|
Post by montyburns on Jun 15, 2017 4:51:50 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. Good advice here. I would only add that, as one who has said "writing doesn't matter for ALJs," this was meant as a statement of fact, NOT advice on how to approach the WD or appeal failing it. Hopefully, the hive mind was able to discern that "leaving the page blank" was, in fact, a joke. Apparently it was not obvious. Please also reference my disclaimers wherein I specifically state one should not follow my "advice." I'm here to salve egos, not offer legal advice. If someone is reading my pithy commiserations as advice, well, I'm surprised they made it this far in life. Further, by your own logic, since I did not do the WD/SI and therefore did not sign the CA, shouldn't I be one of the only ones here who is able to discuss the SI/WD freely? As to methodology, what you and Lucy describe is exactly what I did for as far as I made it. I'm fairly certain I know the owl post you describe. I have a few from Gaiden in the same vein. When I tested, I gathered all the posts from here that I found salient, as well as other resources I had gathered (largely found by being referenced on here) and printed them out. I reviewed them the night before the testing/application. Seemed solid to me. I didn't make it, so I hesitate to endorse this methodology to others. But I will certainly use it again if I ever reapply. On the WD, having never taken it, I couldn't say how misguided using $25 words is, but it certainly fits in my analytical framework for the prior parts of the exam. Bayou, if you are as articulate in person as you are on here, I think you are headed to an ALJ job in a cert or so. (It's true I never made a cert so wtf do I know). Reminiscent of Gaiden in some ways. However, you don't have one thing many in here do - the perspective of having failed the test. It may be that you don't have a lot of experience failing period. However, if you are indeed on the ODAR ALJ fast track, you'll be served well by trying to appreciate the failure's perspective and why some people, despite seeming to do all the right things, came out on the wrong end of life.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jun 15, 2017 4:55:48 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. This is an excellent point. You may see that those who passed the WD come on here giving advice to those who didn't, but the former really have no solid idea why they made it and others did not. Shockingly (to me), there are lots of people who get through the OPM process without finding this board or ruminating/obsessing over every step of the process. At some point analysis paralysis becomes a real concern.
|
|
|
Appealing
Jun 15, 2017 7:52:17 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by wenwen on Jun 15, 2017 7:52:17 GMT -5
I have search the board and it appears that the majority of the FOADs for the 2016 class and other classes was for not meeting the minimum score for the WD portion.
Has anyone ever appealed and been successful with the SI portion? It appears to be an uphill battle since the appeal board will only look at what's on the record. For the SI portion, presumably what's "on the record" would be the interviewers notes which we are not privy to. This makes it difficult to provide the "brief explanation" they are asking for, besides simply stating, "I believe the rating was assigned in error, please review my answers to the questions."
Thank you in advance for your thoughts and suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by deckhand on Jun 15, 2017 8:22:58 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. This is an excellent point. You may see that those who passed the WD come on here giving advice to those who didn't, but the former really have no solid idea why they made it and others did not. Shockingly (to me), there are lots of people who get through the OPM process without finding this board or ruminating/obsessing over every step of the process. At some point analysis paralysis becomes a real concern. Over the last ten years, I have seen people retest and improve their scores monumentally -- not by a handful of points. They did not change and their experience did not change in the intervening time. In this process, I have seen people who did not pass online last time make it on the register this time. There are people who are known as gifted writers who did not pass the WD and people who do not have that reputation making the register. I guess I've been around long enough to know that there is no real rhyme or reason for most of these outcomes. As no one performs perfectly, the most reasonable explanation for these outcomes (barring some face palming screw-up) is that the WD and SI gods were smiling down upon the winners and scowling upon the rest.
