|
|
Post by nylawyer on Mar 3, 2009 18:51:21 GMT -5
I took the test and interviewed in the last group, got a ridiculously low score, and have pretty much just given up worrying about this.
But, since it seems the new scores are in, I am wondering:
1) how many people are actually now on the register?
2) any thoughts on how many of those are flexible in terms of geography? (did anyone ever poll that here?)
3) will I be allowed to change my geopgraphical preferences any time soon?
4) how long do I stay on the register?
5) any rumors about how many new ALJ's are going to get hired this year (by SSA or otherwise)? Any idea where? Will they ever get desperate enough to hire me?
thanks for any help. I know I am just posting this and letting others do my research for me, but isn't that what a good judge does?
seriously, if there are any previous threads that I can be pointed to, that would be swell.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Mar 3, 2009 18:54:40 GMT -5
One other question- was anyone ever successful in getting their score broken down for them? I was (and remain) bewildered at how low my score was, not because I am such a great candidate, but because if I was such a bad candidate in the first place, why the hell was it necessary for me to take days off from work to travel down to Washington.
|
|
|
|
Post by semipa on Mar 3, 2009 19:02:46 GMT -5
Last year's poll indicated that there were no cities with fewer than about 20 people indicating a willingness to take a job there.
|
|
|
|
Post by pm on Mar 3, 2009 20:36:29 GMT -5
One other question- was anyone ever successful in getting their score broken down for them? I was (and remain) bewildered at how low my score was, not because I am such a great candidate, but because if I was such a bad candidate in the first place, why the hell was it necessary for me to take days off from work to travel down to Washington. No |
|
|
|
Post by pm on Mar 3, 2009 20:40:04 GMT -5
I took the test and interviewed in the last group, got a ridiculously low score, and have pretty much just given up worrying about this. But, since it seems the new scores are in, I am wondering: 1) how many people are actually now on the register? 2) any thoughts on how many of those are flexible in terms of geography? (did anyone ever poll that here?) 3) will I be allowed to change my geopgraphical preferences any time soon? 4) how long do I stay on the register? 5) any rumors about how many new ALJ's are going to get hired this year (by SSA or otherwise)? Any idea where? Will they ever get desperate enough to hire me? thanks for any help. I know I am just posting this and letting others do my research for me, but isn't that what a good judge does? seriously, if there are any previous threads that I can be pointed to, that would be swell. 1. In the neighborhood of 725 2. See semipa's post 3. no 4. 10-2010 5. a. 157 by SSA, b. no, c. maybe-scores are lower this year, also, there are vague rumors of another hire later in the year |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Mar 3, 2009 21:33:46 GMT -5
thanks to everyone above. Can I assume that 725 number doesn't include the people who were on the register and got hired in the last round?
|
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Mar 4, 2009 9:00:08 GMT -5
thanks to everyone above. Can I assume that 725 number doesn't include the people who were on the register and got hired in the last round? Yes. People who were hired are no longer on the register. The purpose of the register is to gather a list of people who want to be hired as ALJs and who OPM deems meets basic qualifications. |
|
|
|
Post by masondixon on Mar 6, 2009 22:13:52 GMT -5
NY Lawyer,
I think you may be on to something. You are the first person I have heard say they got OPM to break down their score. Would you mind giving some more specifics like what percentage breakdown exists for each component. An old friend of mine who was smoked in 2007 with a low final score/rating swears up and down that OPM is grading the AR twice, once for the testing cut-off and then against the other fully tested candidates. The theory does hold some weight if your explanation is accurate. If your AR submission truly scored among the top 1/2 of all candidates tested, why was your AR score so low "in the first place." It could be that your AR when initially scored was good or even excellent, but sucked after a second look by completely different grader. My friend's theory does help explain the secrecy surrounding the grading process, especially compared to the old ALJ register when everything was fully disclosed. My question would be how could OPM defend itself if this theory was proved true?
|
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Mar 6, 2009 22:23:12 GMT -5
NY Lawyer, I think you may be on to something. You are the first person I have heard say they got OPM to break down their score. Would you mind giving some more specifics like what percentage breakdown exists for each component. An old friend of mine who was smoked in 2007 with a low final score/rating swears up and down that OPM is grading the AR twice, once for the testing cut-off and then against the other fully tested candidates. The theory does hold some weight if your explanation is accurate. If your AR submission truly scored among the top 1/2 of all candidates tested, why was your AR score so low "in the first place." It could be that your AR when initially scored was good or even excellent, but sucked after a second look by completely different grader. My friend's theory does help explain the secrecy surrounding the grading process, especially compared to the old ALJ register when everything was fully disclosed. My question would be how could OPM defend itself if this theory was proved true? I believe the argument would be extremely easy to make if you needed to make a defense. The first score would be a score that assured that you met a minimum thresshold number that allowed you on to the next stage. Rather than spend substantial amount of time reviewing, they would at the first stage look at things such as 1. do you have a total of 7 years. 2. are those seven years substantive law as opposed to the example they gave - law librarian or clerk of court That would allow them to move rapidly and qualify enough candidates to create a register. While you waited to be tested, they then sent the tests to a second set of more experienced graders who reviewed closely and for whatever criteria were set forth for grading the test and then assigned an actual score instead of a minimum threshold score. They had more time to score, debate, review at panels and etc for the second set. It would no doubt pass muster as not arbitrary or otherwise flawed. |
|
|
|
Post by masondixon on Mar 6, 2009 22:48:35 GMT -5
Yes, but OPM suggests they actually assign you a specific score in the first instance by saying your AR was in the top 1/2 that were reviewed. They have to be able to differentiate between candidates fully tested and those denied beforehand. The process also makes the scoring far more susceptible to randomness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Mar 7, 2009 0:09:21 GMT -5
NyLawyer, your had a question about the number of candidates who were flexible in their geographic preferences. Below is some information I posted back in 2007. You might find it interesting. Pix.
