Discovering Higher and Degree Apprenticeships with UWE Bristol, get free advice >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Civil Service Faststream

Scroll to see replies

From my experience and the experiences of people I know, I'd say security checks depend on what level of priority they are.

Having said that, its possible that the system that updates your status on the website simply hasn't done so, mine has had me in the process of pre-appointment checks since I heard I was successful at FSAC!

Reply 381

gt94sss2

Random_guy

Having said that, its possible that the system that updates your status on the website simply hasn't done so, mine has had me in the process of pre-appointment checks since I heard I was successful at FSAC!

So you never received an email from Parity to say they had been completed? (thats what the documentation says will happen..)

Reply 382

Random_guy

Nope, it still says "In Progress".....

Reply 383

username48778

gt94sss2

I guess it actually makes sense for the Civil Service - as they just look at the competency scores.

Otherwise, it would be a lot harder to place candiates - for instance I probably know more than 99% of the population about things like telecoms and the Common Agricultural Policy.. but am not expecting to work on either of those when I am allocated a department..

One of the things the assessment centre is supposed to test is our ability to absorb large amounts of information and learn/adapt quickly to whatever situation/role we find ourselves in

I'm not saying that people should only work on areas that they know about, but if they have a relative expertise in a particular topic and want to work in that, it should definitely be taken into consideration.

It's safe to make the assumption that everyone who was successful as the FSAC is able to absorb large amounts of information and learn/adapt quickly. Hence, the fact that someone has spent years working or learning about a particular subject area means that they will bring far greater knowledge and experience than a newcomer would be able to pick up, regardless of how quickly a newcomer can learn and adapt.

Reply 384

Ollie87

16.84 and i didn't get in. i really let myself down on my self evaluation - overrated myself on everything. if i'd have been more realistic i would have got in!! grrrrr

Reply 385

Ollie87

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHH im so angry with myself. ******* fuming.

Reply 386

k8gilly

Ollie87

16.84 and i didn't get in. i really let myself down on my self evaluation - overrated myself on everything. if i'd have been more realistic i would have got in!! grrrrr

Completly sympathise with you-I got 16.85 and didn't get in-so so close!!

Did anyone else who didnt quite make it get the email about the Assistant Private Secretary for BERR?

Reply 387

Ollie87

i didn't get that email. i'm just so angry because, looking back, my ratings were ridiculous - i gave myself top marks for everything. i got 2.4 for that competency whereas, for example, I got 3.6 for decision making. i just feel like such a ******* arrogant and unperceptive idiot! still, i suppose i have to take comfort in knowing that i'm good enough in the other competencies and just have to be more realistic next time. according to the report, 'The greatest room for improvement was with Learning and Improving, where he needed to demonstrate greater self-awareness of his strengths and weaknesses.' could be worse!!

Reply 388

Jack1985

Ollie87

i didn't get that email. i'm just so angry because, looking back, my ratings were ridiculous - i gave myself top marks for everything

Why did you give yourself top marks for everything?

I didn't get in either, gutted because I really wanted it. I got 15.93 though, quite a lot lower than a lot of you.

Ollie87, from what I've heard, 3.6 is an amazing mark, so that's promising if you want to reapply next year

Reply 389

gt94sss2

k8gilly

Did anyone else who didnt quite make it get the email about the Assistant Private Secretary for BERR?

If I recall.. when I filled in the application form, there where two questions:

a) If you pass, do you want us to tell your university?
b) If you fail, would you mind if we passed your details/score to other government departments?

It sounds as if b) has happened in your case - I have certainly met someone who narrowly missed getting a fast Stream place a couple of years ago but was offered a 'normal' HEO role based on his performance/score.

Reply 390

gt94sss2

I think many of you who tried this year and attended the FSAC but were unsuccessful have a very good chance if you reapply - having gone through the process once will be a huge help as you know what to expect and also as you have feedback reports on what you may have done right/wrong.

