Talk:United States Foreign Service

message: :I think this article should contain some information about the foreign services exam.  user:titaniumdreads
:I concur. Either that or link to a good site that has info on the test. --24.59.12.203 22:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just added some info on joining the Foreign Service and the exams.  A link to the official State Department Careers site is also there.  Need anything else?
Information about the FSOT is readily available online and can be found with two seconds of Googling.  Information on the specifics of the Oral Exam (Generalists) or the Board of Examiners (Specialists) is protected by a non-disclosure agreement.Kmhseo (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I improved and updated this page which had devolved into a poorly-written article.  I added a section on the history of the Foreign Service as well us reverted back to using sub-sections as had been done previously.  As far as the complaints about article "reading like an advertisement", well, the Foreign Service is not engaged in "selling" anything, other than the foreign policy of the United States itself.  Presently a well written, verifiable article from a neutral point of view does not preclude the article from having the same reader appeal of an advertisement. SONORAMA 14:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Kopp's and Gillespie's book Career Diplomacy covers the exam with enough detail to alert future FSOs as to what they need to know, but gives nothing away in such detail that it spills the beans.  Amustard (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: information about the foreign services exam

message: I propose a new section entitled "Directed Assignments".  Although rare in the history of the Foreign Service there have been periods of large numbers of directed assignments (e.g U.S. Embassy in Saigon, Vietnam).  Recent reports of directed assignments to Iraq should be covered as well.74.167.31.67 02:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Directed Assignments 

message: I've made a few minor edits to one section of this article.  There seems to be ongoing confusion as to some Foreign Service specific terminology and systems.  While this all may seem rather arcane, those who work in diplomacy know that the right words can make all the difference.  I advise others to verify with the official websites careers.state.gov or www.state.gov before editing or changing the terms in this article.
For the record the incorrect statements removed were:
Increasingly, diplomats are being appointed and assigned under other personnel systems. For example, in addition to FSNs, who are members of the Foreign Service, foreign citizens are hired as "Locally Employed Staff", or LES. In some cases Americans living overseas are employed as "LES".
No -- LES and FSNs are not appointed as diplomats, and diplomats other than political appointees are not appointed under any other personnel system.  "Diplomats" here refers to Commisioned Officers of the Foreign Service, ie Generalists.
 Yes indeed -- US Diplomats serve under a numerous personnel systems.   The FS is one of those systems, but by no means the only system under which diplomats are assigned. To suggest that only FS members, or only generalists are diplomats is totally misleading. It was precisely due to those comments that "Foreign Service Day" was renamed "Foreign Affairs Day".  That was to make sure that the term "Foreign Service" , meaning service abroad was not confused with the Foreign Service personnel system as defined in the Foreign Service Act.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsbrat (talk • contribs) 07:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, please use a colon (:) to indent your replies.  It makes it easier to read responses from multiple parties if they are each indented.  Now, to address your reply - there is no definition of "diplomat" within a USG personnel system that I'm aware of.  The Vienna Convention, which the US has ratified, refers to "diplomatic staff" and "administrative and technical staff" which roughly correspond to generalist and specialist.  The dictionary defintion of "diplomat" -- "one appointed to represent his government in its relations with foreign governments" also corresponds to Commisioned Officers, ie the FS Generalist career path, and not to those who may be, say, working in an overseas Social Security office.  And we certainly don't refer to host-country citizens as "diplomats", even though they work in an Embassy.   So, in this article, we will keep a distinction between the work of diplomacy and the work of others in service to the US Government.  SONORAMA (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the suggestion. I will use a colon to indent. I agree that there is no definition of diplomat within USG personnel systems but can state for a fact, that the State Department appoints diplomats to represent the government and help manage relations with foreign countries under various personnel systems, not just under the Foreign Service. For example, there are diplomats sent as Excepted Service members under the GS (general schedule). These are also full-fledged diplomats, but not members of the FS personnel system.  The FS has a very powerful labor union known as AFSA that is trying to portray its members as the only "real" diplomats, but there is no legal basis for this assertion. 
Regarding host country citizens, they are defined as "members of the Service" in the Foreign Service Act. I agree that membership in the FS does not automatically mean that a person is a diplomat. 
fsbrat  12:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Sure, the FS could create a specialist career path for lawyers, economists, or zookeepers for that matter -- but it hasn't!  All Foreign Service specialist career paths are listed on the official careers.state.gov web site.  Let's keep the article focused on actual specialist career paths rather than fictional ones. SONORAMA (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance of Correct Nomenclature 

