|
|
Post by bayou on Aug 5, 2017 18:35:08 GMT -5
I think you are YES on both counts.
It makes no sense at all for them to have just tested 2000 people, passing 1000 of us, and then kicking us off the register a few weeks later, or making us do it all over again. Not that everything has to make complete sense, but that would make no sense at all.
I think, too, that if your scenario of having to re-test was true, they would notify us that, although we were just placed on the register, we have to re-apply. Nothing in the announcement says anything like that.
And finally, on the pet peeve tip, all this parsing of secret meaning behind the press release is nuts. It says they are taking applications again. It doesn't, and probably wouldn't ever, announce a "new test." To avoid getting sued, OPM would probably have to end this register and start fresh so all candidates are considered on the same basis, if there is some "new test" being implemented. Those of us who just made the register won't be allowed to re-apply, and those that did not make the register will be allowed to re-apply. Not sure where all the other speculation is coming from.
I for one, am grateful that I will be allowed to open up my limited GAL and get myself into play in the next several certs that will happen long before anyone is added to the register. Remember that they hired just before the current crop was allowed to apply, and they hired while the current cropped tested, including shortly before we got our scores. Why would anyone think that a similar pattern won't be followed now? I see a minimum of 4, and possibly more certs before any newcomers do any burying of us.
In the meantime, Craplandia is looking mighty attractive suddenly. Not Fargo, though. Never Fargo.
Howya like them paragraphs?
Beautiful. You get a gold star. I actually read all of your post, and it was an easy read. Pixie Did you also check it to make sure all of the commas to the top were appropriately used. |
|
|
|
Post by rhd on Aug 5, 2017 18:37:01 GMT -5
I SEE A TYPO. Can you find it? I already fixed it in the original.
|
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 5, 2017 18:58:22 GMT -5
I SEE A TYPO. Can you find it? I already fixed it in the original. Cropped became crop in paragraph 5. You also should have used the past subjunctive in paragraph 3. |
|
|
|
Post by alphathreesix on Aug 5, 2017 19:06:52 GMT -5
OPM should just adopt a trial by combat model. It'd be far simpler, less subjective and leave less up for interpretation.
I've been advocating this for many years as a prosecutor. No one has seemed super excited at the prospect so far, but maybe OPM is getting on board.
|
|
|
|
Post by jlawj on Aug 5, 2017 19:45:23 GMT -5
I've been reading this entire thread. I got a low score (63) but I picked every location for my GAL. Based on what I've read, I have a question... should I hang myself now or shoot myself later? If they add new people to the register, I'm probably going to languish at the bottom for years and never see the light of day.
Also, if I recall, when they posted on USAJobs for the last round, it was for SSA ALJs, but this announcement doesn't specifically say this will be a Social Security register. What gives? The register we're on, does it count for other ALJ positions too? Like immigration judges? I'm so confused. If the new register is general and not specifically or exclusively for Social Security judges, how does that affect us?
