Prep for Foreign Service Officer exam

[Pol-Mil FSO]

I have ambivalent views about the attractiveness of the Foreign Service as a career. On some days I would say that it has been a great opportunity to go places, do things, and witness history that I would never have gotten in any private sector job. On other days I would say that coping with the bureaucractic BS and a dysfunctional foreign service culture just isn't worth it. After 22 years, the main reason I stick around is because I want my sons to live in a prosperous and powerful country - I thus see my job as using my modest talent and experience to contribute to "empire maintenance."

Although my view may be skewed by my focus on Latin America, I think the GAO criticism of State Department language capability is overblown. Lack of language skills is a big problem in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that is due to the wartime pressure of trying to annually staff a large number of slots - the Department quickly blew through its pool of Arabic speakers and never had many Pashto and Dari speakers for historical reasons. I do not think it has been a problem in other areas of the world, at least for political and economic officer positions. At times it has admittedly been a different story for consular and management officers, junior officers, and diplomatic security special agents, among others, because these groups have not been given the emphasis nor resources to develop sufficient language capability. Finally, as noted in another post, the State Department language capability, with all of its failings, is superior to that of any other USG agency overseas.

The Foreign Service downsides that almost always grab the attention of FSOs with prior military service are 1) the lack of leadership skills or even training and 2) the blatant careerist mentality of most FSOs. FSOs are recruited based on their individual achievements and generally rewarded for their analytic ability and written and verbal skills. "Taking care of the troops" is not in the Foreign Service vocabulary. Secretary Powell and Deputy Secretary Armitage tried to change this by, among other things, instituting mandatory leadership training at every rank but the Foreign Service Institute turned this initiative into "touchy-feely" courses that have little to do with real leadership. And among the two cones that provide the majority of career ambassadors - the political and economic cones - FSOs typically rise to senior ranks without ever being in charge of more that a dozen persons. In many instances, we see "successful" Ambassadors who do a great job of managing the Washington bureaucracy and relations with the host country while presiding over an Embassy that has poor morale.

The careerist mentality is also very disconcerting to persons used to the military but it is ingrained in the Foreign Service culture in large part because of the peculiar assignment process that place FSOs in direct competition with their peers to gain career-enhancing postings. For the most ambitious FSOs (especially prevalent in the political cone) it is not unusual to start trying to line up a subsequent job even as they arrive in their current job.
Some assignments will have 30 or more bidders on the position; the frontrunners are those who can obtain support from senior officers and form alliances in the geographic and functional bureaus that control assignments in embassies overseas. (The personnel bureau in the State Department doesn't truly make assignments - it merely ratifies decisions made in the bureaus. For example, the European Affairs Bureau decides who will be selected to the Political Counselor job and other Political Officer positions in in Embassy Paris.)

A final thought - I would have to be characterized as an "old fart" because I am not impressed by new FSOs who complain about the requirement to do at least one tour as a vice consul or do other things that they consider to be beneath their experience level. I see what I consider to be many self-centered and ill-disciplined individuals among those joining the Foreign Service these days. If it was up to me, I would not let anyone become an FSO unless they had prior experience in the U.S. Armed Forces, Peace Corps, or AmeriCorps.

[Schmedlap]

I'm glad that this isn't something that I had my heart set on. I just figured that there's no harm in taking the test and seeing what happens. But this is an interesting thread for me and, I suspect, anyone else considering such a career.

[Tom Odom]

If it was up to me, I would not let anyone become an FSO unless they had prior experience in the U.S. Armed Forces, Peace Corps, or AmeriCorps

As a retired Army FAO, with 6 tours around embasses, two times as a war zone DATT, and now serving as a POLAD in Iraq when State didn't come through with a serious nominee for my boss, I can only say:

Hell yes!

Tom

PS

Old farts rule!

[John T. Fishel]

I certainly agree with FSO's sentiment. I wonder if it could actually be made a requirement. If I were King - it's good to be the King - I think I would give major preferences to those categories of individuals (along with some related experiences). Retired military would go to the head of the line at all stages of the recruitment process for all cones. RPCVs would be next in line, followed by former but not retired military, and them by Americorps. Last in line would be those fresh out of school with none of this experience.

I was particularly impressed watching my friend Ambassador Ed Corr in El Salvador because he was so clearly in "command" of his embassy. John Waghelstein makes the same observation about Deane Hinton. I've seen other Ambassadors who obviously didn't have the first conception of what a commander is let alonewhat one does. (But I would also have to acknowledge that I've seen a bunch of very bad military officers in command...)

