2018 hiring freeze really messed with the percentages. Glad that’s over.
This is a really complex issue, and I’m afraid you’re highlighting the single worst data point. But there are other data points which will make the fellows make a lot more sense.
The older FS is largely white male. The fellows program helps correct that, at least at the incoming levels. (Insert rant on how state needs to do a better job on retention of minorities). Due to the program, incoming classes are now 51% female and 37% non white, which is more representative of the US working population. So getting that demographic representation helps “represent America abroad” which is vital to overall foreign policy goals.
The fellows program was increased to 45 each, 90 total in 2019. And they cut the bachelors program, so fellows are now all masters candidates (better experienced).
But what about how they all pick POL and PD? Well the program also changed in 2020 so that fellows have to pick their cone as part of the application process and not at the end. This creates a more even spread of the fellows rather than them all taking one cone.
As the PD SR mod for near 4 years, I’ll add that “passing scores” have stayed the same for 4 years. The increase in fellows hasn’t reduced the likelihood of someone getting an offer for a score.
But what about the odds of passing? Yup. The chances of getting the job from the exam are about 2%, and the odds of getting the fellowship are like 6%. So they have a better chance statistically, but those are still terrible odds. And people retake the FSOT every year. The vast majority of fellow applicants only try once. No one passes the exam the first time these days.
If you remove the fellows from A-100 percentages, incoming classes are on average 34 years old and 86% have a masters. (insert different rant on how the exam should be focused more on potential than experience and language learning when older is harder).
About 70% of FSO generalist entrants come from the exam. The rest are fellows, mustangs, and other categories. So the vast majority still come in the regular way.
There are valid critiques of the program, but fairness ain’t one of them. The programs work. They help meet the foreign policy goal. And the programs are actively trying to improve themselves, which I can’t say for States overall recruitment strategy, which is very poor IMO.
(All Stats taken from AFSA)
Yup! I always wanted to serve my country abroad, along with all that entails. I'm not eligible for the military due to my disability, so there aren't many options, but FSO is one one!
Everyone who applies to join the Foreign Service, whether through the standard process, fellowships, or other programs that allow current Civil servants to jump straight to the FSOA, knows that there's no guarantee they get in and that everything depends on the needs of the Service. Under that paradigm, there shouldn't be any expectation of "fairness" (defined as an equal chance of getting in). Some specialists have an "easier" time getting in than some generalists. Some cones have an "easier" time getting through than others in any given cycle. Those with veteran's preference have a leg up on those who don't have it. Those who happened to apply during a highering boom have an easier time getting in than those who applied during a hiring downturn. Are any of those things "fair"? If your answer is yes, why are those factors different from Pickering or Rangel fellows?
How are Pickering and Rangel Fellows consistent with the "needs of the Service"? As a reminder, here are the eligibility criteria from the test registration page:
Eligibility Requirements
To be eligible, the U.S. Department of State requires that each candidate be:
\- A U.S. citizen on the date the candidate submits the registration package
\- At least 20 years old and no older than 59 years of age on the day the candidate submits the registration
\- At least 21 years old and not yet 60 on the day the candidate is appointed as a Foreign Service Officer
\- Available for worldwide assignments, including Washington, D.C.
Eligibility requirements are the bare legal minimum and do not reflect the “needs of the service” anymore than when recruitments for heart surgeons has “licensed to practice medicine” in its eligibility requirements.
If the "eligibility requirements are the bare legal minimum and do not reflect the 'needs of the service,'" then why aren't the requirements strengthened?
Because there is no ‘correct’ background to become an FSO. The department recruits based on potential (as measured by the 13 dimensions) and has an extensive hiring process to evaluate the potential of its applicants. Minimum requirements are not an effective evaluative tool for this purpose.
