Post SI let down

[apppending]

Was it just me, or did the S.I. seem like a joke compared to the time, effort and cost spent to get there? It all seemed as if it could have been done by phone or video. I felt I did well, so don't take my comments as sour grapes. I just thought there would be more substance to it.

[alj2009]

Happy New Year, all.

I am going for my SI in 2 weeks. I know people are not permitted to talk about the content, but perhaps you can tell me if I disagreeumption that I don't need to brush up on my resume, or on what I wrote in my Accomplishment -- like you do for a standard interview -- is correct.

I get the impression that you can't really prepare.

Thanks in advance.

[alj2009]

OOPS -- I'm sure I didn't type "disagreeumption" and that I typed "assumption" but in any event, there it is.

alj2009 (a presumption alias, I know, but I was in a hurry to sign on...).

[vietnamveteran]

You do not need to prepare.

[judicature]

I concur with vietnamveteran - just bring your common sense.

[knownuthin]

You can use your common sense before you get there. Try anticipating some questions and know the answers. If nothing else, it will give you some confidence going in.

[pm]

Jan 6, 2009 15:09:17 GMT -5 alj2009 said:

Happy New Year, all.

I am going for my SI in 2 weeks. I know people are not permitted to talk about the content, but perhaps you can tell me if I disagreeumption that I don't need to brush up on my resume, or on what I wrote in my Accomplishment -- like you do for a standard interview -- is correct.

I get the impression that you can't really prepare.

Thanks in advance.

We absolutely can talk about the content of the SSA interview. People aren't doing it because they don't want to help their competition, which is a bit odd since they give lots of other advice here which does help their competition.

If you knew the questions I guarantee it would help you prepare.

[privateatty]

pm:

With all due respect in answering your assertions: wrong, wrong and maybe, depending on transparency.

[ALJD]

Jan 6, 2009 15:09:17 GMT -5 alj2009 said:

I am going for my SI in 2 weeks. I know people are not permitted to talk about the content

Correct. For the OPM SI, all applicants had to sign a confidentiality agreement. So you are unlikely to hear anyone discuss it here.

[jagghagg]

Just remember that this is a Structured Interview, sometimes referred to as a patterned interview. It is very straightforward. The interviewers have a standard set of questions that are asked of all candidates. The main purpose of a structured interview is to pinpoint job skills that are essential to the position. Don't go there with a list of questions YOU expect to be able to ask the interviewers. (I remember sitting next to a potential candidate who had a whole checklist she expected to be able to ask.) Check out Wikipedia - not my favorite source - but it's accurate on this subject.

[traceb]

This is a manuel prepared by the State of Oklahoma Office of Personell Management outlining structured interviews used by the state OPM. It's probably not relevant to the Fed OPM or SSA, but it does give some insight. You might have to cut and past the link into your address bar. Hope it works.


www.ok.gov/opm/documents/structured%20interview%20manual.pdf

It looks like the actual interview is similar to conducting a direct examination without preparing the witness in advance.

[oldjag]

I too am subject to a keep confidential agreement, but I can give general advice. Remember OPM is selecting for ALL agencies, not just SSA. Think carefully before you answer--what was the question, what skill is being covered, what would a judge in a trial/hearing setting do to best conduct the hearing. If you need to think about your answer---fine, that is expected, the time is finite but shouldn't be a problem. If the interviewers ask follow up questions it is because they want more information--think again what is the question. what skill is being evaluated, what would a judge do in a trial/hearing.

The best prep is to think back to experiences in trial when things went wrong or out of the ordinary. What did the judge do--what did you think about the way she/he chose to handle the situation--did it work out well.

Good luck to all of you.

[roggenbier]

I agree with old JAG. Remember that what you say and afterwards, what you think you should have said, are two different things, the substituion of one for the other probably won't alter your score. Time is finite and after years as a lawyers, we can expound endlessly on a point without adding much to our case. Like ruling during a trial, don't beat yourself up afterwards.

[traceb]

I did my SI on the 16th and I must say I agree that it was a bit of a let down. I flew from Oklahoma to DC, stayed overnight and flew back, long couple of days and a lot of money. I had a 3 panel interview. I would begin answering the question posed and they would just listen; then I suppose I would hit on some word that would set them into motion taking notes. A couple of the questions I answered I actually saw the Judge on the panel nodding in agreement with me as he wrote on his paper.

After it was over I asked, perhaps not wisely "is that it?" They all kinda giggled and said, that's it. I shook their hands, thanked them for their time and left.

[Deleted]

I did my SI on the 14th, and I totally agree with you, Traceb. That was an enormous amount of time, money,and energy, to expend on a very short interview. It's also fairly clear that the testers are not supposed to engage us in personal conversation. The three of them were very polite and smiled warmly, but obviously were only allowed to say hello, read the questions, and say good-by. At the conclusion of my SI, I said, "Well, thank you for a really interesting experience." I did get some chuckles out of that.

I also tend to agree with previous posters. To a large degree, the answers should be common sense, and there is no real way to prepare.

And now...the wait.

[deltajudge]

8-)I don't know how much weight is put on the interview not. Way back when I did it, if you got to the interview stage, and pass the vouchering process, and I did it twice, for the GS-15 and GS-16 ALJ register, you were just about home free. This was before the new selection process, and you were not interviewed by any agency. I was interviewed in Atlanta, by a General Services Administration representative, a local attorney, and an Administrative Law Judge, not necessarily with OHA, the first time, it was the RCALJ for BHA, which migrated into OHA, and the second time the ALJ was with the labor department. I got on the register both times, and was selected as a GS-15 ALJ for SSA/OHA. I think it was done more professionally back then, and have no idea what weight is placed on the interview process now.

[roggenbier]

They took lots of notes, wrote from beginning to end, I used all the time, and did not nod. So, I guess that's good, or is it bad. Right?

The SI is a bit different, more rushed, less opportunity for give and take, which is part of an administrative trial, a loss there I think. It seems there to confirm (to them anyway--whoever them is) that you can look like and speak like a judge and have an awareness of what an administrrative trial is. It seemed to me that the brevity of time, made it just, if not more important, to get through the questions than what you said about the questions.


After going through the SI in 1999 and now, I understand what they're trying to do, just not sure it does what they want,.