message: I think we need to develop this section of the article in a more accessible and comprehensible manner.  Perhaps some rewording and a more in depth explanation of the similarity of the FS "rank in person" system (rather than the GS system where rank is tied to position) and the military rank and promotion system.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kollaborator (talk • contribs) 03:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign Service career system 

message: For what its worth, I have seen many cases of US diplomats assigned abroad under systems other than the FS personnel system. It is well known within the State Department that the FS system offers superior benefits but that increasingly employees are being sent under alternate systems, which saves money and provides more flexibility.  And indeed, one hears the term "diplomatic service" more and more these days as not only the State Department, but increasingly other agencies make diplomatic postings. These include the Department of Treasury, DEA, FBI, for example. And Commerce, Agriculture, State, are "authorized" to use the FS system for positions that require service abroad, but not "required" to do so.
Another trend is increasing reliance on "LES" locally engaged staff. This also saves Uncle Sam money as there are far less benefits needed to be paid out, no housing is provided, etc.
Perhaps that biggest difference and main motivation for moving away from the FS system is the huge cost of language bonuses - up to 15 percent salary bonuses are paid to FS diplomats if they test at the "professional level" in so-called "hard languages". And that is after they receive 2 or 3 years of free language training, on full salary, including at least one year overseas, with a benefit package comparable to what private sector expatriates receive, ie. free schooling for children, housing, etc.  Non FS diplomats do not get these perks, even when serving in "hardship" posts, or dangerous locations. Given the increased use of alternate systems, there are those who say that it is only a question of time before the State Department moves to a unitary personnel system that would eliminate, or at least equalize these benefits.
Sirigaru (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "foreign" service VS Diplomatic Service

message: The joining section should be redone to reflect the new Foreign Service Officer Test and not the old written exam. Mikebar (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign Service Officer Test 

message: This article suffers from two serious issues.  First, it is very State-centric.  I have added some verbiage on the other three foreign affairs agencies (USAID, Commerce, and Agriculture, in order of the sizes of their respective Foreign Services).  Second, quite frankly (speaking as an FSO), it has a rather condescending tone toward the non-FSO contingents in the Department of State, and by extension, the other foreign affairs agencies.  I think I have fixed that as well.  Hence, it a) if returned by one of the other authors to its previous state, will continue to be incomplete in its coverage of the U.S. Foreign Service, and b) will lack an objective point of view.  Given that FSOs of USAID, Commerce and Agriculture regularly serve as acting DCMs and charges d'affaires, and are appointed to ambassadorships, just like State officers from the pol, econ, consular, mgmt and now pa cones, not to mention a few SES officials of State, excluding them from this article seems just a bit, well, overweening. Amustard (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your edits, great job! Bevinbell (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed Content

message: I changed the incorrect 10% figure of how many people pass the written exam:
:Those who pass the Foreign Service Written Exam (about 25 to 30 percent of candidates)
:: "Only about 25 to 30 percent of candidates pass the initial examination and screening and move onto the oral assessment phase"  "There is no set percentage that pass. The "passing score" depends on our hiring needs. In general, however, about one third of takers have been asked to continue on to the next phase, the oral assessment."  
:proceed to the Foreign Service Oral Assessment, which is administered in person in Washington, D.C. and other major cities throughout the United States. Passage rates for the Oral Assessment were less than 10%. 
The information about passage rates was completely removed from the foreign service site in 2007. 
:http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://careers.state.gov/officer/faqs.html 
But even then, it said "one third of takers" passed the test, not the incorrect 10%.
I also removed this unreferenced sentence:
:The result is that of the nearly 20,000 annual test-takers, only about 400 are ultimately offered an appointment as a Foreign Service Officer career candidate.
Odessaukrain (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In 1996, only a little more than 2,600 of those who passed the written exam went on to compete in the oral assessment; in 1998, the number came down to around 2,400. Of these 856 got through, a pass rate of 35.6 percent. (emphasis my own). 
Odessaukrain (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: One third, not ten percent

message: An editor removed a reference and added 20% to the oral passage rate on 17 January 2008.
This deleted document is dated, but it states that: 
:In 1996, only a little more than 2,600 of those who passed the written exam went on to compete in the oral assessment; in 1998, the number came down to around 2,400. Of these 856 got through, a pass rate of 35.6 percent. (emphasis my own). 
Odessaukrain (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 20% oral passage rate