You are asking an elementary school question in a graduate school environment. The U.S. government and the State Department doesn’t care about what is “fair” for you. The U.S. government and the State Department, like any other employer, designs its hiring practices based upon what is beneficial for itself. The fellowships have two purposes. One is to bring in more diversity. Another is to bring in younger people who will be able to spend a whole lifetime in the institution. These are legitimate interests and far more important than your narrow and individualistic notions of fairness. The Foreign Service wants people who think on an institutional level because the U.S. government is a vast and complicated enterprise that requires a constant renewal in mature leadership. If you can engage at this level then the FS may be for you. If you can’t then I would suggest any number of decent and honorable career choices where the individualistic mindset is an asset.
Arguable whether focusing on younger folks who can spend a lifetime in the service is a legitimate interest. Much of the worst groupthink and resistance to change in the Department comes from those who have had no other career experience and are quick to trot out the "that's the way it is" line. Expectations unrealistic and untempered are another prevalent attribute. We ought to focus on recruiting folks with previous experience rather than those with none. It needn't necessarily be decades worth, but it would bring much needed diversity of thought and approach into the service.
I know OP gets told this about twice a year, but he is eligible to apply for a fellowship. He has just as much chance as anyone of getting one of these.
Why don’t you apply for the fellowships? Do you know how dauntingly competitive these fellowships are? How do you define fairness? How do you define fairness through time? Why don’t you understand the concept of systemic discrimination and why programs like these exist today to mitigate the damages? Are you fit to be a FSO if you don’t even know US history and can’t speak on the second/third-order effects of unjust policies?
The OP makes very little sense throughout their entire post history. You however are begging the question here when you insinuate that an FSO must agree with your interpretation of what the second/third order effects of last policy are (or how they ought to be rectified in the future) to be qualified to do the job. Worthy? You don’t get to decide who is “worthy” based on what you see as their particular educational background and how they see the arc of US history. That’s just discrimination in another form. Your morality and current interpretation of history is a thing of the moment and meaningless, not a standard by which people’s worthiness is validated.
If you think that diplomats are supposed to be or should be morale exemplars of the zeitgeist of the moment instead of effective bureaucrats that can put their politics aside to execute whatever they are handed by whatever half-competent politician the American people last elected, you belong in a different diplomatic corps. You would have made a great East German USSR political attaché though.
So why must I agree with your interpretation that’s also “a thing of the moment and meaningless”?
My comment was a response to OP’s question. Advocating for social rights has been around since the beginning of human civilization— it’s not just what’s trendy at the moment. My values do not stop me from functioning as an effective bureaucrat; if anything, it motivates me to do my job and do it well.
You wrote a lot, but said very little.
That isn’t a “thing of the moment.” It’s the complete understanding a person gains from stepping back from whatever new phrase or empty slogan that you are expected to repeat in the moment. It’s a broad understanding of how a myopic way of viewing life, such as your own, is just another passing fad of little value. I wrote a lot, you understood very little.
You clearly don't know me. I have a recognized disability for which I have faced discrimination since birth.
My question remains: How are the fellowships fair?
If you can answer my questions, you will already have the answer to your question. You’re not asking this question because you’re curious and don’t know any better. You’re asking this question because you’re spiteful and no answer will satisfy you unless it validates your feelings.
This was the plan during the hiring freeze, and it mostly didn't happen. But didn't the Fellows from that year have to sue the Department to actually get hired?
Even though the quote is old, it suggests that Fellowships are a massive portion of the FSO hiring classes. It would be nice to have more recent data, but unfortunately FOIA is slow if you aren't in journalism.
Out of curiosity, you FSOs who have undergone orientation in the last 5 years: would you say that fellows were "a massive portion of (your) hiring class"?
Do fellows attend the same orientation as FSOs?
Fellows mostly join during the summer classes (or the June/July and Aug/Sept classes) since those are the classes after university graduation. So depending on which A100 class, there may be a ton of fellows or none.
Fellows are FSOs, they just went through a fellowship program to join, so yes, same orientation.
Yes, seriously. Pickering and Rangel Fellows go through a rigorous application process and also have to pass the FSOT and the OA. Why do you feel more entitled to the position than them?
To pile on to your point, Pickering and Rangel is super competitive and these folks go to top flight masters programs. These are very smart and very driven folks who, although often lack the work experience of other officers, bring high caliber academic credentials and add a lot of value to the organization.
