Unbelievable

[LazerFlash]

I applied for a job with the State of WV last month. I thought that I was incredibly well-qualified for this job, having pretty much performed the same function for more than 3 years at a previous job. I also had almost 15 additional years of experience "in the field". For several reasons, I felt pretty good about at least getting to the interview stage this time around.

I was notified earlier this week that my application had been scored and ranked. According to the ranking algorithms, I was rated at 70.36; just like a school grade, 70 is 'passing' and according to a friend at WorkforceWV, any score under 75 is considered "uninterviewable". So, what caused such a low ranking? My experience - all 17+ years of it - is considered unusable for scoring purposes since it ended more than 5 years ago. Even though the State asks for all previous and pertinent work experience, they pretty much ignore anything more than 5 years old.

[longleaf]

Are you sure it wasn't the flashing signature? That thing puts me in semi-seizure every time!

Sorry about the job though, that stinks. I had similar angst recently, as I had to have an FBI background check done (Department of Homeland Security directive), even though I had worked almost 15 years for this company. I passed, but that was some of the most stressful few months of my career.

[J_Myers]

Key words...... no one ever reads these things anymore.... they feed them into a computer and it picks up on key words and spits out a rating based on the words you had. happend to me once for a fed police job, I called the agency and requested that someone actually read the resume..... they did and i got a job offer as a supervisory police officer........ maybe the stae has a process that you can use to do an iquiry about the matter at hand

[derricksonb]

I tend to agree with J_Myers. When applying for a government position, be it county, state, or federal the resume and KSA's do not go directly to the hiring managers, but through the HR department to be ranked against other candidates. Sadly, and they deny this EVERY.FREAKING.TIME, the applicant is also scored against the list of 5 point preferential: race, sex, degree, military and disabled veterans. Of which I have none and probably the reason that I've not been interviewed for GS positions including the one for which I was trained and executed for nearly 6 years.

The most important part of the application is the KSA which should include every single key word from the job description. If it doesn't then you can forget about getting interviewed.

[kconant]

I applied for a job with the State of WV last month. I thought that I was incredibly well-qualified for this job, having pretty much performed the same function for more than 3 years at a previous job. I also had almost 15 additional years of experience "in the field". For several reasons, I felt pretty good about at least getting to the interview stage this time around.

I was notified earlier this week that my application had been scored and ranked. According to the ranking algorithms, I was rated at 70.36; just like a school grade, 70 is 'passing' and according to a friend at WorkforceWV, any score under 75 is considered "uninterviewable". So, what caused such a low ranking? My experience - all 17+ years of it - is considered unusable for scoring purposes since it ended more than 5 years ago. Even though the State asks for all previous and pertinent work experience, they pretty much ignore anything more than 5 years old.

That's probably my problem too. All these places keep asking for "current" experience. So if you still know how to ride a bike, but haven't been paid to do it lately they won't pay you to do it now!

It's a big age discrimination problem for us old folks, LazerFlash.

[Bruce]

That's probably my problem too. All these places keep asking for "current" experience. So if you still know how to ride a bike, but haven't been paid to do it lately they won't pay you to do it now!

It's a big age discrimination problem for us old folks, LazerFlash.

I don't think it's age discrimination so much as being kept current for a particular position. I am a hiring manager and I can understand hiring based on what you have currently done and not what you HAVE done. A lot depends on the type of job you do. For instance, if you are appying for a Human Resources position and you have not done it in 5 years, there are a lot of changes that you would not be familiar with. Most places don't have the time to get you trainined on the job and you have to know it from jump street. Most administrative or specialized positions are like that. On the other hand if you are a painter, plumber or some other type of blue collar job, then no, if you aren't currently doing it, they should not hold that against you. those types of skilled jobs don't change much over the years.

[LazerFlash]

Key words...... no one ever reads these things anymore.... they feed them into a computer and it picks up on key words and spits out a rating based on the words you had.It wasn't a key words thing, because I looked carefully at the posting and matched my application to it very closely. In addition, I used actual software names as well as more generic terms. When I called Charleston to find out why I'd been given such a low score, the fellow I talked with pulled up my record and started reading from the most recent job backwards. When he got to my matching IT experience, his exact words were, "OK... Here's the thing. Your work experience for this opening is pretty impressive, but it's more than 5 years old. That's why it wasn't considered." Unfortunately, he also told me that there was almost nothing that I could do to get my application in front of the person making hiring decisions for our area. He did suggest that I try and get an interim job at a place like Staples doing IT support or perhaps go into business for myself working on other people's computers. This would put work IT experience at the top of my work list and (perhaps) trigger a higher score.