|
|
|
|
Post by rp on Aug 5, 2017 19:54:22 GMT -5
I've been reading this entire thread. I got a low score (63) but I picked every location for my GAL. Based on what I've read, I have a question... should I hang myself now or shoot myself later? If they add new people to the register, I'm probably going to languish at the bottom for years and never see the light of day. Also, if I recall, when they posted on USAJobs for the last round, it was for SSA ALJs, but this announcement doesn't specifically say this will be a Social Security register. What gives? The register we're on, does it count for other ALJ positions too? Like immigration judges? I'm so confused. If the new register is general and not specifically or exclusively for Social Security judges, how does that affect us? This register is for any position that requires an ALJ. In fact, DOL has requested a cert recently as well and there are some on the register that are also in the process of interviewing for those positions at the same time as the current SSA certs. It does NOT include IJs or AJs, which are different. I know others can explain this in more detail and better than I can -- gary? bayou? Bueller? |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Aug 5, 2017 22:21:52 GMT -5
I've been reading this entire thread. I got a low score (63) but I picked every location for my GAL. Based on what I've read, I have a question... should I hang myself now or shoot myself later? If they add new people to the register, I'm probably going to languish at the bottom for years and never see the light of day. Also, if I recall, when they posted on USAJobs for the last round, it was for SSA ALJs, but this announcement doesn't specifically say this will be a Social Security register. What gives? The register we're on, does it count for other ALJ positions too? Like immigration judges? I'm so confused. If the new register is general and not specifically or exclusively for Social Security judges, how does that affect us? This register is for any position that requires an ALJ. In fact, DOL has requested a cert recently as well and there are some on the register that are also in the process of interviewing for those positions at the same time as the current SSA certs. It does NOT include IJs or AJs, which are different. I know others can explain this in more detail and better than I can -- gary? bayou? Bueller?You did a fine job giving him the information. Gary could have done as well, but would have been more comprehensive in his answer. Bueller? Bueller hasn't been on the board since June 15. That brings us to bayou. bayou? You want help from bayou? He can barely help himself. You did a good job answering the question without calling for help from those who know less than you know. Grab some confidence and jump in there with answers, especially when the brand new newbies start hitting the board. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by acttwo on Aug 5, 2017 23:19:02 GMT -5
OPM should just adopt a trial by combat model. It'd be far simpler, less subjective and leave less up for interpretation. I've been advocating this for many years as a prosecutor. No one has seemed super excited at the prospect so far, but maybe OPM is getting on board. As a prosecutor myself, I LOVE the idea! Way too many opponents see a small, middle aged woman and think easy pickings -- to their misery. But no, TPTB won't go that route, so I will behave. |
|
|
|
Post by attypat on Aug 6, 2017 0:25:38 GMT -5
I am confused. I am on the register until 2018. My score is 69.7. I have been on 2 certs but no offers. I did not make the most recent cert. I have a wide open GAL. I made the certs for 26 locations the first time and 24 the second. Should I reapply ? What are the risks? Can I reapply?
Edit Note by Pixie: I changed your score to better protect your anonymity. Pixie
|
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 6, 2017 6:14:05 GMT -5
I am confused. I am on the register until 2018. My score is 69.7. I have been on 2 certs but no offers. I did not make the most recent cert. I have a wide open GAL. I made the certs for 26 locations the first time and 24 the second. Should I reapply ? What are the risks? Can I reapply? 1. The current expiration date of the register is December 2018. If a new register has not been established by then, OPM will extend that date as needed. You can stay on this register until you are hired or the register is terminated and replaced by a new register. 2. Your GAL is ideal; your score is pretty decent. I would expect you to begin appearing on certs during the next set of certs, or no later than the set of certs following the next. Keep in mind I'm just making an educated guess and could be wrong. 3. Only you can decide whether to reapply during the refresh. I would not, but then I'm pretty risk averse. 4. If you reapply during the refresh, the risks are: They might through some fluke find you unqualified and bounce you from the register right away; you might not make the higher scoring subgroup and so not be invited to D.C.; or you might not attain the minimum score on the WD, or the SI, or both. Any of these events and you'd no longer be on the register at all. If you got a score, it might be lower than the one you have now. Whatever the result of your running the gauntlet again would replace your current result. 5. From what you've said, I'm guessing you got your NOR with a score more than a year ago and so could reapply during the refresh if you wish. |
|
|
|
Post by aljwishhope on Aug 6, 2017 7:07:45 GMT -5
Really wish refresh would occur after next offers.
It would really be helpful to know after that set of offers how many folks with scores of 72 or below remain on registe (and 72 and above remain I guess)
Atty Pat's post that with 69.7 she got 25 or 24 cities on 2 certs prior to new additions is telling.
My score is like 64.99 and I got 1 city and then 4 cities on same two certs (my GAL is narrowish- 30 something cities but mainly D.C. Area none cited generally as craplandia)
All that said I would not reapply next exam (except if my present job gets cut - slim chance of that).
Given my low scoreand being part of that second chance subgroup and that I have not done anything to dramatically change my experience since 2013 (like say become a GS15 or a very active litigator or become a Veteran) it is more likely that I would not make the cut then that I would get a significantly higher score.