|
|
|
Post by resipsa on Jun 15, 2017 9:36:30 GMT -5
Okay: I flunked the whole shootin' match, including Bar membership: "After further review of you bar status, it was determined that your status does not satisfy the licensure requirement in 5 C.F.R. A700 930.204(b). As indicated in the Administrative Law Judge Job Opportunity Announcement, an applicant must be licensed and authorized to practice law at the time of application and continuously through the selection process including any period on the ALJ competitive register. Judicial status is acceptable in lieu of "active" status in States that prohibit sitting judges from maintaining "active" status to practice law; being in "good standing" is acceptable in lieu of "active" status in States where the licensing authority considers "good standing" as having a current license to practice law..." I just don't see how my answer could have been any plainer: "I am licensed to practice law in all courts of the State of [my State]. Date of Bar admission was September 27, 1985. Bar license I.D. number 4452-M48L. A licensed [my State] attorney who serves as a full-time judge or full-time assistant attorney general may purchase a special membership license upon payment of a fee. From January 2001 through the present, I have paid the special membership fee annually to maintain [my State] Bar membership in Active Status." And in the appropriate part of the app (Question 1), asking if I have 7 years of experience as a licensed attorney preparing for, participating in, and/or REVIEWING FORMAL HEARINGS OR TRIALS INVOLVING LITIGATION and/or administrative law at the Federal, State or local level, I answered yes. In description of litigation experience box, I cited my judicial office from 2001 - 2007. (6 years) and gave a lengthy summary of the jurisdiction of my court and specified the matters that I presided over. In the part where it asks about administrative law experience I explained that I had been as state assistant attorney general from August 2008 through to the present (6/14/16) and gave a thorough description of my duties preparing for and participating in administrative cases. That was 15 years of relevant experience! (I also practiced law previously for the first 15 years but did not talk about that because I clearly had the 7 years required.) I one of you fellow Board members doesn't mind reading through this and sees a problem with my answer, please enlighten me. I am appealing because I really have nothing to lose. Southerngal, if your state begins with an A, its because it was not an active license. Had a couple of people I know in the past hit by that problem, and they warned me. "(Sections 34-3-17 & 18, Code of Alabama, 1975, as amended) An attorney NOT engaged in the active practice of law in Alabama may pay special membership dues to remain a member in good standing. Those exempt from licensing by virtue of a position held, i.e. judgeships, attorneys general, U.S. attorneys, district attorneys, etc., also qualify for special memberships. (NOTE: Special membership DOES NOT permit you to engage in the private practice of law in Alabama.)- Although this does not technically say you are not active as a gov employee, etc., the definition excludes active practice in and of itself at the beginning. Arguably, you are still active, but it is one of those picky things that OPM has used to deny applicants. I was special membership status myself the week that the application came out. I went and paid for active license so that when I applied, I would be in compliance with this part " an applicant must be licensed and authorized to practice law at the time of application and continuously through the selection process including any period on the ALJ competitive register"
I too was rejected for WD this time. In 2013 it was because I didn't put the dates of employ in correctly, like a bunch of others. That appeal was denied. I did not sign a waiver, nor was I offered a waiver. I will not speak to any other part of the interview process than to say I should have been offered a waiver based on what I have seen. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by karikmar3 on Jun 15, 2017 9:36:31 GMT -5
Appeal sent this morning. Received confirmation email back (Notification of Issue Registration). Not holding my breath. Turning my attention ahead to two weeks at the beach starting next Friday.
|
|
|
Post by alrifle on Jun 15, 2017 9:48:00 GMT -5
Does anyone know what category of professionals grade the WD? I would expect that group also handles WD appeals as well.