Cheers

JohnT

[davidbfpo]

(taken from)I think I would give major preferences to those categories of individuals... RPCVs would be next in line..

John,

What is a RPCV? Retired Peace Corps Volunteer.

davidbfpo

[mawawe]

Returned Peace Corps Volunteer. An RPCV is anyone who has successfully completed their two years of service with the Peace Corps.

[Schmedlap]

In no particular order...

I just got home from taking the exam. That was even easier than I anticipated. I mean, some of the questions were so simple that I read them three times just to make sure they really were that simple. Some tested one's basic understanding of how e-mail works and how to do basic functions in a word processor. I guess that means they're looking for office minions, rather than diplomats?

I finished two of the sections with at least ten minutes remaining - even after going back and double-checking my answers. The 30-minute essay is a real scramble - I might have made a few typos, as I was just finishing up and proofreading with about 15 seconds to go. Not very much time to read the issue, consider the question, outline an argument, and then type it.

The personal questionnaire was the only section that I had a really difficult time finishing within the time limit. Many questions take the form of, "how often do you [whatever] at your job?" or "how many jobs have you had where [random skill] is utilized?" For many questions, if you answer "often" or "more than 4" or something like that, then you are prompted to briefly describe whatever it is you were asked about. I suppose that some people might answer "never" or "rarely" to many of those. For me, I always had something to describe. I literally finished that section with about 6 seconds to spare because I had something to type in every textbox.

As for the job knowledge and English parts of the test, it would not surprise me if a significant number of people got every question right. It was that easy. I suspect that many high school students could ace the English portion (basically, if you're scoring over 700 on the SAT verbal, then you should ace this). For the job knowledge stuff, having completed an MBA program helped a little, but I suspect that I could have figured out the answers even without that. It just might have taken an extra few seconds per question (mainly the ones dealing with how to resolve conflicts in the workplace). I am only uncertain about two questions on the entire test. One was pure trivia (what was such-and-such random unremarkable piece of legislation known as?) and another would vary depending upon the political ideology of the question-writer (I assumed the writer leaned to the left - a safe assumption, imo, but it would be nice if the question had simply been a test of knowledge rather than bias).

In short, the FSO exam fails to live up to the hype - just like every other exam I've ever taken. I think many of these exams are hyped up just so that people will waste money buying books and taking classes to prepare for them. Good IO work by Kaplan, et al. I am not very smart and I did well enough on the SAT, GMAT, and LSAT to go to the schools that I chose without any preparation. The FSO exam, in my opinion, was between the SAT and GMAT in terms of difficulty and probably shorter than any of them. I did the whole exam with no breaks in about 2:30. Again I am not a particularly bright fellow, so this test cannot be that hard. I think the stumbling block is that it is graded on such a crazy curve.

Anyway, there you have it.

My tips to prepare:
1) Be interested in politics and international affairs.
- If you read lots of international news because it interests you, then you're off to a good start. If you're buying a subscription to the Economist and skimming through it to prepare, but you're not really interested in what you're reading, then your lack of interest will probably stop you from amassing the random knowledge that you're seeking.
- In regard to politics, I mean the actual mechanics of how things get done (how a bill becomes a law; powers of each branch and each house; how the branches interact. I am not referring to petty political bickering or other nonsense that you see on cable news. Politico might be useful - though even that isn't too deep on details. But if your reading is largely crap like Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Free Republic, and Red State, then you're probably a dilettante who will rightly fail when you get three questions asking you about a specific law from the 1960s that nobody talks about anymore.
2) Know how to use MS Word and Outlook. I think several of the questions were there to make sure that they won't need to teach you how to turn on a computer, type a memo, and print or email it. Really basic stuff.
3) If you take a course on statistics and another on trade theory, then you will be more than adequately prepared for any of the math/econ questions. Those were the questions that I read over and over because I thought, "this is too obvious - why don't they just ask me who is buried in Grant's tomb?"

[Know Why]

I just took the FSOT.
Now it's time for the "Super Critical Language" test.
I am hoping my Arabic is good enough to move me up the list.
Does anyone have any idea what the “Test by phone” in Arabic will consist of?

[John T. Fishel]

can be tested by phone. With a canned test they can very easily test your ability to hear and understand - they will read a passage in Arabic (or any other language being tested) and ask a series of questions about the passage either in the language or in English. Response would be to punch the appropriate letter. This would be very similar to the DLPT tests. The technology exists to test for speaking as well. This could be a live conversation with a native speaker or something that requires spoken responses in the language which will be recorded and evaluated later. This is generally what the testing capability would be. As to what the FS actually does, I'd have to check with our Diplomat in Residence - that might take a while.