In any event not interested in running that gauntlet again presently - maybe in5 years when I am an empty nester!
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Aug 6, 2017 7:24:28 GMT -5
I am confused. I am on the register until 2018. My score is 69.7. I have been on 2 certs but no offers. I did not make the most recent cert. I have a wide open GAL. I made the certs for 26 locations the first time and 24 the second. Should I reapply ? What are the risks? Can I reapply? Edit Note by Pixie: I changed your score to better protect your anonymity. Pixie I will be more succinct than Gary who spelled it all out for you. Don't reapply; you risk losing everything for only the possibility of increasing your score. You made those two certs because the Agency was dipping down into your score range. The last cert was after the newbies hit the register, and you got buried. As the newbie high scorers get hired, you will be reachable again. Remember that even if you substantially increase your score, it isn't going to make the Agency want you more than it would want you with your 69.7 score. You would be giving up a lot for a trip into the unknown. A bird in hand is worth two in the bush. This is especially true if one has to give up the bird in hand to pursue the two in the bush. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Aug 6, 2017 8:18:16 GMT -5
My thoughts on how to approach the decision would be to go back and look at the old polls and threads starting in 2013. Determine how many certs it took before your score was reached in general. By that I mean not when 1 or 2 persons with your score started popping up but when did it appear that a significant number of persons in your score range start making certs.
If it took a bunch of certs and 24 months before your score rang was reached, I would consider starting again because it is unlikely that you will be reached before the new peeps are added on top of the 2016 cohort that were just added. If you would be reachable in 12 months, no way I would reapply. If reachable in 18 to 20 months, tough decision.
There are so many variables, such as hiring rate, how often the will refresh in the future and number of applicants, that it is hard to have firm guidelines but that would be my thought process.
I agree with the general thought that just being on the register regardless of score has value but at some point a score could be low enough that it's value is so low that the projected value of a higher score is higher than the current value of a low score even when you take into account the risk of not making it through a second time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ready-Now! on Aug 6, 2017 9:46:47 GMT -5
I agree with bayou. You may have a period of time that you can ride this registry while going through the application process. You will need to check that out for yourself and be absolutely sure the two can co-exist and at what point a choice must be made. Hopefully, if you decide to keep your score you can terminate the application process before the point of no return. Edit: attypat |
|
|
|
Post by mango54 on Aug 6, 2017 13:01:24 GMT -5
I have been on a hiatus and checked back in only to find this major issue! So it maybe way too early to be pontificating but what in the world to do? To have made it all the way except the WD and to have filed an appeal. I am terrified to simply blindly start all over again knowing that some pencil head or computer glitch could arbitrarily end my chances way earlier. Some of the post I've read talked about this refresh occurring more frequently in the future. I am just really torn about what to do if our appeals are not decided which seems like they will not be. I guess one thought would be to stick with the appeal and if you lose it simply wait until another refresh? Or understanding that so few appeals are successful abandon the appeal and start all over. For those of you all that are in this boat what say you?
|
|
|
|
Post by jamie368 on Aug 6, 2017 14:53:35 GMT -5
It simply has to be a new test, right?
I hope this is not revealing testing procedures, but I was told by the proctor that they had to take precautions to prevent "plants" who were there only to steal or record the questions – in order to sell them, I guess.
What's better than getting the test information secondhand from a "plant" – answer: getting that information yourself by taking, in 2018, the same exact logic test and written demonstration that you took in 2017. And answering the same exact structured interview questions that you answered in 2017.
I am one of those people that beat themselves up over questions I feel I did badly on – such that I can specifically remember questions or types of questions from the LSAT on which I believe I scored poorly. Those questions are burned into my head decades later. I certainly remember a lot from the two days in Washington. Had I received a failing score, I could be boning up on my answers to those questions right now.
So it has to be a new test – or else they are conferring an unfair advantage on anyone who tested last go around and failed – or anyone who has the opportunity to discard their score from last go around and tries again.
