Post by valkyrie on Mar 3, 2009 10:29:32 GMT -5
Lets reverse the thought process on the whole "fair and transparent" debate. Assuming the OPM process is intolerable, how does one create a "fair and transparent," yet workable process? Somebody else has already brought up the concept that the scoring would not work if we all knew the correct answers.
Come on, we're attorneys. Its our job to turn four hours a month of teaching Sunday school into "intensive experience educating a diverse audience in complicated matters of deeply philosophical study, with heavy use of Socratic method, visual aids, and doughnuts."
I am also sure that none of us would ever even think for one second of LITIGATING any aspects of our scored applications if we could see them. We're attorneys after all, with a deeply ingrained sense of arguelessly accepting positions with which we disagree.
Do we really need OPM to expand their Office of General Counsel to the size of the New York District Attorney's Office? Let me be clear in that I fully support any appeals based upon discrimination, but if we all got to argue anything we wanted on the app, SI and written, a single hiring would take four years. Before anyone makes the "stupid govt bureaucrat" argument, ask yourself what appeal or even freedom of information rights you have in a private sector hiring. The OPM process is a mystery, and I will not suggest that it is even close to perfect or that people have not been screwed, but the same can be said for democracy.
What really is tough to stomach here is that asking an attorney to accept an unfavorable result sight unseen is like asking a gunfighter to unload his gun at the door to the saloon.
Come on, we're attorneys. Its our job to turn four hours a month of teaching Sunday school into "intensive experience educating a diverse audience in complicated matters of deeply philosophical study, with heavy use of Socratic method, visual aids, and doughnuts."
I am also sure that none of us would ever even think for one second of LITIGATING any aspects of our scored applications if we could see them. We're attorneys after all, with a deeply ingrained sense of arguelessly accepting positions with which we disagree.
Do we really need OPM to expand their Office of General Counsel to the size of the New York District Attorney's Office? Let me be clear in that I fully support any appeals based upon discrimination, but if we all got to argue anything we wanted on the app, SI and written, a single hiring would take four years. Before anyone makes the "stupid govt bureaucrat" argument, ask yourself what appeal or even freedom of information rights you have in a private sector hiring. The OPM process is a mystery, and I will not suggest that it is even close to perfect or that people have not been screwed, but the same can be said for democracy.
What really is tough to stomach here is that asking an attorney to accept an unfavorable result sight unseen is like asking a gunfighter to unload his gun at the door to the saloon.
