This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ba20204 (talk | contribs) at 10:41, 12 September 2009 (→Clean up). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:41, 12 September 2009 by Ba20204 (talk | contribs) (→Clean up)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | International relations Unassessed Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | United States Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
information about the foreign services exam
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)
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?
Contrary to the statement on US Foreign Service Agencies, the US Department of Commerce's Foreign Commercial Service; the US Department of Agriculture's Foreign Agricultural Service and the USAID are not just "using the Foreign Service's personnel system" - these three agencies are part of the US Foreign Service, like the State Department. USAID is now part of the State Department.
The Foreign Service Act states unambiguously that these agencies are "authorized to use the FS personnel system" Please see the US Congress web site for the original text.
USAID is not part of the state department. Check http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/dos/54734.htm for an organizational chart.
Can't put too much about the Foreign Service exam out in the public domain as it is an exam! You can't give away the answers!
This article needs some work. Calling the Foreign Service a "personnel system" is like calling the U.S. military and naval establishments "personnel systems". The Foreign Service is a commissioned service of the United States Government.
It is indeed a personnel system, one of several under which US Diplomats are assigned overseas. It is important to clarify this so as not to confuse the term "foreign service", with Diplomatic Service.
Only certain categories are promoted under the so-called "up or out" system. Medical personnel, technical staff, and others are not subject to those requirements.
This page does seem to read like an advertisement or brochure for the USFS. There could certainly be more done with history and the foreign service exam. As for not giving much away about the exam, for much of it there are no "right answers." Especially in the oral exam you are given questions such as "do you support American Foreign policy in Europe? Support your answer." and questions to that effect. It is certainly an article with plenty of information available to make it informative without sounding like a recruiting tool.
- 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)
Don't worry about the article trying to "sell" the Foreign Service; anyone using wikipedia as a prinipal means of information about the FS is quite unlikely to ever pass the written exam, much less the oral!
Foreign Service as a "personnel system"
I recently edited the language to tone down the claim that the Foreign Service is a "personnel system". To use that terminology, outside of FS agencies, would unnescesarily confuse the reader as to the nature of the Foreign service.Rockford1963 22:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The FS is indeed a personnel system. To not include that fact is misleading because many US diplomats are not appointed or assigned under that (personnel) system. We should not lead the general public to believe that the term "foreign service" is equivalent to Diplomatic Service. Today's complex world needs diplomats from many fields and specialities. The FS personnel system cannot meet all of these needs and due to labor disputes within the Dept of State, more and more diplomats are being assigned abroad under systems other the the Foreign Service, as defined in the US Foreign Service Act.Statesman
The Foreign Service is but one of many personnel systems used for diplomatic assignments. The Act authorizes SecState to use the system for positions that require service abroad, and to designate positions that are to "normally" be occupied by members of the Service. But this article creates the impression that the FS is the only system used and that only members of the FS ("officers", "personnel", FSN, etc.) serve abroad as diplomats. This is not the way things work. Ask any customs officer how many Dip Passports pass through that are not held by FS members.
Furthermore, this is a very controversial issue at State. The Dept is giving better benefits to those it assigns as FS but many are assigned abroad as "GS" (the General Schedule) in the Competitive or Excepted Services. And do not forget USDA, DOC, Customs, Treasury, and all the other agencies that assign diplomats abroad. Todays Diplomatic Service is much, much more than one personnel system and this should be reflected objectively in a reference work of this nature.
I would prefer to see an entry "Diplomatic Service", with FS as a subsection, but cannot figure out how to edit the title. I took the liberty of editing the body to reflect what I believe is a more accurate description of the US Diplomatic Service.
Gaikoukan
Retired US Diplomat not of the Foreign Service —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaikoukan (talk • contribs) 08:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- "And do not forget USDA, DOC, Customs, Treasury, and all the other agencies that assign diplomats abroad." Huh? USDA and DOC are specifically included in the FS Act of 1980, and USDA and Commercial officers abroad are FSOs. Just ask AFSA, which collects dues from them. Amustard (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Directed Assignments
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)
Importance of Correct Nomenclature
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Yes indeed, many US diplomats are appointed and posted abroad under non_FS personnel systems. And political appointees ARE usually appointed as members of the Foreign Service, although usually on limited appointments. Regarding "specialists", the correct term as defined in the Foreign Service Act is "FS personnel". There is no restriction on the types of specialists that may be recruited - this is at the Secretary's discretion and based on the needs of US diplomacy. We should make it clear that the terms "diplomat" and "foreign service member" are not synonymous. There are plenty of diplomats who are not part of the Foreign Service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
Foreign Service Personnel perform unique services in support of the Service. Examples of specialists include Medical Doctor, Health Practitioner, Technicians, Lawyers, Economists, Linguists, Law Enforcement Officers, Agricultural experts from the USDA, Information Resource Management, Office Management Specialist, and Regional Security Officer...'