Comparing 2013 and the 2016 experiences – the applicants who are to apply now are being compared with the
"even lower scoring low-scoring group" who did not do well on the online component,, but did well enough to pass. (time for new acronym: ELSLSG). Inviting individuals who went through this process only recently to reapply and take the same exact test is quite different from allowing the online "even lower scoring low-scoring group" to go to DC. That ELSLSG group did not get to see the DC questions or fact patterns, and see them again a year and a half later.
|
|
|
|
Post by rp on Aug 6, 2017 15:57:35 GMT -5
It simply has to be a new test, right? I hope this is not revealing testing procedures, but I was told by the proctor that they had to take precautions to prevent "plants" who were there only to steal or record the questions – in order to sell them, I guess. What's better than getting the test information secondhand from a "plant" – answer: getting that information yourself by taking, in 2018, the same exact logic test and written demonstration that you took in 2017. And answering the same exact structured interview questions that you answered in 2017. I am one of those people that beat themselves up over questions I feel I did badly on – such that I can specifically remember questions or types of questions from the LSAT on which I believe I scored poorly. Those questions are burned into my head decades later. I certainly remember a lot from the two days in Washington. Had I received a failing score, I could be boning up on my answers to those questions right now. So it has to be a new test – or else they are conferring an unfair advantage on anyone who tested last go around and failed – or anyone who has the opportunity to discard their score from last go around and tries again. Comparing 2013 and the 2016 experiences – the applicants who are to apply now are being compared with the "even lower scoring low-scoring group" who did not do well on the online component,, but did well enough to pass. (time for new acronym: ELSLSG). Inviting individuals who went through this process only recently to reapply and take the same exact test is quite different from allowing the online "even lower scoring low-scoring group" to go to DC. That ELSLSG group never saw the DC questions or fact patterns, and saw them again a year and a half later. When you say new test -- you don't mean a new procedure, I take it. I am sure they can change the questions so that they aren't the same or in the same order. As far as the "plant" concern goes...is there really someone out there that would go to all this trouble to jeopardize their law license? Think about it. You have to be licensed to take the exam -- or at least claim that you are. You have to have all this experience, etc. otherwise you don't even make it to D.C. Then you steal the test and sell it? Wow -- the person that does that shouldn't be practicing law anyway. I mean seriously -- and we have signed a CA and agreed to be bound by it at every step of the way. Again -- want to get a bar complaint and possible suspension or be disbarred before you even have the chance to be an ALJ? I don't think so. But hey -- there I go thinking like me again. |
|
|
|
Post by jamie368 on Aug 6, 2017 16:16:43 GMT -5
By new test, I mean new test questions. Not the same questions rearranged in a different order. If someone takes the same test they took last year, even with the questions reordered, they still have an advantage – and that is taking the same test a second time in a relatively short time frame.
As for "plants" – I only know what the proctor told me. Every time the proctor tells you to put your cell phone away – that is why they are doing it – and not so you will not get distracted –they believe someone who has seven years of litigation experience might still pull a fast one.
|
|
|
|
Post by rp on Aug 6, 2017 16:50:48 GMT -5
By new test, I mean new test questions. Not the same questions rearranged in a different order. If someone takes the same test they took last year, even with the questions reordered, they still have an advantage – and that is taking the same test a second time in a relatively short time frame. As for "plants" – I only know what the proctor told me. Every time the proctor tells you to put your cell phone away – that is why they are doing it – and not so you will not get distracted –they believe someone who has seven years of litigation experience might still pull a fast one. I see your point about new questions. As far as worrying about plants - That's just sad and really does not speak well of our profession. |
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Aug 6, 2017 17:28:07 GMT -5
IMHO, it has to be the exact same test. As long at they are refreshing the register and not creating a new one, they must test each applicant in the same manner with the same test and procedures. Otherwise, there is no way for the scores to have any comparable value between testing cycles.
You are completely correct about it being an advantage for those who just took the test in the last round. However, I think the advantage is limited by the fact that you don't know what you did wrong. Go read the appeals thread. There is genuine confusion about why they didn't pass. Thus, without knowing what to fix, how do they know what to do different?
I think the big advantage is on the SI. Knowing the questions should help even if you don't know exactly what you said wrong. However, the vast majority failed the WD.
|
|