***************
"Earlier in another thread we were discussing the number of candidates who expressed a willingness to go to some of what we considered to be the less desirable locations. I told you that you would be surprised at the number of candidates who had indicated their willingness to go to these locations. I have now located that information. The list was prepared back in the mid to late 90's before the register was closed for a number of years. I don't remember how many names were on the register at that time, but there may have been around 1500 to 2000. I know that at some point around 2005 there were about 1400 names on the old register.
I went back to the Other Board to try and locate my posts that gave the exact number on the register back then, but was unable to do a successful search of my old posts. So the number above is my best guess.
I think I will break it down into city, total number, and the number with a score over 90. Back then only scores of 92 or 93 or better had a realistic chance of receiving an offer. So, the last number will be for the scores between 90 and 110 (which is the maximum score obtainable). I don't have access to the number of scores over 92.
Fargo, ND 607 248
Billings, MT 537 224
Minneapolis, MN 523 211
Middlesboro, KY 642 255
Albany, NY 589 230
Boston, MA 652 269 (For Patriotsfan)
Baltimore, MD 504 201
Washington, DC 677 275
New York, NY 530 212
Chicago, IL 626 254
Cincinnati, OH 505 206
Cleveland, OH 529 217
San Fran., CA 514 212
Seattle, WA 565 219
Atlanta, GA 618 244
Montgomery, AL 588 241
Nashville, TN 574 229
Birmingham, AL 382 261
I decided to go ahead and throw in some representative locations in addition to the ones we had discussed earlier. What struck me was the number of candidates willing to go to so many locations, and the fact that there were about the same number willing to go to all of the locations. This is before candidates were given an opportunity by the agencies to limit their geographic locations. The list is straight from the register. Hope this is helpful. Pix."
|
|
|
|
Post by buttercup on Mar 7, 2009 12:14:28 GMT -5
I'm curious about the part of this thread which suggests that the AR is reviewed a second time before the WD and SI. I have an unfortunate friend who was originally informed that he passed the first hurdle and was given a date for both the WD and SI (same email we all got). Then, only 2 or 3 days before the WD, he received a phone call saying they made a mistake and not to come down.
Anyone hear of this happening to anyone else? It would certainly support the theory that the AR gets reviewed one more time before the WD and SI.
I won't even begin to go into the unfairness what happened to my friend.
|
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Mar 7, 2009 12:16:04 GMT -5
Yes, but OPM suggests they actually assign you a specific score in the first instance by saying your AR was in the top 1/2 that were reviewed. They have to be able to differentiate between candidates fully tested and those denied beforehand. The process also makes the scoring far more susceptible to randomness. In my view, I don't see that saying you were in the top 1/2 forecloses a baseline threshold score that receives refinement later on. In my view, I don't see that it's random. But as there is a grey area, for those contemplating appealing, consider it a possible argument for your appeal |
|
|
|
Post by pm on Mar 7, 2009 13:06:01 GMT -5
NyLawyer, your had a question about the number of candidates who were flexible in their geographic preferences. Below is some information I posted back in 2007. You might find it interesting. Pix. *************** "Earlier in another thread we were discussing the number of candidates who expressed a willingness to go to some of what we considered to be the less desirable locations. I told you that you would be surprised at the number of candidates who had indicated their willingness to go to these locations. I have now located that information. The list was prepared back in the mid to late 90's before the register was closed for a number of years. I don't remember how many names were on the register at that time, but there may have been around 1500 to 2000. I know that at some point around 2005 there were about 1400 names on the old register. I went back to the Other Board to try and locate my posts that gave the exact number on the register back then, but was unable to do a successful search of my old posts. So the number above is my best guess. I think I will break it down into city, total number, and the number with a score over 90. Back then only scores of 92 or 93 or better had a realistic chance of receiving an offer. So, the last number will be for the scores between 90 and 110 (which is the maximum score obtainable). I don't have access to the number of scores over 92. Fargo, ND 607 248 Billings, MT 537 224 Minneapolis, MN 523 211 Middlesboro, KY 642 255 Albany, NY 589 230 Boston, MA 652 269 (For Patriotsfan) Baltimore, MD 504 201 Washington, DC 677 275 New York, NY 530 212 Chicago, IL 626 254 Cincinnati, OH 505 206 Cleveland, OH 529 217 San Fran., CA 514 212 Seattle, WA 565 219 Atlanta, GA 618 244 Montgomery, AL 588 241 Nashville, TN 574 229 Birmingham, AL 382 261 I decided to go ahead and throw in some representative locations in addition to the ones we had discussed earlier. What struck me was the number of candidates willing to go to so many locations, and the fact that there were about the same number willing to go to all of the locations. This is before candidates were given an opportunity by the agencies to limit their geographic locations. The list is straight from the register. Hope this is helpful. Pix." Thanks Pixie for posting this again. In theory it should stop the obsession with trying to figure out how many people are interested in various cities. But of course theory is different from reality... |
