|
Post by deckhand on Jun 14, 2017 19:02:08 GMT -5
Golden Retriever Mom, your rationale was well-reasoned and concise!
|
|
|
Post by blondswede on Jun 14, 2017 19:06:54 GMT -5
In my December 2015 SI, I had three white guys (so much for diversity).
Edit: I realized that my post appeared a bit snarky. I'm adding now that I posted it right after I read the "Structured Interviews: A Practical Guide".pdf, where in Appendix D, "Panel Guide," it reads:
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.
I was not, by any means, implying that I, a female, failed the SI because my interviewers were all white guys. Just a momentary observation.
|
|
|
Post by tonypitt on Jun 14, 2017 19:24:23 GMT -5
Like others, I have no idea why my written demonstration submission was found lacking. As I'm sick of obsessing about it, however, I've just submitted my appeal. Hopefully, I can now put it behind me and move on, knowing it will likely be a long time before I receive a decision.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jun 14, 2017 19:40:42 GMT -5
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. Hey now buddy, hitting a little close to home!
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jun 14, 2017 19:43:07 GMT -5
In my December 2015 SI, I had three white guys (so much for diversity). Edit: I realized that my post appeared a bit snarky. I'm adding now that I posted it right after I read the "Structured Interviews: A Practical Guide".pdf, where in Appendix D, "Panel Guide," it reads: 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.
I was not, by any means, implying that I, a female, failed the SI because my interviewers were all white guys. Just a momentary observation. C'mon now, I'm sure there were a variety of ages with the 50-69 subset represented.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jun 14, 2017 19:44:04 GMT -5
Like others, I have no idea why my written demonstration submission was found lacking. As I'm sick of obsessing about it, however, I've just submitted my appeal. Hopefully, I can now put it behind me and move on, knowing it will likely be a long time before I receive a decision. Drink, curse, commiserate. Repeat as necessary.
|
|
|
Post by goldenretrievermom on Jun 14, 2017 19:51:50 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. Isn't the correct decision what matters most?
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jun 14, 2017 19:57:48 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. Isn't the correct decision what matters most? Not on appeal to the USDC. ETA: this seemed pithy. Apologies. My real point was that, ironically, USDC judges are usually loathe to supplant the ALJ's findings re RFC, credibility, etc. , much less reverse the ALJ outright. Yet USDC does not hesitate to find legal errors -failure to adreess some allegation, opinion, or other evidence- and then remand. Even when I was doing claimant's work in USDC, I never anticipated a frev decision after a aUSDC remand. The money was all in unappealing the unfavorable decision, not getting a favorable one.
|
|
|
Post by pubdef on Jun 14, 2017 20:14:19 GMT -5
Everyone who made it to D.C. Is a good writer. They would have cut you based on the written portion of the online test if it wasn't in the higher subgroup. Think of the WD like you were one of the many nervous But talented Harvard Law students. Everyone is writing a great exam but the professor has to curve the A+s from the As. That professor has an objection way to find small differences and some of the talented students will be sad they only received an A.
My advice is to appeal. After you send the appeal it's time to move on and not worry about this process. I mean aside from cheering on friends who are still in the marathon. Move on professionally and start improving yourself for the next time. Practice your writing, read opinions, learn Spanish, and become an even better lawyer and person than you already are.
It might be the end of this application but it's not the end.
