|
|
Post by pm on Dec 10, 2008 21:14:00 GMT -5
Valkyrie, you understand this process on both a legal and emotional level exceptionally well. Some of those who thought they should have been picked, but were not, have tried to come up with a variety of rationalizations and conspiracy theories to explain their non selection. The simple truth is that no federal agency is obligated to pick any candidate, even a veteran. There are many reasons why people are not selected. Sometimes it's experience or lack thereof. Sometimes its personality, a lack thereof, or even an unfortunate excess. Those who are arrogant with anger issues are not likely to be on the top of any agency's wish list, no matter how high they scored. Another pearl of wisdom from pm. Good grief. As usual, sarcasm and nastiness instead of analysis. I can't figure out why ODAR didn't jump to hire you. |
|
|
|
Post by pm on Dec 10, 2008 21:22:14 GMT -5
It is with some amusement as well as consternation that I have read the various posting recently on this thread. I tend to think that the posters' outlook reflects the old adage that "If your neighbor is unemployed it is a recession; however, if you are unemployed it is a depression." For the most part, successful candidates have a more positive view of the system than unsuccessful ones (including me). Having so stated, I will put my two cents in. Although it is true that "politics is a dirty business," the civil service is not supposed to be about politics, even at the rarefied heights of an ALJ. With more than 90% of all ALJs working for SSA; some of the remaining ALJ positions requiring specialized experience of a very unique nature (think FERC and NRC); and virtually all of the remaining positions billeted in DC, the fact is that for most aspirants to an ALJ position it is either SSA or nothing. Hence, the OPM procedure - even if unintended - creates a reasonable expectancy that a high score will translate to a better chance of appointment than a low score, regardless of SSA experience. In this situation OPM is bird dogging the applicants for SSA. To put it another way, what if OPM were to announce, in keeping with at least some peoples' version of reality, that an applicant from Billings could go three times to DC for an OPM interview, SSA WD and SSA SI, and even though completing all three with great scores that the lack of SSA experience (govt or private) would result in three passes and then the shelving of his/her credentials? Would that Billings applicant incur some $2500 of expenses for a useless exercise? I think not. As the last poster stated, this is not rocket science, to which I understand that unlike my FERC and NRC examples (not to mention Patent Judges), it takes fairly minimal particularized education and training to handle these cases. I don't say that out of disrespect - that is just the way it is. In my current job I TDY'd to another government agency to handle immigration matters to help reduce the backlog. After a week of training and some ponied briefs, I wrote more than 30 appellate briefs in the next year. I am not bragging -- I am just using this as an analogy. Specialized knowledge should only be a determinant if it is SO specialized that the learning curve is going to impede production of acceptable decisions, and I have never heard that SSA work is of that nature. Which leaves the last consideration: better the candidate known (to the SSA) than the candidate unknown. Again, if that were an enunciated criterion I might begrudgingly accept that; however, that appears nowhere in the CFR or the other documents which are part of the record. As a fairly senior government attorney who is the most highly awarded 0905 in his OGC, I find it hard to understand not only that those with significantly lower scores were selected for my cities, but that I am now barred (apparently) from further consideration by the three strike rule. And what makes it even more incomprehensible is the number of ALJs in those cities who have put in for transfers -- in other words, they were placed in cities I would have been happy to serve in and they used it (apparently) only as a way to get into the system. I think JH is right to be ticked, and I don't think that being ticked about a patently unfair system is any indication that one does not have the judicial temperament to be an ALJ. Rather, those who merely shrug and say "well, that's politics" or "if you were not selected then by definition you were not the best for the position," or "how naive - what did you expect" or "in the final outcome, an agency should have almost unrestrained leeway to determine who to hire" should reevaluate THEIR temperament for a position in the Article I judiciary which calls for NONE of the traits that those views represent. Any of us with significant litigative experience knows what it like to be before an outcome determinative jurist, and the mindset I have just described sets the stage for just that kind of decision making. Just as an SSA ALJ should not grant or deny benefits at the end of a month depending upon the number of decisions he/she has issued or his/her grant/deny ratio, an applicant has every right to believe that his/her application will be considered based upon its "four corners," and there is enough anecdotal evidence to conclude that this was not done in a number of cases. I don't think attitudes are formed so much by our results in this process as they are formed by the failure to understand the process. Those who have understood the system well have tended not to whine about it even if they didn't care for the results. On the other hand, those who didn't understand it, such as some who thought that a high score guranateed them of being hired, are really annoyed and no amount of logic or explanation is going to break through their emotional fog. And it's not all about training nor about ODAR connections. Many ALJs were hired last year who had neither, and who had also had lower scores. But ODAR does not want to hire self absorbed, overly emotional, humorless, arrogant jerks, no matter how high their scores are. That's not politics, that's human nature. |
|
|
|
Post by notherapp on Dec 10, 2008 22:38:20 GMT -5
Re: PM's typical rant.
