|
|
Post by ewartdunlop on Oct 10, 2024 10:22:11 GMT -5
Got it in. I can’t believe I am doing this again. I found it interesting that they got rid of the competency question about SSA subject matter experience. This seems to suggest that they do not see a lot of value in hiring insiders or claimants reps - ie those with the most knowledge of substantive SSA law. OTOH, it said to list 9 references but also stated that if you were a former SSAer, they might talk to people in the agency about you even if you didn’t list them! I thought that was a little weird, but hopefully plays into my favor as a former SSAer. Also strange that they got rid of virtual interviews, especially since most of the hearing are virtual. Perhaps this is just a nod to the broader return to the office policies that are all the rage. Or maybe they hired someone in 22/23 from the virtual interviews, and then the hired applicant showed up IRL and had terrible BO. Making the interviews in person could also just be a way of weeding out applicants, essentially saying that if you won’t fly to DC you don’t want it bad enough. But this goes to my earlier question about how they are even going to be able to distinguish much between apps, a question that the board seems eerily silent on. |
|
|
|
Post by harp on Oct 10, 2024 10:27:20 GMT -5
It has always been 9 references gang. I know it's a lot but it's not new. If you want my advice at this point in the game about your GAL. I would add as many places as you would possibly be willing to go. Then you can always cut locations later. They will ask you whether you want to interview for specific locations later you can decline to be interviewed for that location. The reference angle is one place where being an insider is great. I’ve found supervisors and ALJs are happy to be references. I put down my current HOD and HOCALJ. It’s not like it’s some big secret that ALJ is one of the main advancement options for a decision writer or senior attorney. I don’t have adversarial references, though. Unless they want me to put down my personal enemies - hey, they can attest to my dedication! I put down a very small GAL because I’m just not willing to uproot my kids’ lives or be away from them for more than maybe one night a week. So I am absolutely not holding my breath. I can always try again when my kids are grown. |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Oct 10, 2024 11:50:30 GMT -5
Got it in. I can’t believe I am doing this again. I found it interesting that they got rid of the competency question about SSA subject matter experience. This seems to suggest that they do not see a lot of value in hiring insiders or claimants reps - ie those with the most knowledge of substantive SSA law. OTOH, it said to list 9 references but also stated that if you were a former SSAer, they might talk to people in the agency about you even if you didn’t list them! I thought that was a little weird, but hopefully plays into my favor as a former SSAer. Also strange that they got rid of virtual interviews, especially since most of the hearing are virtual. Perhaps this is just a nod to the broader return to the office policies that are all the rage. Or maybe they hired someone in 22/23 from the virtual interviews, and then the hired applicant showed up IRL and had terrible BO. Making the interviews in person could also just be a way of weeding out applicants, essentially saying that if you won’t fly to DC you don’t want it bad enough. But this goes to my earlier question about how they are even going to be able to distinguish much between apps, a question that the board seems eerily silent on. Admittedly It’s been a while since I had my interview, but unless things have dramatically changed, SSA flies interviewees out on its own dime by reimbursing the candidate. The OPM test and interview were at the candidate’s expense, but travel for the interview in Falls Church was not. The only issue I had was that I lived close enough to where all travel was done in one day (flew into DC, cab to/from Puzzle Palace, and then flight back that afternoon/evening. And by close enough, I was east of the Rockies but well west of the Mississippi. |
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Oct 10, 2024 11:57:03 GMT -5
Making the interviews in person could also just be a way of weeding out applicants, essentially saying that if you won’t fly to DC you don’t want it bad enough. But this goes to my earlier question about how they are even going to be able to distinguish much between apps, a question that the board seems eerily silent on. Admittedly It’s been a while since I had my interview, but unless things have dramatically changed, SSA flies interviewees out on its own dime by reimbursing the candidate. The OPM test and interview were at the candidate’s expense, but travel for the interview in Falls Church was not. The only issue I had was that I lived close enough to where all travel was done in one day (flew into DC, cab to/from Puzzle Palace, and then flight back that afternoon/evening. And by close enough, I was east of the Rockies but well west of the Mississippi. In 2019, post-Lucia, SSA had interviews for ALJ at Falls Church (no OPM involvement, but you did have to have taken the OPM test). This did not result in a hire, but the interviewees had to fly out to DC on their own dime. Not sure how it’ll go this time, but there is precedent for it being a self-funded enterprise. |
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Oct 10, 2024 12:40:27 GMT -5
Friends,
Maybe I’ve just been at this for too long, but the speculation over whether the agency will or will not favor inside knowledge/judicial experience/litigation/whatever, is just that. It’s speculation.
