Principal Officer in the Civil Service

badday

Agree practice material supplied is minimal - anybody know of any good websites to get more practice material

Riskymove

I did the tests last night and found the critical analysis element tough enough this time around

I agree that the actual test is far more challenging than the limited familiarisation material and I think it is something they should improve on in future

it indicated we'd hear results by end of the month.

Best of luck to everyone else

Riskymove

nebraska132 wrote: »

For those with experience of such competitions - What are the chances of someone ranked 135 getting called - my sister is anxiously waiting?

it will be tight but not impossible

after the passing of time we don't know how many between the current number and your sister is still actively awaiting an offer

I know of two people who recently turned down PO offer

It will be a couple of months before new panel is put in place - I'd guess October

Dolly1978

Riskymove wrote: »

I did the tests last night and found the critical analysis element tough enough this time around

I agree that the actual test is far more challenging than the limited familiarisation material and I think it is something they should improve on in future

it indicated we'd hear results by end of the month.

Best of luck to everyone else

Hi Riskymove,

What did the tests consist of. Hard to ascertain what exactly they will be like to practice in advance. I have just completed the AP comp. Are they anything like the situational judgement and the etray?

Riskymove

Dolly1978 wrote: »

Hi Riskymove,

What did the tests consist of. Hard to ascertain what exactly they will be like to practice in advance. I have just completed the AP comp. Are they anything like the situational judgement and the etray?

there were as per the familiarisation material...just tougher

no etray....critical analysis of statements and data as well as situational judgment.

wopbop22

I found the critical analysis exercise very challenging. While questions were structured like the familiarisation examples they were a lot more complex.

ShellyMCD

wopbop22 wrote: »

I found the critical analysis exercise very challenging. While questions were structured like the familiarisation examples they were a lot more complex.

I found the same.

Riskymove

at least I am not alone.. ..best of luck to everyone

patmagee

Agreed...much tougher than 2007 or 2015 campaigns...changed my responses lots of times on the critical evaluation test. Job sim straightforward/predictable enough.

They really have upped the ante this time around...but not sure what kind of people will get through....not getting my hopes up this time. So watch this space...your next PO manager could be John Nash...results by end of August...good luck everyone

Uncle P

patmagee wrote: »

Agreed...much tougher than 2007 or 2015 campaigns...changed my responses lots of times on the critical evaluation test. Job sim straightforward/predictable enough.

They really have upped the ante this time around...but not sure what kind of people will get through....not getting my hopes up this time. So watch this space...your next PO manager could be John Nash...results by end of August...good luck everyone

I think you're on the money there. The people who did well in the critical analysis will be those who are good at rapidly answering questions that involve multiple complex calculations. Funnily enough that particular skill doesn't feature anywhere in the PO competency framework 😡

The mathsy questions were far harder than in the 2015 competition (and vastly more difficult than any practice material I found online or in books). From looking at them I knew that if I tried working them all out I'd run out of time very quickly. So I ended up bypassing a bunch of them with the hope of getting back to them if time allowed (it didn't). Did anyone else have a similar experience?

patmagee

Uncle P wrote: »

I think you're on the money there. The people who did well in the critical analysis will be those who are good at rapidly answering questions that involve multiple complex calculations. Funnily enough that particular skill doesn't feature anywhere in the PO competency framework 😡

The mathsy questions were far harder than in the 2015 competition (and vastly more difficult than any practice material I found online or in books). From looking at them I knew that if I tried working them all out I'd run out of time very quickly. So I ended up bypassing a bunch of them with the hope of getting back to them if time allowed (it didn't). Did anyone else have a similar experience?

Totally agree...on the basis that most POs are not immersed in cryptography/code breaking work, and are (expected to be) risk averse, methodical, politically astute (yes I'm generalising here) then it is difficult to see how the critical analysis test was relevant to the role of PO - especially as you say - the mathsy bit. The text-based questions were slightly more logical, but personally I found the numbers-crunching to be frustrating/annoying, and it had clearly been devised by some deviant/sadist occupational psychologist - who delights in red herrings, double negatives and twisted logic. Keep a calculator handy?!? FFS - for at least two Qs I had to fire up MS Excel...!!

Looking back I think (hope) that I got 10 of the 30 questions correct, another 10 were educated guesses, and the remaining 10 were shots in the dark/process of elimination - so even with a bit of luck on my side I would only hope to score 15-17 or so out of 30 - which will not be enough to admit me to working in the CIA/FBI/Interpol/Bell Labs/DPER etc.

While I totally understand PAS' need to whittle/cull the herd down to a manageable number, I fail to see why it was pitched at such a 'challenging' level, and from a psychometric testing perspective, I would call the validity and reliability of the critical analysis test into question. Validity, as I cannot see a clear link to the role of PO, and as you say there is no clear correlation with the PO competency framework. Reliability on the basis that if I sat the test again today I would probably answer many of the 30 questions differently!!

PAS regularly monitors these boards.ie threads so the more of us that pipe up now rather than after the results issue the better...

I'm also curious as to why PAS have moved from SHL and cut-e tests to Creighton Hooper?? On grounds of cost, or was it to ensure that a new breed of POs emerge from this process by completely changing tack on the difficulty level of the tests..?? Even smarter, sleeker, faster than the 2015 crop..?? And probably with even less genuine people/management experience (yes I'm still generalising there...). We'll see...

patmagee

patmagee wrote: »

Totally agree...on the basis that most POs are not immersed in cryptography/code breaking work, and are (expected to be) risk averse, methodical, politically astute (yes I'm generalising here) then it is difficult to see how the critical analysis test was relevant to the role of PO - especially as you say - the mathsy bit. The text-based questions were slightly more logical, but personally I found the numbers-crunching to be frustrating/annoying, and it had clearly been devised by some deviant/sadist occupational psychologist - who delights in red herrings, double negatives and twisted logic. Keep a calculator handy?!? FFS - for at least two Qs I had to fire up MS Excel...!!

Looking back I think (hope) that I got 10 of the 30 questions correct, another 10 were educated guesses, and the remaining 10 were shots in the dark/process of elimination - so even with a bit of luck on my side I would only hope to score 15-17 or so out of 30 - which will not be enough to admit me to working in the CIA/FBI/Interpol/Bell Labs/DPER etc.

While I totally understand PAS' need to whittle/cull the herd down to a manageable number, I fail to see why it was pitched at such a 'challenging' level, and from a psychometric testing perspective, I would call the validity and reliability of the critical analysis test into question. Validity, as I cannot see a clear link to the role of PO, and as you say there is no clear correlation with the PO competency framework. Reliability on the basis that if I sat the test again today I would probably answer many of the 30 questions differently!!

PAS regularly monitors these boards.ie threads so the more of us that pipe up now rather than after the results issue the better...

I'm also curious as to why PAS have moved from SHL and cut-e tests to Creighton Hooper?? On grounds of cost, or was it to ensure that a new breed of POs emerge from this process by completely changing tack on the difficulty level of the tests..?? Even smarter, sleeker, faster than the 2015 crop..?? And probably with even less genuine people/management experience (yes I'm still generalising there...). We'll see...

One last thing to keep an eye on....the results/outcome of this (2017) process should be compared to the 2015 competition....by way of context...here are some of the stats that I am aware of from 2015...

1454 applied
1400 sat the online tests
947 passed
Top 333 called to interview (plus strategic exercise and supervised tests)
319 attended
164 passed (51.4%) and assumed on panel - panel now apparently now somewhere over the 100 mark.

Uncle P

patmagee wrote: »

One last thing to keep an eye on....the results/outcome of this (2017) process should be compared to the 2015 competition....by way of context...here are some of the stats that I am aware of from 2015...

1454 applied
1400 sat the online tests
947 passed
Top 333 called to interview (plus strategic exercise and supervised tests)
319 attended
164 passed (51.4%) and assumed on panel - panel now apparently now somewhere over the 100 mark.

I expect there may be less applicants this time - on account of the time of year, the improved economy and less pent-up demand compared with 2015. However, that doesn't necessarily mean an improvement in one's chances, as I suspect that it may be a smaller panel this time around. Either way, I doubt I'll be featuring on it.

What annoys me most about the PAS process is that no matter how good your experience and overall skill set may be (and no matter how impressive your application form), you won't even be considered if you don't perform particularly well in one or other of these very arbitrary and artificial tests. Under this competition, someone with very limited competencies/experience who happens to be very good at psychometric tests - and especially at mathsy questions - is more likely to get to the interview stage. The possibility that they may then get 'found out' isn't the point - the issue is that they've been called to interview at the expense of someone who would be vastly more qualified for PO and who has the track record to show it.

Two thirds of PO posts are being filled by this process. Surely there has to be a better way?

patmagee

Agree - it is an arbitrary process, which does not deliver the range of experience and competence required to perform effectively at PO level across all Departments and Offices. At this level, the one size fits all PAS sheep dip selection method is clearly flawed and not fit for purpose.

If DPER/PAS stay on this track they will alienate a large(r) proportion of highly competent APs and HEOs across the service, who will in time adopt the "I'm not bothering going for promotion/I'm hopeless at those psychometric tests" etc mantra - which based on our recent experiences are probably legitimate positions to adopt. Plus, are candidates turning up for interview and literally spoofing their way through the interview process, and not being 'found out' until it is too late and they have been assigned to a Department/Office - in my experience - this is definitely happening...

Plus, don't forget that most of us have already spent hours devising/developing/concocting/cutting & pasting scenario examples into that pain in the a*rse dynamic PDF application form - which for many of us will ultimately prove to have been a complete waste of time - this is another clear PAS methodology for ensuring considerable candidate deselection at the very first (i.e. registration/application) stage of the process. As you say, given the current climate etc this has probably helped to even further reduce the number of genuine external candidates (which was one of DPER's original goals/'fresh meat' policy - as the incumbents are all incompetent/lazy/institutionalised/insert disparaging descriptor here...).

Clearly the fresh meat policy has failed miserably - and as previous thread posters have mentioned, many of the private sector candidates have voted with their feet on the basis of salary, or because they (rightly) struggle with the concept/reality of sitting on a panel for 24 months + waiting to be called to a completely random PO role, with little/no thought/consideration given to their experience/quals etc.

While this attrition may suit some of us internal 'open' candidates, it does call the entire recruitment process, including the arbitrary psychometric test batteries, questionable (script-based) competency interviews, and random panel assignments into question. DPER and PAS...stop this madness while you still can...and before we have to ensure that avocado toast is served at all future PO Induction Courses...

urban sprawl

I am already working at a PO level but in a technical role and applied for this competition in the hope of getting out of my very narrow niche area (in my innocence I was hoping to get on the counsellor panel). I found the aptitude tests absolutely horrendous and have given up any hope of advancing in this competition. Ironically, the role I am currently in is highly quantitative/numerical and I floundered at the number crunching questions - I doubt I came anywhere near the passing standard. (I also found the shift from a true/false/cannot say range of possible answers to a range that included probably true/probably false quite baffling. I thought we were trying to move away from making policy on the back of probablies and embracing the evidence base!) I haven't spoken to a single person who didn't find the test nigh on impossible. I'm intrigued as to what the pass rates will be!

patmagee

Not resting on their laurels...PAS have announced that the PAS PO Assessment Centre will run from 7-15 September. Again the timing for anyone coming back from holidays and being launched straight into that seems far from ideal....think I'm safe in assuming that I won't need to get my good suit dry cleaned....

Nocrac

patmagee wrote: »

Not resting on their laurels...PAS have announced that the PAS PO Assessment Centre will run from 7-15 September. Again the timing for anyone coming back from holidays and being launched straight into that seems far from ideal....think I'm safe in assuming that I won't need to get my good suit dry cleaned....

Thanks for the info. Can I ask where you saw this? I presume it means they will release the results earlier than 31st August as a week is surely insufficient notice!

Bowiegal

PAS said they hope to issue results next week

wopbop22

Does anyone know if the assessment centre will just be a rerun of the online tests or will there be some additional assessment as well as part of the selection process?

patmagee

Someone that works with me sent an e-mail to PAS and they replied stating the dates for the assessment centre would be 7-15 September. Pretty sure it will consist of interview, strategic (intray type exercise with Q&A session) exercise and re-run of a similar battery of psychometric tests...not necessarily in that particular order...depending on your time slot.

They seem to be really pushing on with the formation of the new panel - which will probably be in place 4-6 weeks earlier than some of us had anticipated/hoped for - which signals an earlier demise for the 2015 panel.

I am probably dividing the camp here but as a survivor of the 2015 panel (i.e. yet to be called) I will be launching a campaign of sorts to have that panel exhausted before the new one is set up...every man/woman for themselves from now on...!! Yayyyyyyyyyyyyyy.......!!

Uriel.

Will be a smaller rehash of online tests in a supervised way, a report writing exercise followed by a presentation and a Q&A on same and an interview.

The order may differ depending on the day in question but that's the norm... Three stages in the one day...

Rosen

I agree with other's assessment of the tests - I thought the critical analysis was terrible and off the mark. The Job Simulation was fine and probably appropriate.
I'm a pretty experienced AP and have worked in a few different areas - neither myself nor any of my POs would ever use or need to use the number crunching type situations put forward in the test.
Given the PAS are civil servants you would assume they think like civil servants and would know when a test of this nature is relevant or not. Certainly the changes should have been flagged through better familiarisation tests.
Overall a massive thumbs-down. Colleagues of mine who sat the test, some who would make excellent POs, are of the same opinion.

patmagee

Hmmmmmm....PAS Occupational Psychologists...think like civil servants...?? Unlikely!!

They would normally trial these tests on existing POs.....I wonder if that happened this time around...?

Safe to assume that the collective view on this boards.ie thread is that the critical analysis test bears absolutely no relation to the day to day tasks of 99% of PO roles in the CS, and is therefore a poor indicator of competence/ability to perform in the role. This test was nothing more than a blunt instrument to cut the number of applicants - with a psychometric validity rating close to ZERO....!!

Promise I will shut up now....

Uncle P

Well it's some comfort at least that others also found the critical analysis test ridiculously difficult and irrelevant. I know PAS read these threads, but it's also no harm to contact them to give feedback as apparently they're obliged to record it and feed it into their evaluation process. Who knows, maybe next time around they'll make the tests more balanced. For those of us who are AHCPS members, it's also worth letting head office and/or your Dept's rep on the executive know what you thought of it. The way the Open PO process is conducted is unfair to serving staff in several ways - these ludicrous tests are just one aspect of it. Who knows, if they get enough complaints they might even do something about it...

Roseoftralee

I too found the critical analysis exercise extremely challenging. I would question the relevance of the skills it evaluates to the role of Principal Officer. I accept that there is a need to do a certain amount of "culling" before the next stage. However, when the culling process is potentially eliminating candidates who would perform very well in the role (and possibly better than those who survive) this calls into question the selection process as a whole. It will be interesting to see what the pass mark will be for the critical analysis exercise and it's weight vis a vis the job simulation exercise.

By way of background my current AP role in the CS is highly analytical. I have 10 years+ experience in three different public service settings in addition to private sector experience.

I reckon I did well in the job simulation..... but don't we all!!!

Sahaair707

Results are just out, "It is intended to invite those placed up to and including 166 on the order of merit to Stage 2 of the selection process which is due to commence on Thursday 7th September. Stage 2 will comprise supervised job simulation exercise, critical analysis test, strategic exercise and an interview. For those concerned further details will issue shortly."

Best of luck everyone.

Sariah

462 so probably won't get called judging by previous comp stats.

nebraska132

patmagee wrote: »

One last thing to keep an eye on....the results/outcome of this (2017) process should be compared to the 2015 competition....by way of context...here are some of the stats that I am aware of from 2015...

1454 applied
1400 sat the online tests
947 passed
Top 333 called to interview (plus strategic exercise and supervised tests)
319 attended
164 passed (51.4%) and assumed on panel - panel now apparently now somewhere over the 100 mark.

its curious that only 166 are being called to the second stage compared to 2015 - anyone have any insight as to the significance of this?

Bowiegal

166 is quite low given that it has to cover a PO and separate Counsellor panel (which will be formed after the PO panel by separate interview). There is also the issue of some of the 166 potentiall not having applications that meet the significant senior management experience criteria. Good luck to everyone.

tea and coffee

They'll probably call 166 onwards at a later stage. They likely want to exhaust the existing panel as much as possible before forming a large new panel.

Uncle P

nebraska132 wrote: »

its curious that only 166 are being called to the second stage compared to 2015 - anyone have any insight as to the significance of this?

Not sure - maybe they just want/need to make the numbers more manageable for now. It would obviously be open to them to call a second batch at some point, depending on the rate of attrition with the initial 166 and how many posts become available over the lifetime of the campaign. They certainly used to call further batches back in the days of plenty.

Roseoftralee

I'm in the early 200s. I did better in job simulation than critical analysis.

Best of luck to those in the top 166

nebraska132

isn't the old panel effectively defunct as soon as the new panel is formed or will they run one into the other?

ShellyMCD

Congrats to all who made it. Am out as well- low 300s.

Best of luck in the next round

gingerpele

I thankfully made it through. Did much better than expected and just wondering if it makes a difference where you come in too 166. E.g say you get top 10 does that carry through to the interview or is it totally irrelevant once you do the stage 2 test?

Commiserations to those who didn't make tilde 166

Roseoftralee

gingerpele wrote: »

I thankfully made it through. Did much better than expected and just wondering if it makes a difference where you come in too 166. E.g say you get top 10 does that carry through to the interview or is it totally irrelevant once you do the stage 2 test?

Commiserations to those who didn't make tilde 166

Afaik, based on information from somebody who was placed on the 2015 panel, it's a clean slate the next day.

The_Conductor

nebraska132 wrote: »

isn't the old panel effectively defunct as soon as the new panel is formed or will they run one into the other?

The old panel lapses on the first day an appointment is made from the new panel. Its entirely normal for there to be people on the old panel when it lapses- its annoying as hell, but entirely normal.

Uncle P

Bowiegal wrote: »

166 is quite low given that it has to cover a PO and separate Counsellor panel (which will be formed after the PO panel by separate interview). There is also the issue of some of the 166 potentiall not having applications that meet the significant senior management experience criteria. Good luck to everyone.

Also some may not make the cut in the second stage tests or the strategic exercise. A few others won't turn up on the day. And a proportion of candidates will get placed on the panel but turn down the appointment when offered.

urban sprawl

Roseoftralee wrote: »

I'm in the early 200s. I did better in job simulation than critical analysis.

Best of luck to those in the top 166

Am also early 200s but did better in analysis than job simulation. Not yet ruling out a second batch although I wonder if counsellor will be drawn only from a first batch?

Omnishambles99

urban sprawl wrote: »

Am also early 200s but did better in analysis than job simulation. Not yet ruling out a second batch although I wonder if counsellor will be drawn only from a first batch?

It would be highly unlikely they'll call anyone for the counsellor vacancies from a post 166 general batch - if they do call further people for counsellor interview it'll be the next few who panelled successfully from the 166

ShellyMCD

Would anyone in the top 166 be willing to give an indication of how they scored in the tests?

Moycullen1

Uncle P wrote: »

Well it's some comfort at least that others also found the critical analysis test ridiculously difficult and irrelevant. I know PAS read these threads, but it's also no harm to contact them to give feedback as apparently they're obliged to record it and feed it into their evaluation process. Who knows, maybe next time around they'll make the tests more balanced. For those of us who are AHCPS members, it's also worth letting head office and/or your Dept's rep on the executive know what you thought of it. The way the Open PO process is conducted is unfair to serving staff in several ways - these ludicrous tests are just one aspect of it. Who knows, if they get enough complaints they might even do something about it...

I wonder if it is possible to get a report on the job simulation to ascertain the rationale behind the most appropriate responses. What one would regard as showing initiative could be viewed as reckless by another so I would love to know how they were assessed. I did a lot better in the critical analysis than I had expected and was disappointed with my score in the job simulation even though I felt a lot better about that section. I would also love to know what consideration, if any, is given to the application form and ones qualifications at this stage or is stage 1 based purely on the tests.
On a separate note is there any way to find out how many people applied.

Uncle P

Moycullen1 wrote: »

I wonder if it is possible to get a report on the job simulation to ascertain the rationale behind the most appropriate responses. What one would regard as showing initiative could be viewed as reckless by another so I would love to know how they were assessed. I did a lot better in the critical analysis than I had expected and was disappointed with my score in the job simulation even though I felt a lot better about that section. I would also love to know what consideration, if any, is given to the application form and ones qualifications at this stage or is stage 1 based purely on the tests.
On a separate note is there any way to find out how many people applied.

I had the exact same experience as you with the two tests. Going by the previous competitions, PAS won't disclose any meaningful feedback or any info about how the simulation tests are marked - they don't want anyone "cracking the code"..... I think the simulation tests are a lottery tbh. The scenarios are highly artificial, as are the "options" available - most of which don't stand out as being particularly good or bad. And yet it seems your success in the test depends on slim margins e.g. whether you ranked a few of the options as "appropriate" when you instead should have put "slightly appropriate" or "highly appropriate". Rather ridiculous really.

As far as I know the application form is only looked at if/when a candidate gets called to interview. Even then I think they only use it as a basis to ask questions - i.e. it's how you get your experience across in your replies that counts. But I'm open to correction on that one.

Roseoftralee

The other complication this time round is that applicants were asked to express a preference for location. Don't think that was the case last time round.

Ruths41

I got their email which started "I am pleased to inform you that you have reached the qualifying standard ..." and placed me in the 170s and then went on to give details of how the first 166 will proceed.

That's annoying!

patmagee

So some of the top batch of 166 will make it through to Counsellor and PO1 posts - which in theory should reduce the overall numbers to be called as Standard PO off the main panel. Correct me if I'm wrong but I cannot see too many coming off those elite panels as it is difficult to see the AHCPS Branches in the central Depts and DFA welcoming too many newbies...regardless of import/export quotas...plus DFA in particular will undoubtedly raise the bar really high at interview for Counsellor posts...

Will be interesting to see how quickly the initial Standard PO assignments are made, assuming that most Departments have pretty much ignored the 2015 panel over the summer. Hope they get the top quality fresh meat that they have been waiting for...

Best of luck if you are in the top 166....I will be pinning my hopes on being in the next batch of 166...hopefully early next year...!!

ammg

patmagee wrote: »

So some of the top batch of 166 will make it through to Counsellor and PO1 posts - which in theory should reduce the overall numbers to be called as Standard PO off the main panel. Correct me if I'm wrong but I cannot see too many coming off those elite panels as it is difficult to see the AHCPS Branches in the central Depts and DFA welcoming too many newbies...regardless of import/export quotas...plus DFA in particular will undoubtedly raise the bar really high at interview for Counsellor posts...

Will be interesting to see how quickly the initial Standard PO assignments are made, assuming that most Departments have pretty much ignored the 2015 panel over the summer. Hope they get the top quality fresh meat that they have been waiting for...

Best of luck if you are in the top 166....I will be pinning my hopes on being in the next batch of 166...hopefully early next year...!!

Interested to know what the highest panel placed number is ..... I think I'm it 🀣

Gogglebox2017

Does anyone know how stage 2 is sequenced? Do we do the retest of aptitude tests, interview and presentation all on the one day? seems like a lot for one day....

or do they call us back first for the retest ? Also are the test same format as the online test?

Uriel.

Gogglebox2017 wrote: »

Does anyone know how stage 2 is sequenced? Do we do the retest of aptitude tests, interview and presentation all on the one day? seems like a lot for one day....

or do they call us back first for the retest ? Also are the test same format as the online test?

Last time round it was everything in the one day and I'm expecting similar game.

The online test will be similar format l, but supervised and shorter. Many people last time out felt that the test was harder on the day versus the online version.

Uncle P

patmagee wrote: »

So some of the top batch of 166 will make it through to Counsellor and PO1 posts - which in theory should reduce the overall numbers to be called as Standard PO off the main panel. Correct me if I'm wrong but I cannot see too many coming off those elite panels as it is difficult to see the AHCPS Branches in the central Depts and DFA welcoming too many newbies...regardless of import/export quotas...plus DFA in particular will undoubtedly raise the bar really high at interview for Counsellor posts...

Will be interesting to see how quickly the initial Standard PO assignments are made, assuming that most Departments have pretty much ignored the 2015 panel over the summer. Hope they get the top quality fresh meat that they have been waiting for...

Best of luck if you are in the top 166....I will be pinning my hopes on being in the next batch of 166...hopefully early next year...!!

Do you really think they'll call another batch that soon? (And the same number again? 166 seems like an odd number to call - I wonder what the rationale is.)