|
Post by foghorn on Jun 14, 2017 12:24:25 GMT -5
Didn't get the appeal notice yet but yesterday I didn't get my thumbs down until 4:00 pm.
I did receive a notice (sent 2:00 am ) subject line "USA Jobs Application Status." this said "Your application status has been updated for the following opportunity(ies) in USAJOBS. To view your updated status, log in to your account." I did and all it said was that my application was being "reviewed." I expect in due course they will retell the bad news, probably by the time I'm in the appellate process.
|
|
|
Post by LadyJR on Jun 14, 2017 12:54:49 GMT -5
thank you all for sharing your thoughts on appeal.
To those who received the appeal notice email: is it your understanding that all parts of exam are regraded only if you appeal a score? Otherwise if no score received, then only the portion (wd or si) is regraded? And any ideas of who comprises the panel?
Does anyone think the 'minimum score' will lower with respect to the proctored wd and si portions to include some who didn't make this cut (as they did with the 2013 online portion of the exam)? Or would they only try to reach a lower scoring subgroup from the pool of those who didn't get a chance at D.C.? i appreciate anyone taking time to share your thoughts...
Fyi- I was complete then the next day sd and wd seems to be the reason i didn't get a score, so I too am considering an appeal. I have taken a poll from about 10 colleagues who made it to D.C. (3 got nor-1 has vet pts and the other 2 took online 3 times). Only one other that didn't get score is also considering appeal and although I encourage all to participate on this board most don't...
|
|
|
Post by merlot on Jun 14, 2017 13:23:14 GMT -5
thank you all for sharing your thoughts on appeal. To those who received the appeal notice email: is it your understanding that all parts of exam are regraded only if you appeal a score? Otherwise if no score received, then only the portion (wd or si) is regraded? And any ideas of who comprises the panel? Does anyone think the 'minimum score' will lower with respect to the proctored wd and si portions to include some who didn't make this cut (as they did with the 2013 online portion of the exam)? Or would they only try to reach a lower scoring subgroup from the pool of those who didn't get a chance at D.C.? i appreciate anyone taking time to share your thoughts... Fyi- I was complete then the next day sd and wd seems to be the reason i didn't get a score, so I too am considering an appeal. I have taken a poll from about 10 colleagues who made it to D.C. (3 got nor-1 has vet pts and the other 2 took online 3 times). Only one other that didn't get score is also considering appeal and although I encourage all to participate on this board most don't... LadyJr, I received an appeal notice. It is my understanding that all parts will be regraded if you appeal a score and only the portion you "failed" if no score. I fall into the no score b/c of wd camp.
|
|
|
Post by jeepster on Jun 14, 2017 13:25:48 GMT -5
I noticed a couple of votes in the poll from folks that received low scores; like, <60. Would it be wise of them to appeal a really low score, or is there a risk it could be detrimental?
If there is a risk, then I guess appealing would not be so appealing (I had to go there)!
|
|
|
Post by rp on Jun 14, 2017 13:30:17 GMT -5
I noticed a couple of votes in the poll from folks that received low scores; like, <60. Would it be wise of them to appeal a really low score, or is there a risk it could be detrimental?
If there is a risk, then I guess appealing would not be so appealing (I had to go there)! Possibly detrimental -- here is a link to the whole document and I have also put the relevant section below: "The Panel has the authority to affirm, raise, or lower the rating; change a rating from eligible to ineligible and remove an applicant from the register; or remand for further development." Administrative Law Judge How You Will Be Evaluated
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jun 14, 2017 13:34:36 GMT -5
I noticed a couple of votes in the poll from folks that received low scores; like, <60. Would it be wise of them to appeal a really low score, or is there a risk it could be detrimental?
If there is a risk, then I guess appealing would not be so appealing (I had to go there)! Subtract two points from your total life score for "going there." Tough question though. I think if you have a score, any score, you have already won many battles, but not yet the war. I would be very hesitant to go refight those battles, as there is the real possibility you could get a lower score. Really it's going to come down to your particular situation. E.g. If you are eligible for vets points and didn't get them, then sure, appeal. If you are insider and you know ODAR wants you, then I would say hang tough and you'll probably get picked up after a few certs. Between these two scenarios it is simply too speculative to give any good advice.
|
|
|
Post by merlot on Jun 14, 2017 13:34:50 GMT -5
I noticed a couple of votes in the poll from folks that received low scores; like, <60. Would it be wise of them to appeal a really low score, or is there a risk it could be detrimental?