|
|
|
Post by goldenretrievermom on Jun 14, 2017 20:51:43 GMT -5
Everyone who made it to D.C. Is a good writer. They would have cut you based on the written portion of the online test if it wasn't in the higher subgroup. Think of the WD like you were one of the many nervous But talented Harvard Law students. Everyone is writing a great exam but the professor has to curve the A+s from the As. That professor has an objection way to find small differences and some of the talented students will be sad they only received an A. My advice is to appeal. After you send the appeal it's time to move on and not worry about this process. I mean aside from cheering on friends who are still in the marathon. Move on professionally and start improving yourself for the next time. Practice your writing, read opinions, learn Spanish, and become an even better lawyer and person than you already are. It might be the end of this application but it's not the end. Nice post in its entirety pubdef. I wanted to emphasize the bolded portion because of some comments made to the effect that the ALJ examination is a "joke" or words to that effect. That is unfair to the candidates who made the cut. Disappointment is understandable; disagreement is bound to happen; but being disagreeable is not reasonable. Those who received NORS w/scores deserve to be commended for doing whatever je ne sais quoi that others didn't. Let's cheer them on. Prior board friendships and good will should not disappear now that DC results--and a good number of us--are out. And for those who have NORs with scores, humility will serve you well as SSA ALJs.
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Jun 14, 2017 21:09:12 GMT -5
FWIW, I'm 100% sure that I signed a CA that stated that, not only the subject matter of the testing was covered by the CA, but that the actual testing procedures were also. Thus, I would caution those discussing the panel composition and I will avoid it. As gary pointed out in an earlier post, the CA makes it extremely difficult to discuss potential reasons why a person may fail the WD. I can think of 3 very specific reasons why somebody could write a beautiful piece of prose, leave the test feeling good about what they wrote, and yet fail the test. I can't think of any way to discuss them without being too close to the CA line for my comfort. I will say this about the discussion in this thread. It is woefully off base about the WD IMO. The focus on how well you write and whether you use $25 words or one syllable words complete misses the point. If you think this was a test of writing style, grammar, and how "pretty" you write, then that probably explains why you failed the WD. There is a wonderful post about preparing for the testing by a board member ( owl ) that I haven't seen much on the board during my time on the board. That post made me stop and think about this process and framed how I approached each stage. In my mind, Owl is responsible for me making the register and if there is any karma in life, I will have the opportunity, somehow someday, to buy him/her multiple rounds of his/her favorite situational beverage as a thank you. OPM has told you what they are testing for and the WD was NOT entitled a writing test. WD stands for Written Demonstration, not writing test. I think you are misguided by going down the path suggested by statements that an ALJ doesn't write opinions and testing writing ability is meaningless, especially when made by someone who admits they have never seen the WD. Take a moment before writing your appeal, ask yourself what you were being asked to demonstrate and whether you did that. Saying you write well, that people have loved how you write, and that you have written 1000's of decisions misses the point. It is probably too late but figure out for yourself what the intent of the test was, what you were being asked to demonstrate, and how you can tell OPM that you did that. Good luck.
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Jun 14, 2017 21:23:20 GMT -5
Bayou--if you run across the @owl post you mentioned, please post a link.
Good luck on the beyond, and be not harsh on those who didn't and grouse--you would cry too (if it happened to you).
|
|
|
Post by hope2017 on Jun 14, 2017 21:24:17 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. I also want to extend my thanks to Gary for providing the information. I appreciate these seasoned experts who have been through these processes earlier. Thank you, Gary!
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Jun 14, 2017 21:27:31 GMT -5
Bayou--if you run across the @owl post you mentioned, please post a link. Good luck on the beyond, and be not harsh on those who didn't and grouse--you would cry too (if it happened to you). ..... Sorry if what I said came across as harsh. I was trying to be blunt and clear but I really really don't want it to be taken as harsh or without empathy.
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Jun 14, 2017 21:30:46 GMT -5
I didn't take it that way--more of a tough love/gruff love approach before we wallow in too much self pity and angst. Also a good tactical/strategic heads up, though I think most of the comments were blowing off steam and certainly know that you don't win any argument, let alone an appeal by impugning the integrity of the body (a point Mr. Burns was I believe somewhat slyly making in one of his posts).
|
|
|
Post by hope2017 on Jun 14, 2017 21:35:31 GMT -5
Thank you, also, Bayou. I would love to make a more detailed response, but, due to the CA, I certainly will not. I do plan to file an appeal.
