In a statement to Congress today, the FBI director presented the application to hiring ratio for the Intelligence Analyst Position and it was not encouraging.

In Fiscal Year 2004 (October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2004) the FBI processed over 50,000 applications and hired 786 new analyst.

Anyone who would wishfully think that they are "too desirable" for the polygraph results "not being within acceptable parameters" to not affect their application better face reality.

It is a numbers game of supply and demand.  It is too easy for the hiring agency just to throw any questionable application into the "discarded" file.

I have advised anyone applying to not hold their breath for a quick hire and certainly do not make any public statements about a "conditional appointment" until they get the final "arrive for duty date."

Worse yet is the that any false rejections taint federal employment elsewhere.

Regards

Dear RV8Pilot,

The NAPA report you cited was very interesting.  I am reporting on the actual amount of applications left on the FBI.JOBS site.  Your estimates that even twenty to one applicants would mean that only twenty thousand applciants would apply for 1000 positions.

I would like to hear from any readers who have direct knowledge of anyone who has received even a conditional letter of empolyment from the FBI within 90 days of posting an application (or closing date of a posted application).

I have rarely talked to anyone who went from application to a hiring date within a year.

It would be a refreshing change if the FBI could go from start to finish in 90 days.

Thanks for the great report reference, I intend to read it thoroughly.

Regards.

Dear polyfool,

Am I correct in understanding that you received an interview within 30 days of application,  a phone offer of employment within 21 days of such interview, and a written offer of conditional employment within 21 days?

This has to be a world record for the FBI processing system.  From putting an application on line and being offered a conditional job within 72 days!

It must be a completely different FBI than I was exposed to and the change is welcomed.

This was completely different from the two years of obstructionalism that I encountered during my application.  The system completely failed at every aspect of my application and I am used to government failure after over twenty years of federal service.

I hope to hear more success stories in times to come.

By the way, yours is the only story of someone completing this process under ninety days in all of my searching throughout many internet sites regarding the FBI application process.  You must be a very special applicant.

Regards.

Fair Chance,

Your timeline is correct, give or take a few days. Believe it or not, the written conditional offer was issued in under 90 days from the posting date. Although it would be nice to think of myself as a "special applicant," I think its much more likely that I would have met an immediate need. Surely, you would not be surprised to learn that the govt. can get things done quickly when it wants to. Apparently, I wasn't "special" enough to pass their polygraphs.

Fair Chance,

Your kind words are appreciated. I can't help but feel that perhaps I am better off not working for an agency that believes in such an inaccurate screening method--using it for pre-employment purposes really makes the FBI look foolish, in my opinion. Someone I know who left the Bureau after an extensive career there said the whole agency is totally screwed up and suggested that I to try clear my name and then run like hell. If I'd only known more about the poly before I applied there......

Dear Yatittle/Randy,

With all due respect, I need not be reminded that polys serve the purpose of eliciting confessions--remember I "failed " two of them.  I know full well what it's like to be interrogated at length, exposed to trickery, mind games and falsely accused of being a drug dealer and habitual drug user after having been completely open and honest. I'm now left to explain a serious blemish on an otherwise spotless record. The problem is that the FBI is using a method that has no scientific validity whatsoever to not only screen applicants, but to falsely stigmatize the innocent by leaving a black mark on permanent records, thereby ruining lives and careers while undoubtedly allowing the less than honest sail to through the process. I stand by my original statement.      

Randy,

I am simply stating my opinion in reference to the FBI's use of   polygraph testing as it  pertains to pre-employment screening. I do believe I am better off, but I also respectfully disagree with your statement that the agency is better off. It's using an unscientific, subjective test that is biased against the most truthful. One could surmise it's eliminating the very type of person least vulnerable to all types pressures. Its one thing to use it to make sure a person is being truthful and I have no doubt the agency is getting confessions (some even false, perhaps.) However, it's failing people WITHOUT confessions, without developing additional pertinent information because none exists and then blackmarking people who have done nothing wrong.  That's what I have a problem with. It's easy to make a flip statement like yours when you are not one of the numerous "black-marked candidates." By the way Randy, just how many murderers do you think they FBI has caught with its pre-employment polygraph? I've never heard of ONE. Have you?       

I never said it is better to catch a murderer than have 500 honest applicants or citizens blackmarked. 

At no time did I ever say it was better to blackmark 500 honest people. I have never mentioned, prior to this post, the word 'honesty'.

I simply asked whether it was worth the expense of 500 applicants being black-marked that one murderer was not hired by the FBI. 

The FBI seems to think so, and it is something that I also agree with. You obviously do not, and that is absolutely fine. But the FBI has made a judgement call, of which helps me sleep at night.


Randy