|
|
Post by flannery on Mar 1, 2009 11:10:56 GMT -5
Global Panda's Poll thread is getting long, so at this point, I thought we could split it off for a discussion of where it looks like the "curve" is going. I took GP's 61-90 poll and excluded those who had already posted at the 60 and below level. I then combined it with the 11 people who have so far posted on the 60 and below poll that GP established. What I came up with (and trust me, I'm no math whiz) is a score average of 64.65 and a score median (if indeed, I understood how to compute one) of 67.78. These figures were based upon 65 votes cast on the 61-90 poll and 11 votes cast on the 60 and below poll. Please feel free to second-guess my math, my method or both-- but I think this is a good rough cut, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwest on Mar 1, 2009 11:36:50 GMT -5
I understand that people scoring 60 or below are posting in both polls. Many had already posted in the first poll before the second was created. Posting in the first poll will help us see the overall curve.
|
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Mar 1, 2009 12:10:11 GMT -5
Global Panda's Poll thread is getting long, so at this point, I thought we could split it off for a discussion of where it looks like the "curve" is going. I took GP's 61-90 poll and excluded those who had already posted at the 60 and below level. I then combined it with the 11 people who have so far posted on the 60 and below poll that GP established. What I came up with (and trust me, I'm no math whiz) is a score average of 64.65 and a score median (if indeed, I understood how to compute one) of 67.78. These figures were based upon 65 votes cast on the 61-90 poll and 11 votes cast on the 60 and below poll. Please feel free to second-guess my math, my method or both-- but I think this is a good rough cut, anyway. Very interesting flannery . . . if the scores being posted for the current poll are only the "new" scores achieved in 2009, then it looks like the average and median scores for the new class is running significantly lower than the previous class. This is consistent with what some on this board had predicted earlier. Specifically, according to semipa's summary (which a link was provided in the original poll thread), the average and median scores for the previous class were 68.20 and 69.27, respectively (two to four points higher than the current poll results). Add in the fact that the current average and median scores of the previous class should be lower than the summary completed by semipa because many of the higher scores in the previous class have been hired, then the combination of the two classes could reasonably be expected to have a lower average/median than before. Moreover, all the indications are pointing to the fact that the new SSA cert for 2009 will probably be bigger than the first cert for 2008. According to previous posts (link provided below), scores as low as 54 and 55 had gotten on the original cert. Bottom line: those who have achieved lower than expected scores (for both 2008 and 2009) should not give up all hope. Of course the question of whether you will be hired by the agency is a completely different story, but lets take one step at a time ;D aljdiscussion.proboards107.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=194 |
|
|
|
Post by hod on Mar 1, 2009 15:29:58 GMT -5
But am I correct in thinking that the cert that OPM sends will have the highest 450 (assuming 3 x 150) candidates? Or will OPM take in account the number of people remaining on the previous cert and just send enough new ones to make up the requisite number?
|
|
|
|
Post by pm on Mar 1, 2009 16:23:52 GMT -5
OPM will send out the names of the top 450 scorers who have a requested city. It's a new cert. the old certs are irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by hod on Mar 1, 2009 17:47:54 GMT -5
Thanks PM.
|
|
|
|
Post by chieftain on Mar 1, 2009 17:54:47 GMT -5
PM, if any of the 450 or so received an "asterisk" and were not considered in the second, smaller hire last year, do you think they will again be "asterisked" or do you think they will receive fresh consideration with the other new candidates?
|
|
|
|
Post by pm on Mar 1, 2009 18:15:18 GMT -5
PM, if any of the 450 or so received an "asterisk" and were not considered in the second, smaller hire last year, do you think they will again be "asterisked" or do you think they will receive fresh consideration with the other new candidates? I'm not sure what you mean. What is an asterisk in this context? |
|
|
|
Post by chieftain on Mar 1, 2009 18:28:04 GMT -5
According to Jagghagg, there were a number of people who received three looks for the first hire with no looks for the second hire on the basis that the agency was not obliged to consider them again under the regs. Do you think these people will receive no looks until this register is scrapped or do you think they will get fresh consideration this time around?