As for marking your own performance - I suspect that most candidates have a tendency to over mark their own performances..

I found it quite hard to rate myself as well - as you have no 'benchmark' to rate yourself against.. and ended up under marking myself on the briefing exercise..

Reply 391

Random_guy

gt94sss2

I found it quite hard to rate myself as well - as you have no 'benchmark' to rate yourself against.. and ended up under marking myself on the briefing exercise..

I found this impossible as well, and apparently was overly harsh on myself, but surely that depends on what u personally believe you are capable of? All it shows is that you have similar standards to those of the assessor, which i'm not sure is particularly helpful *shrug*. Its a hoop, we jump through it....

Reply 392

hitchhiker_13

I don't think it's a hoop - I think it's a really important skill to have!
I think (from reading my report) that more important than the actual mark you gave yourself was identifying a weakness in your performance and indicating how you could improve on it, and also identifying what other people did well that you can learn from.
No-one's going to be perfect the first time, and especially in the FastStream when you're potentially coming straight out of university, you'll have to learn fast. So being pretty self aware will be a useful thing to have.

Having your previous report could hugely improve your self-assessment mark for the next time I think, perhaps more than any of the other competencies.

Reply 393

spoo

16.87. Grrrrr. Don't know if it's cynically amusing or just plain aggravating!!! Building Productive Relationships in the group exercise is what blew it for me and to be totally honest I really feel the assessor was pretty unfair in her interpretation. Oh well que sera....no strike that, I stand by GRRRRR!!

I too have had an email from BERR. Does anyone know the general pro forma for these alternative propositions? For example are these emails sent out to very many people; is the interview format another round of competency testing and, if so, will it be another long waiting game; and finally, should one accept a position with BERR would that disqualify one from applying to FS again next year?

Do you know, and this is not just sour grapes, I really feel there is a strong element of luck as oppose to skill/talent at FSAC.

Reply 394

starry skies

spoo

the thing is that the assessors have to go on the behaviours (postitive & negative) that you show. For example nodding at what other people said, using peoples names, building on others ideas would be positive behaviours in "Building productive relationships", negative indicators might be shaking your head, leaning back and looking disinterested when you're not talking, disparaging others ideas, etc. If you don't show the positives they can't mark you "up" for it so perhaps worth reading some books on positive body language etc.

Reply 395

spoo

starry skies

the thing is that the assessors have to go on the behaviours (positive & negative) that you show. For example nodding at what other people said, using peoples names, building on others ideas would be positive behaviours in "Building productive relationships", negative indicators might be shaking your head, leaning back and looking disinterested when you're not talking, disparaging others ideas, etc. If you don't show the positives they can't mark you "up" for it so perhaps worth reading some books on positive body language etc.

Good advice.

I did attempt to display inclusive body language, verbal communication etc but I think I made two essential faux pas
1- I argued for my project (and won it) but I think I was seen as being too forceful
2- Attempted to crack a light hearted joke which fell flat at facetious :redface:

What I have surmised from this is that winning your point is not the main aim of the task. I've also learned -kinda realised already anyway- is that I am a very strong person. But because I am also honest, fair, humorous and understanding I can usually get away with being more forthcoming than others in my day to day life without giving offence because people know I always mean well. What i need to remember IF i apply again is that this might not always translate quickly and easily to strangers. You live and learn huh?

I will certainly think more about body language as you suggest in the future though!

Reply 396

gt94sss2

spoo

I too have had an email from BERR. Does anyone know the general pro forma for these alternative propositions? For example are these emails sent out to very many people; is the interview format another round of competency testing and, if so, will it be another long waiting game; and finally, should one accept a position with BERR would that disqualify one from applying to FS again next year?

I can only answer the last part of your questions.

Accepting one of these positions does not disqualify you from applying to the FS again.

However, you would need to apply via the 'external' route again - as you don't qualify for the 'internal in-service' method until you have been in the Civil Service for 2 years.

