- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by MissBehavi0r
- Aug 05, 2004, 10:52 PMTo the gentleman who stated he failed the Phase 1 test:
I wouln't worry about failing the Phase 1 test. I would bet anything that the FBI Phase 1 test is one of the world's most invalid tests. I did not pass Phase 1 as well, and I was told I was a "shoe in". I've taken personality tests up the wazoo being in the clinical psychology field. I'm even arabic speaking & of arab decent. My clinical supervisor (who has done some work in different types of law enforement agencies in the past) even suggested I apply-due to my personality type. But no, I was told I failed. My question is if the FBI are so hard up for arabic speakers why let one go? Part of me feels discriminated against, I am tempted to take this up with the local senator. But, as I am slowly learning about the different agencies - I've come to the conclusion that maybe it is not such a bad thing that we failed the FBI test.
I wouln't worry about failing the Phase 1 test. I would bet anything that the FBI Phase 1 test is one of the world's most invalid tests. I did not pass Phase 1 as well, and I was told I was a "shoe in". I've taken personality tests up the wazoo being in the clinical psychology field. I'm even arabic speaking & of arab decent. My clinical supervisor (who has done some work in different types of law enforement agencies in the past) even suggested I apply-due to my personality type. But no, I was told I failed. My question is if the FBI are so hard up for arabic speakers why let one go? Part of me feels discriminated against, I am tempted to take this up with the local senator. But, as I am slowly learning about the different agencies - I've come to the conclusion that maybe it is not such a bad thing that we failed the FBI test.
Posted by passingthefbiexams
- Jul 20, 2004, 08:33 PMActually, don't rack your brain trying figure out why you failed. The FBI is currently changing their Phase I test, in fact, the pilot is out there right now and the applicant coordinators are looking at it. So, try again in a year, the whole thing will be different and you may be able to pass. In fact, I'll be updating that information in my book when it's official.
Best of luck.
Best of luck.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jul 14, 2004, 10:19 AMDear Anonymous,
The FBI is up to its eyeballs in poor management. Most of the best agents do not want to become supervisors because they like to be in the middle of the action.
Polygraph operators as special agents are viewed with a skeptical eye by their fellow employees because many have heard some of the horror stories due to false allegations which do not out weigh "successes".
Regards.
The FBI is up to its eyeballs in poor management. Most of the best agents do not want to become supervisors because they like to be in the middle of the action.
Polygraph operators as special agents are viewed with a skeptical eye by their fellow employees because many have heard some of the horror stories due to false allegations which do not out weigh "successes".
Regards.
Posted by Anonymous
- Jul 13, 2004, 01:45 PMFair Chance,
As George mentioned, it was the Applicant Coordinator for the field office I had been processing through that expressed his concerns about my polygraph failure. In fact, my examiner had quite the opposite opinion - he expressed to me that he found the polygraph vital to the hiring process. In a rather disgusting and vulgar display of power, he actually used the old "trusting your teammates" card - we polygraph EVERYONE so that EVERYONE knows EVERYONE ELSE is honest. He then provided anecdotes relative to his particular squad in an effort to convince me that honesty is of the utmost importance and that the polygraph will detect deception. The blatant disregard for applicants' well-being is sickening as is the complete lack of faith the Bureau tends to display in everyone (even current Bureau employees, as demonstrated in one or more of the personal statements available on this site).
Trust me - I'm not falling for any of it. I've been well aware of the failures of the polygraph and the tricks of the examiners for a long time. Why do you think I failed the first time? Hint: it's not because I lied (on the relevant questions anyway). Kind of ironic, isn't it? When describing a "lie-detector" test, an honest person still has to specify which questions he/she did not lie on. Weird.
As George mentioned, it was the Applicant Coordinator for the field office I had been processing through that expressed his concerns about my polygraph failure. In fact, my examiner had quite the opposite opinion - he expressed to me that he found the polygraph vital to the hiring process. In a rather disgusting and vulgar display of power, he actually used the old "trusting your teammates" card - we polygraph EVERYONE so that EVERYONE knows EVERYONE ELSE is honest. He then provided anecdotes relative to his particular squad in an effort to convince me that honesty is of the utmost importance and that the polygraph will detect deception. The blatant disregard for applicants' well-being is sickening as is the complete lack of faith the Bureau tends to display in everyone (even current Bureau employees, as demonstrated in one or more of the personal statements available on this site).
Trust me - I'm not falling for any of it. I've been well aware of the failures of the polygraph and the tricks of the examiners for a long time. Why do you think I failed the first time? Hint: it's not because I lied (on the relevant questions anyway). Kind of ironic, isn't it? When describing a "lie-detector" test, an honest person still has to specify which questions he/she did not lie on. Weird.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 13, 2004, 02:37 AMFair Chance,
Note that it was not Anonymous's polygrapher who expressed reservations about polygraphs, but rather his Applicant Coordinator.