|
|
|
Post by southerngal on Jun 15, 2017 10:36:44 GMT -5
Okay: I flunked the whole shootin' match, including Bar membership: "After further review of you bar status, it was determined that your status does not satisfy the licensure requirement in 5 C.F.R. A700 930.204(b). As indicated in the Administrative Law Judge Job Opportunity Announcement, an applicant must be licensed and authorized to practice law at the time of application and continuously through the selection process including any period on the ALJ competitive register. Judicial status is acceptable in lieu of "active" status in States that prohibit sitting judges from maintaining "active" status to practice law; being in "good standing" is acceptable in lieu of "active" status in States where the licensing authority considers "good standing" as having a current license to practice law..." I just don't see how my answer could have been any plainer: "I am licensed to practice law in all courts of the State of [my State]. Date of Bar admission was September 27, 1985. Bar license I.D. number 4452-M48L. A licensed [my State] attorney who serves as a full-time judge or full-time assistant attorney general may purchase a special membership license upon payment of a fee. From January 2001 through the present, I have paid the special membership fee annually to maintain [my State] Bar membership in Active Status." And in the appropriate part of the app (Question 1), asking if I have 7 years of experience as a licensed attorney preparing for, participating in, and/or REVIEWING FORMAL HEARINGS OR TRIALS INVOLVING LITIGATION and/or administrative law at the Federal, State or local level, I answered yes. In description of litigation experience box, I cited my judicial office from 2001 - 2007. (6 years) and gave a lengthy summary of the jurisdiction of my court and specified the matters that I presided over. In the part where it asks about administrative law experience I explained that I had been as state assistant attorney general from August 2008 through to the present (6/14/16) and gave a thorough description of my duties preparing for and participating in administrative cases. That was 15 years of relevant experience! (I also practiced law previously for the first 15 years but did not talk about that because I clearly had the 7 years required.) I one of you fellow Board members doesn't mind reading through this and sees a problem with my answer, please enlighten me. I am appealing because I really have nothing to lose. Southerngal, if your state begins with an A, its because it was not an active license. Had a couple of people I know in the past hit by that problem, and they warned me. "(Sections 34-3-17 & 18, Code of Alabama, 1975, as amended) An attorney NOT engaged in the active practice of law in Alabama may pay special membership dues to remain a member in good standing. Those exempt from licensing by virtue of a position held, i.e. judgeships, attorneys general, U.S. attorneys, district attorneys, etc., also qualify for special memberships. (NOTE: Special membership DOES NOT permit you to engage in the private practice of law in Alabama.)- Although this does not technically say you are not active as a gov employee, etc., the definition excludes active practice in and of itself at the beginning. Arguably, you are still active, but it is one of those picky things that OPM has used to deny applicants. I was special membership status myself the week that the application came out. I went and paid for active license so that when I applied, I would be in compliance with this part " an applicant must be licensed and authorized to practice law at the time of application and continuously through the selection process including any period on the ALJ competitive register"
I too was rejected for WD this time. In 2013 it was because I didn't put the dates of employ in correctly, like a bunch of others. That appeal was denied. I did not sign a waiver, nor was I offered a waiver. I will not speak to any other part of the interview process than to say I should have been offered a waiver based on what I have seen. Thanks Good lord! If this is OPM's position, and I don't doubt your words--it is truly insanity. My experience post-private practice is, at least arguably, more relevant to the job. Any thoughts on how one might challenge this on appeal?
