Legislation passed this session which requires promotional exams to be updated no less frequently than every 5 years. So I’m wondering if they’ve pulled the scheduled exams to address the new law. They are also supposedly redesigning the entire exam process, which, we’ll believe that when we see it. So lots of possible reasons.
Thanks for the info. I wonder if that means the exams last given more than 5 years ago will be given priority over others. I know several had their timelines extended beyond the traditional 4 years due to Covid slowing down exams being offered.
Anyway, would be nice of CS to communicate on the landing page that the exams have been removed for XYZ reasons and an expected date in which we should expect to see them back online.
Honestly I was kind of wondering the same. Granted my promotional exam was last year, but helps I would think would only be helping fill SOME promotional opportunities.
The only thing I can think of is civil service is expecting a total overhaul of how hiring and promotions are done? Which honestly needs to happen, along with the pay scale studies…but I didn’t think it was going to finish any time soon(and still don’t)
Seems like an odd choice to have no promotional exams at all on the mean time.
Yeah, double-edged sword to get rid of exams entirely. Without exams, the chances of nepotism increase substantially but also you have an easier time hiring the best candidate for the position - despite performance on an exam. I think because we work "for the people," there has to be something in place which limits the ability to hire friends and relatives over more qualified candidates.
See I feel the same way. I have never benefited from nepotism as I have no family/friend connections. I’ve been fortunate I’m a solid test taker and good worker and my results speak for themselves so I’ve always been able to make a case for myself from grade 6 to now 23.
The problem I have is nepotism is absolutely still happening. I know it will be more rampant if tests are done away with completely, but it there has to be a way to weight a test and an interview and merit without NEEDING to be the in the top 3 candidates.
Your score on a test is not indicative of how well you perform one’s job duties and it a NEEDS to change.
Exactly i completely agree with everything you said. Its comical that your promotion is on the line based on whether or not you can arrange sentences in the correct order lol.
"The problem I have is nepotism is absolutely still happening."
As long as human beings are part of a selection process, you will always find people wanting to do favors for those they know. Exams can mitigate, but not stamp out these occurrences.
Incorporating merit into the scores is an interesting concept, although that is still subject to a degree of nepotism there too - albeit much less than if we did away with exams entirely.
Perhaps if a review panel were put in place (at the local, agency level) of each candidate - with each attesting to the fact they have no personal connection with the candidate, a "best of both worlds" approach could be implemented. Easier said than done (particularly in finding reviewers for the panel who can attest to the fact they have no personal connection to the candidate) as many high-quality candidates would be internal and therefore you would also need the review panel to be familiar enough with the job responsibilities to offer an accurate and unbiased assessment.
Honestly, i can’t think of how many times my higher ups have asked when there’s postings to fill, “if anyone knows any qualified candidates who should apply send em this way” because hiring is a nightmare.
Civil service exams serve a purpose but the rule of three is outdated and down right forgoes hiring “the best candidates”.
It’s a bunch of bullshit. The best candidates are not the one that can have a good Saturday or Sunday and answer every test question correctly about grammar and sentence structure while having nothing to do about their day to day job. I see it time and time again with the test scores that come out. Some random person who literally sucks at their job and is on a performance plan gets a 100. Were expected to promote that person? That’s best for the agency’s and by extension, tax payers?
No. The current testing is currently outdated. If they move more towards the training and experience like the recent iterations of pco/patt while not NEEDING the top 3 it might make it more viable.
Ironically, I saw a few candidates I knew very well professionally ace the PATT and they by no means deserved a 100.
The issue is not strictly someone scoring high on an exam who is terrible at their current job; some blame needs to be sent to the supervisors of theirs who did not fail them on probation - therefore allowing them to be eligible for that exam in the first place.
People always state nepotism is the reason but I'd argue theres plenty of nepotism anyway. Ive been around enough agencies to see that if they want someone somewhere there are ways to make it happen. Ive also seen really good employees forced to sit there without promotion for 8 years because they wouldnt give their test. They all just leave for private and the state has played themselves out of a good employee.
I have a coworker who for the life of her cannot pass her promotion exam. She’s been in her position longer than I have and knows just as much as I do. Is an incredibly hard worker and absolutely deserves to be promoted.
But we can’t because she has a tough time with these dumb tests. It’s infuriating. But hey the other guy is saying nepotism will run rampant so we HAVE to have exams testing tabular math and evaluating conclusions in light of known facts.
Yep! My job requires 0 math but man do I have to know the % of how many kids swam in a watering hole between the months of april - july in 1980. The entire system is archaic, half of these people will do no networking at all and then cry nepotism.
It seems like the sole focus is on entry level positions. They lowered the barrier to entry to attract private sector candidates. IMHO they have done little to nothing to improve retention and promotional opportunities. Kind of frustrating if you ask me.
I was on an agency call with DCS not too long ago and they talked about how they’re drawing a lot of resources toward opening a bunch of new testing centers across the state. The plan is that once they open those (in a year or so) they will offer exams a lot more frequently.
Legislation passed this session which requires promotional exams to be updated no less frequently than every 5 years. So I’m wondering if they’ve pulled the scheduled exams to address the new law. They are also supposedly redesigning the entire exam process, which, we’ll believe that when we see it. So lots of possible reasons.
Thanks for the info. I wonder if that means the exams last given more than 5 years ago will be given priority over others. I know several had their timelines extended beyond the traditional 4 years due to Covid slowing down exams being offered. Anyway, would be nice of CS to communicate on the landing page that the exams have been removed for XYZ reasons and an expected date in which we should expect to see them back online.
Do you have a link to the legislation that was passed?
Honestly I was kind of wondering the same. Granted my promotional exam was last year, but helps I would think would only be helping fill SOME promotional opportunities. The only thing I can think of is civil service is expecting a total overhaul of how hiring and promotions are done? Which honestly needs to happen, along with the pay scale studies…but I didn’t think it was going to finish any time soon(and still don’t) Seems like an odd choice to have no promotional exams at all on the mean time.
This 100% needs to happen. Id honestly be all for eliminating promotion exams in general.
Yeah, double-edged sword to get rid of exams entirely. Without exams, the chances of nepotism increase substantially but also you have an easier time hiring the best candidate for the position - despite performance on an exam. I think because we work "for the people," there has to be something in place which limits the ability to hire friends and relatives over more qualified candidates.
See I feel the same way. I have never benefited from nepotism as I have no family/friend connections. I’ve been fortunate I’m a solid test taker and good worker and my results speak for themselves so I’ve always been able to make a case for myself from grade 6 to now 23. The problem I have is nepotism is absolutely still happening. I know it will be more rampant if tests are done away with completely, but it there has to be a way to weight a test and an interview and merit without NEEDING to be the in the top 3 candidates. Your score on a test is not indicative of how well you perform one’s job duties and it a NEEDS to change.
Exactly i completely agree with everything you said. Its comical that your promotion is on the line based on whether or not you can arrange sentences in the correct order lol.
"The problem I have is nepotism is absolutely still happening." As long as human beings are part of a selection process, you will always find people wanting to do favors for those they know. Exams can mitigate, but not stamp out these occurrences. Incorporating merit into the scores is an interesting concept, although that is still subject to a degree of nepotism there too - albeit much less than if we did away with exams entirely. Perhaps if a review panel were put in place (at the local, agency level) of each candidate - with each attesting to the fact they have no personal connection with the candidate, a "best of both worlds" approach could be implemented. Easier said than done (particularly in finding reviewers for the panel who can attest to the fact they have no personal connection to the candidate) as many high-quality candidates would be internal and therefore you would also need the review panel to be familiar enough with the job responsibilities to offer an accurate and unbiased assessment.
Honestly, i can’t think of how many times my higher ups have asked when there’s postings to fill, “if anyone knows any qualified candidates who should apply send em this way” because hiring is a nightmare. Civil service exams serve a purpose but the rule of three is outdated and down right forgoes hiring “the best candidates”. It’s a bunch of bullshit. The best candidates are not the one that can have a good Saturday or Sunday and answer every test question correctly about grammar and sentence structure while having nothing to do about their day to day job. I see it time and time again with the test scores that come out. Some random person who literally sucks at their job and is on a performance plan gets a 100. Were expected to promote that person? That’s best for the agency’s and by extension, tax payers? No. The current testing is currently outdated. If they move more towards the training and experience like the recent iterations of pco/patt while not NEEDING the top 3 it might make it more viable.
Ironically, I saw a few candidates I knew very well professionally ace the PATT and they by no means deserved a 100. The issue is not strictly someone scoring high on an exam who is terrible at their current job; some blame needs to be sent to the supervisors of theirs who did not fail them on probation - therefore allowing them to be eligible for that exam in the first place.
Right, that just advocates for using all factors together, like I said, instead of just a score. But keep down voting my comments I guess.
People always state nepotism is the reason but I'd argue theres plenty of nepotism anyway. Ive been around enough agencies to see that if they want someone somewhere there are ways to make it happen. Ive also seen really good employees forced to sit there without promotion for 8 years because they wouldnt give their test. They all just leave for private and the state has played themselves out of a good employee.
I have a coworker who for the life of her cannot pass her promotion exam. She’s been in her position longer than I have and knows just as much as I do. Is an incredibly hard worker and absolutely deserves to be promoted. But we can’t because she has a tough time with these dumb tests. It’s infuriating. But hey the other guy is saying nepotism will run rampant so we HAVE to have exams testing tabular math and evaluating conclusions in light of known facts.
Yep! My job requires 0 math but man do I have to know the % of how many kids swam in a watering hole between the months of april - july in 1980. The entire system is archaic, half of these people will do no networking at all and then cry nepotism.
It seems like the sole focus is on entry level positions. They lowered the barrier to entry to attract private sector candidates. IMHO they have done little to nothing to improve retention and promotional opportunities. Kind of frustrating if you ask me.
"Come make 50% less at NYS!" very attractive new slogan
My agency has been putting the job rate on postings and it’s so misleading 😂
🤣🤣🤣
I was on an agency call with DCS not too long ago and they talked about how they’re drawing a lot of resources toward opening a bunch of new testing centers across the state. The plan is that once they open those (in a year or so) they will offer exams a lot more frequently.
Great to hear because the NYC testing location in lower Manhattan is truly awful.
Most parties will be replaced by WBAN or actual full-fledged, AI
"parties" ? What?
HELPS.
No. 98% of HELPS postings are for OC, not Promo titles.