nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Conservation Ranger

Precious flower

Hi guys, not sure if this is the right place to post but I'm inquiring about the conservation ranger job up on PublicJobs? I'd be extremely interested in this job as I've always been crazy about wildlife, national geographic etc and learning as much as I can about wildlife.

Now the essential criteria noted for the job is a good level of education, and general fitness and administration skills. Now, the desirable criteria is experience in this area and a relevant degree. I don't have a relevant degree or experience but I am interested in this type of work.

I'm just wondering is it worth applying or is it the case that when they say desirable they really mean that they are unlikely to take you on if you don't have a background or experience in that area?

Thanks

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Joe222

Got a rejection message on this job offer. I'm qualified to masters' level with very good grades so there must be a very high standard.

I wonder are many being called to interviews.

Pay was very poor in fairness.

cbsam74

I didn't get called myself and I have both relevant Wildlife and Conservation Management and Forestry qualifications and I worked in this field in the private sector. I think the jobs were gone before they were even advertised.

dodderangler

cbsam74 wrote: »

I didn't get called myself and I have both relevant Wildlife and Conservation Management and Forestry qualifications and I worked in this field in the private sector. I think the jobs were gone before they were even advertised.

Gone to friends and family members.

OpenYourEyes

Mod Note:
Given that 800 supposedly applied, with 600 filling in the subsequent application form, and since NPWS haven't hired new rangers in 10-15 years (I think?) and there are apparently only a small number of positions to be filled, there was always going to be very very tight competition.

Please feel free to discuss the jobs, the application process etc, but no more baseless accusations about friends and family members being those chosen. If you have any strong feelings that way then I suggest you contact the hiring company directly.

magicbastarder

yep, pick an applicant at random and they'd have had a 1% chance of succeeding, based on an earlier claim that there were only six positions to be filled this year.

Del.Monte

At least you got the chance to apply for a conservation job in Ireland! When I left school it was what I was interested in but the only thing available was planting Christmas trees with the so-called Forestry & Wildlife Service.

stevespring

Interviews over now. How did people get on? By all accounts a high caliber of candidate was interviewed.

Joe222

stevespring wrote: »

Interviews over now. How did people get on? By all accounts a high caliber of candidate was interviewed.

Did anyone hear anything about these jobs?

stevespring

All quiet on the western front.

They have to get their ducks in a row first, you would imagine it would by quick but with the snails pace the process has moved so far, I wouldn't bet on it.

Up to a 100 were interviewed so quite a lot of applicants to go through.

Latest info is that there will be 6-8 hired this year.

stevespring

Results from interview process out yesterday.

According to the list, there are 5 jobs going at the moment. There were rumours that there would be a couple more but it doesnt seem to be the case.

Very very stiff competition.

stevespring

Have done a bit more digging on who were the successful candidates at interview.

As it turns out people who were wary of the process were half right. Positions high in the panel have not gone to friends and family but they have gone to people who are working or have worked in the NPWS already.

On the one had you can say that they have done their time and deserve the role, on the other hand, it is definitely the case that the people with the best experience will are not as high in the panel as they should be.

I honestly thought that the process would be above board but they have definitely looked after their colleagues first. They are probably qualified for the role but I know in a couple of cases at least, they are not the most qualified. Shame.

Rosahane

stevespring wrote: »

Have done a bit more digging on who were the successful candidates at interview.

As it turns out people who were wary of the process were half right.. Positions high in the panel have not gone to friends and family but they have gone to people who are working or have worked in the NPWS already.

On the one had you can say that they have done the time and deserve the role on the other hand it is definitely the case that the people with the best experience will not be as high in the panel as they should be.

I honestly thought that the process would be above board but they have definitely looked after their colleagues first. They are probably qualified for the role but I know in a couple of cases at least, they are not the most qualified. Shame.

As an aside.
Back in the dim and distant past the Civil Service Commission were responsible for the recruitment of Civil Servants. They were set up by the first Cumann na nGaedheal government and successfully and impartially carried out their duties until they were abolished in 2004. They were responsible for the fact that people other than Fianna Fail supporters got government jobs in the first instance. Of course, subsequent promotion was, in many instances, influenced by political favouritism.