We don’t know what the agency “really” wants. They will pick the people they want; whatever that ends up meaning.
Nitpicking the questions, while fun for us as lawyers, has a tendency to cause unnecessary worry to people who don’t/do share whatever experiences one speculates the agency might favor or disfavor.
I don’t believe there are intentional efforts to sow doubt into the minds of other candidates, mind you, but we should tread lightly so as to maintain cordiality. Anxiety runs pretty high, and we should all take big deep breaths.
The journey begins, and we await the next steps. We can celebrate or moan as appropriate once the adventure has concluded.
|
|
|
|
Post by ewartdunlop on Oct 10, 2024 13:07:21 GMT -5
Friends, Maybe I’ve just been at this for too long, but the speculation over whether the agency will or will not favor inside knowledge/judicial experience/litigation/whatever, is just that. Speculation. We don’t know what the agency “really” wants. They will pick the people they want; whatever that ends up meaning. Nitpicking the questions, while fun for us as lawyers, has a tendency to cause unnecessary worry to people who don’t share whatever experiences one speculates the agency might favor or disfavor. I don’t believe there are intentional efforts to sow doubt into the minds of other candidates, mind you, but we should tread lightly so as to maintain cordiality. Anxiety runs pretty high, and we should all take big deep breaths. The journey begins, and we await the next steps. We can celebrate or moan as appropriate once the adventure has concluded. I’m sure you’re right but this is all I can think about and I have nowhere else to talk about it! |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Oct 10, 2024 13:07:55 GMT -5
People, Please: Don't discuss the questions in the application. I just have to delete the messages. We want to keep this process fair for everyone. Pixie
|
|
|
|
Post by abthejd on Oct 10, 2024 13:12:01 GMT -5
Friends, Maybe I’ve just been at this for too long, but the speculation over whether the agency will or will not favor inside knowledge/judicial experience/litigation/whatever, is just that. Speculation. We don’t know what the agency “really” wants. They will pick the people they want; whatever that ends up meaning. Nitpicking the questions, while fun for us as lawyers, has a tendency to cause unnecessary worry to people who don’t share whatever experiences one speculates the agency might favor or disfavor. I don’t believe there are intentional efforts to sow doubt into the minds of other candidates, mind you, but we should tread lightly so as to maintain cordiality. Anxiety runs pretty high, and we should all take big deep breaths. The journey begins, and we await the next steps. We can celebrate or moan as appropriate once the adventure has concluded. All. Of. This. This is only the second posting since the agency took over the whole process. To come on here and speak as though we have any clue what exactly they are looking for, is disingenuous at best. Also, changing the assessment questions, allowing 3 days for the posting to remain open, and holding interviews in person are all meaningful changes. It is fair to assume the agency noticed some issues with the 2022 posting and process, and wanted some changes. While we know a little about what happened in 2022, that by no way means we know what will happen now. The apps are in. You can’t change your app. You are now on the roller coaster. Put your hands up and feel the thrill of the ride you are about to go on. |
|
|
|
Post by acrosthec on Oct 10, 2024 13:42:33 GMT -5
It has always been 9 references gang. I know it's a lot but it's not new. If you want my advice at this point in the game about your GAL. I would add as many places as you would possibly be willing to go. Then you can always cut locations later. They will ask you whether you want to interview for specific locations later you can decline to be interviewed for that location. The reference angle is one place where being an insider is great. I’ve found supervisors and ALJs are happy to be references. I put down my current HOD and HOCALJ. It’s not like it’s some big secret that ALJ is one of the main advancement options for a decision writer or senior attorney. I don’t have adversarial references, though. Unless they want me to put down my personal enemies - hey, they can attest to my dedication! I put down a very small GAL because I’m just not willing to uproot my kids’ lives or be away from them for more than maybe one night a week. So I am absolutely not holding my breath. I can always try again when my kids are grown. This is unfortunately my position, too. Luckily, I live in a larger metropolitan area and we have three offices within a 1-2 hour commute of my house so I was able to mark all 3 for my GAL. But with a larger area comes larger population and probably a more popular area of request, so I'm not holding my breath either. I'll move to BFE when my youngest kid graduates in 7.5 years and get my foot in the door.  |
|
|
|
Post by stevenq on Oct 10, 2024 13:52:08 GMT -5
I can confirm, there are several people from my office applying this go around who have never applied before. They are complaining about the 9 reference, 5 assessment questions, and 72 hour turnaround. I just chuckle and say “let me tell you about a wild 14-15 hour window from 2022 young grasshoppers.” What about the OPM days? Resumes were scrutinized,so strictly that if you did not put the date you were admitted to the bar, you were eliminated. If you were luckily enough to pass the 7-year requirement, then you faced an online test with actual hearing scenarios. They had different sets of questions were they could mix it up for each applicant. If you survived the SIMS stimulation, the next stage was to flying out to D.C, at your own expense to taking a full-day written test at OPM, a building down the street from the WH. Then you had to take an 1-hour or so cab ride to a hotel in another location for the interview. (They did give you the option to test or interview first). If it was 2018, it all was for nothing as the pulled the job announcement and to throw salt on the wound, they told you how you did on the interviews and written test but said too bad we aren’t hiring. I was a valued insider and I got score in the high 70s on that last OPM exam with a wide open GAL. Sigh... |
|
mp
New Member
Posts: 5 
|
Post by mp on Oct 10, 2024 14:17:42 GMT -5
Hi guys. Haven’t posted in years but took the plunge again and applied. I passed on the 2022 application after making the very last registrar ion 2019 when I had just over 7 years of practice experience. I was in the path of the hurricane and had the day off work so I figured I might as well use the time wisely.