I am surprised it took him 8 hours to respond. I am also trying to figure out what part of my post reflected that I was a "self absorbed, overly emotional, humorless, arrogant jerk(s)," and, more importantly, how that could have been detected in the 90 minute interview at SSA.
When I was in law school almost 30 years ago, one professor (who, by the way, had never practiced law before returning to law school to teach) represented that the "Wheaties theory of law" (that some jurists make decisions based upon what they had for breakfast) was a myth. Having been a litigator for most of my career, I wish that I could ascribe some of the decisions I have seen to something as concrete as Kellogg's product. Regardless of why some judges decide some cases, a litigator know that some decisions just don't make sense even if the author represents that there is a basis for the decision. PM's view is that there are a myriad of reasons other than scores which go into the decision, and I don't have a problem with that IF THEY ARE RELEVANT. The problem is that in some instances they are not, and anyone who posits that EVERY ALJ employment decision is well founded needs to get out more. The question then becomes, if not every decision, then how many are ill-founded. And I think that they represent no small number.
As an aside, I do find it interesting that the "voice of reason" can't hold it together for six sentences. BTW, is there a poll for how long it will take for PM to make another ad hominem attack? Since it is late (although he/she could be on the West coast), I will take 12 hours.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjones on Dec 11, 2008 1:02:15 GMT -5
PF, you throw a very high and impressive spiral with your prior post, but there is no receiver to catch it. The OPM regs do permit agency experience as an equally qualifying legal background for ALJ candidacy, and this is reasonable since most Agency hearings do not resemble traditional trials and have relaxed rules of evidence, specialized fact-finding duties, etc. With an enormous backlog, SSA is simply looking for folks they think will be able to hold lots and lots of hearings (5 a day) and make reasonable decisions without any game-calling from the booth. The game is played on a muddy December grid-iron, and your impressive litigation skills are just as necessary as a clean white jersey. Let me assure you that SSA ALJs (including past and present ALJs with prior qualifying Agency experience) make their own calls, like every other federal judge, and they serve the greater public, not a particular political agenda (and if they did they would deserve to be sacked). If a candidate has a great track record as a public servant for an Agency, where is the fairness in denying them advancement to the majors, characterizing them as unqualified due to alleged inherent bias? You are taking sides with the old guard AALJ limping around on the sidelines. I don't think any court is going to turn back the clock on the OPM regs, especially given the ever increasing backlog - a very impatient public. It will be difficult as well to reject the very same rule of 3 selection games that have been used since time immemorial to select SSA ALJs. And if there are some Agency minor leaguers more likely to "toe the line," as assumed, I'm just like you and I'd sure like to know the magic handshake or hike count they know that I don't.
When you say the following: "clearly deemed by the agency more likely to render decisions consistent with the policy of the agency" I suggest that you just put a period after the word "decisions." In short, your assumption of de facto bias is not well founded and out of bounds.
|
|
|
|
Post by flannery on Dec 11, 2008 7:13:32 GMT -5
Pats Fan--the APA does not state that ALJ's should not follow agency policy; indeed, ALJ's are bound by agency policy. Your argument that agency specific experience should actually be a disqualifying factor is not in the APA either. We all want to "win" one of these positions and my best wishes to you in that regard but please, no stiff arming. Nowhere do we find a codification of all the factors that OPM or hiring agencies use to rank, score, and select. It's a mystery to all of us. There are some who think OPM is arbitrary in the way it scores, and there are others who think the hiring agencies are arbitrary in the way they use the scores. Who knows? In the meantime, I don't think any of us add value to the discussion by suggesting that any applicant is de facto disqualified just because he or she has agency-specific experience. So, as we all wait, my cheer from the stands is this: GO VETS! GO AGENCY-SPECIFIC EXPERIENCED ATTORNEYS! GO "OUTSIDE" ATTORNEYS! GO TEAM GO! SSA needs all the help it can get with its enormous backlog and I hope it hires every last one of us!
