|
Post by legallysufficient on Mar 16, 2023 10:03:05 GMT -5
Anyone receive emails today?
Thoughts on whether or not 2022 interviewed candidates are still in the running?
|
|
|
Post by hillsarealive on Mar 16, 2023 10:14:27 GMT -5
Congratulations to everyone who got the forms today! If I remember correctly, it was a remarkably short amount of time between when I got the forms and when my references received a form email saying that they had been listed as a reference for an ALJ candidate, but the email did not list the name of said candidate. If you got the forms today, it might be a good idea to let your references know that they might be contacted soon. I think you can also expect a credit check in the next couple weeks. I recall that the credit pull was visible on Transunion but not on one of the other reports. For folks who interviewed last summer, it occurs to me that TPTB might run a new credit check. It's been about 9 months since the last one (reports pulled in mid-June 2022). Not sure if 9 months counts as a long time or not in this context.
|
|
|
Post by legallysufficient on Mar 16, 2023 10:53:37 GMT -5
Hillsarealive--that assumes that 2022 interviewees are even still being considered--this is all an unknown.
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Mar 16, 2023 11:28:42 GMT -5
It's starting again.
I prefer a situational beer to bourbon.
|
|
|
Post by hillsarealive on Mar 16, 2023 11:30:10 GMT -5
Hillsarealive--that assumes that 2022 interviewees are even still being considered--this is all an unknown. Sure, it is an assumption. But as assumptions go, it is a pretty safe one and I'll be shocked if it's wrong.
|
|
|
Post by legallysufficient on Mar 16, 2023 12:14:51 GMT -5
I agree--pretty good assumption
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Mar 16, 2023 12:48:46 GMT -5
I would be absolutely shocked if the folks who have already interviewed are not still in consideration. This would conform with past practice. It also in no way disadvantages the agency to do that.
Listen folks I understand why you're anxious. I also know you have less certainty about the process than folks who went through it before have. But don't let your uncertainty make you ignore common sense.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Mar 16, 2023 13:29:43 GMT -5
I would be absolutely shocked if the folks who have already interviewed are not still in consideration. This would conform with past practice. It also in no way disadvantages the agency to do that. Listen folks I understand why you're anxious. I also know you have less certainty about the process than folks who went through it before have. But don't let your uncertainty make you ignore common sense. And keep living ur lives!! Enjoy each day
|
|
|
Post by noah on Mar 16, 2023 15:09:10 GMT -5
Could someone please post the email where we send the forms?
|
|
|
Post by aa7 on Mar 16, 2023 15:48:54 GMT -5
Annoyed that we were not allowed to update our geographic preferences since the original app prior to this coming out. I initially had a highly restricted geographic area, but am more flexible now
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Mar 16, 2023 16:10:07 GMT -5
Annoyed that we were not allowed to update our geographic preferences since the original app prior to this coming out. I initially had a highly restricted geographic area, but am more flexible now Friend let me tell you about the application process in 2013......
|
|
|
Post by aa7 on Mar 16, 2023 16:28:40 GMT -5
Annoyed that we were not allowed to update our geographic preferences since the original app prior to this coming out. I initially had a highly restricted geographic area, but am more flexible now Friend let me tell you about the application process in 2013...... Well, you know, regardless of whatever happened in 2013, I seem to remember the last couple of times that they sent out a form allowing us to update our geographic preference. Maybe that was while it was still run by OPM.
|
|
|
Post by dejure on Mar 16, 2023 17:53:13 GMT -5
I emailed the OCALJ hiring contact the following and received this answer: Q: Will candidates have the opportunity to add and/or remove desired hearing office locations to and from their application? A: Candidates may remove a location(s); however, they may not add a location(s).
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Mar 16, 2023 20:10:32 GMT -5
Does anyone know the structure of the interview(s)? I hear last year they had two interviews back to back on the same day. Not sure what the interviews test - are they situational questions?Discussing interview specifics is a huge no-no. You have to take a blood oath of secrecy. Ok, no blood, but there's a confidentiality agreement.
|
|
ky33
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by ky33 on Mar 17, 2023 9:02:01 GMT -5
I would love to know the answer to this as well. For those who got an email saying we met qualifications, but were "not referred" does this mean with new geographic openings this might change, or does this mean we just did not make the cut this go around no matter what opens in the next few cycles?