message: I have undertaken a large clean up, to remove BLP issues (unfounded allegations of honeypot), OR (lots of uncited "facts"), undue weight (lots of extraneous material), POV (particularly regarding DS), etc. Mostly reverting back to where edits were in June of 2009.  It still seems lengthy, but I am not sure what else to take out before solid material disappears.  Bevinbell (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: I can see that there is a battle going on concerning what "Foreign Service Life" means. People, like Bevinbell, seek to make the definition very limited to the life of a Foreign Service Officer, omitting the fact that FSOs interact with tons of people at the Embassy who are not Foreign Service Officers. I don't understand why these facts should be omitted. Issues like the security contractors at Embassy Kabul that ran amok as well as the issue of the COS who was date raping local women in Algeria are valid to the life of a Foreign Service Officer. FSOs discuss this stuff at the water cooler all the time.  Also, the idea of employing local help is something that is of great impact to the life of an FSO. Unless the FSO's come from the richest 5% of the USA, most FSOs are not used to employing domestic help. Why should the idea of domestic help be omitted? I don't understand.Bf20204 (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2009 (EST)
===Need to avoid blurring essential distinctions===
We need to make it clear to the general public that only FSOs are true diplomats. In essence. FSOs are the Foreign Service. Other people who happen to be working at Embassies are simply civil servants on excursion tours, who must leave as soon as any FSO becomes available for the position.  I leave it to the editors to find a better way of stating this but please be on guard against misguided efforts to blur the distinction between FSOs, who are selected by rigourous examinations and subject to the up or out system, and civil servants who can stay at their desk jobs as long as they want.  Additional guidance can be found at www.afsa.org, the professional organization of worldwide FSOs.
vacationingFSO, posted on december 31, 2009, New Years Eve
*It appears you are not aware of some basics:  FSO (meaning Generalists) are not the only regular FS members overseas (e.g. Specialists).  True, some positions are set up for preferential filling by FSOs, thus possibly supplanting certain types of specialists, yet other positions are always filled by regualr FS specialists and never by FSOs. Rockford1963 (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about the Foriegn Commercial Service?  They are pretty small, but are generally FSO officers.  169.253.4.21 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What is valid regarding "Foreign Service Life"

message: We need to make it clear to the general public that only FSOs are true diplomats. In essence. FSOs are the Foreign Service. Other people who happen to be working at Embassies are simply civil servants on excursion tours, who must leave as soon as any FSO becomes available for the position.  I leave it to the editors to find a better way of stating this but please be on guard against misguided efforts to blur the distinction between FSOs, who are selected by rigourous examinations and subject to the up or out system, and civil servants who can stay at their desk jobs as long as they want.  Additional guidance can be found at www.afsa.org, the professional organization of worldwide FSOs.
vacationingFSO, posted on december 31, 2009, New Years Eve
*It appears you are not aware of some basics:  FSO (meaning Generalists) are not the only regular FS members overseas (e.g. Specialists).  True, some positions are set up for preferential filling by FSOs, thus possibly supplanting certain types of specialists, yet other positions are always filled by regualr FS specialists and never by FSOs. Rockford1963 (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about the Foriegn Commercial Service?  They are pretty small, but are generally FSO officers.  169.253.4.21 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Need to avoid blurring essential distinctions