Flannery
|
|
|
|
Post by hopeful on Dec 11, 2008 8:36:28 GMT -5
WHERE IS A SITE ADMINISTRATOR WHEN YOU NEED ONE. THIS THREAD IS DEAD AND SHOULD BE REMOVED. ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES HAVE BEEN MADE AND NOBODY IS GOING TO CHANGE THEIR OPINION. THE ANGER NOW PRESENT IN THIS THREAD BELONGS ON THE OTHER BOARD, NOT THIS ONE. END IT HERE, PLEASE.
|
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Dec 11, 2008 9:31:44 GMT -5
Okay, in attempt to try and sort this out in a more civilized way, we currently have two sides to this issue; one that is comfortable with the way the selection process worked, and one that thinks that there is at least a strong possibility that the process has been unfairly rigged in spirit, if not blatantly.
1. Lets get an easy one out of the way. Other agencies hiring most of their ALJs from the SSA ALJ ranks. I don't know the statistics on this one, but if it is the case, these agencies are foolishly limiting themselves. Does anyone think that it is a good policy? But, I really don't see how it is SSA's responsibility to try and hire ALJs that might be good candidates for another agency some day.
2. The scores. I have said it before, and I will say it again, SCORES MATTER. Anyone sugesting otherwise is forgetting that their were a whole lot of people out there who never got a score, because it was apparently too low, or who had a score that was too low to get on a certificate. Many of these people who lost out have excellent qualifications as good as or better than some of those who got high scores. Trust me, I know some of them, and I have scratched my head with them trying to figure out how someone with significantly more quantitative and qualitative experience ogt a lower score than I did, and in some cases did not even qualify. Therefore, the scores, while important enough to determine whether or not you even get to the point of an agency interview, are well known for being arbitrary in many cases.
3. ALJs biased "for" the agency. Back during the Reagan administration, the agency was caught pressuring the SSA ALJs to deny more claims. The agency was severely spanked, and rightly so. The agency has never touched that hot pan again, and is terrified of even the appearance of a repeat. SSA's only agenda since then has been speed. Get the cases out, don't sit on them. This is really a dead area of law, with the only really changes being medically driven rather than legally driven.
One could say that some agency employees share a bias with SSA for systemic/logistical processes, electronic files, management structure, use of support staff, video hearings, etc. But these issues are properly matters of agency policy, rather than substantive decisionmaking. Why should any agency want ALJs that will resist the agency's system, or ignore candidates more likely to follow the system, especially when the system is subject to congressional oversight and approval?
4. The selection process. I think everybody has carefully agreed that everyone on the certificates is qualified. I don't know if all of this agreement is sincere, but for purposes of argument, lets assume it is. If that's the case, there can't be any "inappropriate" favoritism, because no matter how much of an agency "suck-up" any candidate on the register is, we have just agreed that they are a well-qualified suck-up. Who should the agency technically select? The score only indicates the order in which the agency is supposed to consider the individual candidates for individual locations. If candidate X has the highest score on the register, then candidate X would by definition be in the top three of every location he selected. THERE IS NO RULE OR REGULATION THAT REQUIRES THE AGENCY TO CONSIDER THE AVAILABLE SLOTS IN ANY PARTICULAR ORDER. Candidate X, with the highest score on the certificate, could be unsuccessfully matched against the next four highest scoring candidates three times in a row. AFTER THAT, THE AGENCY IS ALLOWED TO DISREGARD THIS CANDIDATE AT ITS WHIM. This is how the agency manipulates the selection process to select the candidates that it wants, deeper into the certificate. Agreed? But none of the rules or regulations are broken, are they.
5. Who should the agency subjectively select? I think we all as taxpayers would like the agency to select the candidates on the certificate who are most likely to provide the best service at that particular agency. Surely nobody is suggesting that the specifics of the agency are irrelevant. Are they? The laws and regs only give us some very generalized guidance that has already been acted upon by OPM. So who comes up with the criteria of "the candidates on the certificate who are most likely to provide the best service at that particular agency?" That would be the President, and on down through his representatives until you reach the Associate Commissioner of ODAR and the ODAR Chief Judge, and their seelction committee. Congress obviously gets to oversee this process as well. So really, your elected officials are the ones ultimately responsible for who gets selected, and who does not.