|
|
|
Post by counselor95 on Mar 7, 2009 13:33:19 GMT -5
NY Lawyer, I think you may be on to something. You are the first person I have heard say they got OPM to break down their score. Would you mind giving some more specifics like what percentage breakdown exists for each component. Just to point out that NYLawyer did not say he had received a breakdown of his score, but merely asked if anyone else had. |
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Mar 7, 2009 22:06:57 GMT -5
Yes, but OPM suggests they actually assign you a specific score in the first instance by saying your AR was in the top 1/2 that were reviewed. They have to be able to differentiate between candidates fully tested and those denied beforehand. The process also makes the scoring far more susceptible to randomness. In my view, I don't see that saying you were in the top 1/2 forecloses a baseline threshold score that receives refinement later on. In my view, I don't see that it's random. But as there is a grey area, for those contemplating appealing, consider it a possible argument for your appeal In furtherance of the discussion of how a typical application is graded by feds, I snagged this from a website used by some fed agencies. The company is the competitor of application manager dot org, the application software used by opm for this and many other job applications. This alternative company assists many many agencies in managing applications . I have no reason to doubt that what they have up on their site isn't the very mirror of or a close approximation of what happened in actuality during this process. Typical Steps in Federal Recruitment Whether applying for a permanent or non-permanent position, it helps to know that federal agencies use most, if not all, of the following steps during the hiring process: Screening Applications: The agency human resources specialist, or, in some cases, an automated "expert" system, evaluates your application against the position's qualification requirements and determines your eligibility, and in some cases, your ranking, relative to other candidates. [so you see they admit that some applications have a 2 part scoring process, thresshold eligibility and then ranking]. |
|
|
|
Post by masondixon on Mar 8, 2009 10:39:17 GMT -5
In response to Counselor95, I may have mis-interpreted what NYLawyer meant. This is what he/she said:
One other question- was anyone ever successful in getting their score broken down for them? I was (and remain) bewildered at how low my score was, not because I am such a great candidate, but because if I was such a bad candidate in the first place, why the hell was it necessary for me to take days off from work to travel down to Washington.
I read the "was" as a continuation of the question and then assumed the later reference described the frustration of unnecessary lost work associated with a very low starting AR score. Upon reflection, I probably read too much into the post. However, I did hear that OPM originally responded to a FOIA request or two before they imposed an apparent gag order on the staff, which makes the scenario at least possible.
In response to Lawmaker,
I agree with much of what you say and argue. However, I recall the 2007 candidates being assigned two different codes if they failed to qualify for full testing. One surrounded the basic seven years of practice, bar license, and other minimum requirements. A second code described how the AR submission didn't rate high enough to warrant that candidate being fully tested. I can't imagine 600+ lawyers not being able to technically satisfy the announced AR requirements. I can only assume some kind of grade was assigned to the ARs to differentiate the candidates from each other. If a fully tested candidate received a very low score, say in the 30s or 40s like many I know, how is it they were among the top 1/2 of all candidates that applied? Did they just receive next to zero credit during the interview and written testing parts of the process? I am sure any such candidate would want to know what the original score was and have OPM explain the big discrepancy. The friend I mentioned earlier did just that in his appeal. I just wish I heard the theory earlier. However, given OPM's stonewalling to the FOIA requests and the Appeals process I guess it really doesn't matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Mar 8, 2009 15:59:17 GMT -5
Do we get to see the Register, or find out where we are on it?
|
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on Mar 8, 2009 16:27:09 GMT -5
Do we get to see the Register, or find out where we are on it? No; as far as seeing the register. OPM used to give out a break down of numbers based on grades (so many with scores above 90, so many with grades above 85, etc) and you could "place" yourself that way. I don't know if they still do that. Of course the bare register with all candidates isn't all that reliable anyway. The cert sent to SSA based on the sites listed by SSA is the list that will matter. |
|
|
|
Post by karaj on Mar 8, 2009 21:01:51 GMT -5
".. OPM used to give out a break down of numbers based on grades (so many with scores above 90, so many with grades above 85, etc) and you could "place" yourself that way. I don't know if they still do that."
Has anyone on this Board asked for such a breakdown since the NOR came out? If so, please share with us..!
|
|
