[IPAC-List] Candidate Reduction Strategies

[Karen Coffee]

When I wrote my article on fees, I believe that the New York Court system
had done a study of whether their fee structure created adverse impact, and
they found that it did not.  Of course, this is only one study.
Karen Coffee

-----Original Message-----
From: ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org [mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org]
On Behalf Of Kelly Sorensen
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:43 PM
To: RICHARD TONOWSKI
Cc: IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Candidate Reduction Strategies

An additional concern with charging candidates is that if it were anything
beyond trivial it would likely have adverse impact. If it were trivial it
would do little to mitigate the expense.


On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:37 PM, RICHARD TONOWSKI <RICHARD.TONOWSKI at eeoc.gov

> wrote:



> 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

> _______________________________________________________

> 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