message: Historic Ruling of October 31 2000
 
 Urgent Call to Action:  DCM Case awaits
Secretary Albright's Decision
Please pass this urgent message to all Foreign Service
employees (active or retired).  AFSA Reps are asked to
poll members at post.
1.  Summary:  AFSA has won its legal fight to overturn
the State Department's assignment of a non-Foreign
Service employee to a Deputy Chief of Mission job.  On
October 31, the Foreign Service Grievance Board (FSGB)
reaffirmed its earlier decision that the assignment
violated the Department's regulations and the Board
recommended to Secretary Albright that she curtail the
improperly-assigned employee effective next July.
2.  It is now up to the Department to implement that
decision unless the Secretary takes the historically
unprecedented step of certifying in writing that
implementing the FSGB decision would adversely affect
the "foreign policy or national security of the United
States."  While no Secretary of State has ever
rejected a FSGB decision in this manner, AFSA
understands that some Department officials would like
the Secretary to issue such a certification in this
case.  This message provides additional background and
urges members to make their views known (see final
para for action request).  End of Summary.
Background
----------
3.  This case will impact the future of the Foreign
Service.  To understand why, we need to recall the
history of the Service.  At the start of our Republic,
there was no professional Foreign Service.  Diplomatic
and consular jobs were filled by political appointees
who literally changed with each new Administration.
Efforts to replace this inefficient "spoils system"
with a professional career Foreign Service gathered
steam following President Theodore Roosevelt's 1906
Executive Order requiring that the consular service be
administered in a nonpartisan manner.  Then, America's
increasing involvement in Europe through World War I
convinced Congress and the Executive that a
professional diplomatic service was essential.  The
Rogers Act in 1924 established a unified Foreign
Service, separate from other government services, with
the mission of representing America's interests
abroad.  It is not a coincidence that our predecessors
founded the American Foreign Service Association that
same year.
4.  The Foreign Service Acts of 1946 and 1980 further
defined the Foreign Service by adding features that
clearly distinguished it from civil service
employment.  The 1980 Act (current law) specifies that
Foreign Service positions (which, by definition,
exclude Chiefs of Mission) must "normally" be filled
by Foreign Service employees.  The legislative history
explains that Congress inserted the word "normally" to
provide limited flexibility "recognizing that the
necessary Foreign Service practice of setting
specified tours of duty may make it impossible to
observe this policy [of only assigning Foreign Service
employees to Foreign Service positions] at all times."
In other words, Foreign Service bidders may not always
be available (i.e., "hard to fill" positions).
5.  A controversy in the early 1980s led the State
Department to further define and limit the
circumstances under which it could assign people from
outside of the Service to fill Foreign Service
positions.  In 1981, Secretary Alexander Haig's State
Department assigned a political appointee to be Consul
General in Hamilton, Bermuda.  AFSA protested this
assignment to no avail (to this day, the Hamilton CG
position remains a quasi-Chief of Mission position
held by a political appointee).  However, in 1983
Secretary George P. Shultz's State Department signed
an agreement with AFSA that insulated the Department
and the Service from political poaching.  It required
that Foreign Service members fill Foreign Service
positions unless the Director General certified that
there was no one available in the Service who could do
the job.  It was that 1983 agreement (which was
renewed by Secretary Albright's State Department in
1996) on which the FSGB based its August 18, 2000
ruling that the Department violated its own
regulations when it assigned someone from outside of
the Foreign Service to be the Deputy Chief of Mission
at a U.S. Embassy in Latin America.
The Director General and the Secretary
--------------------------------------
6.  The FSGB's definitive ruling last August 18 would
have ended this matter had the Department not gone
ahead and sent the non-Foreign Service employee to
Post before the FSGB ruled.  As the FSGB sternly notes
in its October 31 ruling:
"The Department, and [the employee], were fully aware
that AFSA had challenged the assignment, and had asked
the Department to defer sending [the employee] to
[post] before the Board issued its decision.  The
Department, at least, knew we had promised to treat
the matter as quickly as possible, consistent with the
significance and complexity of the dispute.  In fact,
our decision was issued slightly more than one month
after [the employee's] departure.  A curtailment is
required to bring the Department into compliance 'with
law, regulation, and negotiated agreements in filling
the position,' as we stated in our Decision."
7.  It is now up to Secretary Albright to decide
whether she will accept or reject the FSGB's
curtailment recommendation.  No Secretary in the 25-
year history of the FSGB has rejected a FSGB
recommendation on foreign policy or national security
grounds.  AFSA will ask the Director General of the
Foreign Service to recommend in this case that the
Secretary accept the recommendation.  Rejecting the
FSGB recommendation could have a chilling effect on
the authority of the FSGB, seriously weakening the
dispute resolution process.
8.  We again cite congressional intent regarding the
relevant legislation.  The legislative history of the
Foreign Service Act of 1980 states that "the Committee
intends that [the] disapproval authority [on foreign
policy and national security grounds] be used only in
the most exceptional cases."  In the words of a co-
author of the 1980 Act, "the agency head should,
except in rare cases, adopt and implement the decision
of the Grievance Board ...  What has to be conveyed to
agency heads is congressional will that the decision
of the Board be implemented."
9.  AFSA does not believe that the case at hand comes
remotely close to representing the exceptional
circumstances that the framers of the 1980 Act had in
mind.  It is probable that the Department could find a
replacement DCM next summer with more experience in
host country affairs, higher proficiency in Spanish,
and more experience in managing an embassy.  There
were 12 qualified Foreign Service bidders for the
position last summer and will likely be at least as
many when the vacancy is posted again.  Given an
eight-month lead-time, the Department could easily
arrange for a substantial overlap between the current
occupant and the successor.  U.S. policy in any
country simply does not hinge on the continued
presence of one individual.  If it did, the Department
would not routinely leave so many of its positions
(including Ambassador and DCM) vacant for months, even
years, at a time.
The Future of the Foreign Service Career
----------------------------------------
10.  If senior managers of the Department convince
Secretary Albright to reject the curtailment of this
employee, it will severely undermine an already
beleaguered Foreign Service.  Furthermore, Department
officials have indicated that they intend to abrogate
the 1983/1996 agreement on filling Foreign Service
jobs (see para 5 above) as soon as it comes up for
(heretofore automatic) renewal next year.  This would
open all "non-bargaining unit positions" to being
filled from outside of the Service.  Those positions
include DCMs, Principal Officers, Administrative
Counselors, and Human Resources Officers.  Abrogating
this agreement, which has insulated the Department and
the Service from political poaching for nearly two
decades, would grant license to future White House
personnel offices to direct the Department to fill DCM
and other management positions with political
appointees.  Those appointees, in turn, could select
Office Managers from outside the Foreign Service.
That would severely truncate individual Foreign
Service careers by further limiting opportunities for
promotion and for receiving increased responsibility.
This would inflict a grievous defeat in the
Department's so-called "War for Talent."
11.  Finally, members should consider some very
worrying trends in Foreign Service staffing.
According to data published in State Magazine in April
1998, Foreign Service staffing declined from 66.4 to
60.8 percent of State employment from 1988 to 1998
(Foreign Service employees fell by 1508 while civil
service employees rose by 300).  The Department has
not published updated data, but they have told us that
they permanently converted another 59 Foreign Service
domestic positions to civil service over the past two
years and that the deficit of Foreign Service
employees to positions now exceeds 350.  As a result,
there are currently 225 civil service employees
serving overseas under the "hard to fill" staffing
program.  While AFSA certainly values the
contributions of our civil service colleagues both
domestically and in "hard to fill" overseas positions,
we are concerned that a stealth decimation of Foreign
Service positions has taken place during the past
decade.  This decimation of the professional Foreign
Service is not in the national interest.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: =Need to avoid blurring essential distinctions- Only FS officer are entitled to take FS positions