(Edit) Just to be clear they were responsible for the recruitment process pretty much in it's totality. Entrance exams, interviews, competence tests etc. They produced a ranked panel of candidates and passed this list back to the relevant dept.

OpenYourEyes

stevespring wrote: »

Have done a bit more digging on who were the successful candidates at interview.

As it turns out people who were wary of the process were half right. Positions high in the panel have not gone to friends and family but they have gone to people who are working or have worked in the NPWS already.

On the one had you can say that they have done their time and deserve the role, on the other hand, it is definitely the case that the people with the best experience will are not as high in the panel as they should be.

I honestly thought that the process would be above board but they have definitely looked after their colleagues first. They are probably qualified for the role but I know in a couple of cases at least, they are not the most qualified. Shame.

I know a small number of people who applied for the role, with a variety of both general experience and experience working with/for NPWS. I can say with confidence that there is no correlation between the people who have done the most work for NPWS and those who ranked highest or even got through the various recruitment stages.

stevespring

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

I know a small number of people who applied for the role, with a variety of both general experience and experience working with/for NPWS. I can say with confidence that there is no correlation between the people who have done the most work for NPWS and those who ranked highest or even got through the various recruitment stages.

Fair enough, thats not what ive seen and heard. My sources/contacts have been proven to be correct so far, ive no reason to doubt them or the people ive talked to.

OpenYourEyes

stevespring wrote: »

Fair enough, thats not what ive seen and heard. My sources/contacts have been proven to be correct so far, ive no reason to doubt them or the people ive talked to.

Yeah that's fair enough too, but I'm talking about people I've known for years, I know their CVs and experience, and I know where they ranked. I also know that the rankings etc aren't common knowledge within the organisation so there's a very limited number of people with first hand knowledge of the results.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

stevespring wrote: »

Fair enough, thats not what ive seen and heard. My sources/contacts have been proven to be correct so far, ive no reason to doubt them or the people ive talked to.

Sorry but unless your sources were directly involved in the selection process and therefore also picked the successful candidates, they would not be privy to the relevant information.

stevespring

Just a bit of an update. I know of a few people who have been offered roles, current staff members of NPWS, former staff members of NPWS and contractors with NPWS. I know more about their current/former roles with NPWS but I will not divulge anymore info.

I know the CV of one of those people very well. That person hasnt got the experience of people I know further down the panel. One of the people seems to be doing a bit of a career jump.

I suppose its all about doing your time.

OpenYourEyes

stevespring wrote: »

I know the CV of one of those people very well. That person hasnt got the experience of people I know further down the panel.

What type of experience do you mean? Experience doing bird surveys? Experience doing mammal surveys? Experience doing plant surveys? Experience dealing with people? Experience working as part of a team? Experience working by themselves? Experience dealing with planning applications? Experience writing reports? Experience making management recommendations for protected areas? Experience dealing with the Wildlife Acts and EU Nature directives? And will the more experienced people have sold themselves very well in the two application stages as well as the interview stage?

At the end of the day 900 people applied and there were 6 spots at the end of it. That isn't to say that there were only 6 people suitable for the job - there was probably 60+ people suitable for the job that applied. The whole process could be completely re-done and it's likely that a different 6 people would have topped the list, given the numbers and variables involved.

stevespring

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

What type of experience do you mean? Experience doing bird surveys? Experience doing mammal surveys? Experience doing plant surveys? Experience dealing with people? Experience working as part of a team? Experience working by themselves? Experience dealing with planning applications? Experience writing reports? Experience making management recommendations for protected areas? Experience dealing with the Wildlife Acts and EU Nature directives? And will the more experienced people have sold themselves very well in the two application stages as well as the interview stage?

At the end of the day 900 people applied and there were 6 spots at the end of it. That isn't to say that there were only 6 people suitable for the job - there was probably 60+ people suitable for the job that applied. The whole process could be completely re-done and it's likely that a different 6 people would have topped the list, given the numbers and variables involved.

