What about the scores (again???)

[Asterisk]

I hate to bring this up again, but the subject of scores once more has "legs".. ie., are the highest scores considered and given more weight and thus more likely to be selected than lower scores, even when the 3 candidates are up for a specific position?

At the very beginning, back in the early days of the last cert, I thought, as many apparently did, that this was in fact the case.
Then Pixie and a good deal of other now highly respected posters weighed in with their opinions that scores at this juncture, or at least after they are sent for consideration for specific office locations, do not matter, but rather, whether SSA wants whomever more than they want the other 2.

I was comfortable with this theory, but started having my doubts again as most of the positions (at least of the people I knew/was in contact with) had scores at the highest/higher end of the scoring spectrum.

Then I found out that a number of the selectees had lower scores, the lowest (I have heard of) being 63.

I would like to try to get a feeling for what others feel in this regard at this point. Do you think for the most part are selecting by score [an ALJ from the old school was adamant that this was the case - but he also said that someone with a 70 or below would never get selected].

I truly don't think that anyone [except possibly one of the few real inside hiring people] knows what they're going to do or why -and like the Golden Retriever (Jake?) on the Bush's Baked Beans commercials - they're not talking!

One more thing - I can feel the excitement, and unfortunately the accompanying anxiety - creeping back in. I've just started to laugh when I think of the whole thing; we can only wait at this point...and if it is our destiny to be fellow travelers [with Boley, I believe] in Purgatory, so be it! 'Tis Pastime with goode companie!

Take care, all.

[magbob]

This is my first post, I have been a lurker since november- great stuff-(I got the courage, not quite the right word , to finally register) but I also wonder about the score- I was on the first cert and am again on this cert with, probably, one of the lowest scores on the cert- what is the gut feeling? so many ups and downs, happy to be on the cert but then, depressed when you are passed over-

I am back to the anxiety= tho- realistically, no one really knows nor can predict what will happen- hope for the best, expect the worst

[pm]

The highest scores have to be given more weight to the limited extent that the rule of 3 applies and veterans are treated differently. Otherwise, as many others have pointed out, SSA values prior SSA experience, judicial experience etc.

Who would you pick of the following candidates in the top 3:

1. Has a 78, tells bad jokes, has few if any social skills, tried to flirt with one of the SS interviewers, has never worked for SSA, has had 5 jobs in the last 10 years.

2. Has a 76, doesn't look at people when he talks to them. Otherwise seems sharp. Worked for the federal govt for the last 15 years-not SSA.

3. Has a 74. Was previously an attorney advisor for SSA. Was well liked. Is now a state ALJ. Interviewed well with SSA.

One more question-would you ever be inclined to hire candidate number 1?

[magbob]

I definitely agree that a minimal chance is better than no chance and if things proceed, the more that are hired, the more chance the lower scores have at getting a slot next time around-

based on what has transpired, it seems that those with lower scores have a better shot if the offices they selected are among the last to be filled- so the luck of the draw-
someone has to be the highest and someone has to be the lowest

[Asterisk]

I'm sure this is the place to post this, but also not sure it should be a thread either, so here goes:

It seems to me that SSA has enough loot or can get it, for something so important as extinguishing the blazing backlog and attending to all the claimants in immediate need, that it should hire most if not all of the people on the register - we're really not that many - rather than approaching it drip by drip (sorry for not having a better analogy but it is somewhat late/early). I know it has been said before, but sprinkling a few more ALJs in the mix is not going to get this cake baked - especially when attrition is constantly looming.

Also, to paraphrase an earlier poster, everyone on the register presumptively, with good reason, is a smart, accomplished individual; and although there is no way of knowing short of having the transcripts of the interviews, I'm pretty sure everyone demonstrated a great eagerness to put forth at least 110% effort and do everything they can to get what needs to be done accomplished.

Anyway, that's one humble candidates view, and if it keeps me in Purgatory with Boley et al, then so be it! It is truly not such a bad place at all (it could use a wider variety of magazines, however.

[morgullord]

The problem is not with the lack of judges; the problem is the lack of support staff to pull and schedule for the judges, and to a lesser externt, the lack of staff attorneys to draft the decisions.