Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Are Intelligence Agencies' Hiring Procedures Too Strict?

  1. #21
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default From across the water: how SIS recruits?

    The UK overseas intelligence agency, SIS (formerly known as MI6), is marking it's first century and there is this gem or "spin" on how it recruits: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-join-MI6.html

    davidbfpo

  2. #22
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    interesting bit of agitprop. I had known for some time that one had to have two kills to become a "00" but I didn't know much about the the rest of the recruiting process.

    SFC W

  3. #23
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    16

    Default It seems inevitable

    That the DOD will follow the lead of State, CIA, and NSA with regard to their ability to overlook certain things. Also with the pressure on the OPM to conduct faster initial and other clearance investigations it is more likely that more individuals will gain clearance. Or the oppposite could happen with less people even being considered for clearance, as cited earlier in the thread.
    Just from cursory reading it seems that the pressure on OPM to meet timelines is intense. Something that I do not necessarily agree with. The article is here, and there is a link to the opm site.

    http://www.federaldaily.com/federald...3/FD030308.htm

  4. #24
    Council Member AnalyticType's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    66

    Question I've got a related question

    In the last 7 months I have interviewed for three positions with DIA, two at SOCOM, and one at SOUTHCOM. I interview well, and presented well-polished writing samples. All three positions were at Payband 2, for which I am qualified. But while the interviews were positive (one with SOCOM was stellar), I was not offered a job. These were all at Tampa Hiring Events, by the way, should that make a difference.

    My question is this: Is age an advantage to some while a disadvantage to others, when in either case they've got freshly minted Bachelor degrees?

    Specifically, I am 45 years old, and recently finished my undergrad degree. My impression is that my age, versatility and broad-spectrum background all are advantages. But I wonder whether that's an accurate impression. Do you perceive that there is an "age threshold" in the hiring practices of the DoD intelligence analysis elements?

    What say you all?

    Victoria
    "At least we're getting the kind of experience we need for the next war." -- Allen Dulles

    A work of art worth drooling over: http://www.maxton.com/intimidator1/i...r1_page4.shtml

  5. #25
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Rocky Mtn Empire
    Posts
    473

    Default

    Truth in lending -- I worked for DIA for almost a decade on the operations side of the house. OE don't do analysis.

    I have no personal knowledge of your exact situation WRT SOCOM/SOUTHCOM.

    I would, however, offer the following observation. Tom can add his $.02. You are job hunting in a heavily military population (Tampa). At your age, your primary competition probably takes the form of recently retired officers/NCOs about age 42. Some may have even worked the exact issues that DIA is hiring against. That's a tough crowd.

    Coupla recs --
    1) keep trying.
    2) try to break into a civilian organization, maybe "one-off" your primary interest/expertise. (TSA, ICE, big DHS)
    3) look into the civilian contract intel field. These cos tend to be incestuous with their parent agencies (former FBI, CIA, etc.)

    Good luck. This is currently a growth industry. There will be opportunities.

  6. #26
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    You may also want to consider the Washington DC area. I did a short stint in a command that was heavy with intel folks. The vast majority were civilian contractors. Most of them were retired military, but if you've got the qualifications then I don't think it matters. Lots of the retired military folks that I worked with did not come from a specialty that had anything to do with the work that they did as contractors.

  7. #27
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Eagle View Post
    Truth in lending -- I worked for DIA for almost a decade on the operations side of the house. OE don't do analysis.

    I have no personal knowledge of your exact situation WRT SOCOM/SOUTHCOM.

    I would, however, offer the following observation. Tom can add his $.02. You are job hunting in a heavily military population (Tampa). At your age, your primary competition probably takes the form of recently retired officers/NCOs about age 42. Some may have even worked the exact issues that DIA is hiring against. That's a tough crowd.

    Coupla recs --
    1) keep trying.
    2) try to break into a civilian organization, maybe "one-off" your primary interest/expertise. (TSA, ICE, big DHS)
    3) look into the civilian contract intel field. These cos tend to be incestuous with their parent agencies (former FBI, CIA, etc.)

