|
|
Post by barkley on Feb 12, 2009 9:40:43 GMT -5
I have tried doing a search, even going through some older pages and cannot find this. If someone could either answer my question or post a link to the threads, I would really appreciate it.
I remember back the first go 'round, that there were some threads discussing the meaning of the scores. The scores on the current registry tend to be lower than under the old registry. Seems like for a while, folks were sending their scores in to someone and that person had a master list or poll, showing the spread for members of this board.
What was the highest and lowest we had reported last time? Were most of those actually making it to a cert 70 and above? 60 and above? I know the score does not necessarily match up to hiring, but it would be nice to know what will realistically be in the hunt.
|
|
|
|
Post by chieftain on Feb 12, 2009 9:47:54 GMT -5
My recollection is scores in the high 50s made it onto the cert. I don't think the lowest scores reached were in the low 60s which was also a function of how many cities the candidate had on their geographical preference list.
|
|
|
|
Post by pm on Feb 12, 2009 10:36:55 GMT -5
My memory which may be wrong, is that 15-20% of the scores were above 80 and 15-20% were below 60, with the average being in the high 68-70 range. Scores above 85 were very rare as were scores below 55.
As Chieftain notes, your odds of making it onto the cert were related more to the cities you picked than to your score. People in their 50s made a cert while some in the 80s did not.
|
|
|
|
Post by chieftain on Feb 12, 2009 10:57:15 GMT -5
My recollection is scores in the high 50s made it onto the cert. I don't think the lowest scores reached were in the low 60s which was also a function of how many cities the candidate had on their geographical preference list. Pardon my typo -- I do believe the lowest scores reached were in the low 60s. |
|
|
|
Post by deaddisco on Feb 12, 2009 11:09:02 GMT -5
Lowest score hired on the first cert was in the high 63's(63.8 or so). Lowest score hired off the second cert was 60 (60.5 or so).
|
|
|
|
Post by semipa on Feb 12, 2009 11:57:05 GMT -5
Barkley, of the approximately 600 folks that made it on the register last year, about 170 voluntarilly reported their scores to me on this board. The low score reported was in the high 40's and the high score reported was just over 90. The median score was around 69.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwest on Feb 12, 2009 12:03:51 GMT -5
As Chieftain notes, your odds of making it onto the cert were related more to the cities you picked than to your score. People in their 50s made a cert while some in the 80s did not.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwest on Feb 12, 2009 12:09:13 GMT -5
Oops. I haven't figured out how to include a quote in my reply. My question from the quote is the following: When I submitted my application, I had broad geographic availability. I understand that I can later narrow that if I make the cert. If I had spent the time narrowing my geographic availability before I submitted my application, this would have narrowed my chances of making the cert. That doesn't seem fair, if true.
|
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Feb 12, 2009 12:43:00 GMT -5
It is not unfair if your geo. pref. form reflects the list of places you would really be willing to move to.
As an overly simplistic example, let's say I live in Seattle. I have Las Vegas on my list. After thinking it over more, I decide I love Seattle and don't want to leave. The list comes out and Seattle is not on it, but Las Vegas is. I would be on the cert, assuming a good score, but not willing to move to the only place on my list they are hiring for. So it does me no good to be on the cert.
Obviously, the more places you have increases your changes of being considered, but you have to be willing to move. I know several people who only have one, two or three cities on their list.
|
|
|
|
Post by pm on Feb 12, 2009 14:18:50 GMT -5
Oops. I haven't figured out how to include a quote in my reply. My question from the quote is the following: When I submitted my application, I had broad geographic availability. I understand that I can later narrow that if I make the cert. If I had spent the time narrowing my geographic availability before I submitted my application, this would have narrowed my chances of making the cert. That doesn't seem fair, if true. It is true and is completely fair. It's your choice as to how many cities you wish to compete for. If you list fewer cities you have a lesser chance of making a cert and thus getting a job. If you list more cities you have a greater chance of making the cert and getting a job. The number of cities you list is your choice. The goal is not to make the cert for any city. the goal is to make the cert fot the cities you actually want to work in. It does you no good to make the cert for cities where you don't intend to work. |
|
|
|
Post by carjack on Feb 12, 2009 15:05:20 GMT -5
The hard part is not being able to rank your choices. Using Barkley's example, instead of just not wanting to leave Seattle, you'd prefer not to, but you'd go to LV if that were the only way you could get the position. Both Seattle and LV are on the cert and you've chosen both but you have no way of saying hey, how about Seattle first and if I can't have it, I'll take LV. (the luxury of so many choices!) As we found out last year there are a suprisingly large number of people who've indicating they'd accept each of the cities on the list and we have no way of knowing which city on the cert the agency will fill first.