|
|
|
|
Post by pm on Mar 1, 2009 18:51:25 GMT -5
According to Jagghagg, there were a number of people who received three looks for the first hire with no looks for the second hire on the basis that the agency was not obliged to consider them again under the regs. Do you think these people will receive no looks until this register is scrapped or do you think they will get fresh consideration this time around? You're assuming that what JH said was accurate. I am not operating under that assumption. When the register was frozen there were many people that received more than 3 looks and then were eventually chosen. I think that if ODAR really dislikes someone that they will use any tool they can use to avoid hiring that person. But I have no doubt that there were candidates last year who were looked at more than three times who were not chosen simply because ODAR found a better candidate each of those three times. I don't think that is in any way a statement by ODAR that they don't ever want the people they passed over, whether they passed them over once or five times. If a player in the NFL draft is passed over three times by the same team, does that mean the team hates him and never wants him? Absolutely not. It means the team had other priority candidates, but many people are picked after being passed over many times. ODAR is in that sense no different. I am sure ODAR has targeted a few people (very few) that they cannot tolerate, but I imagine that most people who have been passed over are still viable candidates no matter how many times they have been passed over. It just depends on who you are up against in your group of three. |
|
|
|
Post by globalpanda on Mar 1, 2009 21:56:35 GMT -5
According to Jagghagg, there were a number of people who received three looks for the first hire with no looks for the second hire on the basis that the agency was not obliged to consider them again under the regs. Do you think these people will receive no looks until this register is scrapped or do you think they will get fresh consideration this time around? You're assuming that what JH said was accurate. I am not operating under that assumption. When the register was frozen there were many people that received more than 3 looks and then were eventually chosen. I think that if ODAR really dislikes someone that they will use any tool they can use to avoid hiring that person. But I have no doubt that there were candidates last year who were looked at more than three times who were not chosen simply because ODAR found a better candidate each of those three times. I don't think that is in any way a statement by ODAR that they don't ever want the people they passed over, whether they passed them over once or five times. If a player in the NFL draft is passed over three times by the same team, does that mean the team hates him and never wants him? Absolutely not. It means the team had other priority candidates, but many people are picked after being passed over many times. ODAR is in that sense no different. I am sure ODAR has targeted a few people (very few) that they cannot tolerate, but I imagine that most people who have been passed over are still viable candidates no matter how many times they have been passed over. It just depends on who you are up against in your group of three. An interesting response and for the most part I agree with it. However, It is my recollection that any selecting agency can request that OPM not "certify" any person from a register, if the agency has previously considered that candidate and found them unacceptable. I do not recollect the number of times they have to consider the candidate. I also do not recall if they have to be considered on separate certs. (IE, considered for 3 cities on one cert may not be enough to knock you off the list.) I believe that the selecting agency has to ask OPM not to certify specific names of candidates that it has previously reject. I also understand that there is a limited number of times you can decline an offer for a city for which you had previously indicated was acceptable. I do not recall the number. Since I am sitting at home and do not have access to my research tools, I will leave it to one of my fellow board members to fill in the detail. |
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Mar 1, 2009 22:50:13 GMT -5
According the the ALJ application -- "If after selecting or updating your geographical location(s) you decline consideration for a geographical location for which you indicated availability, you will be removed from further consideration for that location. You will not be able to reinstate a location from which you have been removed until the next ALJ vacancy announcement open period."