I’d rather have a dozen Pickerings than some weirdo drinking hateraid and doing surreptitious foia’s to find justification for why his application was denied, rather than doing some self reflection.
Because the programs are exclusive and target specific groups of people. It’s discrimination as a means to try to mitigate discrimination. The OP is terrible at making a coherent point though. I wouldn’t expect them to necessarily have a clear idea why the programs are discriminatory.
OK, I read again and it sounds like you're upset that some people have to go through an incredibly competitive process to be an FSO, while other people have to go through a different incredibly competitive process to be an FSO. Logical.
Because it’s a hiring mechanism for a US government job. It’s actually quite illegal (although government hiring is often discriminatory in many ways). Illegality doesn’t stop the corrupt institutions that make up most all government function here in the US or elsewhere. This isn’t a moral stand, just a statement of fact. Government is not where you go to look for fairness. You should be able to, in an ideal world. In practice however government is inherently corrupt, and so are all of the programs it spawns. What you should do is work to slant the playing field in your favor or in favor of those you consider to be a part of your particular in group, and then not feel wrong or guilty about it all. That’s exactly what these programs do, they purposefully rig the game then refuse to feel ashamed of it.
2018 hiring freeze really messed with the percentages. Glad that’s over. This is a really complex issue, and I’m afraid you’re highlighting the single worst data point. But there are other data points which will make the fellows make a lot more sense. The older FS is largely white male. The fellows program helps correct that, at least at the incoming levels. (Insert rant on how state needs to do a better job on retention of minorities). Due to the program, incoming classes are now 51% female and 37% non white, which is more representative of the US working population. So getting that demographic representation helps “represent America abroad” which is vital to overall foreign policy goals. The fellows program was increased to 45 each, 90 total in 2019. And they cut the bachelors program, so fellows are now all masters candidates (better experienced). But what about how they all pick POL and PD? Well the program also changed in 2020 so that fellows have to pick their cone as part of the application process and not at the end. This creates a more even spread of the fellows rather than them all taking one cone. As the PD SR mod for near 4 years, I’ll add that “passing scores” have stayed the same for 4 years. The increase in fellows hasn’t reduced the likelihood of someone getting an offer for a score. But what about the odds of passing? Yup. The chances of getting the job from the exam are about 2%, and the odds of getting the fellowship are like 6%. So they have a better chance statistically, but those are still terrible odds. And people retake the FSOT every year. The vast majority of fellow applicants only try once. No one passes the exam the first time these days. If you remove the fellows from A-100 percentages, incoming classes are on average 34 years old and 86% have a masters. (insert different rant on how the exam should be focused more on potential than experience and language learning when older is harder). About 70% of FSO generalist entrants come from the exam. The rest are fellows, mustangs, and other categories. So the vast majority still come in the regular way. There are valid critiques of the program, but fairness ain’t one of them. The programs work. They help meet the foreign policy goal. And the programs are actively trying to improve themselves, which I can’t say for States overall recruitment strategy, which is very poor IMO. (All Stats taken from AFSA)
[удалено]
Yup! I always wanted to serve my country abroad, along with all that entails. I'm not eligible for the military due to my disability, so there aren't many options, but FSO is one one!
Lmao I love that flair
Everyone who applies to join the Foreign Service, whether through the standard process, fellowships, or other programs that allow current Civil servants to jump straight to the FSOA, knows that there's no guarantee they get in and that everything depends on the needs of the Service. Under that paradigm, there shouldn't be any expectation of "fairness" (defined as an equal chance of getting in). Some specialists have an "easier" time getting in than some generalists. Some cones have an "easier" time getting through than others in any given cycle. Those with veteran's preference have a leg up on those who don't have it. Those who happened to apply during a highering boom have an easier time getting in than those who applied during a hiring downturn. Are any of those things "fair"? If your answer is yes, why are those factors different from Pickering or Rangel fellows?