I missed your post when it went up. HT to Schmedlap for calling my attention to it.

Cheers

JohnT

[MattC86]

I didn't take the test, as I didn't take enough Arabic in school. So take this with a grain of salt.

That said, my Arabic professor did teach at Monterey before coming to Cornell, and he eventually left over fights with lots of people over what he called their insistence upon testing orally in fusha rather than colloquial dialects. Of course, the argument for fusha was that colloquial varies by region, but I would be prepared for that, since otherwise they'd have to match up your dialect with the interviewer's.

That's all I can really offer.

Matt

[Abu Suleyman]

Alright, this is not necessarily the way the FS does it but there are several criteria in an oral exam for the military. I can't remember them all, but here goes.

To get a "1", you just have to be able to answer certain questions, like what is your name, and so on.

To get a "2" you should be able to do more complicated things with the language, such as give instructions, introduce yourself, tell a story, and most importantly talk about an important news item.

To get a "3" which is very good indeed, you should be able to talk about abstract concepts, like the meaning of life, or the legitimacy of torture.

I think I have mixed a few things up, but that is the general idea. In general, the instructor has an idea of where you are in the language, and will start with introductions, and lead you through a conversation, asking questions related to the level that s/he thinks you might be at. You get two tries at a higher level, and if you get that they will move up to those level questions. A longer interview is not necessarily better.

I hope that is helpful. Again, I cannot guarantee that the FSO uses the same method.

[Jedburgh]

Again, I cannot guarantee that the FSO uses the same method.

I took the FSO phone test in Arabic - and passed - last year. My experience was that the tester (native speaker - pure الفصحى) went directly from initial introductions to level 3 discussion about politics in the region. None of the incremental feeling out for capabilities like with a DLI OPI.

[Stan]

Alright, this is not necessarily the way the FS does it but there are several criteria in an oral exam for the military. I can't remember them all, but here goes.

In early 95 after 13 weeks of Estonian I took the FS exam in DC (vs traveling to DLI). I assure you that the telephonic portion was worthless. I received a 1+ (Estonian is a 45 week course, but I didn't have that much time in CONUS).

7 months later I took the DLI version and ended up with 2+ across the board and took the local living/working permit exam and ended up with 92%.

Turns out FSI only had a Finn and she administered my exam... LMDAO

I hope that a decade later FSI actually used a real Estonian to test Estonian language

[mawawe]

I took the language test for the FBI, and I'm sure it will be the same. You sit in a room by yourself and take the test over the phone. It lasts about an hour, and no specific questions are asked. You take the test over the phone with two native speaking individuals in whatever language you're testing. You start off with basic information about yourself (your background, what you like to do, etc.), and then transition in to conversation about politics, etc. There is no specific question that is asked, it's just a long conversation to test you in all tenses of a language in a variety of settings.

[Schmedlap]

Okay, I just got a letter emailed to me today, which reads as follows...

Dear [Schmedlap],
Congratulations! The scores you achieved on your Foreign Service Officer Test (FSOT) qualify you for the next step of the Foreign Service Officer selection process, which is your prompt submission of a personal narrative for review by the Qualifications Evaluation Panel (QEP).

Any tips on the narrative?

[Hugh Davis]

When I took the test last year, the narrative was submitted with the application for the written test. If I had it to do over again, I'd have probably gone into more detail than I did. Judging by what I've read in your posts, I'd say you have a background that will be interesting to the review panel, & you express yourself well. Respond to the questionnaire, & tell them who you are & where you've been.
The big challenge seems to be the Oral Assessment. The explanatory materials on the DoS website explain the process well. There are three main components: a role-playing exercise with a group of applicants, a written exercise where you address a management problem, and a structured interview with two FSOs. The DoS website explains the process as well as I could ask for.
I'm waiting for the security clearance before the next round before an evaluation panel.
Best wishes.

[Pol-Mil FSO]

Schmedlap:

I would suggest that you stress some of the following issues:
1. experience in foreign countries
2. interaction with foreigners and understanding of foreign cultures
3. understanding of, and experience with, the interagency process
4. leadership experience
5. program management experience

At the risk of impugning your intelligence, I would also advise avoiding the following:
1. personal political, social, or religious opinions
2. personal views about foreign policy execution
3. pronouncements about grand strategy

A caveat: I do not know any FSOs who have actually served on the Board of Examiners (the entity that conducts the oral interviews). These positions are open to FSOs of any cone who have the appropriate rank but this is a niche area outside of the mainstream - not an assignment that usually attracts the ambitious or those identified as water walkers.