DWP Recruiting Again - 2012

gollum007

I've scored mainly threes, with a two and a one, and I'm very narked at the way the competancies have been marked.
If they wanted a specific scenario and the outcomes from that, they should have *specifiied* that, and I would have written things very differently.
As it was, I tried to provide more general examples of what I'd done within these competancies, as opposed to focusing on a single incident.

I read the competancies document linked at the start, and it doesn't say anything about scenarios, but rather defines what they consider makes up each competency.

-Gollum

devilot

gollum007 wrote: »

I've scored mainly threes, with a two and a one, and I'm very narked at the way the competancies have been marked.
If they wanted a specific scenario and the outcomes from that, they should have *specifiied* that, and I would have written things very differently.
As it was, I tried to provide more general examples of what I'd done within these competancies, as opposed to focusing on a single incident.

I read the competancies document linked at the start, and it doesn't say anything about scenarios, but rather defines what they consider makes up each competency.

-Gollum

I wouldn't feel bad - I have written specific scenarios, given a what, a why, an effect and an outcome and still don't look to have made the grade. I've also got substantial experience at EO level although not officially. What more can you do, huh?

daidai

gollum007 wrote: »

I've scored mainly threes, with a two and a one, and I'm very narked at the way the competancies have been marked.
If they wanted a specific scenario and the outcomes from that, they should have *specifiied* that, and I would have written things very differently.
As it was, I tried to provide more general examples of what I'd done within these competancies, as opposed to focusing on a single incident.

I read the competancies document linked at the start, and it doesn't say anything about scenarios, but rather defines what they consider makes up each competency.

-Gollum

Same as I did - seems as if they had a very inflexible approach to those competency statements and mark down any deviations from their preferred style.
Pity they don't seem to have devised a rigid marking system to go with it though.

daidai

devilot wrote: »

I wouldn't feel bad - I have written specific scenarios, given a what, a why, an effect and an outcome and still don't look to have made the grade. I've also got substantial experience at EO level although not officially. What more can you do, huh?

Seems like it's becoming a bit of a lottery .......:(

gollum007

I know lol. It's just frustrating that there is this unwritten rule, that they don't bother to tell external candidates about.

If you want something, put it in the description, don't let people guess. They should IMHO have provided an example competency, just like the example question for the online test.

-Gollum

devilot

You know guys, don't lose hope - its not over till its over, right?

Gael21

SpiralGalaxy wrote: »

Hey, I can write a scenario. I'd have tried to blow their socks off with a scenario, if if had been made more explicit that they had a very rigid format in place. Because I've done Psychology, I have loosely adhered to their format (because I know what a competency is), but competencies should never be used at the exclusion of a good general ability to do the job tasks and make sound interpersonal and business decisions, which is what the test itself is designed to measure, presumably.

I understand that they find it important, but once you sift that low for that purpose, surely you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. If the competencies are of a much poorer standard than is usual, they need to look at the process, rather than sifting down to the lower ability levels in order to ratify that process. My two cents.

If they have to sift down through the test scores to find better competency statements, that shows the limitations of the test to assess 'ability levels' in a broader sense. Another poster wrongly described the tests as measuring intelligence but they were nothing remotely like IQ tests.

I think it is too simplistic to try to hold up the online tests as the definitive test in the recruitment process. It was simply one way of weeding out weaker candidates (those scoring less than 35% were rejected straight away, I believe).

In my opinion, those above the basic pass mark are as entitled to have their applications considered as anyone else - particularly since it was such a labour-intensive process - and if some of the lower scorers have produced good competencies, then well done to them!

northerntake

We were told at our place (in civil service) that we had to do application in our own time, only to find out another office manager was not only allowing their staff to do it in works time but were sitting with them while they went through it!!

That has happened where I am too.We were told that under no circumstances could we apply in work time.But in part of our office managers were sat helping some people for a couple of days.We were also told to refer customers to an information session about applying and writing competencies , although we couldn't go.Very slow progress in my part of the country,they are leaving it a bit late if interviews are from 24.02.12.We will not have much time to prepare.
There is a lack of consistency with DWP recruitment.
Cant understand why that there has been no internal promotion excercise first,as there are people with so much experience/knowledge.But then this is the civil service and it never seems to behave logically.

Gael21

gollum007 wrote: »

I know lol. It's just frustrating that there is this unwritten rule, that they don't bother to tell external candidates about.

If you want something, put it in the description, don't let people guess. They should IMHO have provided an example competency, just like the example question for the online test.

-Gollum

Sorry - but they did. As I posted earlier, there was a clear link to a whole booklet about it. It was in the first paragraph of the Recruitment Support Pack.

I do feel for people who appear to have missed this information, but we've all made painful mistakes in our lives. You just have to suck it up and get on with life.

daidai

devilot wrote: »

You know guys, don't lose hope - its not over till its over, right?

That's true !!

The notification of an interview will be sent by email with a link to book your preferred day and time - presumably next week if they intend having starting dates in April.