Good luck to everyone who applied.
|
|
|
|
Post by trp888 on Oct 10, 2024 14:46:34 GMT -5
Anyone remember how long after the 2022 closing they sent “the interview/background check” emails? Probably not worth comparing to this go around, but a fun tidbit to digest .
|
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Oct 10, 2024 15:34:11 GMT -5
Anyone remember how long after the 2022 closing they sent “the interview/background check” emails? Probably not worth comparing to this go around, but a fun tidbit to digest . I just looked at the old thread for these dates: The application was live for one day, April 27, 2022. The email came on June 7, 2022. |
|
|
|
Post by rmspringfield on Oct 10, 2024 15:38:02 GMT -5
Anyone remember how long after the 2022 closing they sent “the interview/background check” emails? Probably not worth comparing to this go around, but a fun tidbit to digest . I just looked at the old thread for these dates: The application was live for one day, April 27, 2022. The email came on June 7, 2022. For the 2023 hire the call for interviews went out March 13, 2023 and emails with the background forms went out on March 15, 2023. |
|
|
|
Post by trp888 on Oct 11, 2024 9:35:33 GMT -5
Anyone remember how long after the 2022 closing they sent “the interview/background check” emails? Probably not worth comparing to this go around, but a fun tidbit to digest . I just looked at the old thread for these dates: The application was live for one day, April 27, 2022. The email came on June 7, 2022. If they follow a similar timeline, that would put 1st round emails out the week before Thanksgiving. Nothing like running into the winter holiday season in the Fed Govt😆. Will be interesting to see how they handle it. That CR is good until December, another wrinkle . I’m still heading up on this roller coaster, let’s see how long before we hit that fist big dip. |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Oct 11, 2024 12:34:29 GMT -5
Good luck to all!
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Oct 12, 2024 6:55:09 GMT -5
The following quote was taken from a prior post:
"I found it interesting that they got rid of the competency question about SSA subject matter experience. This seems to suggest that they do not see a lot of value in hiring insiders or claimants reps - ie those with the most knowledge of substantive SSA law.
OTOH, it said to list 9 references but also stated that if you were a former SSAer, they might talk to people in the agency about you even if you didn’t list them! I thought that was a little weird, but hopefully plays into my favor as a former SSAer."
As to the first paragraph: Of course they see a lot of value in hiring insiders or claimant's reps. Always have and always will. After the elimination of the yoke of the veteran's preference, the chains were off, and the Agency could hire who it wanted. I think more than 1/2 of the next class will be insiders, former insiders and claimant's reps.* Several very good reasons for that, but two immediately come to mind: They are a known entity and it is easier to do a background check on them, which leads to my next topic.
As to the second paragraph: Nothing weird about this at all. The Agency has been doing this as long as it has been hiring. It is similar to a standard FBI background investigation.** I have had my share of these, so I know how they operate. The names one lists on the questionnaire are used not so much as an interview source, but to obtain names of other sources who may be interviewed, and who were not listed by the applicant. It is Interesting what can be learned from a non prepped acquaintance. When the Agency checks up on an internal applicant, it may talk to not only the references provided by the applicant but to others as well. These will include the HOCALJ, HOD or the GS. So even if they haven't been listed as references, which is a big red flag incidentally, they will be interviewed. Or, it may just skip the listed references for an internal candidate and go straight to the HOD or the HOCALJ.
