|
|
Post by lawcat on Oct 9, 2008 21:21:20 GMT -5
I was rescheduled for the same dates, 11/20 and 2/4. I was relieved to get an answer, but a little nervous since they said this was the last day of testing. The interviewers will be totally burned out by then, and that's right in the middle of flu season  I'm probably more paranoid than most! |
|
|
|
Post by pm on Oct 9, 2008 22:35:17 GMT -5
For those of you who have taken the WD, are all of the computers laptops? If they are laptops, are they connected to a full-sized keyboard, or is the typing done on the regular laptop keyboard? Is there a mouse connected? Thanks!! All are laptops. They are connected to a normal keyboard. You do have a mouse. |
|
|
|
Post by flannery on Oct 15, 2008 6:14:46 GMT -5
Issuegirl, last year we tried to figure out how they decided who tested when, but there was no pattern (someone, please correct me if I'm wrong). This year, however, it does appear that the appellants are getting to go among the very first--a couple of other appellants I know also have the same dates as yours. On the Wild WEst Board you had indicated you were an appellant, so it's consistent with this theory. For the rest of us, it seems to be a mixture of all kind of dates. Mine are 10/28 and 11/18. Good luck, don't be anxietal, I'm sure you will do well.
Flannery
|
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on Oct 15, 2008 7:14:21 GMT -5
I was rescheduled for the same dates, 11/20 and 2/4. I was relieved to get an answer, but a little nervous since they said this was the last day of testing. The interviewers will be totally burned out by then, and that's right in the middle of flu season I'm probably more paranoid than most! Don't worry about your interviewers being burned out. It does not matter which day you interview. Trust me. Just get there in plenty of time to get through security and be yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by vietnamveteran on Oct 15, 2008 10:21:34 GMT -5
10/20
10/23
|
|
|
|
Post by flannery on Oct 15, 2008 19:04:34 GMT -5
Vietnam Veteran, would it be okay to ask--are you an appellant? Just trying to test my theory out that the appellants are being given the opportunity to test first (and certainly nothing wrong with that if it is accurate as I suspect).....
Flannery
|
|
|
|
Post by pm on Oct 15, 2008 20:44:37 GMT -5
The test dates seem to confirm that the appellants are being tested first. Anyone have any theories as to why? Are they planning on scoring appellants first and getting them on the register for one last round of hiring before all the new applicants will be added to the register? (Seems only fair since the appellants have missed out on a year of hiring). Or is it simply that the appellants have been waiting the longest so they are letting them go first as a courtesy? Not everyone who is early is an appellant. But even if most are, I assume it's because OPM has had their names ready for some time and always planned on testing them as part of the reopening process. So it's no surprise that many of the early test subjects are appellants. You can make book on the fact that courtesy and fairness were not factors. I'm not meaning to be rude, but OPM is a federal agency and fairness and courtesy are simply not components of their operating procedures. OPM tries to follow their own rules and minimize their work to the extent possible. That's it. There is no fairness dictum overlaying their actions. Which is also why it is highly unlikely that the appellants will be added to the register before anyone else. Even if they were added to the register before the new applicants, it is unlikely to help them. As Pixie has noted, any small hiring by ODAR will be oriented toward hiring previously identified applicants with known cities and known scores. Also, you should consider the very real possibility that by lumping in many appellants with the new applicants that OPM is subtly making the point that appealing was a waste of time. |
|
|
|
Post by issuegirl on Oct 15, 2008 21:16:16 GMT -5
pm, what am I missing? I am unsure of what your last sentence means. Why would the appeal be a waste of time if we are still allowed to test and interview?
|
|
|
|
Post by pm on Oct 15, 2008 22:07:12 GMT -5
The appellants who applied last year could have applied this year instead of appealing, with an additional year of experience to put on their applications. Many will get no advantage from having appealed. They will receive their scores at the same time as this year's applicants. Of course the facts of everyone's appeal are different and it's entirely possible that some individuals are better off from appealing than from reapplying. But I'm sure OPM thinks that they are discouraging further appeals by delaying so many from last year.
|
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Oct 15, 2008 22:39:06 GMT -5
The test dates seem to confirm that the appellants are being tested first. Anyone have any theories as to why? Are they planning on scoring appellants first and getting them on the register for one last round of hiring before all the new applicants will be added to the register? (Seems only fair since the appellants have missed out on a year of hiring). Or is it simply that the appellants have been waiting the longest so they are letting them go first as a courtesy? My totally unsupported speculative theory is that the WD/SI slots were filled on a first come first serve basis. Since OPM knew before the current opening that the appellants would be testing, they were slotted first. Maybe OPM graded the applications FIFO and as qualifying scores came in, more slots were filled. Friend A got his app in a couple of hours before I got mine in and Friend B got hers in about an hour after mine. Friend A's WD is two weeks before mine and his interview is about three weeks before. Friend B has a WD date the same as mine and an SI the week after mine. May not mean anything. Just yet another unproven theory. |
|
|
|
Post by vietnamveteran on Oct 17, 2008 9:27:04 GMT -5
10/20
10/23
|
|
|
|
Post by northwest on Oct 17, 2008 22:13:52 GMT -5
Since my original dates were WD 10/22 and SI 10/30, and I'm coming from the Pacific Northwest, I don't think they were scheduling based on convenience.
|
|
I'm probably more paranoid than most!