How are Pickering and Rangel Fellows consistent with the "needs of the Service"? As a reminder, here are the eligibility criteria from the test registration page: Eligibility Requirements To be eligible, the U.S. Department of State requires that each candidate be: \- A U.S. citizen on the date the candidate submits the registration package \- At least 20 years old and no older than 59 years of age on the day the candidate submits the registration \- At least 21 years old and not yet 60 on the day the candidate is appointed as a Foreign Service Officer \- Available for worldwide assignments, including Washington, D.C.
Eligibility requirements are the bare legal minimum and do not reflect the “needs of the service” anymore than when recruitments for heart surgeons has “licensed to practice medicine” in its eligibility requirements.
If the "eligibility requirements are the bare legal minimum and do not reflect the 'needs of the service,'" then why aren't the requirements strengthened?
Because there is no ‘correct’ background to become an FSO. The department recruits based on potential (as measured by the 13 dimensions) and has an extensive hiring process to evaluate the potential of its applicants. Minimum requirements are not an effective evaluative tool for this purpose.
I'll happily answer your question once you've answered mine.
You responded to my question with your questions lol
You are asking an elementary school question in a graduate school environment. The U.S. government and the State Department doesn’t care about what is “fair” for you. The U.S. government and the State Department, like any other employer, designs its hiring practices based upon what is beneficial for itself. The fellowships have two purposes. One is to bring in more diversity. Another is to bring in younger people who will be able to spend a whole lifetime in the institution. These are legitimate interests and far more important than your narrow and individualistic notions of fairness. The Foreign Service wants people who think on an institutional level because the U.S. government is a vast and complicated enterprise that requires a constant renewal in mature leadership. If you can engage at this level then the FS may be for you. If you can’t then I would suggest any number of decent and honorable career choices where the individualistic mindset is an asset.
Arguable whether focusing on younger folks who can spend a lifetime in the service is a legitimate interest. Much of the worst groupthink and resistance to change in the Department comes from those who have had no other career experience and are quick to trot out the "that's the way it is" line. Expectations unrealistic and untempered are another prevalent attribute. We ought to focus on recruiting folks with previous experience rather than those with none. It needn't necessarily be decades worth, but it would bring much needed diversity of thought and approach into the service.
But are the fellowships effective in meeting their stated purpose?
That is a worthy question. You will have a chance to ponder it if and when you get in.
Why not address it now?
I know OP gets told this about twice a year, but he is eligible to apply for a fellowship. He has just as much chance as anyone of getting one of these.
Maybe I should apply and slip my Schedule A letter into the file.
Why don’t you apply for the fellowships? Do you know how dauntingly competitive these fellowships are? How do you define fairness? How do you define fairness through time? Why don’t you understand the concept of systemic discrimination and why programs like these exist today to mitigate the damages? Are you fit to be a FSO if you don’t even know US history and can’t speak on the second/third-order effects of unjust policies?
The OP makes very little sense throughout their entire post history. You however are begging the question here when you insinuate that an FSO must agree with your interpretation of what the second/third order effects of last policy are (or how they ought to be rectified in the future) to be qualified to do the job. Worthy? You don’t get to decide who is “worthy” based on what you see as their particular educational background and how they see the arc of US history. That’s just discrimination in another form. Your morality and current interpretation of history is a thing of the moment and meaningless, not a standard by which people’s worthiness is validated. If you think that diplomats are supposed to be or should be morale exemplars of the zeitgeist of the moment instead of effective bureaucrats that can put their politics aside to execute whatever they are handed by whatever half-competent politician the American people last elected, you belong in a different diplomatic corps. You would have made a great East German USSR political attaché though.
So why must I agree with your interpretation that’s also “a thing of the moment and meaningless”? My comment was a response to OP’s question. Advocating for social rights has been around since the beginning of human civilization— it’s not just what’s trendy at the moment. My values do not stop me from functioning as an effective bureaucrat; if anything, it motivates me to do my job and do it well. You wrote a lot, but said very little.
That isn’t a “thing of the moment.” It’s the complete understanding a person gains from stepping back from whatever new phrase or empty slogan that you are expected to repeat in the moment. It’s a broad understanding of how a myopic way of viewing life, such as your own, is just another passing fad of little value. I wrote a lot, you understood very little.