The ALJ application continues -- "If you decline two job offers, your name will be suspended from the register for one (1) year or until the register is terminated, whichever occurs first."
|
|
EagleJAG
Full Member
ALJ...a high-G career field worth the fight
Posts: 36
|
Post by EagleJAG on Mar 1, 2009 23:30:43 GMT -5
"If after selecting or updating your geographical location(s) you decline" Anyone know how to update our geographical locations? Not so certain I want Fargo, ND.  |
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Mar 1, 2009 23:43:50 GMT -5
It is my understanding that if you were listed on the 2009 SSA cert, you will receive a list of cities. You may then ELIMINATE any cities on that list for whatever reasons. This is done through the forms SSA will send to you prior to the interview. You cannot expand, however, your availability beyond those cities that you had selected during the application process.
If you then decline a job offer for a city in which you had indicated to SSA that you would accept, then the sanctions indicated in the ALJ application would apply.
Also, per the ALJ application: "If you are currently on the ALJ register, you may change your selected geographical locations during the vacancy announcement open period." During this period, you can ADD or SUBTRACT available cities.
|
|
|
|
Post by mama on Mar 3, 2009 15:41:42 GMT -5
I sat for the exam when it originally opened and broadened my geography the second time around. Am I to understand the situation correctly that I cannot sit for another exam till after October 2010 and that since I was certified twice, I cannot expect to be certified until such time as I retake the exam?
At one point , I was under the impression that I was sitting on a register containing everyone who took this test, old and new, and that it is from this list that certs were formed. Did I misunderstand? Does anyone know?
Quick, someone respond as my head is spinning!
|
|
|
|
Post by pm on Mar 3, 2009 16:17:15 GMT -5
I sat for the exam when it originally opened and broadened my geography the second time around. Am I to understand the situation correctly that I cannot sit for another exam till after October 2010 and that since I was certified twice, I cannot expect to be certified until such time as I retake the exam? At one point , I was under the impression that I was sitting on a register containing everyone who took this test, old and new, and that it is from this list that certs were formed. Did I misunderstand? Does anyone know? Quick, someone respond as my head is spinning! You can sit for any exam that is opened more than one year after you qualified. So if there is a reopening later this year, you can apply (if the rules stay the same). Anyone who is on the current register is eligible to be picked for a cert. |
|
|
|
Post by flannery on Mar 4, 2009 7:24:56 GMT -5
OK, yesterday afternoon I crunched the numbers. I averaged the scores, but in doing so, did not include scores below 55 because as I understood it, the scores didn't go below 55 on the cert last year. I included everything, though, when I calculated the median score. What I came up with was: average score of 65.4 (again, doesn't include scores below 55) and median score 66.975. The more I thought about it, I thought maybe I should have included below-55 in the average. So on my lunch break later today, I will re-calculate. But at least for now, you can see the trend. The median is not tremendously different than when I first calculated it after the first few dozen scores were posted over the weekend. The median is looking about a point or so lower than it did for last year's scores--at least at this stage. Once our sample gets up to the same quantity of votes as last year (about 166) then we can really compare apples with apples. In that connection, it's really important that people share their scores so we can create the best sample possible. No matter how high or low your score, please post it. The moderator assures the poll is anonymous--not even he/she will know who is who. In any case, I will re-do the average to include the below-55 scores later today. In the mean time, what the median tells me is that people in the very high 50's have a real shot at this. Last year, I believe the median was about 67 and the selecting went all the way down to 59 or so. If our median is about a point lower and SSA is hiring just as many ALJs this year, then it seems possible that SSA could reach 58 or possibly a tad bit lower. Just a bunch of guessing on my part, but what else is new--that's all any of us can do in this process until the last offer is made. |
|
|
|
Post by dazedandconfused on Mar 4, 2009 7:54:30 GMT -5
Flannery, what you may be failing to take into account in your calculations is that there are still 400 or so people still on the register from the original application in 2007. Of those, 200+ or so are in the 55 or above range. While SSA may not want to hire some of them (and in fact may have non selected some of them 3 times) they are still referred over on the new cert. Therefore, the opposite is true; SSA may not be able to reach down as far as the high 50's this time. As someone with a score in the high 50's, this brings me no pleasure.
|
|