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Jun 14, 2017 21:47:41 GMT -5
Was there from 2013 any look at what % of SI's were two members and what were 3 members?
I was on a two panel and wonder if 2013 was more 3's or 2's
|
|
|
Post by lucy on Jun 14, 2017 23:07:01 GMT -5
FWIW, I'm 100% sure that I signed a CA that stated that, not only the subject matter of the testing was covered by the CA, but that the actual testing procedures were also. Thus, I would caution those discussing the panel composition and I will avoid it. As gary pointed out in an earlier post, the CA makes it extremely difficult to discuss potential reasons why a person may fail the WD. I can think of 3 very specific reasons why somebody could write a beautiful piece of prose, leave the test feeling good about what they wrote, and yet fail the test. I can't think of any way to discuss them without being too close to the CA line for my comfort. I will say this about the discussion in this thread. It is woefully off base about the WD IMO. The focus on how well you write and whether you use $25 words or one syllable words complete misses the point. If you think this was a test of writing style, grammar, and how "pretty" you write, then that probably explains why you failed the WD. There is a wonderful post about preparing for the testing by a board member ( owl ) that I haven't seen much on the board during my time on the board. That post made me stop and think about this process and framed how I approached each stage. In my mind, Owl is responsible for me making the register and if there is any karma in life, I will have the opportunity, somehow someday, to buy him/her multiple rounds of his/her favorite situational beverage as a thank you. OPM has told you what they are testing for and the WD was NOT entitled a writing test. WD stands for Written Demonstration, not writing test. I think you are misguided by going down the path suggested by statements that an ALJ doesn't write opinions and testing writing ability is meaningless, especially when made by someone who admits they have never seen the WD. Take a moment before writing your appeal, ask yourself what you were being asked to demonstrate and whether you did that. Saying you write well, that people have loved how you write, and that you have written 1000's of decisions misses the point. It is probably too late but figure out for yourself what the intent of the test was, what you were being asked to demonstrate, and how you can tell OPM that you did that. Good luck. I think I know the post you are referencing. If so, it seems to have been deleted. Here is some advice for you guys who didn't receive a score and want to try again if your appeal isn't successful: I began scouring this board in the summer of 2014 for guidance on the process and how best to prepare for the exam when it reopened. If I didn't read every single post on every single substantive thread since the process reopened in 2013, it was by oversight. I wasn't commenting much back then because I was interested in a refresh when nobody else was. But I was taking notes and preparing. If you've read much on this board, you know it is often preached to use the search button and I did. Not often, but every now and then, I would come across some profound insight that really affected the way I prepared for and thought about how to approach things, such as Bayou just referenced. Whenever I had an AHA! moment, I would save a copy of the post, or at least part of it, and file it away under whatever category it related, such as SI, WD, agency interview, etc., sort of like my own personal ALJ Pinterest board. A few of these generous posters who provided valuable insight along the way and to whom I owe much gratitude are Funkyodar, JudgeRatty, Hilltopper and Pixie. When it came time to prepare for whatever portion of the exam was next, I would go back and reread what I had saved from the board relating to the upcoming portion. I have no doubt it made a big difference for me having all those little nuggets of wisdom organized by topic. There is so much to be gained from this board if you take the time to go back and read what others have taken the time to share over the years. And, when you read something that suddenly makes the lightbulb come on above your head, save it for later where you'll be able to find it.