I won't argue the criteria for "the candidates on the certificate who are most likely to provide the best service at that particular agency." I think that is too personal for all of us involved to really have an objective discussion regarding that.
|
|
|
|
Post by ALJD on Dec 11, 2008 11:33:45 GMT -5
WHERE IS A SITE ADMINISTRATOR WHEN YOU NEED ONE. THIS THREAD IS DEAD AND SHOULD BE REMOVED. ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES HAVE BEEN MADE AND NOBODY IS GOING TO CHANGE THEIR OPINION. THE ANGER NOW PRESENT IN THIS THREAD BELONGS ON THE OTHER BOARD, NOT THIS ONE. END IT HERE, PLEASE. I think both sides had valid points to make, and while the thread did get heated at times, it did not get to the point where I felt I had to moderate it, because the market place of idea does get a bit hot now and then, and this is an issue that provoke strong feelings. That being said, I do believe we're approaching the point of beating a dead horse in the ground. Please also remember that we're trying to keep a civilized forum here, and respect each other's feelings and refrain from name calling or personal attacks. If you wouldn't say it face-to-face to a co-worker you consider a friend at the office, you shouldn't say it here. I'll continue to keep an eye on this thread and will lock it if it gets out of hand. Thanks and happy holidays. |
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Dec 11, 2008 18:39:44 GMT -5
On a more cheerful note, here's a good gospel song I found on youtube that's suitable for the candidates that are still in the middle of this black box process: Happy holidays, everyone!  |
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Dec 11, 2008 18:41:10 GMT -5
WHERE IS A SITE ADMINISTRATOR WHEN YOU NEED ONE. THIS THREAD IS DEAD AND SHOULD BE REMOVED. ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES HAVE BEEN MADE AND NOBODY IS GOING TO CHANGE THEIR OPINION. THE ANGER NOW PRESENT IN THIS THREAD BELONGS ON THE OTHER BOARD, NOT THIS ONE. END IT HERE, PLEASE. I gotta agree with you, Hopeful, that the anger belongs on the other board. I don't understand why it is necessary to get angry about a disagreement; I don't understand the intentional misstatement of each other's positions to make a point that was neither intended nor addressed by the person being quoted. But that aside, this thread is not "dead" - the very fact that it continues is evidence of an interest. The fact that I have received close to 100 private messages - many from people who will not post on the thread - from people who want to know what happened is testimony that this subject is not "dead." |
|
|
|
Post by interested on Dec 12, 2008 7:17:52 GMT -5
It seems to me the only issue is whether the score assigned by OPM is a valid indicator that a high scorer would be a better ALJ than a low scorer. Absent evidence of that, the OPM score doesn't matter much, does it? Nobody knows how the score was arrived at.
We can argue about whether or not SSA ignored high scores and/or whether or not the rules were followed, but can we state the high scores were given to the better ALJ candidates? If that is your conclusion, please share your evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by aaa on Dec 12, 2008 11:10:28 GMT -5
The discussion here is both educational and interesting. In some ways, at least for me, it embodies the whole essence of the legal field: competing ideas and theories, all argued passionately. A compelling desire to argue your point and have others not only understand what you are saying but be persuaded by your argument. For many it is a more personal situation. Were I sitting on the opposite side of where I am, I would have an extremely personal stake in this. Sometimes it's hard for me to read the arguments because I feel like it's a personal attack on me when I know it's not.
I was on the first register. I got in just prior to the lawsuit. I had a score I didn't like and all the desire in the world to be an ALJ plus some innate belief that because I was an agency person I deserved to be picked. With the last hire they got somewhat close to my score but even 0.1 point was critical. I was never asked to interview. When I first got on the register I had been a GS-13 for less than 6 months. I had barely the 7 years experience. I did a poor SI and probably a little better on the written exam. My score was something like 87.9 when all the dust settled.
When the vacancy announcement came out in 2007, I had no prior knowledge and kind of found out by accident the morning it came out. I worked on my application about 12 hours because I thought the announcement would close before I could get it in. The WD went much as I expected and the SI was just odd. Although my score seemed low to me, after comparing with others it wasn't as bad as I thought and was among some of the higher scores although by no means among the highest. My SSA interview went nicely, but I didn't come away with the thought that I was a "natural selection." I thought I would do a good job and like I knew the expectation but I also knew from this board the caliber of others also interviewing.