Just my informed take on it; others may see it differently. Pixie
–––––
* There is a reason the new hires aren't 99% insiders, but that is a topic for another discussion.
** Of course the depth of the investigation will depend on whether it is a Confidential, Secret or Top Secret clearance. There is one level above Top Secret (that I am aware of), but we need not consider that.
|
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Oct 12, 2024 7:34:54 GMT -5
The following quote was taken from a prior post: "I found it interesting that they got rid of the competency question about SSA subject matter experience. This seems to suggest that they do not see a lot of value in hiring insiders or claimants reps - ie those with the most knowledge of substantive SSA law. OTOH, it said to list 9 references but also stated that if you were a former SSAer, they might talk to people in the agency about you even if you didn’t list them! I thought that was a little weird, but hopefully plays into my favor as a former SSAer." As to the first paragraph: Of course they see a lot of value in hiring insiders or claimant's reps. Always have and always will. After the elimination of the yoke of the veteran's preference, the chains were off, and the Agency could hire who it wanted. I think more than 1/2 of the next class will be insiders, former insiders and claimant's reps.* Several very good reasons for that, but two immediately come to mind: They are a known entity and it is easier to do a background check on them, which leads to my next topic. As to the second paragraph: Nothing weird about this at all. The Agency has been doing this as long as it has been hiring. It is similar to a standard FBI background investigation.** I have had my share of these, so I know how they operate. The names one lists on the questionnaire are used not so much as an interview source, but to obtain names of other sources who may be interviewed, and who were not listed by the applicant. It is Interesting what can be learned from a non prepped acquaintance. When the Agency checks up on an internal applicant, it may talk to not only the references provided by the applicant but to others as well. These will include the HOCALJ, HOD or the GS. So even if they haven't been listed as references, which is a big red flag incidentally, they will be interviewed. Or, it may just skip the listed references for an internal candidate and go straight to the HOD or the HOCALJ. Just my informed take on it; others may see it differently. Pixie ––––– * There is a reason the new hires aren't 99% insiders, but that is a topic for another discussion.
** Of course the depth of the investigation will depend on whether it is a Confidential, Secret or Top Secret clearance. There is one level above Top Secret (that I am aware of), but we need not consider that.
The “yoke of veteran’s preference”? A bit ouch, no? |
|
|
|
Post by FrogEsq on Oct 12, 2024 10:38:04 GMT -5
I served eight years, but did not qualify for Vet preference due to the time frame I served. I was a real outsider. They hired me anyway.
Just keep your 'eye on the prize"
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Oct 12, 2024 17:59:35 GMT -5
The following quote was taken from a prior post: "I found it interesting that they got rid of the competency question about SSA subject matter experience. This seems to suggest that they do not see a lot of value in hiring insiders or claimants reps - ie those with the most knowledge of substantive SSA law. OTOH, it said to list 9 references but also stated that if you were a former SSAer, they might talk to people in the agency about you even if you didn’t list them! I thought that was a little weird, but hopefully plays into my favor as a former SSAer." As to the first paragraph: Of course they see a lot of value in hiring insiders or claimant's reps. Always have and always will. After the elimination of the yoke of the veteran's preference, the chains were off, and the Agency could hire who it wanted. I think more than 1/2 of the next class will be insiders, former insiders and claimant's reps.* Several very good reasons for that, but two immediately come to mind: They are a known entity and it is easier to do a background check on them, which leads to my next topic. As to the second paragraph: Nothing weird about this at all. The Agency has been doing this as long as it has been hiring. It is similar to a standard FBI background investigation.** I have had my share of these, so I know how they operate. The names one lists on the questionnaire are used not so much as an interview source, but to obtain names of other sources who may be interviewed, and who were not listed by the applicant. It is Interesting what can be learned from a non prepped acquaintance. When the Agency checks up on an internal applicant, it may talk to not only the references provided by the applicant but to others as well. These will include the HOCALJ, HOD or the GS. So even if they haven't been listed as references, which is a big red flag incidentally, they will be interviewed. Or, it may just skip the listed references for an internal candidate and go straight to the HOD or the HOCALJ. Just my informed take on it; others may see it differently. Pixie ––––– * There is a reason the new hires aren't 99% insiders, but that is a topic for another discussion.
** Of course the depth of the investigation will depend on whether it is a Confidential, Secret or Top Secret clearance. There is one level above Top Secret (that I am aware of), but we need not consider that.
The “yoke of veteran’s preference”? A bit ouch, no? That's the way the Agency saw it. Pixie |
|