I want to be very careful of what I say as I don't want to divulge too much information on the people who were successful. They went into the process fairly and did their best like everybody else.

I don't know all the successful applicants but of the successful applicants I do know, every single one of them is or has worked for npws. I find that strange.

I know people who have dedicated their careers to make themselves the perfect candidates for these jobs and have relevant experience in all of the categories you mentioned, not just one or two caetgories but every single one of them.

I can only speak of the candidate whose cv I know very well, I know a lot of candidates that have more impressive CVS and more relevant experience. What they didn't have is experience working with npws. Going on CVS alone, while this person has a good cv, they were not the best candidate for the job. Something tipped the balance for them, and maybe for the other npws staff members too. Maybe they all give very good interviews or maybe they went in to the interview with an advantage.

OpenYourEyes

stevespring wrote: »

I want to be very careful of what I say as I don't want to divulge too much information on the people who were successful. They went into the process fairly and did their best like everybody else.

I don't know all the successful applicants but of the successful applicants I do know, every single one of them is or has worked for npws. I find that strange.

I know people who have dedicated their careers to make themselves the perfect candidates for these jobs and have relevant experience in all of the categories you mentioned, not just one or two caetgories but every single one of them.

I can only speak of the candidate whose cv I know very well, I know a lot of candidates that have more impressive CVS and more relevant experience. What they didn't have is experience working with npws. Going on CVS alone, while this person has a good cv, they were not the best candidate for the job. Something tipped the balance for them, and maybe for the other npws staff members too. Maybe they all give very good interviews or maybe they went in to the interview with an advantage.

I know people who have or are currently working for NPWS that a) didnt progress past the early stages of the application process, b) didn't progress past the later stages of the application process, c) didn't get a particularly high ranking after the interview process, and d) got offered a position but not in or near an area they would consider moving to. Maybe your problem is that you're jumping to conclusions based on a very very small sample size?

Also, Ireland being the small place it is, it's hard not to have had some level of interaction with NPWS over the course of a career - either working alongside NPWS staff or working on a project that is NPWS-funded, if not directly employed on a contract basis in an education, general operative, surveying role etc. It isn't that there's a privileged few who are 'in' with NPWS. Also only two NPWS staff interviewed applicants, so for there to be some favoritism the applicants would have to have been lucky enough to know that person interviewing them - the odds of which are very very small. The Public Jobs crowd went through the CVs and dealt with the recruitment from start to finish, and at the only stage where an NPWS person had any input there was a civil servant from a completely seperate department there as a counter-weight to ensure any sort of favoritism could be counter-balanced.

From the very start there have been people suggesting there would be favoritism, and people projecting their own views of what a ranger should be onto the role. I know people who were disappointed to miss out this time despite being perfect for the role, but they don't feel it was because of favoritism or 'jobs for the boys' or anything like that.

stevespring

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

I know people who have or are currently working for NPWS that a) didnt progress past the early stages of the application process, b) didn't progress past the later stages of the application process, c) didn't get a particularly high ranking after the interview process, and d) got offered a position but not in or near an area they would consider moving to. Maybe your problem is that you're jumping to conclusions based on a very very small sample size?

Also, Ireland being the small place it is, it's hard not to have had some level of interaction with NPWS over the course of a career - either working alongside NPWS staff or working on a project that is NPWS-funded, if not directly employed on a contract basis in an education, general operative, surveying role etc. It isn't that there's a privileged few who are 'in' with NPWS. Also only two NPWS staff interviewed applicants, so for there to be some favoritism the applicants would have to have been lucky enough to know that person interviewing them - the odds of which are very very small. The Public Jobs crowd went through the CVs and dealt with the recruitment from start to finish, and at the only stage where an NPWS person had any input there was a civil servant from a completely seperate department there as a counter-weight to ensure any sort of favoritism could be counter-balanced.

From the very start there have been people suggesting there would be favoritism, and people projecting their own views of what a ranger should be onto the role. I know people who were disappointed to miss out this time despite being perfect for the role, but they don't feel it was because of favoritism or 'jobs for the boys' or anything like that.

I would love to be wrong and I had high hopes for this process from the very start.

