I am data driven and I did take the time to do an analysis with the help of LinkedIn.
Total names on the reserve list (excluding the hidden ones) = 59
Individuals who work / have worked for any of the institutions / agencies = 56
Successful external candidates without institutions / agencies experiences = 3
56 out of 59 = 94.91%
Wondering if others made similar observations for other competitions?
Hi David,
Hi David,
Please find below a reply from one of our experts:
"Based on your analysis, the number of successful candidates who are working / have worked for the EU Institutions in comparison to those who haven't is indeed significant. The EPSO website in general publishes the overall figure including those candidates who opted to remain anonymous. This last category is composed of successful candidates who are currently very probably working for another employer. This element is then very likely to increase the amount of laureates without prior EU experience. In general, EPSO competitions attract a high number of current and former EU staff. In my capacity as a former advisor to the EPSO Selection Boards, I confirm, the Boards only select on the basis of the eligibility conditions as laid down in the competition notice, this being their legal obligation.
Mr. Gillis, with 4,000
Mr. Gillis, with 4,000 applicants and a reserve list of approximately 250, let's assume that 90-95% of those on the reserve list are currently working in the EU and have successfully made it onto the list.
Since the reserve list is always larger than the number of available vacancies, my question is: Do those with EU experience have a higher likelihood of being selected for new vacancies compared to those without it? If so, the fact that 90-95% of the reserve list is filled with candidates who already have EU experience makes me uncomfortable.
For example, consultants and individuals working for institutions or governments outside the EU might have a lower chance, even if they possess similar experience and qualifications.
These statistics lead me to believe that the system may be somewhat biased. I think there should be a separate competition for those already working in the EU, to create more opportunities for candidates from outside the EU...And yes competing in AD7 / AD6 levels is probably more wanted than cast positions.
With "EU" I mean the European
With "EU" I mean the European Union / Parliament and its institutions and bodies.
Hi.
Hi.
This is an interesting topic but can lead to unnecesary controversy.
In my opinion, data provided by David is limited considering an average reserve list of 250 members. If there are 250-59 = 191 hidden candidates and most of them work for private companies (an assumption that makes sense and I would probably choose too because of privacy reasons) then more than 70% of the succesful candidates would be outsiders. We do not know is this is true because of a lack of data and we should not make strong conclusions/decisions based on it.
What is relevant is what Luc says: "In my capacity as a former advisor to the EPSO Selection Boards, I confirm, the Boards only select on the basis of the eligibility conditions as laid down in the competition notice, this being their legal obligation". What means that being insider or outsider is irrelevant if one´s does not comply with eligibility checks (real experience in the field) and indirectly acknowledges that tests are a kind of candidates cut.
This is just my opinion as a total outsider and completely new to the EPSO world.
Good luck to everyone.
Isabel
The number 250 was just an
The number 250 was just an example, based on my thinking about the ongoing AD7 transport competition. David has different numbers, so I apologize if the text was misleading.
What I was referring to is that while the competition notice specifies that only relevant experience matters, I assume that individuals with EU experience and the appropriate qualifications may have an advantage. Based on my research, employers often prefer to hire candidates who are similar to themselves, such as former employees with similar degrees and backgrounds. But all the points are valid and I think we have some proper critical thinking here in all the irony :D
Yes, thank you for the
Yes, thank you for the clarification. The analysis is interesting indeed and probably accurate.
It is clear that the amount of insiders in the sample provided can mainly be explained by excess of preference over one type of profile. But so many specifications in every competition make it difficult to get a conducive evidence valid for every process.
Of course, I am aware that my positiveness is a kind of bias too and I am just trying to convince myself that I have possibilities to be selected :)
Thank you all for
Thank you all for contributing to this thread. Just to clarify. The total reserve list is composed of 61 successful candidates, of which 2 are hidden, bringing the total of individuals I have assessed on LinkedIn to 59. Hence - the maximum amount of people with no EU institution / agencies is 5 (the 3 I mentioned above plus the potential 2).
For the sake of transparency, the assessment is based on this list: https://eu-careers.europa.eu/en/job-opportunities/administrators-field-e...
Hi David!
Hi David!
I also started doing the same calculations for my own specialist competition. Before I had finished scanning the visible names of the reserve list, I had already more than 50% of the candidates currently working for an EU institution.
Now, the real question isn't on the eligibility requirements, as answered by Luc. It's about the fact that the hiring isn't over at all after the publication of the reserve lists.
So, how can I, an external candidate, be persuaded that people already working for the EU, with all the relevant knowledge (at the minimum of organizational structure and procedures) plus the inevitable connections with EU officials, have the same possibility of success as me?
If not, how can this be considered equal treatment?
I asked this from EPSO and
I asked this from EPSO and they don't answer me. It's been now 5 days.
If you smell a problem, you better be silenced - not enough diversity coming outside of current administrators with this tactic they have.
Good morning all,
Good morning all,
I think the situation is rather simple, unfortunately.
- There are thousands of people working in the institutions with precarious contracts (TA, CA etc) who will be essentially unemployed when their contract ends, for various reasons, either because they reached the maximum term possible or the contract can simply not be renewed or converted to a permanent one.
- All these people have great insider experience. They know how the "machine" works and its written and unwritten rules.
- There are not enough internal competitions that offer a possibility to these people to "stabilize" their professional situation.
- Internal competitions are overrun by internal people who may be at a lower level and aspire to a higher one, in addition to the people I mention above
Hence, EPSO finds itself in the situation where exteranl competitions are filled with internal candidates, who know the job inside out.