I am a hiring manager and I can understand hiring based on what you have currently done and not what you HAVE done. A lot depends on the type of job you do.I can understand wanting current experience - after all, this *is* an IT job. But, here's the rub: I've chatted with a number of people working locally in various State offices here in Jefferson County and also in Berkeley County. Every single one has told me that (1) IT in the Panhandle is overwhelmed because there aren't enough IT folks, even though a few know that there are open jobs and (2) the platforms the computers are running on aren't current anyway. None that I have talked with was yet running Windows 7 - many aren't even running Vista. A friend at WorkForceWV told me that only just last month did their office upgrade to Office 2007; consider that MS has the next version in wide-area beta now and while Office 2007 is the most current release, it is more than 3 years old at this time. The point is that while it's nice to want current experience, perhaps the 'experience window' needs to be set back some if jobs are still open after a long posting period... and there's no real need for the most current versions of things anyway.


Related side note: For 'giggles & grins', I applied for a COBOL programming job about nine months ago. According to the listing, the company was looking for "experienced COBOL programmers to reverse engineer legacy systems using the actual code and programmer documentation". No mention was made about how far back that experience needed to be, and to be honest, if it's "legacy" COBOL code, it shouldn't matter. I applied because I have that experience, although it is more than a decade plus old; one job I had back in the 1990's was doing precisely that with an eye towards Y2K and certain regulatory changes. Anyway, I was told that my application had been rejected because - wait for it - my experience wasn't current enough! :yikes:

[Kensey]

...I applied for a COBOL programming job about nine months ago. According to the listing, the company was looking for "experienced COBOL programmers to reverse engineer legacy systems using the actual code and programmer documentation". No mention was made about how far back that experience needed to be, and to be honest, if it's "legacy" COBOL code, it shouldn't matter. I applied because I have that experience, although it is more than a decade plus old; one job I had back in the 1990's was doing precisely that with an eye towards Y2K and certain regulatory changes. Anyway, I was told that my application had been rejected because - wait for it - my experience wasn't current enough! :yikes:

Believe it or not, "current COBOL experience" isn't the oxymoron a lot of folks think it is (or wish it were). I believe banks and investment firms in particular are still actively maintaining COBOL applications (and even developing new ones). There's even object-oriented COBOL beginning with the COBOL 2002 standard.

[LazerFlash]

There's even object-oriented COBOL beginning with the COBOL 2002 standard.Actually, that particular standard was supposed to be finished and published in 1997 and was supported by MicroFocus from that time forward. FWIW, while O-O is a big 'feature' of the 2002 standard, it includes much more than just object-orientation. Many features actually brought the business-oriented language many of us cut our teeth on into the 21st century... Things like real floating-point support, Unicode support and the ability to call to-and-from non-COBOL languages (other than Assembler). (See, I may not be 100% current, but I have kept up somewhat - I even have a shirt somewhere that says, "King Cobol is Dead - Long Live King Cobol".)

[LFE]

Believe it or not, "current COBOL experience" isn't the oxymoron a lot of folks think it is (or wish it were). I believe banks and investment firms in particular are still actively maintaining COBOL applications (and even developing new ones). There's even object-oriented COBOL beginning with the COBOL 2002 standard.

Lots and lots of code exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBOL

You can have it converted to JAVA if desired.

[TheChipmunks]

I feel your pain. I have applied for over 35 government jobs in the past few months for which I am MORE than qualified. But, and I apologize right up front for those I will offend with this, it STINKS that vets get an immediate 15-point preference 'just because'. GRRRRRRRRRR!

I was rated a 90 for a crappy admin asst position that I am overqualified for, and I am feeling quite cranky about this whole "system" for grading/ rating applicants. Unfair.