|
|
|
Post by Prrple on Jun 15, 2017 10:39:40 GMT -5
Southerngal, if your state begins with an A, its because it was not an active license. Had a couple of people I know in the past hit by that problem, and they warned me. "(Sections 34-3-17 & 18, Code of Alabama, 1975, as amended) An attorney NOT engaged in the active practice of law in Alabama may pay special membership dues to remain a member in good standing. Those exempt from licensing by virtue of a position held, i.e. judgeships, attorneys general, U.S. attorneys, district attorneys, etc., also qualify for special memberships. (NOTE: Special membership DOES NOT permit you to engage in the private practice of law in Alabama.)- Although this does not technically say you are not active as a gov employee, etc., the definition excludes active practice in and of itself at the beginning. Arguably, you are still active, but it is one of those picky things that OPM has used to deny applicants. I was special membership status myself the week that the application came out. I went and paid for active license so that when I applied, I would be in compliance with this part " an applicant must be licensed and authorized to practice law at the time of application and continuously through the selection process including any period on the ALJ competitive register"
I too was rejected for WD this time. In 2013 it was because I didn't put the dates of employ in correctly, like a bunch of others. That appeal was denied. I did not sign a waiver, nor was I offered a waiver. I will not speak to any other part of the interview process than to say I should have been offered a waiver based on what I have seen. Thanks Good lord! If this is OPM's position, and I don't doubt your words--it is truly insanity. My experience post-private practice is, at least arguably, more relevant to the job. Any thoughts on how one might challenge this on appeal? I'd appeal, and tell them it's enough to allow you to do what you do. I'd also find out how to go back to active status. Decide if it's worth the extra money and any other requirements (e.g. CLE) and go around this bend again
|
|
salvo
Full Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by salvo on Jun 15, 2017 11:10:34 GMT -5
As I sit here reviewing my umpteenth 4x year old with back problems for the week, from my broom closet of a non-conforming office, hoping against hope that I may just get to see the sun for a few minutes today, praying that there will be no email telling us that, actually, they want us to do 600 cases per year, I want to echo what bayou posted. Also, to not worry about it too much, because, at the end of the day, this is job like any other, with all the drudgery and soul-sucking you'd find at any job. It can be enjoyable yes, but it shouldn't be put up on a pedestal and tied to your sense of self-worth.
For what it's worth, I want to say to all of the excellent writers out there--you're right. You are, in all likelihood, an excellent writer. Top-notch. One of the best. Don't let a score on one test make you think differently. That being said, if I were looking for an answer as to why things shook out as they did, and where one might appeal, I would be asking myself a few hypothetical questions, emphasis on hypothetical, please don't attempt to provide an answer here, confidentiality, etc.:
1)Why is there a CA in the first place?
2)Why do they not provide any indication as to how exactly one did not pass, or what the score was?
3)These are stated to be objective tests. Given that one man's Shakespeare is another man's overwrought tripe, in what manner does writing become objective?
4)Why is it called the WD, and not the writing sample?
Just throwing these out there. Take the for what they're worth, i.e. unsolicited free advice from an anonymous person on the internet.
In hindsight, I think the process is mostly fair, though I certainly didn't think so when I was going through the process due to the entire lack of transparency. The issue becomes infuriating, I suspect, when there is a discrepancy between what people want or think is being tested, and what is actually being tested. It sucks, it really does, but I believe the intentions are good, and not as arbitrary as people think.
But regardless, don't give up! As has been said many times, this is a marathon, and not a nice flat one, but one with hills, and obstacles, and people who rush out of the crowd to tackle you at various turns just when you think you're near the end. Many current judges had a lot of stumbles, falls, inopportune cramps, and dehydration. But you certainly can't get to the end without trying. So, good luck and keep trying!
|
|
|
Post by dcsdavid1 on Jun 15, 2017 11:17:29 GMT -5
So, I have a practical question. To link my appeal to my "application," all OPM needs is to note my email address?? The email regarding an appeal made no mention of using any unique identifier that links me to my appeal.