Sorry meant to copy this post from a few days ago:
kastelf Avatar
Posts: 10
yesterday at 6:12am via mobile ReplyQuotelikePost Options CritiquesPost by kastelf on yesterday at 6:12am
For some reason, I thought after the April 2022 application and subsequent round of hiring, everyone who did not get an interview was marked as not referred. I noticed the poll is for people who were referred, and the ones being sent forms were not the ones interviewed. Were those people referred last year or was their status changed from not referred to referred? Or third option, I guess, is that AM still shows them as not referred, but we are acknowledging that the receipt of forms demonstrates that they have been referred?
I’m just curious if the “not referred” status for those of us who got the email that we are qualified is a more permanent rejection. None of my cities had openings last time so I was still holding out some hope for future rounds.
|
|
|
Post by badger on Mar 17, 2023 9:34:41 GMT -5
I would love to know the answer to this as well. For those who got an email saying we met qualifications, but were "not referred" does this mean with new geographic openings this might change, or does this mean we just did not make the cut this go around no matter what opens in the next few cycles? Sorry meant to copy this post from a few days ago: kastelf Avatar Posts: 10 yesterday at 6:12am via mobile ReplyQuotelikePost Options CritiquesPost by kastelf on yesterday at 6:12am For some reason, I thought after the April 2022 application and subsequent round of hiring, everyone who did not get an interview was marked as not referred. I noticed the poll is for people who were referred, and the ones being sent forms were not the ones interviewed. Were those people referred last year or was their status changed from not referred to referred? Or third option, I guess, is that AM still shows them as not referred, but we are acknowledging that the receipt of forms demonstrates that they have been referred? I’m just curious if the “not referred” status for those of us who got the email that we are qualified is a more permanent rejection. None of my cities had openings last time so I was still holding out some hope for future rounds. Everyone is "not referred". It doesn't mean anything. aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/3821/answers-application-manager?page=91
|
|
|
Post by hillsarealive on Mar 17, 2023 9:40:45 GMT -5
I would love to know the answer to this as well. For those who got an email saying we met qualifications, but were "not referred" does this mean with new geographic openings this might change, or does this mean we just did not make the cut this go around no matter what opens in the next few cycles? Sorry meant to copy this post from a few days ago: kastelf Avatar Posts: 10 yesterday at 6:12am via mobile ReplyQuotelikePost Options CritiquesPost by kastelf on yesterday at 6:12am For some reason, I thought after the April 2022 application and subsequent round of hiring, everyone who did not get an interview was marked as not referred. I noticed the poll is for people who were referred, and the ones being sent forms were not the ones interviewed. Were those people referred last year or was their status changed from not referred to referred? Or third option, I guess, is that AM still shows them as not referred, but we are acknowledging that the receipt of forms demonstrates that they have been referred? I’m just curious if the “not referred” status for those of us who got the email that we are qualified is a more permanent rejection. None of my cities had openings last time so I was still holding out some hope for future rounds. Back in July, some candidates received a "Notice of Results and Referral Status" email saying that they met minimum eligibility requirements and would receive invites to interview if they were among the higher scoring applicants for geographic locations under consideration. In my thinking, these candidates have been "referred," though I don't pretend to be an expert on hiring terminology. I believe SSA will hire from the candidates who received that email, though again I'm not positive of anything. I believe that whether a candidate was referred or not (within my definition, as described above) is unrelated to a candidate's "status" in a certain computer system that we're not supposed to talk about outside of its own thread. I think everyone has the same status in that system. I will say nothing further about that, but here is the relevant thread: aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/3821/answers-application-manager.
|
|
|
Post by FrogEsq on Mar 17, 2023 10:23:36 GMT -5
Annoyed that we were not allowed to update our geographic preferences since the original app prior to this coming out. I initially had a highly restricted geographic area, but am more flexible now Friend let me tell you about the application process in 2013...... 2013? Let me whine about the process back in 2009 and 2011!
