|
Post by hope2017 on Jun 14, 2017 15:40:52 GMT -5
Montyburns, I am agreeing with you that I have thought about it going both directions. However, Gary is right: clear, concise and well-reasoned.
|
|
|
Appealing
Jun 14, 2017 15:51:16 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by montyburns on Jun 14, 2017 15:51:16 GMT -5
Montyburns, I am agreeing with you that I have thought about it going both directions. However, Gary is right: clear, concise and well-reasoned. Indeed, your Honor. I think 9/10 lawyers would agree on what is or isn't well reasoned and concise. I'm not sure OPM has the same idea. And since you are already an ALJ, you know how to do the ALJ gig. You don't need OPMs validation for that. I think that helps a lot in being able to take OPMs determination with the requisite shaker of salt.
|
|
|
Post by hope2017 on Jun 14, 2017 16:03:05 GMT -5
Montyburns, I am agreeing with you that I have thought about it going both directions. However, Gary is right: clear, concise and well-reasoned. Indeed, your Honor. I think 9/10 lawyers would agree on what is or isn't well reasoned and concise. I'm not sure OPM has the same idea. And since you are already an ALJ, you know how to do the ALJ gig. You don't need OPMs validation for that. I think that helps a lot in being able to take OPMs determination with the requisite shaker of salt. I am just a state employee, but I do make/write decisions and have to abide by the ALJ Code of Conduct. And, doesn't salt raise one's blood pressure? lol
|
|
|
Post by Glomar on Jun 14, 2017 16:21:03 GMT -5
I too am perplexed by the WD failure. Editor for Law Review, Federal District Court Law Clerk for 2 years and 20 years writing experience. I drafted "proposed" opinions for my district judge that parties still quote in federal litigation. For years now, I have been defending ALJ decisions at the district court and court of appeals for SSA. During that time, I have yet to see a well-written ALJ decision. The majority of the time the decision is correct but poorly written. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by alohastate on Jun 14, 2017 16:38:20 GMT -5
I have a question, and this is an extremely important one for the issue potential appeal. Did ANYBODY have a panel of three for their SIs, or were they all two person panels?
|
|
|
Post by hope2017 on Jun 14, 2017 16:41:44 GMT -5
I too am perplexed by the WD failure. Editor for Law Review, Federal District Court Law Clerk for 2 years and 20 years writing experience. I drafted "proposed" opinions for my district judge that parties still quote in federal litigation. For years now, I have been defending ALJ decisions at the district court and court of appeals for SSA. During that time, I have yet to see a well-written ALJ decision. The majority of the time the decision is correct but poorly written. Oh well. I am sorry that you did not get the NOR bc of the WD part. I hope you file an appeal and wish you success. If that does not work, I hope you try again.
|
|
|
Post by hope2017 on Jun 14, 2017 16:49:40 GMT -5
I have a question, and this is an extremely important one for the issue potential appeal. Did ANYBODY have a panel of three for their SIs, or were they all two person panels? I had a 3-person panel.
|
|
|
Post by alohastate on Jun 14, 2017 17:01:28 GMT -5
I have a question, and this is an extremely important one for the issue potential appeal. Did ANYBODY have a panel of three for their SIs, or were they all two person panels? I had a 3-person panel. Thank you for letting me know. I think that is very significant for people who did not pass the SI portion. Anybody else have 3 panels?
|
|
|
Post by ghiaurov1 on Jun 14, 2017 17:22:07 GMT -5
So an appeal can work, but it takes time. I just got a thumbs down because my WD score was not high enough. This is a shock to me. If I have any strength it's writing. I might have understood losing on the Structured Interview, because even I was not happy with it. Well, what do I have to lose. Thanks for posting.
|
|
|
Post by LadyJR on Jun 14, 2017 17:39:05 GMT -5
Thank you montyburns!
