Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 72
Page 1 of 8
Page 1 of 8
« Previous | Next »
KSA's To Be Phased Out
Total Comments: 72
Page 1 of 8
Page 1 of 8
« Previous | Next »
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $13.2033 | +0.0011 | +0.64% |
| F | $13.5947 | +0.0048 | +1.95% |
| C | $13.6927 | -0.0027 | +3.59% |
| S | $17.9723 | +0.0233 | +9.18% |
| I | $18.5302 | +0.1287 | -0.04% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $16.1474 | +0.0291 | +3.28% |
| L 2030 | $15.9136 | +0.0249 | +2.93% |
| L 2020 | $15.6956 | +0.0208 | +2.45% |
| L 2010 | $15.4351 | +0.0080 | +1.41% |
| L Income | $14.0647 | +0.0064 | +1.33% |
KSA
HUD
Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:02 PM
Post Reply
I believe KSA should only be for NON FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.
Current emloyees have there EEPES to show there knowledge, skills and abilities.
Current employees just need to update there resume.
KSA keep a lot of good current employees FROM applying its just a pain for most.
AGAIN STOP KSA FOR CURRENT EMPLOYEES.
GLAD OPM WANTS TO CHANGE
Re: KSA
CBP
Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:20 AM
Re: KSA
DOE
Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:25 AM
CBP
Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:20 AM
Your posting is one very good example of why the KSA's are necessary. You would definitely fail on the "Ability to Communicate in Writing" portion.
_________________
Awsome post!!!!!!
Re: KSA
HHS
Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:03 AM
Re: KSA
UL Manager
Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:37 AM
These are the folks who send me résumés rife with misspellings and grammar errors. Then FOIA and sue to find out just why he or she didn't make the cut.
Resume, KASO; whatever the format, let's ensure the applicants can put two sentences together.
BTW: The comment, "KSAs "scare" many potential applicants from seeking a federal job" is spin for, "we want to hire a bunch of folks who aren't otherwise employable." Further destroying the federal workplace like Fannie Mae did to the housing market.
Sigh...
Re: KSA
Crab
Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:11 PM
Re: KSA
rock chucker
Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:55 AM
Doing away with KSAs will begin hiring reform
N/A
Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:14 PM
Post Reply
Doing away with the KSAs is the first step to reforming the federal hiring process that has grown from a basic hiring process into a monolithic and unmanageable process. Federal hiring should be simple, straight forward and efficient - it is not. Instead, applicants are disqualified if they do not submit KSAs - without regard to the merits of the applicant's experience and education. Federal examining processes need to become efficient - they are not. Yes, automated systems will need to be reprogrammed to scan applications in greater detail but then again reviewing one's application to identify the best qualified should always be the overriding standard. Appeals and problems will reflect upon shoddy HR staffing and examining work manifested in poorly programmed processes. No doubt HROs will call for more FTEs - instead, agencies should collaborate and develop efficient automated programs justified on quality of rating, volume and cost similar to the way payment centers operate...
Keep the KSAs to avoid fluffy resumes
DHS
Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:45 PM
Post Reply
I say keep the KSAs. Your answers to KSAs may actually be related to the position for which you are applying. Resumes on the other hand can be tailored to look pretty but contain nothing but fluff. Anyone who believes that their education is as important as their job knowledge and experience has obviously not been on the job for long. Too many people within gov service are already here because their resumes and degrees are pretty but their work product shows a decided lack of ability.
Re: Keep the KSAs to avoid fluffy resumes
FAA
Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:05 AM
More often iteh KSA process rewards the ghost writer who actually wrote the applicant's KSA for him or her.
Re: Keep the KSAs to avoid fluffy resumes
DFAS
Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:53 AM
Who Cares
Postal Service
Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:40 PM
Post Reply
After working for the USPS for 25 years. I feel our management couldn't pass the IQ test much less a KSA.
This should be interesting!
DoD
Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:49 PM
Post Reply
Ok, so they do away the the PACE test...and it's replacement was too cumbersome to use...so, the Government went to the case examining model.
But they did away with the SF-171 which gave the level of detail sufficient to make a determination of who was the best qualified. So, we got skimpy--sometimes meaningless--resumes...but we had applicants make up for it by doing KSA's.
So, we have no PACE test, we have no detailed information in the resume, and we eliminate the last bit of detail that we had in the KSA's.
So, when we have 100 qualified applicants for one vacancy, we are going to use a drawing?
Re: This should be interesting!
SSA
Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:09 AM
Re: This should be interesting!
DOL
Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:05 PM
if that was the case you would be in the private sector where you are paid what your worth and not based on your attendance
Re: This should be interesting!
Dept of Labor
Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:53 AM
Since you are not, and never have been a Federal civil servant, how would you know what it is like to fill out KSAs, what it is like to be a Federal civil servant, or what it takes to be a Federal civil servant?
KSA
USACE
Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:04 PM
Post Reply
I wish KSA's would make a comeback in our agency. We rely on Resumix to much. The KSA's used to help separate the technically competent from the people who do not have the skills necessary for the position. A subject matter expert can review a KSA and tell pretty quick if the author is a suitible candidate. I think in certain job series they are a must.
Re: KSA
DOC
Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:45 PM
If you're hiring an office worker whose skills are of the soft kind, then maybe a resume will suffice but tech skills, scientific skills aren't always apparent in education and job lists on one page. Nor possible the aptitude to work in a non-office/lab environment.
Pure Baloney...
None
Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:11 AM
Post Reply
FTA: "Once the KSAs are gone for good, you can bet that the number of applicants for Federal Jobs will increase in a big way."
This is patent nonsense, as is most of the article. Most folks looking for employment, Federal of otherwise, are not on a lark. People generally apply for jobs with a purpose, i.e. to earn a living. And if the application process "discouraged" an applicant, what will the procurement or budget precesses do for them?
So, once again the Fed government adopts the lowest common denominator. Putting aside the reportedly dishonest "buddy hires", why would anyone think that culling candidates with minimal and questionable information is a good idea?