A terribly interesting guide to USAjobs

From this week's C&EN, a fascinating little letter on USAjobs (emphases mine):

Regarding “Defense Research: Recruitment, management overhaul needed to prevent scientist shortage” (C&EN, Nov. 5, 2012, page 11), I’m happy to see federal employment highlighted as an option for ACS members. I feel compelled, however, to share my experiences so others are more informed about the hiring process for federal employment. 

First, many positions posted on USAJobs, the federal government’s official job list, are geared toward either a specific person already working for the recruiting agency or a contractor working for that agency. Despite rules requiring a competitive hiring process, the position descriptions are written to fit specific candidates. This practice excludes ~98% of candidates from consideration, although exceptions are made for “status candidates,” such as veterans, laid-off federal employees, military spouses, or disabled persons. 

To be a real contender for any scientific position, you must have a large body of previous experience, and you must write your résumé so that it matches your experience to the description verbatim. For recent graduates, this means it is next to impossible to get hired without a “recent grads” opening or exceptional luck. 

Next, pay close attention to the announcement details: “series and grade” and “promotion potential.” In the federal system, Ph.D. graduates fall in the GS-11 to -13 series; master’s, GS-7 to -11, and bachelor’s, GS-5 to -9. To move past your maximum promotion potential, your supervisor and the human resources department must post a new job opening on USAJobs and go through the “competitive hiring process.” Some supervisors see no incentive to do this, and they are not required to do so. 

Additionally, unless you can clearly and conclusively show that your experience matches the position, don’t waste your time applying for jobs above GS-11 if you’re not already working in the federal government. Positions posted at GS-12 to -15 require “a year of experience at the next lower grade level.” Typically, there is no substitute for this federal experience. Applicants should read that as, “This is someone’s promotion.” 

As for the 37.6% of the Department of Defense’s scientific labor force being eligible for retirement, they’re likely the last vestiges of people covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). Under CSRS, employees try to work for 43 years to reach their maximum pension. CSRS was phased out in 1986; those who were hired then are likely to stick around for another 16 years so they can collect the nearly 90% salary annuity given under CSRS. 

Richard Helmich
Lakewood, Colo.

If I was President for a day, my 2nd executive order would be to demand that USAjobs be written in plain English, rather than Federalese. It'll never happen.

Why is Elbonia working on black phosphorus?

I made a comment the other day about the difficulty in understanding US government job postings, especially in the defense area. I talked with a knowledgeable person; here is part of our conversation:

CJ: I understand what the Defense Intelligence Agency does (I think) -- why do they need scientists? What is the chance that a Ph.D. chemist might get one of these positions?

Having some familiarity with DIA, I’m going to assume that one of the 15 slots in this posting is to cover the chemical “threat”.  That said, I’ll make the educated guess that a Ph.D. chemist coming right out of a post-doc position would have a 1 in 10 chance of being selected relative to a BS or MS person. Why is this?  DIA is a military intelligence organization and as such, it likes…no, demands, that individuals subsume their opinions for the good of the team. While DIA would hire a PhD-level senior scientist from within the DOD or Intelligence community for a senior-level slot, my educated sense is that this isn’t what DIA is after.

DIA and other intelligence and law enforcement agencies need scientists to assist in interpretation of intelligence reporting, e.g.,  Why is Elbonia working on black phosphorus?  What are the strategic goals of Narnia’s Defense Science and Technology Agency?  What is the probability that Atlantis’ program to develop non-RE alternatives to Rare Earths (RE) will be successful? Based on kilo-lab production capabilities reported two year ago, what is this likelihood that Lilliputia will develop a world-scale production process for its revolutionary new explosive, selenous boomboom?

CJ: If you search under "chemist" on USAJOBS.gov, you'll get a lot of posting for "chemist (acquisition)" for the Department of the Navy. What are these postings about?

The answer is in one of those Navy postings: "The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) FY 2009 provides that the Secretary of Defense can designate acquisition positions within the Department of Defense as shortage positions and recruit and appoint highly qualified persons to those positions."

What this means is the following:  The US Government is increasingly having difficulty in finding and retaining experienced personnel to manage acquisitions. Government acquisition regulations and processes are insanely complex and the pay that formal acquisition people get isn’t all that great. The huge number of experienced acquisition people retiring hasn’t been matched by new hires…therefore…what Duncan Hunter says is that the Department of Defense (maybe other agencies too) can hire you as a scientist and assign you to do acquisition grunt work. The downside is that PhD training in chemistry isn’t going to be remotely relevant to whatever it is that you’re responsible for with your acquisition duties; the upside is that if you’re in need of a job, acquisition is a place that you can look forward to immense job security.

CJ here again. An interesting bit of information, especially for those of us who might be contemplating working for the federal government. Best wishes to all the federal job seekers and many thanks to our knowledgeable insider.