In addition to this, EPSO has an additional bias in how they ask questions in, for example, the talent screener: "Do you have at least one year of professional experience in designing, negotiating, monitoring or implementing policies, strategies or regulations in one or more of the following sectors XYZ" or "Do you have experience in handling infringement procedures".
I am sorry to say, but if you come from the private sector, there won't be many infringement procedures you have handled.
The only solution to this massive bias would be to organize external competitions only for individuals who have never worked at any of the institutions.
We all know that's not going to happen anytime soon
Have a great day
This is spot-on. And I'd
This is spot-on. And I'd argue it's even worse. To sum up:
- Thousands of people work as CAs, TAs, trainees and want to become permanent
- Most of these people have exclusive access to internal EPSO competitions
- All of these people have access to external EPSO competitions
- EPSO competitions often require or highly value experience that external candidates can't possibly possess
- EPSO competitions result in reserve lists, the laureates of which still have to apply for vacancies that value or require EU-related experience
- The thousands of people already working in another capacity for EU institutions, also have the benefit of being networked with EU officials.
I'd add to that another untold truth: CA and TA jobs also often do require or highly value EU-related experience and the majority of CAs and TAs get their jobs through networking. Of course not everyone but it's often the case.
All above is true...apart
All above is true...apart from the preambule...
Why should an organisation not select from a pool of candiates who already do the job? Why should it be a negative thing? If you were a head of unit whom you would select among two candidates: one that is already doing the job (on a temporary contract) in your team or someone that you have never met before, who might be a perfect candidate on paper (and even in real life), but might also end up being a complete mismatch for the unit. And, in both cases, you need to allocate a lot of time for induction, on the job trainiing and so on. Not to forget that EU institutions are one of a kind, very specific so the adaptation takes time.
Finally, people already working for EU institutions on temporary contracts still need to pass an EPSO competitions. Here previous working experience with EU does not help.
But who said an organisation
But who said an organisation wouldn't benefit from selecting internal candidates? The problem isn't about EU institutions; it's about EU citizens who have the skills/interest to join them and aren't fairly treated.
In order for the current situation to be transparent, the internal candidates that participate - and succeed - in competitions should be as rigorously and transparently selected. This isn't always the case though, and there is a widespread view that working for an EU institution equals having connections.
Although this isn't a fair judgement for the tons of candidates who managed their way in on equal terms, it's evidence of how selection procedures are perceived by the public: obscure and unfair.
But who said an organisation
But who said an organisation wouldn't benefit from selecting internal candidates? The problem isn't about EU institutions; it's about EU citizens who have the skills/interest to join them and aren't fairly treated.
In order for the current situation to be transparent, the internal candidates that participate - and succeed - in competitions should be as rigorously and transparently selected. This isn't always the case though, and there is a widespread view that working for an EU institution equals having connections.
Although this isn't a fair judgement for the tons of candidates who managed their way in on equal terms, it's evidence of how selection procedures are perceived by the public: obscure and unfair.
Case closed now. Amen.
Case closed now. Amen.
Thank you for your message and your interest in EPSO’s selection procedures and competitions.
While we acknowledge your personal research efforts using LinkedIn, we must emphasise that our organisation relies on collected comprehensive data rather than social media analyses. The number of successful candidates with EU work experience that you refer to, is not based on confirmed data and statistically not representative. Please note that official reference documents including statistics, such as EPSO’s annual Management Plans and Activity Reports, can be consulted on the EU Careers website.
Referring to your suggestion to organise separate competitions for internal and external candidates, we can confirm that all EU institutions have the possibility to organise internal competitions for their staff. External competitions, however, are open competitions to all, independent where a candidate works or has worked in the past. All candidates who meet the eligibility criteria of an open competition -as published in the respective Notice of Competition- can apply, regardless of whether they might be current or former staff of the EU institutions, agencies or any other public administration.
Equal treatment in EPSO’s competitions is ensured via the fact that objective evaluation criteria are adopted prior to the selection, in accordance with the competition notice, and are rigorously applied to all candidates. Our selection process is designed to be fair and unbiased. Applications are anonymised, ensuring that each candidate is evaluated solely on their merits and qualifications. There are no specific quotas for nationalities, diversity, or previous work experience.
EPSO’s marking process for tests always involves at least two markers, with a view to improving the objectivity and fairness of the process. Marking is a double-blind process, i.e. markers are not informed about the identity of the author of the scripts, and do not know the mark provided by the other marker. Every marking exercise is analysed by EPSO’s team of psychologists in order to detect any possible bias or inequality of treatment. In case of significant discrepancies between the two markers, a third marker is called in to assess the tests in question and to provide a definitive mark.
Once a reserve list is published, it is the responsibility of the EU Recruiting Services (not of EPSO) to invite successful candidates to an interview according to their respective job vacancies, based on the candidates’ results and application.
While your observations about the composition of a specific reserve list are noted, a possible high proportion of successful candidates with EU experience could be due to various factors, including but not limited to their relevant skills, qualifications, and familiarity with EU processes.
EPSO continuously strives to improve its selection processes to ensure fair and equal opportunities for all candidates while attracting diverse talent.
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts. We hope this clarifies our approach to our selection procedures.
Hahaha, nice one. To be fair,
Hahaha, nice one. To be fair, EPSO just follows the defined procedures; they are not the ones responsible for the unfair treatment we are talking about. They aren't the ones who decide which profiles or which skills/experiences are required.