|
|
|
Appealing
Jun 14, 2017 17:47:31 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by LadyJR on Jun 14, 2017 17:47:31 GMT -5
So an appeal can work, but it takes time. I just got a thumbs down because my WD score was not high enough. This is a shock to me. If I have any strength it's writing. I might have understood losing on the Structured Interview, because even I was not happy with it. Well, what do I have to lose. Thanks for posting. I had the same sentiment. Agreed about nothing to lose-unless of course the wd minimum score does get lowered next year and those that appeal are removed from consideration pending appeal outcome. That is my only hesitation, albeit slight, at the moment. But what do I know about how and when a min score decides to get lowered. I know the online threshold was lowered a couple times but it seems far more time and cost effective to lower the wd score. I have no idea if that has ever even happened. Good luck whatever u decide to do!
|
|
|
Post by jonesy on Jun 14, 2017 17:53:30 GMT -5
I have a question, and this is an extremely important one for the issue potential appeal. Did ANYBODY have a panel of three for their SIs, or were they all two person panels? I had a panel of three.
|
|
|
Post by jonesy on Jun 14, 2017 17:59:05 GMT -5
So an appeal can work, but it takes time. I just got a thumbs down because my WD score was not high enough. This is a shock to me. If I have any strength it's writing. I might have understood losing on the Structured Interview, because even I was not happy with it. Well, what do I have to lose. Thanks for posting. I had the same sentiment. Agreed about nothing to lose-unless of course the wd minimum score does get lowered next year and those that appeal are removed from consideration pending appeal outcome. That is my only hesitation, albeit slight, at the moment. But what do I know about how and when a min score decides to get lowered. I know the online threshold was lowered a couple times but it seems far more time and cost effective to lower the wd score. I have no idea if that has ever even happened. Good luck whatever u decide to do! I think it was pointed out in other threads that OPM can't lower the score because 2016 applicants have to be held to the same standards as the 2013 applicants, as this was just a refresh of the register and not a new register altogether. Lowering the score now would not be fair to those that didn't achieve the WD minimum score in 2013/2015, and would likely open OPM up to all types of litigation.
|
|
|
Post by bippity on Jun 14, 2017 18:06:36 GMT -5
FOAD for WD. 2 panel interview. Agency insider.
I will be a'peeling, as me am a super awesome special wonderful fantastic writerer who loves both the Hahvahd and Y'all commas.
Seriously, though. Did they expect the WD answers to be in perfect Bluebook format? Was it my use use or non-use of a comma in the fourth sentence of the third paragraph? Was it bc I wasn't provided the ergonomic keyboard I requested bc they said they had not received the note from my acceptable medical source that I had submitted? IDK, and from what other posters have indicated, OPM won't tell.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jun 14, 2017 18:16:54 GMT -5
Indeed, your Honor. I think 9/10 lawyers would agree on what is or isn't well reasoned and concise. I'm not sure OPM has the same idea. And since you are already an ALJ, you know how to do the ALJ gig. You don't need OPMs validation for that. I think that helps a lot in being able to take OPMs determination with the requisite shaker of salt. I am just a state employee, but I do make/write decisions and have to abide by the ALJ Code of Conduct. And, doesn't salt raise one's blood pressure? lol Touché, make that a shaker of....pepper. Hmmm, I think my metaphor just fell apart. And "just" a state employee? ALJs are "just" federal employees. Both are soveirgn (ish) entities, and you should not place one above the other in terms of prestige. I'll continue to default to "your Honor."
|
|
|
Appealing
Jun 14, 2017 18:18:08 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by LadyJR on Jun 14, 2017 18:18:08 GMT -5
I had the same sentiment. Agreed about nothing to lose-unless of course the wd minimum score does get lowered next year and those that appeal are removed from consideration pending appeal outcome. That is my only hesitation, albeit slight, at the moment. But what do I know about how and when a min score decides to get lowered. I know the online threshold was lowered a couple times but it seems far more time and cost effective to lower the wd score. I have no idea if that has ever even happened. Good luck whatever u decide to do! I think it was pointed out in other threads that OPM can't lower the score because 2016 applicants have to be held to the same standards as the 2013 applicants, as this was just a refresh of the register and not a new register altogether. Lowering the score now would not be fair to those that didn't achieve the WD minimum score in 2013/2015, and would likely open OPM up to all types of litigation. Yes Jonesy, I saw that comment by montyburns too. But who said anything about fair. I think u r correct though and foad means just that absent a successful appeal-but stranger things have happened ...
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jun 14, 2017 18:28:34 GMT -5
FOAD for WD. 2 panel interview. Agency insider. I will be a'peeling, as me am a super awesome special wonderful fantastic writerer who loves both the Hahvahd and Y'all commas. Seriously, though. Did they expect the WD answers to be in perfect Bluebook format? Was it my use use or non-use of a comma in the fourth sentence of the third paragraph? Was it bc I wasn't provided the ergonomic keyboard I requested bc they said they had not received the note from my acceptable medical source that I had submitted? IDK, and from what other posters have indicated, OPM won't tell. Well if you a'peelin, peel a potato for me! Seriously though, sorry to hear it fellow insider. As one who has spent many hours trying to figure out what OPM wants, I can only quote the song of our generation for guidance in re trying to figure out OPM:
|
|
|
Post by jonesy on Jun 14, 2017 18:29:15 GMT -5
I think it was pointed out in other threads that OPM can't lower the score because 2016 applicants have to be held to the same standards as the 2013 applicants, as this was just a refresh of the register and not a new register altogether. Lowering the score now would not be fair to those that didn't achieve the WD minimum score in 2013/2015, and would likely open OPM up to all types of litigation. Yes Jonesy, I saw that comment by montyburns too. But who said anything about fair. I think u r correct though and foad means just that absent a successful appeal-but stranger things have happened ... Preach sister!
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jun 14, 2017 18:33:31 GMT -5
So an appeal can work, but it takes time. I just got a thumbs down because my WD score was not high enough. This is a shock to me. If I have any strength it's writing. I might have understood losing on the Structured Interview, because even I was not happy with it. Well, what do I have to lose. Thanks for posting. I had the same sentiment. Agreed about nothing to lose-unless of course the wd minimum score does get lowered next year and those that appeal are removed from consideration pending appeal outcome. That is my only hesitation, albeit slight, at the moment. But what do I know about how and when a min score decides to get lowered. I know the online threshold was lowered a couple times but it seems far more time and cost effective to lower the wd score. I have no idea if that has ever even happened. Good luck whatever u decide to do! Lady Jr, don't worry about the wd score being lowered, I thinks it's very unlikely to matter. Appeal away! Here's some suggested verbiage: "Your dumb test test failed to detect my superior abilities in all tested areas. This is probably explainable by your use of trained circus monkeys as graders for the ALJ exam. Please have a competent person review my application. All the best - Lady Jr." I am only paraphrasing from my own appeal here.
|
|
|
Post by goldenretrievermom on Jun 14, 2017 18:47:43 GMT -5
I got the same result and frankly, I was stunned by it. I have been an Administrative Judge with another federal agency for 11 years and have written hundreds of decisions on summary judgment and post-hearing. I know I'm a very good writer and don't get how I didn't achieve the minimum score on the WD. I'm disappointed but not at all upset because the non-qual reason is crazy. I am appealing and will see what happens. One thing I can say as a former supervisor who has hired, OPM has some odd ways of scoring. When I received selection certificates for vacant positions, I looked at candidates who were deemed qualified and was left scratching my head. And I knew of better candidates who qualified and were deemed unqualified. But that is why OPM establishes objective, standardized tests based on relevant skills. The other option is to base hiring on subjective, untestable considerations such as "I 'know' this or that person is more qualified," which has historically led to favoritism, patronage, etc. The Civil Service Act has aimed to avoid that for over a century. That's the whole purpose of standardizing the testing. It's possible, but pretty unlikely, that the grading guidelines for the WD are silly or that those grading the tests are not very good at it or consistent between one another. We will never know. But the process of having a standardized writing test to objectively determine writing skills is probably the only fair way to do it.Okay, dw, while I don't disagree with you, how does the above square with this previous post of yours in the thread regarding who has been told about the application before NORs were issued? Just curious. "Everyone knows. Those who know me professionally/personally know/believe that I would be an excellent ALJ based on my intellect, history of success in many areas, and work ethic. If I don't get an NOR or don't get selected, people will (correctly) chalk it up to an imperfect testing/hiring process and will think less of the system, not less of me. It's because I know all this that I have not been afraid to let people know. It's also nice to have a supportive boss who would be just as happy to see me become an ALJ as to keep me on indefinitely. "
|
|