|
|
|
Post by southerngal on Jun 15, 2017 11:20:27 GMT -5
Good lord! If this is OPM's position, and I don't doubt your words--it is truly insanity. My experience post-private practice is, at least arguably, more relevant to the job. Any thoughts on how one might challenge this on appeal? I'd appeal, and tell them it's enough to allow you to do what you do. I'd also find out how to go back to active status. Decide if it's worth the extra money and any other requirements (e.g. CLE) and go around this bend again It's not that much more money to be active but [my current employer (i.e., State of _____ agency)] might get wind of it, and wonder what is going on--would it affect promotions, raises?? Don't know. And we ARE required to have the same number of continuing ed. as "active" practice attorneys.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jun 15, 2017 12:05:43 GMT -5
As I sit here reviewing my umpteenth 4x year old with back problems for the week, from my broom closet of a non-conforming office, hoping against hope that I may just get to see the sun for a few minutes today, praying that there will be no email telling us that, actually, they want us to do 600 cases per year, I want to echo what bayou posted. Also, to not worry about it too much, because, at the end of the day, this is job like any other, with all the drudgery and soul-sucking you'd find at any job. It can be enjoyable yes, but it shouldn't be put up on a pedestal and tied to your sense of self-worth. For what it's worth, I want to say to all of the excellent writers out there--you're right. You are, in all likelihood, an excellent writer. Top-notch. One of the best. Don't let a score on one test make you think differently. That being said, if I were looking for an answer as to why things shook out as they did, and where one might appeal, I would be asking myself a few hypothetical questions, emphasis on hypothetical, please don't attempt to provide an answer here, confidentiality, etc.: 1)Why is there a CA in the first place? 2)Why do they not provide any indication as to how exactly one did not pass, or what the score was? 3)These are stated to be objective tests. Given that one man's Shakespeare is another man's overwrought tripe, in what manner does writing become objective? 4)Why is it called the WD, and not the writing sample? Just throwing these out there. Take the for what they're worth, i.e. unsolicited free advice from an anonymous person on the internet. In hindsight, I think the process is mostly fair, though I certainly didn't think so when I was going through the process due to the entire lack of transparency. The issue becomes infuriating, I suspect, when there is a discrepancy between what people want or think is being tested, and what is actually being tested. It sucks, it really does, but I believe the intentions are good, and not as arbitrary as people think. But regardless, don't give up! As has been said many times, this is a marathon, and not a nice flat one, but one with hills, and obstacles, and people who rush out of the crowd to tackle you at various turns just when you think you're near the end. Many current judges had a lot of stumbles, falls, inopportune cramps, and dehydration. But you certainly can't get to the end without trying. So, good luck and keep trying! Excellent perspective. If I ever become an ALJ I am certain there will be a huge let down when it sets in that I did not win the lottery, but actually have to work at a job with ever-increasing demands. Still beats private practice, but the process is such that the journey sets up some lofty expectations for the destination. I also think the process is fair, in the sense that playing the lottery is fair. Everyone more or less has the same odds at the outset. The balls will fly, they will land. No one can say why or how for sure. Some will win, some will lose. Que sera, sera.
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Jun 15, 2017 12:47:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pubdef on Jun 15, 2017 12:51:07 GMT -5
My appeal will be sent today. I will note, and I don't think this violates the CA, that there was one important thing missing during the WD that has always been my secret weapon.
I've gone through this process 2x. Each time I have sailed through to D.C. and failed to meet the minimum score on the WD. I understand all that everyone past and present has said about what they are looking for, but I haven't cracked the nut through no fault of my own. When I fire up my computer to take the online portion of the test, I have a freshly poured pint sitting beside me. It started the first time because I didn't think I'd make it through. Then it was my lucky charm. Imagine my surprise that there wasn't a cash bar in the room at OPM which really blustered with my ability to meet the minimum score.
So as I send off my appeal this afternoon, I will do so with a nice craft beer and I'll say a cheers to all of you that your appeal goes well, or your NOR gets you into the agency of your dreams, and you get whatever job, career, position, etc. that will fulfill you. Might I suggest being Jimmy Buffett and singing about being on the beach. If we can't do that, keep in mind he admits he only became a success after he failed at achieving his first dream.
I hope to see you the next time around. Cheers!
P.S. It will be a very bitter pale ale. P.P.S. Seriously, thank you to all the people who have appealed in the past and offered suggestions. P.P.P.S. Seriously, thank you to all the people who made a score after trying 2 or more times, or who made it on your first try, for still caring about those of us left behind. I know that I appreciate it. I believe everyone who made it is all kinds of awesome and will make a great ALJs. I also believe that to be true of those of us who didn't make it. OPM really attracts a stellar group of applicants.
|
|
|
Post by auroraborealis on Jun 15, 2017 12:54:43 GMT -5
Keep at it, pubdef You have the right attitude. As someone who was in your camp before (who had to jump through the requisite hoops twice before getting an NOR) I am here to tell you, keep the faith. There is light at the end of the testing tunnel.