message: In short, here is my argument against having active FSOs edit Wikipedia. If an FSO wants to work on getting their view of what it is to be an FSO, they should work on www.state.gov or careers.state.gov. I firmly believe that they should not work on Wikipedia. The reason behind this is that, throughout my history of working on this article, FSOs have deleted things in the article that are critical of the Foreign Service. If you look at the history of "United States Foreign Service" you will see that this happened a lot. Additionally, many of my critical edits that constituted original research were deleted while edits made by Bevinbell were kept. Also, I have a request to the Department of State. If the Department of State must make edits on wikipedia, then I request that one person from the Office of Public Affairs be delegated to doing this. FSOs could then submit edits and changes to this person and then they could make the changes. This would also let the general public know that the Department of State is editing wikipedia and make their own judgment as to whether or not the information is biased or not.Bf20204 (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2009 (EST)
 contribs)  
:I'm not an FSO, don't know anything about it, and haven't even looked at this article until the recent controversy, but I'll tell you my attitude.  On one hand, having active FSOs edit the article creates a potential conflict of interest that must be handled with care.  But on the other hand, the material you have been trying to insert violates NPOV much more severely than anything that was previously in the article, so I'm reluctant to give you any support.  If I saw you trying to make the article more neutral rather than trying to hammer the FSO in any way you can, it would be a different story.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Should Active Department of State Employees Edit Wikipedia?

message: I just watched an interview with alleged ex-CIA agent "Barry Eisler", who said that his cover was working in this department.  The host made a joke saying that anytime he hears of someone from this department from now on, he'll assume they're an agent.  Eisler responded by saying that for a certain percentage, they'd be correct.
Anyone have any information/sources about this potential aspect of the department?  It doesn't seem totally wild or unprecedented to me, the UK Foreigh Office is often said to do a similar thing.
Here is the video link for anyone interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE9J26NiOyU
Forkhandles (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spies/Agents? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United States Foreign Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100831212917/http://careers.state.gov:80/general/about-us.html to http://careers.state.gov/general/about-us.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified