Administrative Officer 2015 open competition

OwaynOTT

I'm ambivalent about the whole thing. I haven't being doing great at the numerical tests, I've been doing but I have been doing great at the verbal ones - go figure.
However, in the actual tests, I felt that the numerical test was easy enough with some questions where I had plenty of time left over.
I actually feel that I've done better in the numerical test than the verbal test.
None of that matters, as I think I fcked up the assessment part.

hard copy

Finished just in time! For me the numerical was far too difficult (good chance I failed). Nothing was that hard but there simply wasn't time to understand and make calculations. Never been strong at them but usually survived as have been able to make good educated guesses. Had to answer too many as wild guesses so my fate will be down to blind luck. The other parts were ok, they were at a level I expected.

For me, they've got it wrong with the numerical, as it seemed a bit too tricky for the jobs that are up. Think a lot of capable people might end up excluded Anyway, best of luck everyone

keepkeyyellow

I thought the numerical was actually grand - the only one that caught me out was the computer games one but I was able to do 50% in my head, 35% with calculator and 15% were guess work due to no clue/no time.

Funny story though - sister's calculator showed everything in fractions and I only found out when I actually started the test and had to shout the house down to get her to fix it.

OwaynOTT

It's a pity that each booklet only got 3 minutes, unlike the practice tests they linked to. On the practice tests, I was able to hoard some time for the harder ones, no chance here.

ColcloughP

OwaynOTT wrote: »

It's a pity that each booklet only got 3 minutes, unlike the practice tests they linked to. On the practice tests, I was able to hoard some time for the harder ones, no chance here.

Yeah, it seems like they're just cutting down on time to force people to guess so even fewer people will get top scores, making it easier to cull a larger number. It's pretty cheap.

I know from people involved in recruiting for the cadets in the army that they despise the psychometric tests. The majority of the people who get past them aren't suited to be officers and they have to inevitably hire people who aren't qualified for the job. Meanwhile people who would sail past all the other tests and make excellent officers aren't passing the psychometric tests.

The_Conductor

From the brief description some people are giving of some questions they encountered- I think we must have been presented with a few different versions of the tests. Anyhow- I think we're all in the same boat one way or another- I don't think any of us can say with any degree of confidence that we're happy with the tests and are definitely through to the next round......... Any idea when the results are out?

Sunnies Washington

Hi

Yes I understand there were different versions of tests. I thought overall it was extremely difficult. And for the life of me I cant understand how/why someone would attempt to do a numerical reasoning test without a calculator if you have the option.

Do we have a ballpark figure of how many applied? I know that public jobs are required to disclose, so it will be interesting to see how many make it through to interview from those that applied.

Slydice

For the numerical tests, wait to see the results. Some users have posted in the past that the numerical isn't given much strength in the overall results.

We'll have to wait and see how they did this one.

Halpenny

In the most recent EO campaign candidates' position on the order of merit was based only on Verbal and Questionnaire results; it was just sufficient to reach the qualifying standard in the Numerical test. I remember a lot of people here weren't impressed with that because they'd done well in the maths element. Not sure whether this was the same for last year's AO/Graduate campaign, maybe someone who got past stage 2 AO could let us know.

In terms of a time scale for when we'll receive results - I don't know but last year's closing date was Wed 12th Nov and results were out Fri 28th. So going by this we could find out on Nov Fri 13th - unlucky for some or possibly in our case unlucky for many ...

Minty Green

I did mine last night at 11:30. Tired and exhausted. I guess most of my answers in numerical. Numbers is not on my side. It's so hardnto compete with time!
Best of luck to everyone!

octo

Sunnies Washington wrote: »

Hi

Yes I understand there were different versions of tests.

That makes sense. I was thinking that a way to cheat the system would be to create two separate identities on publicjobs.ie. Then you could record the first test and have all the answers ready for the second test. But if there are different versions of the test then my dastardly plan would be foiled!

jameswhale

I did this test the other day and found it ok. Was caught for time on a few of the numerical ones, but did ok. Not too sure I qualify anyway I have an honours degree level 8 but its not a first or a second class honours 2.1! Maybe they put weight to what degree it is mine is accountancy based so id hope thats more relevant than having a first in arts with womens studies and geography as majors. Done now anyway. Seems like a pain in the arse process after doing the online stuff anyway for a job sometime next year.

An Ri rua

jameswhale wrote:

I did this test the other day and found it ok. Was caught for time on a few of the numerical ones, but did ok. Not too sure I qualify anyway I have an honours degree level 8 but its not a first or a second class honours 2.1! Maybe they put weight to what degree it is mine is accountancy based so id hope thats more relevant than having a first in arts with womens studies and geography as majors. Done now anyway. Seems like a pain in the arse process after doing the online stuff anyway for a job sometime next year.

?? I've an Arts degree 2.1 and a business postgrad and a post-experience MSc in Strategic Management. I don't take your point as being at all valid. Surely they know what they want. A degree in Sociology, or indeed womens' studies, would surely trump an accountancy degree in a policy-driven role. Your comment is naive, in my opinion; having studied to a high level in both areas.

Slydice

They ask you to bring your degree with you to the interview. You don't need it until then.

psnKOB79LFC

An Ri rua wrote: »

?? I've an Arts degree 2.1 and a business postgrad and a post-experience MSc in Strategic Management. I don't take your point as being at all valid. Surely they know what they want. A degree in Sociology, or indeed womens' studies, would surely trump an accountancy degree in a policy-driven role. Your comment is naive, in my opinion; having studied to a high level in both areas.

Naive but reasonably true.. what is the pass rate on the degree you did... 99%? Exactly. Lets be honest most degrees are worthless and are only a heads up into real exams later in life. Sociology; yes because reading about this would make you a better manager... text book

"A high level"... whats that exactly?

Sunnies Washington

psnKOB79LFC wrote: »

Naive but reasonably true.. what is the pass rate on the degree you did... 99%? Exactly. Lets be honest most degrees are worthless and are only a heads up into real exams later in life. Sociology; yes because reading about this would make you a better manager... text book

"A high level"... whats that exactly?

Lets look at the requirements for both positions -

Third Secretaries should be able to demonstrate:

-a keen interest in, and understanding of, Irish public affairs, foreign policy and international relations
-an ability to project key messages abroad about Ireland’s economic and trade capacity, performance and business potential, and to deliver on economic, trade and cultural promotion opportunities
-an ability to manage and deliver on Ireland’s programme of development cooperation
-a high degree of resilience and resourcefulness in dealing with particularly challenging situations, often involving Irish citizens in difficulty abroad
-a knowledge and/or aptitude for foreign languages

Applications are particularly welcome from candidates with further qualifications directly relevant to economic and trade promotion as well as from candidates with qualifications and/or experience in development cooperation.

Administrative Officer (AO)

The Administrative Officer position is primarily aimed at graduates. Administrative Officers play a crucial role in policy formulation (through critical analysis, research and policy drafting) for a wide range of governmental areas. Administrative Officers can also be involved in drafting briefing materials for Ministers. This role is an excellent opportunity for honours graduates to begin working in the Public Service.

Based on this, why do you think an accounting degree would bump you up the list?

SJ.

I think it's probably better for people to think of the term 'for graduates' as meaning 'for people with degrees' rather than 'for people who are just out of college'.

The new AOs I know range in age from 24 to 34 so they have some experience as well as a degree, which is the minimum bound for entry.

Sisyphus Mark II

-an ability to project key messages abroad about Ireland’s economic and trade capacity, performance and business potential, and to deliver on economic, trade and cultural promotion opportunities
-an ability to manage and deliver on Ireland’s programme of development cooperation

Accountancy degree might be relevant for these requirements, particularly so if your a qualified accountant that has done advanced performance measurement for elective.

Don't see an accounting degree on its own holding much weight on its own without postgraduate or professional experience.
An economics degree through Arts could be more relevant.

ColcloughP

Sisyphus Mark II wrote: »

-an ability to project key messages abroad about Ireland’s economic and trade capacity, performance and business potential, and to deliver on economic, trade and cultural promotion opportunities
-an ability to manage and deliver on Ireland’s programme of development cooperation

Accountancy degree might be relevant for these requirements, particularly so if your a qualified accountant that has done advanced performance measurement for elective.

Don't see an accounting degree on its own holding much weight on its own without postgraduate or professional experience.
An economics degree through Arts could be more relevant.

It's all moot unless you can pass the psychometric tests though. Someone with fluent Russian, 5 years experience working in international trade and a 1.1 MA in International Politics could fail to get through the psychometric tests while 21 year old with no languages, no work experience and a newly minted 2.2 BA in Film Making could sail through even though they'd never have a hope of passing even the first interview.

Sisyphus Mark II

Surely they would hire that person with fluent russian. If not silly system.

ColcloughP

Sisyphus Mark II wrote: »

Surely they would hire that person with fluent russian. If not silly system.

As far as I know, you have to get through the psychometric tests.

None of your qualifications or experience is even considered until you get past the first round.

The 3rd Secretary thread is full of people, throughout the years, complaining about not pass them in spite of having languages, degrees and experience that was specifically mentioned in the job post. Meanwhile there are also tons of people who made it through the psychometric tests easy enough only to be told that they were too unqualified to make it past the next round.

It is a silly system. It doesn't prioritise trying to hire the best candidates, it prioritises making the hiring process as easy as possible for those doing the hiring.

An Ri rua

psnKOB79LFC wrote: »

Naive but reasonably true.. what is the pass rate on the degree you did... 99%? Exactly. Lets be honest most degrees are worthless and are only a heads up into real exams later in life. Sociology; yes because reading about this would make you a better manager... text book

"A high level"... whats that exactly?

99%? i'm not sure what university you're familiar with (maybe you have only attended college, that could explain it) but when I attended Maynooth (2 decades ago) the failure rate for 1st year French was 90%. English 50+% at least. When I attended the Smurfit School, the entry level was high. Would you be questioning their rationale also?

Are you intending to have a go at me in particular? A high level is one level 8 and 2 level 9 qualifications. What's a high level to you? More importantly, what's "a high level" to PAS and to the National Qualifications Framework? QQI. or should that be QED.

How does the study of sociology prepare someone for a career in people management & research/analysis in the public or civil service? I'll leave that to you to ponder on. Maybe you can run a cost benefit analysis on it or work out its net present value. Seriously, obre les ojos.

You should let PAS, and whoever you attend interviews with, know that you feel degrees are worthless. Because we're not discussing their real worth, we're discussing them vis a vis these competitions. And that's what THEY are measuring and giving value for. Take up your agenda with them but don't disparage others who have qualifications that you do not. Play the ball, not the man. Perhaps you need to read Boards' rules as I see you are a newbie.

Stheno

psnKOB79LFC wrote: »

Naive but reasonably true.. what is the pass rate on the degree you did... 99%? Exactly. Lets be honest most degrees are worthless and are only a heads up into real exams later in life. Sociology; yes because reading about this would make you a better manager... text book

"A high level"... whats that exactly?

An Ri rua wrote: »

99%? i'm not sure what university you're familiar with (maybe you have only attended college, that could explain it) but when I attended Maynooth (2 decades ago) the failure rate for 1st year French was 90%. English 50+% at least. When I attended the Smurfit School, the entry level was high. Would you be questioning their rationale also?

Are you intending to have a go at me in particular? A high level is one level 8 and 2 level 9 qualifications. What's a high level to you? More importantly, what's "a high level" to PAS and to the National Qualifications Framework? QQI. or should that be QED.

How does the study of sociology prepare someone for a career in people management & research/analysis in the public or civil service? I'll leave that to you to ponder on. Maybe you can run a cost benefit analysis on it or work out its net present value. Seriously, obre les ojos.

You should let PAS, and whoever you attend interviews with, know that you feel degrees are worthless. Because we're not discussing their real worth, we're discussing them vis a vis these competitions. And that's what THEY are measuring and giving value for. Take up your agenda with them but don't disparage others who have qualifications that you do not. Play the ball, not the man. Perhaps you need to read Boards' rules as I see you are a newbie.

Mod: Both of you, cut out the sniping. Any more and there will be infractions.

Georgie Berkeley

ColcloughP wrote: »

As far as I know, you have to get through the psychometric tests.

None of your qualifications or experience is even considered until you get past the first round.

The 3rd Secretary thread is full of people, throughout the years, complaining about not pass them in spite of having languages, degrees and experience that was specifically mentioned in the job post. Meanwhile there are also tons of people who made it through the psychometric tests easy enough only to be told that they were too unqualified to make it past the next round.

It is a silly system. It doesn't prioritise trying to hire the best candidates, it prioritises making the hiring process as easy as possible for those doing the hiring.

You're 100% correct: You have to achieve a very high score in the online test in order to be called for the supervised test, and if you achieve a high score in the latter, then and only then will they dust off your CV and give it some real consideration.

It's an antiquated and perverse system, but, as you say, it saves on admin.

The_Conductor

Georgie Berkeley wrote: »

You're 100% correct: You have to achieve a very high score in the online test in order to be called for the supervised test, and if you achieve a high score in the latter, then and only then will they dust off your CV and give it some real consideration.

It's an antiquated and perverse system, but, as you say, it saves on admin.

You don't have to score an abnormally high score.

You have to pass all 3 sections (typically around a 60% pass mark- in or around 50 out of 80).
You only need to absolutely pass the numeracy (aka once you've passed it- your mark is discarded and does not factor in your placing on the panel.
Your place on the panel is determined solely by your scoring on the verbal reasoning and psychometric testing.

Its done this way to help women who typically don't score as well at these type numeracy events, than do men- and is a policy which equality groups have advocated fiercely in favour of retaining.

ezra_pound

The_Conductor wrote: »

You don't have to score an abnormally high score.

You have to pass all 3 sections (typically around a 60% pass mark- in or around 50 out of 80).
You only need to absolutely pass the numeracy (aka once you've passed it- your mark is discarded and does not factor in your placing on the panel.
Your place on the panel is determined solely by your scoring on the verbal reasoning and psychometric testing.

Its done this way to help women who typically don't score as well at these type numeracy events, than do men- and is a policy which equality groups have advocated fiercely in favour of retaining.

The fact of the matter is that this is a competitive process. At maximum 300 applicants are likely to be called to stage 2 testing. As there are at minimum 3000 applicants, this means that you must place in AT THE VERY LEAST the top ten per cent, if not the top 5 per cent in order to progress with the competition.

In practice this means that you DO need to perform extremely well in the tests.

fiachr_a

ColcloughP wrote: »

It is a silly system. It doesn't prioritise trying to hire the best candidates, it prioritises making the hiring process as easy as possible for those doing the hiring.

Just because you have a BA or Masters doesn't make you intelligent. I know people with computer science degrees who've failed these tests. People with the sharpest minds don't always make the best academics.

The_Conductor

fiachr_a wrote: »

Just because you have a BA or Masters doesn't make you intelligent. I know people with computer science degrees who've failed these tests. People with the sharpest minds don't always make the best academics.

Anyhow- as those of you who do eventually manage to get through and are posted in government Departments will discover- being a good academic- could very well have nothing whatsoever to do with the post in question........

fiachr_a

The_Conductor wrote: »

Its done this way to help women who typically don't score as well at these type numeracy events, than do men- and is a policy which equality groups have advocated fiercely in favour of retaining.

Very wrong, you can't have equality by ignoring that women are bad at maths.

ColcloughP

fiachr_a wrote: »

Just because you have a BA or Masters doesn't make you intelligent. I know people with computer science degrees who've failed these tests. People with the sharpest minds don't always make the best academics.

But surely a 4 year long BA and/or a masters is a better metric than a 20 minute test. As far as I can tell, the only thing those tests accurately measure is someone's ability to speed-read, which is hardly analogous with intelligence.

I know lots of people in the army and lots of people that have applied for it. I know people who failed the psychometric tests who went on to become very successful in their field and I know people who passed the tests, got into the army and then went on to become very poor officers.