|
|
|
Post by rp on Jun 14, 2017 23:12:24 GMT -5
FWIW, I'm 100% sure that I signed a CA that stated that, not only the subject matter of the testing was covered by the CA, but that the actual testing procedures were also. Thus, I would caution those discussing the panel composition and I will avoid it. As gary pointed out in an earlier post, the CA makes it extremely difficult to discuss potential reasons why a person may fail the WD. I can think of 3 very specific reasons why somebody could write a beautiful piece of prose, leave the test feeling good about what they wrote, and yet fail the test. I can't think of any way to discuss them without being too close to the CA line for my comfort. I will say this about the discussion in this thread. It is woefully off base about the WD IMO. The focus on how well you write and whether you use $25 words or one syllable words complete misses the point. If you think this was a test of writing style, grammar, and how "pretty" you write, then that probably explains why you failed the WD. There is a wonderful post about preparing for the testing by a board member ( owl ) that I haven't seen much on the board during my time on the board. That post made me stop and think about this process and framed how I approached each stage. In my mind, Owl is responsible for me making the register and if there is any karma in life, I will have the opportunity, somehow someday, to buy him/her multiple rounds of his/her favorite situational beverage as a thank you. OPM has told you what they are testing for and the WD was NOT entitled a writing test. WD stands for Written Demonstration, not writing test. I think you are misguided by going down the path suggested by statements that an ALJ doesn't write opinions and testing writing ability is meaningless, especially when made by someone who admits they have never seen the WD. Take a moment before writing your appeal, ask yourself what you were being asked to demonstrate and whether you did that. Saying you write well, that people have loved how you write, and that you have written 1000's of decisions misses the point. It is probably too late but figure out for yourself what the intent of the test was, what you were being asked to demonstrate, and how you can tell OPM that you did that. Good luck. I think I know the post you are referencing. If so, it seems to have been deleted. Here is some advice for you guys who didn't receive a score and want to try again if your appeal isn't successful: I began scouring this board in the summer of 2014 for guidance on the process and how best to prepare for the exam when it reopened. If I didn't read every single post on every single substantive thread since the process reopened in 2013, it was by oversight. I wasn't commenting much back then because I was interested in a refresh when nobody else was. But I was taking notes and preparing. If you've read much on this board, you know it is often preached to use the search button and I did. Not often, but every now and then, I would come across some profound insight that really affected the way I prepared for and thought about how to approach things, such as Bayou just referenced. Whenever I had an AHA! moment, I would save a copy of the post, or at least part of it, and file it away under whatever category it related, such as SI, WD, agency interview, etc., sort of like my own personal ALJ Pinterest board. A few of these generous posters who provided valuable insight along the way and to whom I owe much gratitude are Funkyodar, JudgeRatty, Hilltopper and Pixie. When it came time to prepare for whatever portion of the exam was next, I would go back and reread what I had saved from the board relating to the upcoming portion. I have no doubt it made a big difference for me having all those little nuggets of wisdom organized by topic. There is so much to be gained from this board if you take the time to go back and read what others have taken the time to share over the years. And, when you read something that suddenly makes the lightbulb come on above your head, save it for later where you'll be able to find it. 100% Grade A advice lucy. I would encourage all to follow her example. I wasn't as thorough as she was but did many of the same things. I am absolutely convinced this Board and great great people on it is why I am fortunate enough to have a score and am now on the register - you all know who you are - the most sincere thanks to all - past, present, and future. *Edit: I would add - I also applied in 2013 and never made it past the initial application because I didn't properly document my experience. I appealed and in 2015 it was denied. So - long story short - I know of the frustration of which montyburns speaks. I believe this board is why I made it this time. I encourage all to appeal - it is a long process added to an already long process - but you have zero risk.
|
|
|
Post by deckhand on Jun 14, 2017 23:20:10 GMT -5
It is a tough time for those who missed the mark, and there is much evaluating and revisiting being done to determine where flaws were made. However, those who passed still do not know exactly what they did to place themselves on the register. There is no real way to know for sure what put you over the top on both areas. So much is up to the grader and interviewer, and I think that all who made it should be brimming with humility and gratitude that on that particular day they provided what their graders and interviewers wanted to see and hear. There are no experts in this process, in my opinion. I must re-evaluate and see where improvement could have been made on the portion on which I fell short. The board is a wonderful resource, however, and support should be the goals of the members.
|
|