If there is a risk, then I guess appealing would not be so appealing (I had to go there)! Possibly detrimental -- here is a link to the whole document and I have also put the relevant section below: "The Panel has the authority to affirm, raise, or lower the rating; change a rating from eligible to ineligible and remove an applicant from the register; or remand for further development." Administrative Law Judge How You Will Be Evaluated
I agree that it sounds like it could be detrimental. The wording seems to almost discourage appealing a low score. I guess a "low" score is better than no score.
|
|
neely
Full Member
Posts: 35
|
Post by neely on Jun 14, 2017 13:38:11 GMT -5
I didn’t get the minimum score on the WD. It actually makes me laugh, because I was Senior Note Editor of a law journal at a top 20 law school, and in my 19 years of practice I have had several judges at different trial / appellate levels in complex litigation tell me I am one of the best legal writers they know, and have had a number of judges encourage me to become a judge. When I first saw the "See Details" my initial reaction was disappointment, but it has been pretty quickly replaced by feeling like the whole "testing" process is a joke. The way I view it is I probably “failed” based on my secretarial / typing skills that have nothing to do with the skills required to be an ALJ. Is that a legit basis for an appeal? We'll see if I decide to appeal, since it's another step in a seemingly arbitrary process (just to get a lower paying job and have a boss and decision quotas, although the trade-off of better work-life balance does sound appealing). However, I applaud those of you who are determined enough to appeal, or re-apply and re-test. You all seem more than capable of doing this job, and if it's what you really want, don't pass up any opportunity to make it happen! Well apparently all those judges and law school review editors didn't know jack about legal writing, at least in the world according to OPM. Your feeling that the testing is a joke is generally shared by by everyone. One of the biggest ha-ha's? ALJs (in SSA anyway) do about zero formal writing. Zero need for a ALJ a to be a good writer in terms of day-to-day work. Not sure why this is tested twice (WD and on the online portion) in the OPM process, but who are we to question OPM? First, congrats to all who received a score (who I doubt are reading this thread). I am astonished at how many people didn't get minimum scores on the SI or WD. I, myself, didn't get the minimum on the WD. But unlike a lot of other posters, I expected the WD would be my weakness. To Monty's point, as a full time claimant's rep, my writing is mostly choppy medical summaries and common sense, blunt application of SSD's relatively basic rules (ie, the same thing as ALJ decisions). It is quick and to the point, but I fear it comes across as unpolished. If they were looking for flowery prose, I am not surprised I failed. But like Monty said, why is this such a critical component of the application process? Me no use big words good. Bummer City. I am feeling for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Jun 14, 2017 13:38:33 GMT -5
Just got my notice. it says 30 days from date.
All appeals must be submitted via email to aljapplication@opm.gov, have 1C20APPEAL1D20 in the subject line, and a brief explanation of why
you believe that your rating was assigned in error. An appeal must be emailed within 30 calendar days from the date of this message.
Appeals submitted by facsimile or traditional mail will not be accepted.
Appeals are adjudicated based on the record. The Panel has the authority to affirm, raise, or lower the rating; change a rating from
eligible to ineligible and remove an applicant from the register; or remand for further development. The decision of the Panel is final,
and exhausts further administrative appeal rights. After all appeals have been adjudicated, applicants will be notified via email of the
Panel1920s decision.
however, it also notes that the decision will be based "on the record."
Do we have a right to see the record?
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jun 14, 2017 13:45:18 GMT -5
thank you all for sharing your thoughts on appeal. To those who received the appeal notice email: is it your understanding that all parts of exam are regraded only if you appeal a score? Otherwise if no score received, then only the portion (wd or si) is regraded? And any ideas of who comprises the panel? Does anyone think the 'minimum score' will lower with respect to the proctored wd and si portions to include some who didn't make this cut (as they did with the 2013 online portion of the exam)? Or would they only try to reach a lower scoring subgroup from the pool of those who didn't get a chance at D.C.? i appreciate anyone taking time to share your thoughts... Fyi- I was complete then the next day sd and wd seems to be the reason i didn't get a score, so I too am considering an appeal. I have taken a poll from about 10 colleagues who made it to D.C. (3 got nor-1 has vet pts and the other 2 took online 3 times). Only one other that didn't get score is also considering appeal and although I encourage all to participate on this board most don't... As others have said, if no score they are only looking at whatever part you failed. If they goofed, you may get a score. I say maybe b/c I seem to recall (but cannot swear it is so) that someone on the board appealed the lack of NOR for failing the WD, only to have that score raised and then told they did not meet the minimum score on the SI. Very possible I am misremembering, but zi think that is at least a possibility, though clearly not one that should stop you from appealing My WAG is that they will not be lowering the minimum score on the online section as they did in 2013. The evidence accumulated on this site suggests that almost twice as many applicants got through each phase this time as compared to last, suggesting that the "final" threshold score for the online portion in 2013 was used for all applicants this time. Given that, I would expect 5-6 years before ALJ testing opens again (or maybe ever given the uncertainty now surrounding the constitutionalality of the ALJ hiring process).