After being selected and going through training and now having done the job about 8 months, I don't feel pressured to pay or not pay but rather to be efficient in what I am doing and not drag my feet getting things done. I am a whole different kind of busy now than I was a hearing office director and I love it so far. The prior knowledge has been an advantage in some ways but it has not been the end all be all.
I will very interested to hear about the next set of scores following all the testing this round. I wonder if they will be similar to last time or higher or lower.
|
|
|
|
Post by southerner on Dec 12, 2008 11:38:14 GMT -5
I can appreciate the various positions espoused, sometimes quite forcefully, by both sides.
I am not one of those who feels the score alone should place one in a position to be hired. It is but one factor, and one that has never been fully explained as to how it might have been reached, what parameters were considered, what weight was given to various factors, or even what leeway a scorer or various scorers had in reaching that number.
For good or for bad, the interview process, particularly that by ODAR Chiefs (local office or regional) seemed to play a significant role. As with any employer, there are considerations that are given to factors that are not precisely quantified, but are taken into account. They have to judge, if you will, how individuals would operate in a system that favors high volume and quick decision-making in order to address the huge backlog. Familiarity with and not intimidation by e-files and computer comfort are just two of the areas they should think about--that is just the way it needs to be for this agency. I think familiarity with the process and laws and regs can be considered, albeit not as the sole or even primary selecting factor. I do not feel agency tenure prior to a judgeship is bias in favor of the agency. On the contrary, of the new judges, I have noticed the range varies greatly as to grant/denial rates. One hopes that relates to the individual facts of the case and not any pro-agency or or pro-claimant bias.
It is unfortunate for those who wish to be ALJ's with another agency that SSA is the principal hiring authority, but that should not be a valid concern for SSA. It must look to fulfill its mission and let OPM deal with other agencies for ALJ hires. OPM is the area, I suggest, where concerns should be raised. Or, perhaps, the legislative process itself should be the focus of change.
For me, I have thought for a long time that there should be an ALJ Corps which had two separate components, one that dealt with adversarial matters (FERC, Labor, etc.) and one for non-adversarial matters (ODAR). That way, those best suited to one way or the other could emphasize the traits necessary for their judicial prospect instead of everyone's competing for the same position.
|
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Dec 12, 2008 13:42:52 GMT -5
Well said Southerner. There is a disconnect between OPM and SSA with regards to what SSA desires in a candidate vs. the other agencies. OPM is an automaton that ranks ALJ candidates on a generalized basis regardless of their intended use. Do we really expect SSA to tailor it's mission to OPM's ranking of the ALJ candidates? Or does it make more sense for SSA to take the candidates from OPM's certificate, regardless of ranking, that are most likely to perform to its mission? Do we really think that OPM has a better idea of what SSA needs than SSA itself? I really fail to see how it is so insulting that a specialized agency has determined that a candidate is not a good fit for a single, narrow area of practice. As an analogy, if your football team desperately needed a quarterback on draft day, would you draft a star kicker just because he happened to be the highest rated draftee available ?
|
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on Dec 12, 2008 18:10:09 GMT -5
I have been reading this thread with some dismay at all of the anger and pridefulness that is being further fueled by unsupported allegations. I'm still waiting to see some actual proof that ODAR favored anyone or any group to the detriment of others in the selection process. I don't like to rely on gossip and rumors passed along in whispered huddles or PMs to a certain group that cannot be openly vetted.
I sincerely doubt that any person posting here was in the room when selections were made at ODAR since most people posting here were in fact applicants. I would also add that the number of posts from current or retired ALJs has dropped considerably since the mudslinging has gained traction here. I had hoped that this board would remain a place for sharing of info and ideas for those who are ALJs and those who hope to become one in the future, but the conspiracy theories and anger have already driven many ALJs back to communicating by group emails, etc away from here. Why try to assist people who spew venom against the very people with whom they say they hope to join? Yes, real live current ALJs were a substantial part of the selection process both at OPM and ODAR, so the slams are not merely against some anonymous agency but rather against real people who often read this board without posting.