|
|
|
Post by fowlfinder on Mar 17, 2023 10:48:42 GMT -5
I would love to know the answer to this as well. For those who got an email saying we met qualifications, but were "not referred" does this mean with new geographic openings this might change, or does this mean we just did not make the cut this go around no matter what opens in the next few cycles? Sorry meant to copy this post from a few days ago: kastelf Avatar Posts: 10 yesterday at 6:12am via mobile ReplyQuotelikePost Options CritiquesPost by kastelf on yesterday at 6:12am For some reason, I thought after the April 2022 application and subsequent round of hiring, everyone who did not get an interview was marked as not referred. I noticed the poll is for people who were referred, and the ones being sent forms were not the ones interviewed. Were those people referred last year or was their status changed from not referred to referred? Or third option, I guess, is that AM still shows them as not referred, but we are acknowledging that the receipt of forms demonstrates that they have been referred? I’m just curious if the “not referred” status for those of us who got the email that we are qualified is a more permanent rejection. None of my cities had openings last time so I was still holding out some hope for future rounds. I think there might be some conflation of terms going on. I hope you can picture the venn diagram here. Following the application opening in April of 2022 there was Group 1 (those who got their applications in before the application was closed, including those who got them in after the 1000 limit was hit but also on the same day, if you followed that discussion). Group 1 are those who applied. Group 2, a subset of group 1 were those who were "referred," (meeting the minimum criteria of the application). Not all who were in Group 1 made it to group 2 "Referred." Group 3, a subset of Group 2 (referred), received invitations to interview. And then Group 4 a further subset of Group 3 (interviewed) were hired. So we have a series of wholly cotnained groups (Group 1 (applied) contains Group 2 (referred), which contains group 3 (interviewed), which contains Group 4(hired)). Now we have Group 5 "Received paperwork in March of 2023." Group 5 (2023 Paperwork) seems to be a subset of Group 2 (referred), but does not (per the poll) seem to include individuals in Group 3 (Interviewed in 2022). If you draw out the diagram I hope that answers your question. (And is probably way more fiddly of an answer than you really were looking for). (What complicates things is who belongs in Group 6 (Those in the running for hiring in 2023). I suspect (with no actual personal information) that Group 6 includes those individuals in Group 5 (2023 paperwork) and Group 3 (interviewed in 2022)).
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Mar 17, 2023 12:49:38 GMT -5
I would love to know the answer to this as well. For those who got an email saying we met qualifications, but were "not referred" does this mean with new geographic openings this might change, or does this mean we just did not make the cut this go around no matter what opens in the next few cycles? Sorry meant to copy this post from a few days ago: kastelf Avatar Posts: 10 yesterday at 6:12am via mobile ReplyQuotelikePost Options CritiquesPost by kastelf on yesterday at 6:12am For some reason, I thought after the April 2022 application and subsequent round of hiring, everyone who did not get an interview was marked as not referred. I noticed the poll is for people who were referred, and the ones being sent forms were not the ones interviewed. Were those people referred last year or was their status changed from not referred to referred? Or third option, I guess, is that AM still shows them as not referred, but we are acknowledging that the receipt of forms demonstrates that they have been referred? I’m just curious if the “not referred” status for those of us who got the email that we are qualified is a more permanent rejection. None of my cities had openings last time so I was still holding out some hope for future rounds. I think there might be some conflation of terms going on. I hope you can picture the venn diagram here. Following the application opening in April of 2022 there was Group 1 (those who got their applications in before the application was closed, including those who got them in after the 1000 limit was hit but also on the same day, if you followed that discussion). Group 1 are those who applied. Group 2, a subset of group 1 were those who were "referred," (meeting the minimum criteria of the application). Not all who were in Group 1 made it to group 2 "Referred." Group 3, a subset of Group 2 (referred), received invitations to interview. And then Group 4 a further subset of Group 3 (interviewed) were hired. So we have a series of wholly cotnained groups (Group 1 (applied) contains Group 2 (referred), which contains group 3 (interviewed), which contains Group 4(hired)). Now we have Group 5 "Received paperwork in March of 2023." Group 5 (2023 Paperwork) seems to be a subset of Group 2 (referred), but does not (per the poll) seem to include individuals in Group 3 (Interviewed in 2022). If you draw out the diagram I hope that answers your question. (And is probably way more fiddly of an answer than you really were looking for). (What complicates things is who belongs in Group 6 (Those in the running for hiring in 2023). I suspect (with no actual personal information) that Group 6 includes those individuals in Group 5 (2023 paperwork) and Group 3 (interviewed in 2022)). I think I need a break after reading that! Pixie
|
|