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Jun 15, 2017 12:57:41 GMT -5
There's been a bit of back and forth about whether the test is based on reality, etc. implications people should have read earlier posts and if they didn't get a NOR they didn't do enough searching. For appeals we need to focus on what is likely to win.
I will not go gently into this night. The system apologists can say what they will--it's a system with pluses and minuses, and while that's great to realize in terms of karma stabilization,it isn't going to help us with the appeal.
Let's focus on the weaknesses we can use on appeal. Save the traumerei "It's fair....no it's not...." for elsewhere. Life is unfair. I get that. But I and most others did study, did read prior posts, and if you have a prior post that helps us with an appeal, let's have it. If it's posted to help us study for the retest post on a separate thread "study aids for test takers/retesters" or similar.
If you're trying to tell us we didn't search enough I believe that isn't correct. As a rubric for the future it's grand but this thread is for those who won't sit and take it but want to challenge. Game on!
|
|
|
Post by Serious, J. on Jun 15, 2017 14:22:00 GMT -5
I have absolutely no inside information. None. So this is just a remote idea based on personal observation in an entirely different setting.
Years ago my daughter was in her high school marching band. It was a pretty good band and it went to State, competing with marching bands from schools of similar size. They got second place. The band directors were stunned; they were pretty sure they'd outperformed the band that took first place. They asked to see the band's scores. They didn't find a single thing they would have quibbled with, except the math. They were scored appropriately for every technical category, but there was an addition error in the final tally. That led to a recheck of the math for all the bands' scores. Once the math was corrected, my daughter's marching band ended up in first place.
Now, as I said, I know absolutely nothing about how the WD and SI are scored. But IF the final WD and SI scores are merely the sum of scores for the various subparts, it is possible there could be a simple math error.
I know appeals are a stab in the dark. But I'd appeal . . . just on the possibility I was eliminated due to bad math, which may or may not be the only objective aspect to scoring the WD and SI.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jun 15, 2017 14:42:58 GMT -5
Does anyone know what category of professionals grade the WD? I would expect that group also handles WD appeals as well.
In the past OPM has used retired ALJs to grade the WD. No reason to believe that practice has changed.
|
|
|
Post by owl on Jun 15, 2017 14:59:09 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. Thank you for the kind words! I am quite sure your gratitude is misplaced but as a cash-strapped fed worker bee I would certainly never pass up a free beverage should our paths ever cross. Best of luck to you and to everyone in this process.
If the post to which you refer has been deleted (I haven't checked), it wasn't my doing. IIRC some confidentiality nervous nellies were skittish about it, but everything I wrote was taken from the job announcement. To paraphrase (and greatly shorten) for anyone interested, it was that everything in this process is, by very careful design, a test (which is why they call it the ALJ Examination, not the ALJ Application). A test of 13 defined competencies. And I believe, inferring from that, that it is possible, by OPM's very careful (nefarious?) design, to give wrong or even disqualifying "answers" at many points throughout the test, even points that might not seem intuitive. So my advice, such as it was, was just to buckle down and always be trying to give the right answer (or at least not the wrong answer), first and foremost.
When we have obviously excellent, professional writers reporting in significant numbers that they didn't meet the minimum score on the WD - which has happened each of the four times that there has been mass grading since the 2013 opening - Occam's Razor says that quality of writing could not possibly have been the determinative factor for those folks.
With that said, while I do believe OPM strives for as much objectivity in the process as possible, I also believe that luck/arbitrariness/subjectivity still plays a significant role since it is, after all, a human-run endeavor. The proof of that is that despite having a well-below-average score I did not want any part of reapplying when the reopening occurred. I am quite sure that despite my best efforts to take my own advice I gave many wrong (although obviously not disqualifying) answers (hence the score) and likely just lucked into a fair number of the right ones.
Again, good luck to all, whether waiting for certs, appealing, etc.
|
|