The last training class of 2008 was told that it had the highest number of "inside" selectees of any training group this year. It was still only about 50-50 inside vs. outside. Therefore, every earlier class must have been more heavily weighted toward outside hires.
Every "inside" selectee appeared to have a diverse and rich legal background, not merely marking time in a hearing office somewhere. (We were asked to do intros including some of our background.) Most "inside" people had quite a bit of experience from outside of ODAR in particular and federal service in general. In addition, it became quite clear over the course of a month locked in a room together that this group of selectees was not only well-qualified as attorneys but also a group that one would look forward to having as part of the ALJ team for the decades until retirement if only we could be in the same hearing office. I found the great personalities a wonderful surprise because many times brilliant attorneys are not particularly good company or the best team players. (Before someone picks at my observation about being a team player, it is not about bowing to agency wishes but rather working well with the other ALJs at your hearing office in sharing talents, resources, assignments and staff while doing your fair share of the work.)
Merely having SSA select more people with some past or current (at the time of selection) agency experience than they did in previous years does not prove bias. In fact, surveys of past training classes would tell you that SSA had a habit of rarely hiring people who had agency experience to become ALJs. This year merely appears to have removed that longheld bias against people with SSA experience to give them a reasonable chance to compete instead of minimal to no chance. I applied fully expecting that old bias to kick me right to the curb despite my years of outside experience, so I find it incredible that now the argument is that the bias is going toward insiders while outside people still got most of the jobs.
I don't believe this continuous rehashing of alleged external factors as a reason for nonselection this year is a healthy exercise for anyone who still hopes to be hired. The best way to expand one's chances is to have wide availability, so anyone who limits their office selections to a very short list needs to look in the mirror for the person who controlled one major factor in the selection process.
The more rants I read, the more I wonder how these personalities would manifest in the team environment that is necessary to have a good hearing office. Would people be threatening to "take action" and complaining on a regular basis when they failed to get the travel assignments, hearing rooms, supplies or staff support that they felt was owed to them or is this merely a releasing of the usual self-control exhibited by rational adults because this is a relatively anonymous environment? I cannot assume that anyone would have better control in a hearing office environment since a number of former ALJs have proven otherwise and either been disciplined or kicked out of the job entirely.
I encourage everyone to revisit Thanksgiving this year and get this job thing into perspective. I doubt that anyone here is homeless or jobless with no marketable skills and no means to remedy their situation. Many of our fellow Americans would gladly trade positions with those of us who still have a job and a home.
I doubt that any of us are losing our homes to foreclosure or our lives to a fatal disease while devoting this much energy to rehashing a selection process. I lost a number of very dear people in the time since I first applied for an ALJ position. Watching a loved one die a slow death will make the desire for a "better" job or bigger home or anything other than a cure for that illness seem like a speck of dust in the universe. If I could have even one of them back, I would gladly work the most menial of jobs and live in a hovel for the rest of my life. I have no doubt that every person here has many blessings in their life, so how about a time out with the name-calling and mudslinging and conspiracy theories. I would like to be able to stick around in case I can help anyone in the future, but honestly some of the attitudes demonstrated by this thread just make me sick.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Dec 12, 2008 20:09:49 GMT -5
"For me, I have thought for a long time that there should be an ALJ Corps which had two separate components, one that dealt with adversarial matters (FERC, Labor, etc.) and one for non-adversarial matters (ODAR). That way, those best suited to one way or the other could emphasize the traits necessary for their judicial prospect instead of everyone's competing for the same position."--Southerner
That is one sentiment that I can adhere to. For practical and metaphysical reasons.
As to your dismay, nonamouse, although commendable, it is a bit naive, eh wot? SSA had a mission and chose to implement those whom they thought could deliver. A few Judges told us early on that scores would not matter (as much) to SSA and that was dead on.
Some people got burnt. Plain and simple. There is at least an inference from solid posters that this was not kosher. With the hundreds of hours I've spent reading (and posting) on this board, and as sure as God made little green apples, me and some of my friends believe what we read, pm and other understandably other doubting folks, notwithstanding.
patriotsfan makes some excellent points. I share his angst, but alas, not his score.
The unchosen can only speculate as to their lack of invitation to the dance, but we can surmise it was either:
a: low score (below 60)
b.poor interviewing skills with SSA
c.SSA thought they would be either not a producer or they had no frame of reference (sorta like moving to a new town and being asked who do you know).
