|
Post by chudley on Aug 4, 2017 9:06:34 GMT -5
This should make a lot less appeals OPM/SSA will have to grade. Could that be motivation for this?
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Aug 4, 2017 9:09:42 GMT -5
Okay, I guess I need reeducation. I understand your point about the regulatory basis for these topics. However, I thought the terms as used on this board meant the following. That 3 considerations meant that a person was still on the cert but that SSA could just ignore them for purposes of determining the top 3 at a location. They could hire them if they wanted but they could also reach down to #4 if they wanted. Sort of like you had a top 3 plus all 3 considered applicants. However, I thought that a 3 consideration applicant still counted for purposes of determining the number of applicants needed on the cert to ensure the last hire would have a pool of 3 applicants. I thought 3 strikes meant that SSA could formally tell OPM that an applicant had 3 considerations and that they should not be listed on future certs. Thus, when certs were issued, the 3 struck applicant would not be listed on the cert and a new name would have to be included to ensure there were sufficient names to ensure 3 remained on the last hire. Very close. Where I disagree: 1. From reports returned by SSA on prior certs, OPM already knows who has three considerations when the lists of eligibles are drawn up. They don't need to be told by SSA when certs are requested. 2. In order to insure there will be three to choose from when SSA makes its final hire on a set of certs, OPM has to take into account who has three considerations when drawing up the lists of eligibles. OPM puts them on the lists for which they qualify, but then has to ignore their presence in deciding how far down to go for the lists. So why the distinction on the board between 3 considerations and 3 strikes? They have the same practical effect. Better yet, do you have the 3 considerations reg cite handy? I'll go read it myself instead of bugging you.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 4, 2017 9:12:44 GMT -5
This should make a lot less appeals OPM/SSA will have to grade. Could that be motivation for this? I don't think so. I think either: 1. The last refresh did not add as many to the register as SSA or OPM wanted; or 2. SSA wants to keep on adding to the register to build it up before they lose the statutory authority to require OPM to administer the exams.
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Aug 4, 2017 9:15:26 GMT -5
We know that the board had a 50% pass rate, so in theory there should be 1050 new names on the register. Is it possible that the pass rate was less than 50% and the register is in danger of being depleted in the next 2 years? We have good numbers on how many tested. Even if only 30% received a score, that would leave 700 and including the persons still on the register from 13/15, that would leave a register of about a 1000. That should be enough for 3 years it would seem.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 4, 2017 9:18:03 GMT -5
Very close. Where I disagree: 1. From reports returned by SSA on prior certs, OPM already knows who has three considerations when the lists of eligibles are drawn up. They don't need to be told by SSA when certs are requested. 2. In order to insure there will be three to choose from when SSA makes its final hire on a set of certs, OPM has to take into account who has three considerations when drawing up the lists of eligibles. OPM puts them on the lists for which they qualify, but then has to ignore their presence in deciding how far down to go for the lists. So why the distinction on the board between 3 considerations and 3 strikes? They have the same practical effect. Better yet, do you have the 3 considerations reg cite handy? I'll go read it myself instead of bugging you. "An appointing officer is not required to consider an eligible who has been considered by him for three separate appointments from the same or different certificates for the same position." 5 CFR 332.405. Three considerations and the agency has the discretion to consider you or not for future vacancies. If you are three-struck you are left off the certs and they can't hire you, at least not during that set of certs.
|
|
|
Post by rp on Aug 4, 2017 9:21:57 GMT -5
We know that the board had a 50% pass rate, so in theory there should be 1050 new names on the register. Is it possible that the pass rate was less than 50% and the register is in danger of being depleted in the next 2 years? We have good numbers on how many tested. Even if only 30% received a score, that would leave 700 and including the persons still on the register from 13/15, that would leave a register of about a 1000. That should be enough for 3 years it would seem. Unless they plan on hiring a large number and they know the register will be depleted.
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Aug 4, 2017 9:22:09 GMT -5
Is it possible that OPM will go back to only accepting a specific number of applications and will open it more often?
That would keep a small but steady stream of people being added to the register but not so many that it would be overwhelming.
Perhaps there is no rationalizing this and this process just got ridiculously more competitive.
|
|
|
Post by rp on Aug 4, 2017 9:24:07 GMT -5
Is it possible that OPM will go back to only accepting a specific number of applications and will open it more often? That would keep a small but steady stream of people being added to the register but not so many that it would be overwhelming. Perhaps there is no rationalizing this and this process just got ridiculously more competitive. That sounds like a viable theory. And I agree with part of the last sentence -- "there is no rationalizing this" -- but I don't know if it got "ridiculously more competitive" - that would require some knowledge of the process right now -- and frankly does anyone really know???