Ok, Rant over. :)

[derricksonb]

I actually agree with you in some part Chipmunk, but the federal government SHOULD give preference to those who served in the armed forces and to those who are disabled as a result of that service. However, and I've had this discussion with my Gubmint supervisors, this system of giving preferential points to minorities and females has discrimination written all over it.

[Nanuk]

Ditto. Vets have paid their dues and I fully support tossing them a bone back.

However, tossing that same bone to other applicants just because they are a minority is wrong. And I say this having been turned down for a position that I am perfectly qualified for just because the agency in question--Bureau of Indian Affairs--gives preference to people claiming to be part indian regardless of qualification.

The ironic part is, they keep re-posting the exact same position every few months, showing us all just how well that policy of "any indian over anyone else" is working out. They'd have likely saved a lot of money just hiring a truly qualified and motivated applicant the first time around and only paying for all of that expensive training once.

[scottwilliams33]

I am not going to officially hijack...but

This, to me, is another example of a Government Policy that had good intentions and was not a bad idea as a concept, but once was implemented, has become a hindrance to getting the right jobs to the right people. Instead of making a level playing field which is what it was originally intended, it favors people based on differences, not their capabilities or skills. This is why recent Government involvement in other programs (to remain nameless so that I am not labeled as a hijacker) scare some of us who are for smaller Government, and baffle us that some people, who recognize these issues after they take place, still defend the Government involvement in the programs.

[Bruce]

I am a retired Air Force member and you only get 5 point veteran's preference, not 15 for government positions. You may get more if you are disabled but I'm not sure what the percentage is and it could very well be 15%. And you are right, I am offended. Sorry, I think 5 or even 15 points is a small value in return for what military members have done for our country whether they have served in war zones or not. If you've never served, then it would be hard for you to understand.

[Bruce]

I am not going to officially hijack...but

This, to me, is another example of a Government Policy that had good intentions and was not a bad idea as a concept, but once was implemented, has become a hindrance to getting the right jobs to the right people. Instead of making a level playing field which is what it was originally intended, it favors people based on differences, not their capabilities or skills. This is why recent Government involvement in other programs (to remain nameless so that I am not labeled as a hijacker) scare some of us who are for smaller Government, and baffle us that some people, who recognize these issues after they take place, still defend the Government involvement in the programs.

I disagree. Just because there are preferences does not mean they will get the job. They first have to be qualified to be able to perform the job. Preferences, as I have stated in my last post, for the military does not automatically guarentee you a job.

[LazerFlash]

I disagree. Just because there are preferences does not mean they will get the job. They first have to be qualified to be able to perform the job. Preferences, as I have stated in my last post, for the military does not automatically guarentee you a job.True, but there are qualified individuals who never even get interviewed because of the position their application is ranked, relative to everyone in queue. And, while I'm not disputing that you and most every other vet is due a debt of gratitude... My issue is that it is at times an unfair advantage and often prevents the most qualified individual(s) from being considered for jobs.

[TheChipmunks]

I figured I would be stirring this pot with that post, but darn it I had to get it off my chest. Bruce I do apologize for offending you; I TRULY appreciate what veterans have accomplished, but it still frustrates mne that I am kicked to the bottom of the pile for even lower-than-entry-level positions even though I possess a Master's degree!

I am so, so frustrated. But as I said, I didn't mean to ruffle feathers I just had to vent and I now I guess I feel better. Not really, but still...... :)

[Bruce]

I figured I would be stirring this pot with that post, but darn it I had to get it off my chest. Bruce I do apologize for offending you; I TRULY appreciate what veterans have accomplished, but it still frustrates mne that I am kicked to the bottom of the pile for even lower-than-entry-level positions even though I possess a Master's degree!

I am so, so frustrated. But as I said, I didn't mean to ruffle feathers I just had to vent and I now I guess I feel better. Not really, but still...... :)

