19, 2016 17:37:36 GMT -5
Maybe Gary is already at work?
I'm pretty sure I saw a guy in shades and a trench holding up a "Cafeteria This Way" sign at OPM'S exit doors.
Good thing I brought my lunch.
J
|
|
|
Post by gary on Dec 19, 2016 17:56:24 GMT -5
Maybe Gary is already at work? I'm pretty sure I saw a guy in shades and a trench holding up a "Cafeteria This Way" sign at OPM'S exit doors. Good thing I brought my lunch. J He was supposed to post those signs by each exit, not hold them. Er, I mean I have no idea what you're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Dec 20, 2016 8:34:06 GMT -5
I agree we're capturing accurate numbers for each testing date. I also agree that reported open slots just before scheduling closed suggests some 2017 DC testing will be in less than full classrooms. Still, I just wouldn't be surprised if the testing doesn't drop off all that much going forward. Board members make up such a small sampling of total DC testers, if consensus is that 2500 or more people received the same invite. I'm pretty sure board members numbering in the low 200's reported getting the DC invite to test. We also have the DC scheduling week poll, aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/4045/dc-2016-17-opm-testing, which for the most part is relatively useless. After all, I don't think it's a surprise that board members overwhelmingly preferred to test before the end of 2016 (with 118 reported scheduling their DC testing September through December 2016, but with only 23 reported scheduling January through March 2017). I wonder if non-board members had any such preference. Selfishly I'm hoping that we get reports that classrooms are half empty (or worse) in the coming months. Still, I won't be shocked if the little reporting we get reflects classrooms that are close to full each day. My no evidence guess is that instead of seeing 28-32 each day, we will see 20-22 each day, so not a huge drop off. I don't think OPM would have stretched out the scheduling so that there was enough slots to just test 10 a day for 3 months.
|
|
|
Post by judgymcjudgypants on Dec 20, 2016 15:53:11 GMT -5
Not everything has to do with being an "overeager" Board member. Don't forget the DC weather in your calculations. I bet the majority of all testers tried to get a pre-January slot to avoid the reality of winter weather. I expect a drop off in numbers for that reason after January, which is consistent with what we last knew about the availability of open testing slots. OPM is also saving money by capturing veteran testers along with the rest of us while The Great Sifting and Sorting Machine is already up and running on full.
J
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Dec 20, 2016 15:56:51 GMT -5
wvjabes your making some incorrect assumptions. 1st you're assuming that board participants are behaviorally different than other folks in this process. I haven't seen any real evidence of that in almost 4 years on the board including talking to people at training and in the office who were not on the board. 2nd you're assuming people picked dates based upon anything other than what fits within their schedules. Finally, something other than anecdotal evidence to support telling you that you're wrong the knowledge that there were open dates later in the process is because someone went and looked at which dates were available before the scheduling closed. So it's not really an estimate based upon polling but instead knowledge which supports the statistical analysis of the polling. Please don't fall into a trap of believing that people on this board are more or less anything than people not on the board. That thinking skews analysis which can lead to analytic failures.
|
|
|
Post by sophie22 on Dec 20, 2016 17:19:42 GMT -5
Yo yo yo everybody!! Or should I say, Ho ho ho, as we all prepare for the holidays???
Yes, I'm keeping a tally at the top of the thread. We've done pretty well capturing most of the testing dates so far. Should be interesting to see if numbers start dropping in the new year.
Fingers crossed that grading is being done on a rolling basis!
|
|
|
Post by gern on Dec 20, 2016 18:12:09 GMT -5
I'll second the point: we have experiential knowledge of the greater number of vacancies in later months. I had cold feet about taking the date I did because it quickly turned out to be an inconvenient date, so just before the window closed, I got on and looked for other dates, all of which were worse (or bad-omened; can't have those). I saw that there were still many openings in the outer rim months. Now, there could have been a late rush (Obamacare-ishly) to sign up at the very last minute, but that is somewhat unlikely. I think OPM knew about how many people would be moving on and created enough slots that the very last person to commit would not be forced to take the (sole remaining) February 4-5 slot. That need to allow flexibility (and some degree of attrition) means that there would be open spaces. Of course, my neat little model assumes that people would be more likely to want to get this over with than would want to test last, or else there would be an even salting of openings throughout the year due to the excess capacity. I'll accept that assumption. I think there are many more people who want the job who wanted to test on day one than who decided they really, really had to test on the last day.
|
|
|
Post by Judge McJudgeypants on Dec 20, 2016 18:21:40 GMT -5
If it aids your analysis any... at midnight on the night we could first select test dates, I as an eager board member signed up for an early October slot. Then about three days before the self-scheduling closed, we got an offer on our house and the closing got scheduled for the very day I was set to test. So I had to go back into self-scheduler and cancel and re-select dates. Though I wanted a pre-2017 date, there were none to be had--all blocked out from October to mid-December. January was pretty open but corresponding hotel prices for the open dates were exorbitant. The last three weeks in March right before the close of testing were completely booked. So I had to settle for February, were there were still many open slots and the hotel prices weren't too bad. So if not too many people scheduled after me with three days to go (which you never know with non-Board members), the last three weeks of testing will be full, while January and February may have less testers.
|
|
|
Post by Lawesome on Dec 20, 2016 19:11:54 GMT -5
My WAG is that the majority of testers have tested, and the groups will be smaller next year. Something to consider are the poor souls who know nothing of this board and the ALJ hiring process. They may believe that the earlier they test, the sooner they get their scores and get hired (because it is *that* easy). Therefore, they signed up for early testing thinking they'd surely be judges before the end of the year. It would certainly explain why testing rooms have been pretty full the past few months. Although I believe the application indicated the scores would not be released until every one tested, I met a couple non boarders who were pretty clueless about the process and thought the test was essentially a job interview for an upcoming position (rather than a spot on the register). I just smiled and nodded, silently wondering how these people could fork out the money for DC without researching the application. Thinking back, I should have told them that if they got an email with "NOR" at the top of it, it meant "Never Owning Robe" and they didn't get the job.
|
|