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Aug 4, 2017 9:25:09 GMT -5
We have good numbers on how many tested. Even if only 30% received a score, that would leave 700 and including the persons still on the register from 13/15, that would leave a register of about a 1000. That should be enough for 3 years it would seem. Unless they plan on hiring a large number and they know the register will be depleted. Right but that completely flies in the face of all the discussions about projected hiring over the last few months. That makes the most sense if it not for those discussions.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 4, 2017 9:29:19 GMT -5
Is it possible that OPM will go back to only accepting a specific number of applications and will open it more often? That would keep a small but steady stream of people being added to the register but not so many that it would be overwhelming. Perhaps there is no rationalizing this and this process just got ridiculously more competitive. I doubt it. That process favored insiders since they tended to know when the JOA was coming and be ready for it more than outsiders. I think OPM sees the greater number of applicants from more diverse backgrounds as beneficial to the quality of the register. Also, I think on major things like that OPM wants to be consistent with the process that was in place for those of us who went through it before during the life of this register.
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Aug 4, 2017 9:32:24 GMT -5
Right but that completely flies in the face of all the discussions about projected hiring over the last few months. That makes the most sense if it wasn't for those discussions. And it's not just the discussions. Actions speak louder than words. The action has been glacial in pace. There has been no indication of any sense of urgency to hire from the 2016 applicants. I think from a federal govt perspective there has been some urgency. We went from NORS immediately to a request for certs to interviews. I think that is what urgent looks like for the fed agencies.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 4, 2017 9:39:10 GMT -5
IIRC the fluctuations in the size of this projected hire were driven by an internal SSA debate over whether they had room and adequate support staff for so many new ALJs. If they've figured out/addressed those issues, SSA may be anticipating a faster pace of hiring. Or not.
|
|
|
Post by fowlfinder on Aug 4, 2017 9:59:50 GMT -5
We have good numbers on how many tested. Even if only 30% received a score, that would leave 700 and including the persons still on the register from 13/15, that would leave a register of about a 1000. That should be enough for 3 years it would seem. Unless they plan on hiring a large number and they know the register will be depleted. Well if you figure that it takes 14-18 months from "notice" to "ready to hire," it is possible that that with a register of a 1000 people (including those that SSA knows they do not want because they have already seen them for the last decade [no offense to anyone in particular]) with hiring at slightly above attrition levels (say 150 instead of 100 a year) that you would get to about 50-60% depletion before the new NORs. If I read the tea leaves right, previously the register got low enough that there was actually concern about having enough qualified applicants, and so getting to a place where there are only 500 "real" applicants left in the pool may be of concern for an agency that also knows they are competing with other agencies (such a OMHA who also may be expanding somewhat). It is of course all speculation and a bit like trying to diagnose Schrodinger's cat from outside the box.
|
|
|
Post by jonsnow on Aug 4, 2017 10:01:32 GMT -5
I may not like it, but it certainly makes sense for SSA to want to have more names on the registry at all times. I'm just a simple farm boy from the Midwest, but if I am going fishing in a stocked pond, I would rather fish in a pond with 2000 hungry fish than 1000 hungry fish. This is especially true if 25% of those fish are of a species that you don't want to eat.
|
|
|
Post by karikmar3 on Aug 4, 2017 10:16:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rp on Aug 4, 2017 10:18:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by karikmar3 on Aug 4, 2017 10:24:44 GMT -5
I read through that thread - it seems to refer to a refresh without new exam. This announcement specifically refers to a new exam. Same thing?
|
|
|
Post by fowlfinder on Aug 4, 2017 10:27:55 GMT -5
I read through that thread - it seems to refer to a refresh without new exam. This announcement specifically refers to a new exam. Same thing? I think the consensus is its the same exam. See the following language from the notice: " will open the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Examination". This seems to indicate something in existence that is closed, as opposed to a new process.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Aug 4, 2017 10:49:07 GMT -5
Is it possible that OPM will go back to only accepting a specific number of applications and will open it more often? That would keep a small but steady stream of people being added to the register but not so many that it would be overwhelming. Perhaps there is no rationalizing this and this process just got ridiculously more competitive. Pretty much my takeaway. I think they'll want to be consistent so they'll just run the process the same as they did in 13 and 16. Maybe they do it twice more before 2022? Then you've got 3-4kish on the register. Best case scenario is they don't open it up again for 10 years and let that deplete? Even though I am not on the register I am not too crazy about this, because making the register with a Mid 60s score is probably going to make one unreachable, and from comparing notes with my buddies, I don't see getting a much better score than that. Personally I might just pass on it this go around, especially if they are going to open it again in 2019-2020. Presumably more experience will mean a better score (maybe?). If I make this go round, get a low score, then I wouldn't be able to test again in 2019/20 and would be pretty much screwed. Decisions, decisions. So overall great news for highly experienced litigators who didn't make the cut before, not so great news for insiders and everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by aljwishhope on Aug 4, 2017 10:55:16 GMT -5
Let's not let this be discouraging!
I got my NOR in spring 2016. By the Feb 2017 cert despite a score in the 60s I was on my 2nd cert. The register can dwindle quickly.
I have not got hired yet but my GAL is limited.
I have after many certs thought all hope was lost. And then another opportunity occurred.
If you are on register you got a shot. Be happy. Remember the pool of hires is limited to us.
Look forward to refresh for opportunity to change GAL.
|
|