    Good luck. This is currently a growth industry. There will be opportunities.

    Only to echo what Eagle says, specifically keep trying. Lots of work out there and it will continue to evolve. Look at service intelligence and by all means look at DHS. As I understand it, they are still in the growing pains era so the turmoil creates opportunities.

    And also Schmedlap gives good advice as DC remains the intelligence epicenter if you can put up with living in the area. Consider if you can doing an overseas tour as a break in effort.

    Best of luck

    Tom

  8. #28
    Council Member AnalyticType's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    66

    Thumbs up Thank you

    for the advice. I have been jobhunting primarily (but not exclusively) with DIA and the DoD branch intell commands. I confess to some reluctance to go in the direction of DHS, but you are right in suggesting that I do so. I know that the hard part is getting in the door, as for me that includes the clearance process (I don't have one...yet) so taking the side entrance versus the front door may do the trick. Other entities with whom I've applied over the last two years include CIA and State. I've also tried going the contractor route with Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, SAIC, Northrop-Grumman, General Dynamics, ArmorGroup and Xe (the former Blackwater...yes, I know...).

    I interviewed well with Lockheed, followed up diligently, and never received a yes, maybe, or hell no. Northrop was a similar experience. In both instances I had personal interviews with hiring managers when they came to campus to recruit. SAIC called back very quickly and started to make a verbal offer over the phone, but the lack of a clearance brought it all to a screeching halt.

    Initially I had been applying predominantly with contractors, as a significantly higher proportion of the recruiters who came to campus were from that sector. But I perceived that they were reluctant to initiate the background/clearance process with any but the traditional-aged students. So I aimed my efforts at the USG, in nearly all geographic areas.

    By the way, I am unencumbered by family, lease, mortgage or similar geographic ties. In every instance my interviewers have expressed a great deal of interest in my willingness literally to go anywhere on this planet, on short notice.

    I will follow up on the DHS suggestion and, have no fear, I will keep trying!

    Thanks again, gentlemen!

    Victoria


    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    Only to echo what Eagle says, specifically keep trying. Lots of work out there and it will continue to evolve. Look at service intelligence and by all means look at DHS. As I understand it, they are still in the growing pains era so the turmoil creates opportunities.

    And also Schmedlap gives good advice as DC remains the intelligence epicenter if you can put up with living in the area. Consider if you can doing an overseas tour as a break in effort.

    Best of luck

    Tom
    "At least we're getting the kind of experience we need for the next war." -- Allen Dulles

    A work of art worth drooling over: http://www.maxton.com/intimidator1/i...r1_page4.shtml

  9. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wana88 View Post
    There appears to be an embedded (cultural?) tendency in the IC hiring process to suspect those with any kinds of "connections" to critical regions.
    Yet profile examination of IC members convicted of espionage/treason since 1980 reveals the following variables: white males, christian (majority), jewish (one), anglo saxon, insecure, greedy, alcoholic, financial problems, large egos, disgruntled and could repeatedly pass a poly with flying colors (read: Walkers, Hanssen, Ames etc) The only two that stand out who had familial connections to the state they sold out to were Pollard (Israel) and Montes (Cuba). I think there were also a couple of Chinese descent as well.

    Yet, to date, the IC continues to "suspect" those with critical skills. While the hiring process of the IC must be rigorous, potential hires need to meet some sort of "loyalty" criteria rather than trying to shed their ethnic baggage. The IC needs that baggage (language, time spent in region, cultural comprehension) to win the type of long war we indefinitely face.

    Wana 88
    That isn't even a valid argument due to the fact that you are basing your argument of a small subset of data that certainly cannot be verified as accurate. You're basing it off a description of spies who have been caught. These spies represent what percentage of actual spies working with the U.S. intelligence community? Oh yeah, you can't tell me that, therefore we can't verify whether the subset you base your assessment off of is actually representative of the entire population.

    And personally, I think it should be even harder to obtain a TS clearance than it currently is, and less people should be having access to that information.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •