DWP Recruiting Again - 2012

MarkyMark87

melpg wrote: »

Oh dear wanda.....

Firstly, well done. (Genuinely I would have meant it, if you’d left it that)

But........Secondly, as other people have said... you only appeared when you had something to celebrate and then proceeded to become a self appointed expert in the field of competencies – even marking someone’s !!!!

What you need to understand is – like so many have said before me – competencies are marked subjectively. The right person at the right time etc etc. Just look at the discrepancies that people have posted between different areas – do you get it??

And please take note - people are entitled to come onto this forum and express their opinion, disappointment, anger, confusion – whatever it may be, because that’s what this forum is for!

I’m sorry if it hurts your feelings but your scores may have been judged differently in a different area or even just on a different day by a different person. Do you get it now?????

Competencies are NOT the way forward in this type of recruitment.... Just take a look at this forum – a prime example! There are so many people who have posted on here from the start who I believe (and I am an ex-JCP adviser) would be great in the job but didn’t do too well in the competencies. But it seems that some (and I stress ONLY some) who have done well in the competencies are the type who really shouldn’t be working at a JCP!!!!

I wasn’t going to bring this up but what the hell - I’m not going to name names but someone swooped in saying they had an interview (all good) but then proceeded to attack someone who had posted their (excellent) scores for no apparent reason. They made a snap judgement and went in all guns blazing in a very insulting and derogatory way. They have since retracted their comments but still - this is NOT the type of person that should be working in JCP. I can only imagine how they would speak to JCP customers. But hey ho – they can WRITE a good competency so they must be a good JCP employee!

Jeez – when will the CS learn.

Oh and btw – if you were upset (in your first post) that people commenting on the recruitment procedure ‘took the shine off’ your excellent scores, then I’m sorry to have to break this to you but - you will have to develop a MUCH thicker skin if you get through to interview and are expected to work with the unemployed.

And yes, you do come across as obnoxious and insulting.

Goodnight from me.

You can just tell by the way

mommarat

I have just had a read through the current comp framework again and it states that the vacancy holder should not expect every piont for each comp to be hit but should look at them comparing them to the job vacancy to see if they cover what is needed for this particular job. So if I have understood it correctly if you have made a point in a different comp that would fit another as long as it is covered in the job description it can be marked. Hope this makes sense. Also follows something called SARB. Situation Action Result Benefit.

sherrilou

omg i got my scores through this morning at long last

Dont know if its enough but i managed a 54546 so happy enough with that

Wonder if its enough

sherrilou

[Deleted User]

I genuinely feel that the way the competencies are marked is completely subjective, unfair and almost laughable. Someone scoring 9 in one competency does not suggest they are any better at understanding what is expected in this area, or indeed potentially any better at doing the job, than someone who scores significantly lower. I think it's mostly down to the luck of the draw. And before anyone has a go at me, I received my competency scores last night and they were much higher than I had expected. However, I'm not going to get all high and mighty about this and assume I am an authority over people who have scored lower because I'm not. Someone like mommarat who has done the job before and who received low scores for the competencies is far more able and equipped to do the job than someone like me who has achieved high scores and has no clue about the job. That's why the process is completely unfair and the DWP will be missing out on some genuinely good candidates.

gettingready

That really is a total joke - still "awaiting review" (London)

mommarat

Now I am really ticked off. Cheched BC feedback they have just copied Brum scores and says refer to Birmingham and Solihull for feedback. This would be ok if they had bothered to put any. That's my weekend ruined

halt41

melpg wrote: »

Oh dear wanda.....

Firstly, well done. (Genuinely I would have meant it, if you’d left it that)

But........Secondly, as other people have said... you only appeared when you had something to celebrate and then proceeded to become a self appointed expert in the field of competencies – even marking someone’s !!!!

What you need to understand is – like so many have said before me – competencies are marked subjectively. The right person at the right time etc etc. Just look at the discrepancies that people have posted between different areas – do you get it??

And please take note - people are entitled to come onto this forum and express their opinion, disappointment, anger, confusion – whatever it may be, because that’s what this forum is for!

I’m sorry if it hurts your feelings but your scores may have been judged differently in a different area or even just on a different day by a different person. Do you get it now?????

Competencies are NOT the way forward in this type of recruitment.... Just take a look at this forum – a prime example! There are so many people who have posted on here from the start who I believe (and I am an ex-JCP adviser) would be great in the job but didn’t do too well in the competencies. But it seems that some (and I stress ONLY some) who have done well in the competencies are the type who really shouldn’t be working at a JCP!!!!

I wasn’t going to bring this up but what the hell - I’m not going to name names but someone swooped in saying they had an interview (all good) but then proceeded to attack someone who had posted their (excellent) scores for no apparent reason. They made a snap judgement and went in all guns blazing in a very insulting and derogatory way. They have since retracted their comments but still - this is NOT the type of person that should be working in JCP. I can only imagine how they would speak to JCP customers. But hey ho – they can WRITE a good competency so they must be a good JCP employee!

Jeez – when will the CS learn.

Oh and btw – if you were upset (in your first post) that people commenting on the recruitment procedure ‘took the shine off’ your excellent scores, then I’m sorry to have to break this to you but - you will have to develop a MUCH thicker skin if you get through to interview and are expected to work with the unemployed.

And yes, you do come across as obnoxious and insulting.

Goodnight from me.

Aimed at me I suppose. However, I also tried to put across the point about what the job is actually about thanks. "Working with the unemployed"???? Have you ever been unemployed? Not terribly pleasant and the idea is to help people back into employment.

devilot

mommarat wrote: »

Now I am really ticked off. Cheched BC feedback they have just copied Brum scores and says refer to Birmingham and Solihull for feedback. This would be ok if they had bothered to put any. That's my weekend ruined

It has to be a mistake, please don't lose heart or let it ruin your weekend. Not even the most cerebrally challenged could score '1' in every competency, I'm still counting on there having been some sort of computer error somewhere for you - you know what governmental IT systems are like.;)

Would you mind PMing me a couple of your competencies so I can have a look?

Gael21

sherrilou wrote: »

omg i got my scores through this morning at long last

Dont know if its enough but i managed a 54546 so happy enough with that

Wonder if its enough

sherrilou

Hooray! Well done - good scores. Glad to hear that results are coming through in Glos/SW at last. I hope that means they are looking at everyone's...

Still nothing for me though - GRRR!

quijibo

rob44 wrote: »

Obnoxious and insulting are strong words to use, and nothing in the post concerned warranted the use of those words.

I would disagree.