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jun 14, 2017 13:53:33 GMT -5
Well apparently all those judges and law school review editors didn't know jack about legal writing, at least in the world according to OPM. Your feeling that the testing is a joke is generally shared by by everyone. One of the biggest ha-ha's? ALJs (in SSA anyway) do about zero formal writing. Zero need for a ALJ a to be a good writer in terms of day-to-day work. Not sure why this is tested twice (WD and on the online portion) in the OPM process, but who are we to question OPM? First, congrats to all who received a score (who I doubt are reading this thread). I am astonished at how many people didn't get minimum scores on the SI or WD. I, myself, didn't get the minimum on the WD. But unlike a lot of other posters, I expected the WD would be my weakness. To Monty's point, as a full time claimant's rep, my writing is mostly choppy medical summaries and common sense, blunt application of SSD's relatively basic rules (ie, the same thing as ALJ decisions). It is quick and to the point, but I fear it comes across as unpolished. If they were looking for flowery prose, I am not surprised I failed. But like Monty said, why is this such a critical component of the application process? Me no use big words good. Bummer City. I am feeling for everyone. It's strange b/c you read comments from folks who appear to be doing lots of appellate work/briefing not making the WD and I think "maybe they are too eloquent or detail oriented and OPM thinks they are too slow/detail oriented." Then I read your comment, where it looks like you are taking the opposite approach, and still do not pass the WD. So I'm back to square 1. Oh OPM, will there ever be a time you do not confound us with your zaniness?
|
|
|
Post by phoenixrisingALJ on Jun 14, 2017 13:53:51 GMT -5
First of all - to all who got a FOAD - I am so sorry. This is such a time consuming process and at the end of the day it is NOT a reflection on your skills and ability as a lawyer. Second -I think I would appeal - after all, if you don't you definitely won't have a shot. If you do and prevail - yeah you - you get on the registry and most of the high scorers will likely have been picked up - so you will be in contention. Third - looking through this thread those of you who failed the SI seem to be focusing on a possible basis to raise the fact that you had a 2 member panel and not 3. On an appeal my mentality is raise anything and everything so I get it and I would certainly raise it. I do not however think that is a winning argument. A very simple google search led me to this from OPM: www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/assessment-and-selection/structured-interviews/guide.pdfAppendix D: Panel Interviews During the interview process, an abundance of information is exchanged between the candidate and the interviewer. A panel of two or three interviewers may be better able to document and interpret the information. A panel also reduces the risk of biases in ratings and allows for a diverse (e.g., race and sex) range of interviewers, indicating to the candidate that the organization values diversity and fair treatment So the way I read this - a panel can have 2 or 3. 3 is not required. Also - the email inviting us to participate in the WD and SI only said this: "2. Structured Interview (SI). The objective of the SI is to evaluate your responses to competency-based questions related to being an ALJ. A panel will conduct the interview and evaluate your responses. The interview will last approximately 1 hour and will be administered in one location in the Washington, DC area. Plan to arrive at least 30 minutes early to allow time for instructions and other administrative processes." So it informed us that it would be a panel interview - it never said it would be 3 people.
|
|
|
Appealing
Jun 14, 2017 13:55:17 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by montyburns on Jun 14, 2017 13:55:17 GMT -5
Just got my notice. it says 30 days from date. All appeals must be submitted via email to aljapplication@opm.gov, have 1C20APPEAL1D20 in the subject line, and a brief explanation of why you believe that your rating was assigned in error. An appeal must be emailed within 30 calendar days from the date of this message. Appeals submitted by facsimile or traditional mail will not be accepted. Appeals are adjudicated based on the record. The Panel has the authority to affirm, raise, or lower the rating; change a rating from eligible to ineligible and remove an applicant from the register; or remand for further development. The decision of the Panel is final, and exhausts further administrative appeal rights. After all appeals have been adjudicated, applicants will be notified via email of the Panel1920s decision. however, it also notes that the decision will be based "on the record." Do we have a right to see the record? We will after you file, and win, your lawsuit against OPM!