Note that it was not Anonymous's polygrapher who expressed reservations about polygraphs, but rather his Applicant Coordinator.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jul 12, 2004, 10:23 PMDear Anonymous,
I would listen to your examiner's contrition with a healthy dose of skepticism (no insult to the Skeptic who has many post in this forum).
I would find it difficult for anyone to make a lifetime living at a career that they do not believe has value. Good or bad, most polygraph examiners believe in what they are doing and support themselves doing so.
The irony is that polygraph examinations are outlawed for private employment use but some how find validation in the government application.
Even if you were arguing with me, I would not be distressed about it. Sometimes this country has become so polarized that I wonder if anyone even wants to try and compromise on what they agree upon at a minimum.
If any agency wants to pre-employment polygraph me for government work, so be it. I am only requesting that proof other than just the polygraph results in themselves be used for denying me employment. I would like the background check to clear or implicate me. The idea that the polygraph in of itself should stop an application cold in its tracks just does not appear proper or ethical.
My opinion, plain and simple.
Regards.
I would listen to your examiner's contrition with a healthy dose of skepticism (no insult to the Skeptic who has many post in this forum).
I would find it difficult for anyone to make a lifetime living at a career that they do not believe has value. Good or bad, most polygraph examiners believe in what they are doing and support themselves doing so.
The irony is that polygraph examinations are outlawed for private employment use but some how find validation in the government application.
Even if you were arguing with me, I would not be distressed about it. Sometimes this country has become so polarized that I wonder if anyone even wants to try and compromise on what they agree upon at a minimum.
If any agency wants to pre-employment polygraph me for government work, so be it. I am only requesting that proof other than just the polygraph results in themselves be used for denying me employment. I would like the background check to clear or implicate me. The idea that the polygraph in of itself should stop an application cold in its tracks just does not appear proper or ethical.
My opinion, plain and simple.
Regards.
Posted by I-SMELL-BS
- Jul 12, 2004, 09:25 PMQuote from: Anonymous on Jul 12, 2004, 05:32 PMFair Chance,
upon unsuccessfully completing a polygraph retest for the FBI, I actually had an applicant coordinator say to me something to the effect of "I wish we could get rid of these things." A small (VERY small) light at the end of the tunnel? Refreshing for someone to at least imply that I'm not necessarily branded as a liar... I'll post more details at a later time...
No, you are still branded as a liar. But I do look forward to your "details", you are one of the more enteraining whiners on this board.
Posted by Anonymous
- Jul 12, 2004, 07:47 PMWell, because he's not an asshole...
Posted by I-SMELL-BS
- Jul 12, 2004, 07:31 PMQuote from: Anonymous on Jul 12, 2004, 05:32 PMFair Chance,
I don't at all mean to argue with you...
Really. That would be something new and different. You argue with everyone else, why not him?
Posted by Anonymous
- Jul 12, 2004, 05:32 PMFair Chance,
I don't at all mean to argue with you - in fact, I agree with your message in that homeland security (federal law enforcement in general, really) jobs are decling as far as hiring is concerned.
I guess just to clarify my above post, some agencies withing Homeland Security are ACCEPTING applications for positions. Getting hired - that's a completely different thing. And although it does seem like the FBI's hiring frenzy will be declining, I have to wonder - how could they possibly be meeting their hiring goals with a 50% polygraph failure rate?
In fact, I plan on posting an update in the polygraph experience forum at some point but I would like to mention that, upon unsuccessfully completing a polygraph retest for the FBI, I actually had an applicant coordinator say to me something to the effect of "I wish we could get rid of these things." A small (VERY small) light at the end of the tunnel? Refreshing for someone to at least imply that I'm not necessarily branded as a liar... I'll post more details at a later time...
I don't at all mean to argue with you - in fact, I agree with your message in that homeland security (federal law enforcement in general, really) jobs are decling as far as hiring is concerned.
I guess just to clarify my above post, some agencies withing Homeland Security are ACCEPTING applications for positions. Getting hired - that's a completely different thing. And although it does seem like the FBI's hiring frenzy will be declining, I have to wonder - how could they possibly be meeting their hiring goals with a 50% polygraph failure rate?
In fact, I plan on posting an update in the polygraph experience forum at some point but I would like to mention that, upon unsuccessfully completing a polygraph retest for the FBI, I actually had an applicant coordinator say to me something to the effect of "I wish we could get rid of these things." A small (VERY small) light at the end of the tunnel? Refreshing for someone to at least imply that I'm not necessarily branded as a liar... I'll post more details at a later time...
