[IPAC-List] Candidate Reduction Strategies

[RICHARD TONOWSKI]

The Postal Service tried random selection for the exam for skilled
trades (e.g., mechanic, electrician) positions.  I think, but am not
sure, that there were some min quals up front to get the application
taken seriously.  Then came the random selection.  But the sample size
was based on obtaining representation from any demographic group that
was 2% of the relevant workforce.  That meant a large sample--not an
issue if you're planning to test a lot of folks in any event.  The
sampling was not stratified by demographic group.
 
The practice was abandoned because it only served to queue up the
applicants.  Eventually everybody who was still interested got a test
opportunity.  After that there didn't seem to much hiring activity, so
the issue was moot.  The flood of application also may have dried up.
 
I don't recall there being a lot of hostility to the idea.  As Lance
said, the process needs to be explained to prevent resentment.
 
I don't know if sample size to include representation of demographic
groups meant much over what a simple random sample would provide.


>>> Ronald Clare <rpclare at aol.com> 3/13/2012 9:54 AM >>>

The administrative costs associated with managing charging candidates
and the PR issues of the differential societal impact is a major concern
re initiating such charges

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 13, 2012, at 9:23 AM, "Patrick McCoy"
<Patrick.McCoy at psc-cfp.gc.ca> wrote:


> An alternative to charging applicants to do a test would be to use

> minimum qualifications and un-proctored internet testing. The

> un-proctored testing would then be followed up by proctored testing

to

> deter and catch cheaters.  We have started to use this approach in

> Canada in large campaigns-large for us at least- though I am sketchy

on

> the details.

> 

> Pat McCoy,

> Ottawa

> 

>>>> Saul Fine <saulfine at zahav.net.il> 2012/03/13 4:30 AM >>>

> I like the idea of charging a small fee to apply (assuming that is

what

> 

> Harry meant).

> Not only might it help cover some of the costs per hire, but perhaps

> deter 

> some of the less serious candidates from applying as well.

> I know of some public agencies and universities that do this outside

of

> the 

> US (unfortunately, their fees are not at all modest...).

> But, my guess is that most commercial firms would have a hard time

> getting 

> away with this.

> Saul.

> 

> 

> -----Original Message----- 

> From: Harry.Brull at pdinh.com 

> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 10:26 PM

> To: sebe at erols.com ; david at friedlandhr.com 

> Cc: IPAC-List at ipacweb.org ; Adele.Demooy at mwrd.org 

> Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Candidate Reduction Strategies

> 

> How about charging a modest fee instead? Use a screening tool that

> quickly and cheaply (and, of course, validly) reduces the candidare

> pool

> to a more manageable number.

> 

> Harry Brull

> 

> ------------------------------------------------

> Harry Brull | Senior Vice-President

> 

> 1.612.414.8998 direct

> 1.612.337.3695 fax

> Harry.brull at pdinh.com 

> 

> PDI Ninth House

> Global Leadership Solutions

> 

> 33 South 6th St.

> Suite 4900

> Mpls., MN 55402

> 

> 8157 Buck Run

> Salida, CO 81201

> 

> Visit our new website! www.pdinh.com 

> 

> https://www.facebook.com/PDINinthHouse 

> http://twitter.com/pdininthhouse 

> http://www.linkedin.com/company/pdi 

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org 

> [mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org] On Behalf Of Lance Seberhagen

> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 3:19 PM

> To: David Friedland

> Cc: IPAC-List at ipacweb.org; 'Demooy, Adele'

> Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Candidate Reduction Strategies

> 

> I agree with Dave's point that using random selection to reduce the

> number of applicants to be tested can cause anger and disappointment

> by

> applicants, particularly those who believe they have a "right" to be

> tested or have a family tradition of working for a particular

agency.

> Most of these objections can be overcome if the restrictions on

> testing

> are well publicized and fully explained in advance, and if

appropriate

> steps are taken to ensure that the random selection process is, in

> fact,

> totally honest and random.

> 

> Lance Seberhagen, Ph.D.

> Seberhagen & Associates

> 9021 Trailridge Ct

> Vienna, VA 22182

> Tel 703-790-0796

> www.seberhagen.com 

> 

> 

> 

> On 3/12/2012 3:43 PM, David Friedland wrote:

>> I will be very interested to read the comments to this post. This

>> approach has logical appeal, but has some potential unintended

>> consequences. For exams that will attract large numbers of

> applicants

>> you will need to carefully determine how to select the

> pre-determined

> number of applications.

>> For example:

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> .         Randomly select the desired number of applicants after

all

>> applications are received - This risks angering some of those who

> were

> 

>> randomly excluded from consideration. If the examination is

> considered

> 

>> to be open and competitive this approach may be considered to

> prevent

>> job-related competition

>> 

>> .         Accept only a pre-determined number of applications based

> on

> when

>> they are received (for example, using time stamps) - This method

can

>> raise a risk of favoritism, bias or nepotism if some individuals or

>> protected groups may have advance knowledge or earlier knowledge

> than

>> others of the job announcement

>> 

>> .         Danger of being too popular - I know of at least one

> instance when

>> the crush of applicants hoping to be among the first group resulted

> in

> 

>> some injuries and damage to the recruitment office

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> -----Original Message-----

>> From: ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org 

>> [mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org] 

>> On Behalf Of Demooy, Adele

>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 8:17 AM

>> To: 'ipac-list at ipacweb.org'

>> Subject: [IPAC-List] Candidate Reduction Strategies

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> For economic reasons we are looking into ways to reduce the number

> of

>> candidates who participate in exams.  One option we are considering

> is

> 

>> accepting a predetermined number of applications based on

statistics

>> from previous exam administrations.  I am interested in your

> feedback

>> on this approach or learning about any other methods you are using.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> _______________________________________________________

>> 

>> IPAC-List

>> 

>>  <mailto:IPAC-List at ipacweb.org>  IPAC-List at ipacweb.org 

>> 

>>  <http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list>

>> http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list 

>> 

>> _______________________________________________________

>> IPAC-List

>> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org 

>> http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list 

>> 

> _______________________________________________________

> IPAC-List

> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org 

> http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list 

> 

> Confidentiality Notice: All information in this communication,

> including any 

> files or attachments, is intended for the sole use of the individual

or

> 

> entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is 

> confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret information entitled to



> protection and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If

you

> are 

> not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any

> dissemination, 

> distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly

prohibited.

> If 

> you have received this communication in error, please notify the

sender

> by 

> return email and delete this communication from your system. Thank

you

> for 

> your cooperation.

> _______________________________________________________

> IPAC-List

> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org 

> http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list 

> 

> _______________________________________________________

> IPAC-List

> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org 

> http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list 

> 

>> 

> This e-mail message is intended for the named recipient(s) and may

> contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt

from

> disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or

> re-transmission is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient or

not

> authorized by the named recipient(s), or if you have received this

> e-mail in error, then please notify the sender immediately and

delete

> the message and any copies.

>> 

> Ce courriel est destiné exclusivement au destinataire mentionné en

titre

> et peut contenir de l'information privilégiée, confidentielle ou

> soustraite à la communication aux termes des lois applicables. Toute

> divulgation non autorisée, toute reproduction ou réacheminement est

> interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire de ce courriel, ou

n'êtes

> pas autorisé par le destinataire visé, ou encore, si vous l'avez

reçu

> par erreur, veuillez le mentionner immédiatement à l'expéditeur et

> supprimer le courriel et les copies.      

> 

> _______________________________________________________

> IPAC-List

> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org 

> http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list 

_______________________________________________________
IPAC-List
IPAC-List at ipacweb.org 
http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list