Conservation Ranger

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?

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 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 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.

Quick Update:

Over 10 ten rangers employed from the panel so far which is great to see.

One major downside is that due to the regional selection process they had to go very low down on the overall panel to fill a position in a region that wasnt a popular choice. A lot of candidates higher on the list were passed over due to the lottery of choosing the wrong region.