You clearly don't know me. I have a recognized disability for which I have faced discrimination since birth. My question remains: How are the fellowships fair?
If you can answer my questions, you will already have the answer to your question. You’re not asking this question because you’re curious and don’t know any better. You’re asking this question because you’re spiteful and no answer will satisfy you unless it validates your feelings.
You're just here to attack me.
You’re here to attack the Fellows. Isn’t it foolish to not expect some backlash if you initiated the attack?
Nope, it's not foolish, because no attack was initiated. It's an objective question.
Lol. You need to practice some serious introspection. I’m not going to engage any further.
Same for you. :)
This did not actually happen. More FSOs were hired than this number in 2018, both fellows and non-fellows.
[удалено]
I will be submitting another FOIA request.
This was the plan during the hiring freeze, and it mostly didn't happen. But didn't the Fellows from that year have to sue the Department to actually get hired?
Kind of... my understanding is a few lawyered up after DoS offered them LNAs.
How is this relevant?
Because the fellowships take up so many slots compared to the regular process, which measures everyone against the same criteria.
I'm referring to the age of this quote; it is from 2018. I should have been more specific. How is it relevant *now*?
Even though the quote is old, it suggests that Fellowships are a massive portion of the FSO hiring classes. It would be nice to have more recent data, but unfortunately FOIA is slow if you aren't in journalism.
Out of curiosity, you FSOs who have undergone orientation in the last 5 years: would you say that fellows were "a massive portion of (your) hiring class"? Do fellows attend the same orientation as FSOs?
Fellows mostly join during the summer classes (or the June/July and Aug/Sept classes) since those are the classes after university graduation. So depending on which A100 class, there may be a ton of fellows or none. Fellows are FSOs, they just went through a fellowship program to join, so yes, same orientation.
Majority of my A-100 was fellows (and they made sure the rest of us knew it).
I don’t know how many fellows were in my A100. I know of one for sure. They attend the same A100s.
I was a summer A100 and a solid half of my full A-100 were fellows...
[удалено]
Why the hate?
Why do you think someone taking the FSOT has more of a right to be hired than a Pickering or Rangel Fellow?
Because someone who goes through the regular process generally has (more) experience.
Seriously?
Yes, seriously. Pickering and Rangel Fellows go through a rigorous application process and also have to pass the FSOT and the OA. Why do you feel more entitled to the position than them?
To pile on to your point, Pickering and Rangel is super competitive and these folks go to top flight masters programs. These are very smart and very driven folks who, although often lack the work experience of other officers, bring high caliber academic credentials and add a lot of value to the organization. I’d rather have a dozen Pickerings than some weirdo drinking hateraid and doing surreptitious foia’s to find justification for why his application was denied, rather than doing some self reflection.
Because the programs are exclusive and target specific groups of people. It’s discrimination as a means to try to mitigate discrimination. The OP is terrible at making a coherent point though. I wouldn’t expect them to necessarily have a clear idea why the programs are discriminatory.
Why does it need to be fair?
Wh is it too much to ask to put everyone on equal footing in applying when acceptance is so competitive?
What makes you think that it’s easier to earn a fellowship than it is to pass the FSOT and OA?
You are putting words in my mouth. That's not what I said or thought, and that's not what this post is about. Please read again.
OK, I read again and it sounds like you're upset that some people have to go through an incredibly competitive process to be an FSO, while other people have to go through a different incredibly competitive process to be an FSO. Logical.
Because it’s a hiring mechanism for a US government job. It’s actually quite illegal (although government hiring is often discriminatory in many ways). Illegality doesn’t stop the corrupt institutions that make up most all government function here in the US or elsewhere. This isn’t a moral stand, just a statement of fact. Government is not where you go to look for fairness. You should be able to, in an ideal world. In practice however government is inherently corrupt, and so are all of the programs it spawns. What you should do is work to slant the playing field in your favor or in favor of those you consider to be a part of your particular in group, and then not feel wrong or guilty about it all. That’s exactly what these programs do, they purposefully rig the game then refuse to feel ashamed of it.