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jul 12, 2004, 04:11 PMDear Anonymous,
I stand corrected. I wanted to convey that the atmoshere of "frenzy hiring" which has been present since 9/11/01 seems to be subsiding in certain agencies compared to the past. The amount of Homeland Securities jobs being filled are from the past fiscal years. The attitude of unlimited money for "homeland security" projects seems to be drying up and a new scrutiny is being placed on the money already spent.
Jobs are always being created in government. The FBI is offering some of the biggest hire numbers in their history this year. If an applicant is finding it hard to compete this year, next year will most likely offer less hiring in most agencies. My homeland security comment came from Govexec.com on a recent article stating that most of the positions not of executive stature are on hold as they check their financial commitments until the
new fiscal year of 2005.
Regards.
I stand corrected. I wanted to convey that the atmoshere of "frenzy hiring" which has been present since 9/11/01 seems to be subsiding in certain agencies compared to the past. The amount of Homeland Securities jobs being filled are from the past fiscal years. The attitude of unlimited money for "homeland security" projects seems to be drying up and a new scrutiny is being placed on the money already spent.
Jobs are always being created in government. The FBI is offering some of the biggest hire numbers in their history this year. If an applicant is finding it hard to compete this year, next year will most likely offer less hiring in most agencies. My homeland security comment came from Govexec.com on a recent article stating that most of the positions not of executive stature are on hold as they check their financial commitments until the
new fiscal year of 2005.
Regards.
Posted by Anonymous
- Jul 09, 2004, 06:47 PMFair Chance,
As far as I am aware, all Homeland Security jobs are not on hold right now. ICE is currently under a hiring freeze; however USSS is currently hiring agents (although on a VERY limited basis) and the Uniformed Division is hiring officers at a more substantial rate.
For anyone interested in law enforcement, CIA is not an agency one should consider applying to. CIA is an intelligence agency and hires accordingly. However, there is CIA Special Police which is in fact law enforcement. Police authority is limited to CIA grounds though, meaning no off-duty weapon carry. More of a security-related position as opposed to police work as well.
Chris Jones,
Regarding your Phase I failure, I would recommend not spending anymore time trying to figure out why you failed. Don't take it personally and, if you are inclined to do so, try again in a year. You won't get a second chance before that. And seriously - don't study so much next time. The math sections are the only ones you can prepare yourself for and they really don't weigh that heavily into the score anyway. Just relax and go for it...
As far as I am aware, all Homeland Security jobs are not on hold right now. ICE is currently under a hiring freeze; however USSS is currently hiring agents (although on a VERY limited basis) and the Uniformed Division is hiring officers at a more substantial rate.
For anyone interested in law enforcement, CIA is not an agency one should consider applying to. CIA is an intelligence agency and hires accordingly. However, there is CIA Special Police which is in fact law enforcement. Police authority is limited to CIA grounds though, meaning no off-duty weapon carry. More of a security-related position as opposed to police work as well.
Chris Jones,
Regarding your Phase I failure, I would recommend not spending anymore time trying to figure out why you failed. Don't take it personally and, if you are inclined to do so, try again in a year. You won't get a second chance before that. And seriously - don't study so much next time. The math sections are the only ones you can prepare yourself for and they really don't weigh that heavily into the score anyway. Just relax and go for it...
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jun 13, 2004, 02:27 AMAll Homeland Security Jobs are on hold right now. The FBI is in a "hiring frenzy" and if you were not acceptable now it is unlikely that they will accept you in the near future. The CIA is in a freeze since George's retirement and the government is looking at a huge picture (such as MI8 in Britain).
Do not hold your breath since the whole country is in a state of turmoil. I do not want to ring the alarm bells but the horse is out of control and somebody must grab hold of the reins soon.
Regards.
Do not hold your breath since the whole country is in a state of turmoil. I do not want to ring the alarm bells but the horse is out of control and somebody must grab hold of the reins soon.
Regards.
Posted by chris jones
- Jun 12, 2004, 06:58 AMI revieved a letter from the FBI about a month ago saying that I have failed the phase 1 test. What I do not understand was that prior to the test, I have been studying NONSTOP for over a month. I bought several books and study guides, make flashcards, and put in long hours at the local library preparing for this test. I even memorized the entire hiring process.
Being a software egineer graduate, I would think I should have least past the first test. I was truthful and honest to all the questions reguarding myself. I just dont understand why I failed.
I know I have to wait 1 year for me to reapply agian, but I was hoping if there is something I could do... maybe take the test again (I doubt it). Any suggestions would be grateful.
If not the FBI, are there any other agencies that are hiring right now?
Being a software egineer graduate, I would think I should have least past the first test. I was truthful and honest to all the questions reguarding myself. I just dont understand why I failed.
I know I have to wait 1 year for me to reapply agian, but I was hoping if there is something I could do... maybe take the test again (I doubt it). Any suggestions would be grateful.
If not the FBI, are there any other agencies that are hiring right now?