After the interview stage (where the NPWS staff have the most power) there was also the 'Committee' stage. I'm not saying the process is as insidious as you think I am, but to me it appears that working for the NPWS (the more recent the better) has helped people.

For example, I would put working for many years in an Environmental Consultancy on the top of my list as the best type of experience by far for becoming a Ranger. I know many people with multi year consultancy experience who were not treated kindly by their panel position.

In some instances the people offered the roles do not have that type of experience. They certainly have the education part down but so do most people who applied. What set these few apart?

If any one else knows the experience levels of those offered roles I am happy to compare notes via PM (without revealing any personnel info of the people involved). I would love nothing more than to be served humble pie and have my faith restored but as it stands, some of the roles have been offered to people who have never done an EIA in their lives. Does that make sense? Am I wrong to think that Consultancy experience and all that entails is the most relevant type of experience for the job?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

stevespring wrote: »

Am I wrong to think that Consultancy experience and all that entails is the most relevant type of experience for the job?

I'm not going to get into this any further for a mired of reasons but Yes, you are wrong to place such priority on consultancy experience and I don't think you fully appreciate the role of a NPWS Ranger.

At that I'm out.

stevespring

Adeline Old-fashioned Check wrote: »

I'm not going to get into this any further for a mired of reasons but Yes, you are wrong to place such priority on consultancy experience and I don't think you fully appreciate the role of a NPWS Ranger.

At that I'm out.

Thanks for your reply and it's a pity you won't debate further as your input would be invaluable (considering your position).

Rest assured I know exactly what the role involves. If anybody has any more info that could fill the gaps I would be happy to say I'm wrong.

I'm confident in saying that every single position I've heard about has been accepted by people currently or very recently working for npws (over 50% of the total number of available positions). I am being told that that is a coincidence. I find that hard to believe.

My knowledge of the role leads me to believe that consultancy experience is better suited to the role than some of the positions the successful candidates currently have or had with the npws.

OpenYourEyes

stevespring wrote: »

Thanks for your reply and it's a pity you won't debate further as your input would be invaluable (considering your position).

Rest assured I know exactly what the role involves. If anybody has any more info that could fill the gaps I would be happy to say I'm wrong.

I'm confident in saying that every single position I've heard about has been accepted by people currently or very recently working for npws (over 50% of the total number of available positions). I am being told that that is a coincidence. I find that hard to believe.

My knowledge of the role leads me to believe that consultancy experience is better suited to the role than some of the positions the successful candidates currently have or had with the npws.

There's 6 positions - saying "over 50%" makes it seem like a large sample size. Less than 6 is a tiny sample size.

And you're not bring told it's a coincidence, you're being told you're putting way too much weight into one of a long long long list of factors that will have resulted in people getting offers and ranking highly. You're free to believe whatever helps you sleep at night, but you're being deeply disrespectful to the successful and unsuccessful candidates based on your preconceived notions and limited knowledge.

stevespring

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

There's 6 positions - saying "over 50%" makes it seem like a large sample size. Less than 6 is a tiny sample size.

And you're not bring told it's a coincidence, you're being told you're putting way too much weight into one of a long long long list of factors that will have resulted in people getting offers and ranking highly. You're free to believe whatever helps you sleep at night, but you're being deeply disrespectful to the successful and unsuccessful candidates based on your preconceived notions and limited knowledge.

All I've been saying is that some of the available roles are being offered to current or very recent staff of NPWS. I know the roles some of these people have come from and I would question how the experience is better suited to the job than someone who has industry experience etc.

I would love to talk to Srameen (or anybody else for that matter) about these roles (as I'm sure he/she knows the ones i'm talking about) and why they are better suited for Ranger work than industry experience etc. I am happy to talk via PM if that whats preferred and if I am wrong, I will come back here and apologise for reading the situation incorrectly.

Openyoureyes, it is not my intention of being disrespectful to anyone, I am calling something as I see it. Perhaps my sample size is small but it looks very suspicious to me. Once I hear more I'll fill in the blanks and let people make their own minds up.

Forgive me if Im wrong but I got the insinuation from your post that you think I have an axe to grind, perhaps an unsuccessful applicant venting some frustration. Rest assured, while I would have loved this job as a young man, a settled family and mortgage made it impossible for me to consider this position. I do however work in the industry and know many friends and colleagues who applied for the role and in my opinion, given their experience and knowledge should have been higher in the panel. I'm very disappointed for them and am venting for what to me looks like a suspicious process.

To my knowledge there will be a large number of positions to be filled throughout the lifetime of the panel, so anybody further down, dont give up hope. There is a reason why they interviewed such a large number of people (triple figures). In the meantime, pray that the economy holds up

:D.

The main gripe I've heard is in how the panel has been formed (only being able to pick two regions). Seems to me that "Regional Panels" is the wrong way to do it and penalises people for picking the wrong region. It may mean that the best people for the job (according to the panel) will be left waiting for a position to become available in their chosen regions while people in a lower position on the "Overall Panel" may be offered jobs before them based solely on geography/luck of the draw. However, I doubt that's an issue created by NPWS and more the fault of public jobs. Anyone in this position and is unhappy about it should get onto Public jobs and let them know how you feel, change only happens when enough people complain.

OpenYourEyes

stevespring wrote: »

The main gripe I've heard is in how the panel has been formed (only being able to pick two regions). Seems to me that "Regional Panels" is the wrong way to do it and penalises people for picking the wrong region. It may mean that the best people for the job (according to the panel) will be left waiting for a position to become available in their chosen regions while people in a lower position on the "Overall Panel" may be offered jobs before them based solely on geography/luck of the draw. However, I doubt that's an issue created by NPWS and more the fault of public jobs. Anyone in this position and is unhappy about it should get onto Public jobs and let them know how you feel, change only happens when enough people complain.

We can certainly agree there - I know some people were trying to be strategic in their picks by trying to predict where there would and wouldn't be vacancies arising. Surely they should rank people as they fit the job specs, and work their way down the list offering them their choice of vacant positions (maybe allowing for one refusal based on location, but not a second refusal). By design it means the highest ranked people won't necessarily even be offered a job. I can only assume that some areas were heavily over-requested while others probably had very few high-ranking candidates applying for them. Bizarre indeed!

magicbastarder

i was talking to someone in the NPWS recently who made a comment along the lines of 'yeah, they were pretty much all filled internally' when i mentioned the recent job competition.

Del.Monte

magicbastarder wrote: »

i was talking to someone in the NPWS recently who made a comment along the lines of 'yeah, they were pretty much all filled internally' when i mentioned the recent job competition.

Like Civil Service/Local Authority jobs - the Ads for appearances sake - I was at interviews like that years ago. Interview panels with people yawning and going through the motions. :rolleyes:

stevespring

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

We can certainly agree there - I know some people were trying to be strategic in their picks by trying to predict where there would and wouldn't be vacancies arising. Surely they should rank people as they fit the job specs, and work their way down the list offering them their choice of vacant positions (maybe allowing for one refusal based on location, but not a second refusal). By design it means the highest ranked people won't necessarily even be offered a job. I can only assume that some areas were heavily over-requested while others probably had very few high-ranking candidates applying for them. Bizarre indeed!

Even letting people pick more than two regions would have done the trick. There were plenty of people who were willing to move anywhere in Ireland for the job. Strange that they gave an overall panel score if they weren't going to use it. Still, we should be grateful they are hiring now (even if I do think they are favouring certain people), long overdue.

stevespring

Update:

I am aware of who 5 of the current 6 positions have been offered/accepted by.

4 of the 5 have been internal appointments, some with very little experience. The 5th, can be considered an external candidate.

When I compare the CV for the external candidate to some of the internal candidates, it is like night and day. However, I dont want to be repeating myself. But it does go to show the quality of the people who have come behind the internal applicants in the panel. I would hope that the internal applicants will be exhausted now and that external candidates will have a fair run of it.

'Chaos' would be the consensus opinion of the people Ive talked to about what is going on with recruitment at the moment. With even senior managers not knowing whats happening and rumours circulating of possible new positions opening up but all very up in the air.