|
|
|
|
Post by zero on Feb 12, 2009 17:14:44 GMT -5
Oops. I haven't figured out how to include a quote in my reply. My question from the quote is the following: When I submitted my application, I had broad geographic availability. I understand that I can later narrow that if I make the cert. If I had spent the time narrowing my geographic availability before I submitted my application, this would have narrowed my chances of making the cert. That doesn't seem fair, if true. NW makes an interesting point. If it's the top 3 candidates per vacancy that make the list and you list every location and get on the cert, then you have a chance to backfill somebody who dropped out that might not be available to the 4th ranked candidate who picked the same location. |
|
|
|
Post by pm on Feb 12, 2009 17:25:20 GMT -5
A multi city cert does not list the top 3 candidates per city.
|
|
|
|
Post by ed on Feb 12, 2009 19:24:14 GMT -5
I always considered myself a reasonably intelligent fellow, but trying to figure out this selection process has me baffled. Of course it is compounded by the stress associated with the wait. In the Navy the top scores got the pick of their duty station, why not with the agency as well. I could foresee a situation where a top scorer could be passed over even if they had several locations chosen, just because there are three to choose from. Could someone make this simpler or are we already at the common denominator stage and I am just incredibly simple?
|
|
|
|
Post by chieftain on Feb 12, 2009 19:28:40 GMT -5
The short simple answer is that the agency does not necessarily value and score candidates the same way OPM does. Scores determine how you fall on the cert, but the agency has considerable leeway in formulating their matchups under the Rule of 3. There are pages and pages of threads here about the selection process. Rather than try to condense it into a paragraph, I suggest you go back and search some of the old threads.
|
|
|
|
Post by pm on Feb 12, 2009 21:59:09 GMT -5
I always considered myself a reasonably intelligent fellow, but trying to figure out this selection process has me baffled. Of course it is compounded by the stress associated with the wait. In the Navy the top scores got the pick of their duty station, why not with the agency as well. I could foresee a situation where a top scorer could be passed over even if they had several locations chosen, just because there are three to choose from. Could someone make this simpler or are we already at the common denominator stage and I am just incredibly simple? Partly you're asking the wrong questions. "Why" is always a pointless question. The answer to any "why" question is very simple, and as a military man you should appreciate the answer, which is, "because that's the way it is". If you're spending your time trying to figure out "why" you are wasting your time and missing the real issues. "Why" does not matter. But to clarify, what is happening with the ALJ situation is not one agency such as the Navy, scoring a test and then hiring the people they have just scored. Instead what we have is one agency scoring and a completely different agency with totally different interests doing the hiring. It's as if the Treasury dept was scoring candidates for the Navy. Why is it this way? It doesn't matter. It just is. The selection process really is not that complicated. ODAR will pick from the top three candidates they have for a city. And if those top 3 scores are 55, 78 and 92, they are perfectly free to pick the person with the 55 (unless there is a VP issue). And there's not even anything odd about picking the person with the 55. The OPM test does not measure the qualities that ODAR values. |
|
|
|
Post by alj on Feb 12, 2009 22:21:31 GMT -5
Bravo! Well said PM. That's the way it is. People just don't want to understand or accept it.
|
|
|
|
Post by zero on Feb 13, 2009 9:07:10 GMT -5
A multi city cert does not list the top 3 candidates per city. Now I'm confused. I read before that OPM creates a list that guarantees at least three viable candidates for each vacancy. How is OPM going to do that unless it picks the high three scores from candidates willing to work in the relevant location? What good is a cert that offers 60 candidates for Happytown, USA and no candidates for the less desirable locations? |
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Feb 13, 2009 9:48:42 GMT -5
The process assumes that the remaining two candidates for location "x" are not available for any other locations. Therefore, there are three different candidates for each location. That's why the number of candidates in the mix is 3 times the number of positions in play. Of course there is plenty of carryover in that the two rejected candidates for location x in many cases will be available for several other, or even all other locations, like me. After the agency has rejected a candidate three different times, it is no longer obligated to consider the candidate again, which may or may not include me. They may have looked at me and said, "pretty good, but there's better candidates with lower scores that we'll take this time, and save this one for later." Or, they may have said, "this is not what we're looking for, put this one of the reject list." Obviously I hope I fall into the former category, but its the not knowing which makes this all so much fun!
|
|
|
|
Post by hod on Feb 13, 2009 11:18:48 GMT -5
I have a couple questions. Do we get our scores before we are given the opportunity to narrow our choices. Right now I have selected everywhere-and the fact is, I am willing to go anywhere although possibly with some reluctance. If by chance I were to receive a high score, I might feel more comfortable in narrowing my geographical areas. Will I know my score first?
The second question is-I know that if you are already in the agency the government will pick up the moving costs and purchase your house if necessary. Given the extremely low real estate prices in my area- I am now living in a Topsy turvy beautiful white elephant. Does the government's offer to purchase or pick up the moving costs have a time limit? In other words how long can I delay selling and still get the benefit of the cost of moving?
I just realized that this might be considered off topic-if so I apologize.
|
|