In fact the person I met who had previously taken one of these roles, was doing exactly that this year.

Two points to note:

1) If you do wait two years or more, each year you apply for the FS, you would need to choose either the internal or external route.. you can't do both each year.

Each has its pros and cons - with the external route you can apply each year but need to do the whole assessment process again.

With the internal method, there is always the risk that your department won't short list you but if they do, then its quiote likely they will help you prepare for the FSAC (and you start with the e-tray exercise)

2) If I recall Assistant Private Secretary roles mean working in a Ministers office so you would get a good knowledge and contacts with the parts of a department your Ministers are responsible for - as well as dealing with topical issues and seeing how the decision making process works..

Reply 397

Drogue

spoo

I did attempt to display inclusive body language, verbal communication etc but I think I made two essential faux pas
1- I argued for my project (and won it) but I think I was seen as being too forceful
2- Attempted to crack a light hearted joke which fell flat at facetious :redface:

What I have surmised from this is that winning your point is not the main aim of the task. I've also learned -kinda realised already anyway- is that I am a very strong person.
Very good thing to learn. I found at quite a few assessment centres that I was pulled up for being a bit focused on the task and forceful, both as a positive and a negative. The one time I didn't get the job it was because they gave us an economics question and I was the only economist in our group, meaning when people went off track, I brought it back to the task. While polite, I was a little dismissive of some of the ideas put forward, and so while we gave the best solution as a group, I didn't come off too well.

It's a lot about fit - some employers like it, others don't. I tend to find if I'm with bright people, I'm not forceful, since I respect their point of view and see myself as one of the team. However when I'm with people who don't have the right skills for a particular question, I find I become dominating. When recruitment seems arbitrary, it's often a fit issue. Not whether you're good or not, but whether you fit the corporate culture.

Reply 398

starry skies

spoo

humour in & of itself is not a no-no, but I think it's quite tricky to judge what's appropriate in the eyes of the assessors. I did have my assessor for the briefing exercise giggling heartily at one of my ideas (which wasn't meant to be funny!) which proved quite a useful opportunity to show that I could take it in my stride & move on to my next point.

What I have surmised from this is that winning your point is not the main aim of the task.

too true, in fact it's pretty much irrelevant from what I can gather.

The thing about it all is though that if you can take the feedback onboard and learn from it, it will give you a better shot next time( if you decide to reapply). After all it's "learning & improving" :smile:

Bet you could even use it in the interview if they ask you about a time you've had constructive criticism!

Even if you don't reapply (and remember quite a few people are on their 2nd or 3rd attempt when they get in) it should give you some useful pointers if you go to other assessment centres.

Reply 399

Angel_Cake

I think using names when referring to people is a good trick in a group excercise; ask their opinion on something and then when they reply, say 'yes, that's true' or 'yes, that's a good point' and then add something to it. I was criticised for not building enough alliances with others, although I guess it's hard to do that without appearing like you're ganging up on someone!

I personally think that the buiding productive relationships skill is really useful and important; a guy in my group at the FSAC was very rude and aggressive, and seemed to be actively trying to start an argument with a couple of other people in the group. Although most of his points were probably the best that any one of us made, the way he put them across just made the whole thing feel really uncomfortable. I'm not suggesting that anyone here did that, (this guy was definitely an extreme case - at times he was so rude I wondered if he was an actor who'd been emplyed by the FSAC to see how we coped!), but it just shows that the way you put ideas across is just as important as what those ideas actually are.

I know a few people who attended the FSAC, and it seems that in the group exercise, nobody got quite the right balance - either they were very good at taking the lead and coming up with ideas but weren't seen as including others enough, or they were very positive, encouraging and polite etc but not forceful enough. It's hard to get it right. It's quite interesting that in my experience, most of the guys were the former and the girls the latter - not trying to start a debate on gender stereotypes here, as I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions to the rule, but I do wonder if there are trends in how various groups of candidates perform at FSAC; male/female, younger/older etc.