|
|
|
Post by rhd on Jun 14, 2017 14:06:18 GMT -5
Possibly detrimental -- here is a link to the whole document and I have also put the relevant section below: "The Panel has the authority to affirm, raise, or lower the rating; change a rating from eligible to ineligible and remove an applicant from the register; or remand for further development." Administrative Law Judge How You Will Be Evaluated
I agree that it sounds like it could be detrimental. The wording seems to almost discourage appealing a low score. I guess a "low" score is better than no score. On the other hand, if the lowest scorer they've hired (looks like 62-ish) is higher than you, what's to lose?
A friend wants to know if anyone has experience appealing a low score.
|
|
|
Appealing
Jun 14, 2017 14:20:48 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by rp on Jun 14, 2017 14:20:48 GMT -5
On the other hand, if the lowest scorer they've hired (looks like 62-ish) is higher than you, what's to lose?
A friend wants to know if anyone has experience appealing a low score.
You could lose your spot on the register - as has been reported elsewhere and the WAGs seem solid - your name could be on the register for years and you could get picked up. Once removed you no longer have that option. Just sayin.
|
|
|
Post by Prrple on Jun 14, 2017 14:36:12 GMT -5
My notice of appeal arrived at 11:40 a.m. central time today, 6/14/2017, less than 24 hours after the FOAD notice.
|
|
|
Post by hope2017 on Jun 14, 2017 14:40:18 GMT -5
My thoughts are similar to those expressed by Montyburns. What type of writing does OPM want? If skilled, productive and experienced writers can't get a qualifying minimum score, then what style of writing gets a score? I thought, like Montyburns did, that perhaps shorter, less polished writing was desired to help whittle down that huge decision backlog. Neely's comments suggest otherwise. I am with you on this one, Montyburns. I remain confused.
Hope, the Writing Failure
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 14, 2017 15:04:02 GMT -5
hope2017, Everybody who took the WD signed a pretty comprehensive CA, with draconian threats attached to it. (Same goes for the SI). So it may be difficult for anyone to tell you what they think OPM might be looking for without getting sideways of the CA. I can suggest you read carefully all parts of the JOA that talk about the WD, including the "How You Will Be Evaluated" section which includes this statement: "The purpose of the WD is to evaluate an applicant's ability to prepare a clear, concise, and well-reasoned legal decision of the type that one might be expected to write if employed as an ALJ."
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jun 14, 2017 15:33:41 GMT -5
[quote author=" gary" source="/post/132180/thread" timestamp="1497470642""How You Will Be Evaluated" section which includes this statement: "The purpose of the WD is to evaluate an applicant's ability to prepare a clear, concise, and well-reasoned legal decision of the type that one might be expected to write if employed as an ALJ." [/quote] Oh see there, it was a trick question. ALJs aren't expected to write decisions, so they right answer was to leave the page blank. To anyone finding themselves in agreement with me, please note that I have been trying to read the tea leaves in re: OPM testing for almost a decade and I never got past the online portion. So agreeing with I I disagreeessments probably does not bode well for you.
|
|
|
Post by hope2017 on Jun 14, 2017 15:38:26 GMT -5
hope2017 , Everybody who took the WD signed a pretty comprehensive CA, with draconian threats attached to it. (Same goes for the SI). So it may be difficult for anyone to tell you what they think OPM might be looking for without getting sideways of the CA. I can suggest you read carefully all parts of the JOA that talk about the WD, including the "How You Will Be Evaluated" section which includes this statement: "The purpose of the WD is to evaluate an applicant's ability to prepare a clear, concise, and well-reasoned legal decision of the type that one might be expected to write if employed as an ALJ." Gary, I signed the CA and, therefore, I am well aware of the "draconian threats attached to it." My Qs are rhetorical. I am not expecting anyone to actually answer them. I was just expressing my confusion. I am a state ALJ and have written and will continue to write orders which I hope are clear, concise and well-reasoned decisions.
|
|