No, I understand what you are saying. After all you are trying to better your life, I get that. Funny thing is, when I retired in 1998, I went on interviews and I ahd people tell me in interviews that because I WAS in the military, they thought I would be inflexible and only follow orders and not be creative, etc. Beleive it or not, there is still a prejudice against military members when they enter the civilian work force so it kind of works both ways. As far as not being able to be interviewed because of preferences, I still feel everyone they interview is still qualified for the job and will pick someone based on who they feel is best. There has to be some kind of ranking system because as a hiring manager I know that all I would have time to do is be interviewing instead of other parts of my position (I currently have 70 employees and 15 customers to have to deal with and that doesn't even include my supervisors and the demands that they create on me). I'm sure the government gets literally thousands of applications. I am surprised that you would not be considered given your degree, but without knowing the details from that particular area of the government and how they choose, it would be hard to know why you weren't considered. One other thing, if you have a Master's degree and you are going for a position that you are way overqualified for (I know you hate that term I'm sure), it's because hiring managers fear hiring for someone that is way overqualified because they figure that as soon as you find a job with your skill and higher salary, you won't be with them for very long. I know it's not fair but I know why people think like that. I truly hope you find something soon. Someone of your talents shouldn't be wasted.

[cindylu]

Most of the military were promised their jobs when they completed their service. But if they incurred injuries then usually those promises aren't kept -- I'd only be guessing the reasons.

As a govt employee, I agree with Bruce, that many civilians are hesitant in working with former or current members of the military because the fear they may not be flexible. But usually we are surprised when the person turns out to be great.

Saying that, I currently work with DIA personnel and it takes a long time for them to warm up. Also, those with rank treat civilians like servants -- and unfortunately they have to be told not to bark orders -- and believe me they do bark. Its also amazing how their tone changes when they discover they have to rely on someone of a very high grade for support -- my senior manager fills in for anyone who is on leave and will fetch paper, pencils or make travel requests. And he is a GS-15.

Unfortunately it also works in the reverse. I'm sure the military doesn't like employing civilians because they're afraid we won't pull our weight.

[cindylu]

Chipmunk - Not knowing your background, when you do apply for a govt position and you get an interview do you follow up and ask why you were turned down??

Also keep in mind, if you send a resume it was probably scanned along with the multitude of resumes for key words and those that don't have the key words are not read. Why? Because of the high volume of resumes. Keep it short.

I'll be retiring next year but still need to work. I have 30+ years with the govt but my adviser said don't give the recruiters a history lesson. They know my age and years of service -- give them current relative education and experience. Don't give them a snoozer.

Keep applying. Don't give up. Attend the job fairs.

If you do attend a job fair talk to other applicants who are your age and see if you can compare resumes. Also, talk to the recruiters and ask for on-the-spot advice on how to write a better resume. Most recruiters will be forthcoming and give you advice -- but talk to them when there is a lull, not when they're knee deep with applicants.

Believe me, they are looking for the best employees.

[d56r]

My brother applied for a job with the VA in martinsburg and his qualifications are excellent and like laserflash had the same issue with being uninterviewable. he met the criteria that was listed on the site or he wouldn't have wasted his time applying. he specializes in Echo cardiogram and radiology. Their loss!

[KellyR]

Before applying for a government job, you need to understand the hiring process. First, in this economy, you've got to realize that some agency's or some positions get as many as a couple hundred applicants. The key is to keep the resume small and build up the KSA's. Look at the criteria for the KSA's and look for the buzz words. Incorporate these buzz words in your resume as well as the KSA's. Make sure to put alot of effort into answering the KSA's - this is where you have to shine. Have someone look over how you've done anything and take their criticism, advise, and suggestions. And, keep trying. I am a government employee and I still have to scrape to qualify and get interviews for jobs.

Hope this helps.
KellyR

[TheChipmunks]

Thanks everyone. :)

[LazerFlash]

Thanks everyone. :)Yeah, thanks. It's really great to have a place to vent and get advice from those who have "been there, done that" so to speak. Hopefully, if those of us on the outside looking in keep on plugging, something good will come of it.

[cindylu]

Before applying for a government job, you need to understand the hiring process. First, in this economy, you've got to realize that some agency's or some positions get as many as a couple hundred applicants. The key is to keep the resume small and build up the KSA's. Look at the criteria for the KSA's and look for the buzz words. Incorporate these buzz words in your resume as well as the KSA's. Make sure to put alot of effort into answering the KSA's - this is where you have to shine. Have someone look over how you've done anything and take their criticism, advise, and suggestions. And, keep trying. I am a government employee and I still have to scrape to qualify and get interviews for jobs.

Hope this helps.
KellyR

Yep, EXACTLY!! You really have to sell/promote yourself even WHILE you're a govt employee.