Now all that matters (and all you lawyers should appreciate) is if some uninvited beats SSA and/or OPM in an administrative proceeding and then on appeal in court.
And you know what, I suspect there may be some brown laundry in the wind, not to mention a scolding of the process, but, unfortunately not a new one, unless there is a clear paper trail.
Me, I'm stayin' tuned....
|
|
|
|
Post by lawcat on Dec 13, 2008 9:07:09 GMT -5
Nonamouse- thanks for your intellegent and sensible post. I agree with you that this job opportunity should be put into perspective, and not become a consuming obsession. Hopefully, all of us waiting for this latest round will find out in the next six months if we are to change jobs, or if not selected, we realize that this was an interesting experience and move on.
|
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Dec 13, 2008 10:47:07 GMT -5
The unchosen can only speculate as to their lack of invitation to the dance, but we can surmise it was either: a: low score (below 60) b.poor interviewing skills with SSA c.SSA thought they would be either not a producer or they had no frame of reference (sorta like moving to a new town and being asked who do you know). Not necessarily. OPM takes the position that ALL candidates on the registry are qualified. If you have three quality applicants and can choose only one, there does not need to be anything wrong with the two who were not selected. It is a mistake to take the non-selection as a personal affront. This is particularly true if you do not know the details of the candidate who was selected. It will drive you nuts to analyze a process without detailed information. The best choice is to keep plugging. It has much better odds than a lottery. |
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Dec 13, 2008 11:06:56 GMT -5
It seems to me the only issue is whether the score assigned by OPM is a valid indicator that a high scorer would be a better ALJ than a low scorer. It is not a good idea to go there. I doubt there is any intelligent person who would argue the validity and reliability of the scoring process. At best, it is a screening tool. The scoring process is done by human resources specialists who are notoriously myopic. They have never figured out a reliable way to measure quality of experience. They can see if you have trial experience, but they do not know how well you did it. They can see if you have worked with computers, but they do not know how efficient you are. The process is no more than an educated guess based upon some flawed premises. My experience is that MOST of the ALJs selected do an outstanding job. Unfortunately, some make me scratch my head and wonder "what were they thinking." I see no correlation between insiders and outsiders. There are good and bad from both camps. The score assigned to you does not reflect your quality as a potential ALJ. Some screening process is necessary, but it is only a guide. |
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Dec 13, 2008 11:54:37 GMT -5
Part of me regrets even starting this thread...I didn't intend to provide an avenue through which people could start attacking each other although that is, indeed, what took place. PM seems to think anyone who questions the process is a "complainer" or whiner, and the "who sez ?" attitude from some other posters is unwarranted considering their intelligence. Phrases such as "unsupported allegations" and "continuous rehashing of alleged external factors" came about after an admonishment to "play nice" but they are the same thing...the same wolf in sheep's' clothing.
Most of the postings here have not been "rants," and "unsupported allegations" are potential conclusions, derived from some evidence, put out for discussion and consideration. To dismiss the debate because of a belief that ANY process is perfect and free of bias or predetermined conclusion runs the risk of intellectual naivety. Sure, those of us with high scores who were not selected kinda smack ourselves along side our own heads and wonder, "WTF?" But to assume that our interview was a train wreck or that our personality left our interviewers convinced that we were just too rigid to be able to handle the processes of the hearing system is a wee bit insulting and demonstrative that there is a dearth of information making it impossible to conclude anything. Hence the need for discussion. (...It probably was the Fandango I did.....I dunno.)
The other part of me is pleased with the intense participation on the thread as well as all the contacts made to me as a result. I guess you have to take the negative with the positive.
A quick word about the oft-repeated advice to offer yourself out on a wide GAL, I would say this: the fact that we now know that SSA is using 5 CFR 332.405 to consider a majority of the candidates only three times might suggest that being available to go anywhere may not substantially increase your chances. Yes, it will put you on a cert from OPM, but no one other than the gentleman in Texas who reviewed the files and put the slots up when it was so desired (no, I am NOT saying SSA can't do that) knows when your score will get you considered. You may be available for 17 cities for which OPM has created a cert for SSA, and there may be 25 slots amongst those 17 cities, but if history predicts the future, all the slots will not come up sequentially AND your chances run about 80% that you will only get three shots with SSA.
|
|