No -- "Lawyer" and "Economist" are not specialist career paths as reflected on the State Department's official careers website. "Agricultural experts from the USDA" refers presumably to the Foreign Agricultural Service, which is part of the Foreign Service, and this is explained better elsewhere in the article. SONORAMA (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
As a member of the FS and interested party, I thought that tracking the Foreign Service Act, the law passed by Congress which created the FS personnel system as we know it today, was proper and helpful. My edit was reverted and somebody wrote that I was a "sock puppet". I know that there is controversy about categories of FS personnel, and about other categories that exist within our Diplomatic Service. That was not mean to be insulting and if it is considered offensive I apologize. If I am mistaken, please correct me. There are many many US diplomats assigned around the world under different systems and they do not all think alike.
FS Brat 0948 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The correct term is "Diplomatic Service". Not all US diplomats are assigned under the "foreign service" personnel system. For example, some of our diplomats sent to the most difficult places are assigned under the "general schedule", some are assigned as "foreign service personnel" and some are assigned as "foreign service officers". The latter 2 categories are members of the foreign service as defined in the Foreign Service Act of 1980, but the first category is not. It is cheaper for the USG to use non-FS categories because the FS offers additional special bonuses. Certain special interest groups, including the labor union for the foreign service would like to create the impression that only diplomats assigned under the foreign service system are "true" diplomats, but that is not true. If one reads the Presidential messages each year for "Foreign Affairs Day" (changes from "foreign service day" in the 90s) it will become obvious that the correct term is "Diplomatic Service", and that the foreign service, while important, is not a semantic equivalent.
Anonymous diplomat at the U.S. Department of State —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Foreign Service career system
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)
Foreign Service Officer Test
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)
Disputed Content
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)
I have also added information on the Foreign Service Act of 1946, which the article previously omitted. The 1946 Act set the stage for the Foreign Service of the Cold War period and thus deserves at least some coverage. Amustard (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I like your edits, great job! Bevinbell (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
One third, not ten percent
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)
- <ref name="act">{{cite news|url=http://www.act.org/activity/spring2009/become.html|title=Becoming a Foreign Service Officer|date=Spring 2009|publisher=ACT's Activity Publication|accessdate=2009-06-16}} "Only about 25 to 30 percent of candidates pass the initial examination and screening and move onto the oral assessment phase"</ref> <ref name="state">{{cite web|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20050106051359/http://www.careers.state.gov/officer/faqs.html |title=U.S. Department of State Careers|publisher=United States State Department}} "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."</ref>
- 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%.<ref name="act"/>
The information about passage rates was completely removed from the foreign service site in 2007.
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)
20% oral passage rate
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)
Clean up
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)
First, if you look closely at the alleged "outing", you will find that I did not use Bevinbell's last name. I just used his first name. I have read the rules after my blocking and there are cases where the use of a first name is allowed in the Misplaced Pages Community. Second, looking at Bevinbell's personal page it is clear that he is an active Foreign Service Officer. Now, here is the issue I have with all of this. Bevinbell is a FSO. If an FSO wants to talk and explain about the Foreign Service, he/she can ask to work on the development of www.state.gov. If you look closely at my edits you will hopefully understand what I was trying to do. I have spoken with many individuals who have entered the Foreign Service as innocents. They did not understand all of what they were getting into. If you look at what I wrote, which is the truth backed up with cited sources, it provides a realistic assessment of what it is to be a Foreign Service Officer. There are good an bad things about being a Foreign Service Officer. Unfortunately, Bebinbell has decided to take up the role of the Truth Police, to quote Orwell. I think Misplaced Pages is the domain of those that do not have vested interest in putting being a United States Foreign Service Officer in the best possible light. Also, let's examine Bevinbell's involvement in this. Is Bevinbell doing this at the orders of the State Department or is he doing this on his own? Also, is Bevinbell following the editing of this Misplaced Pages entry and reporting back to Diplomatic Security on who is saying what? I have no problems with retired FSO's or academics working on the "United States Foreign Service" Misplaced Pages page. There are ton's of retired FSO that could make excellent contributions. Active FSOs should work on www.state.gov and not Misplaced Pages. I have not done original research, which Bevinbell has done. I have cited everything I have written. If you guys have a problem with me, why don't you delete the entire article and put up "See www.state.gov because Misplaced Pages's opinion is exactly the same as the Department of State."Bf20204 (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2009 (EST)
Additionally, Bevinbell. I would hope that your security training has taught you not to use the same username on all your different accounts on the internet for the rest of your life. It was very easy to use the internet, Yahoo and Google to detect that you use your same login for everything under the sun. Here's an idea. Why don't you go to the Regional Security Officer and have him/her drill the following into your brain, "The internet is a dangerous place and you can be identified. Use different user names and a strong password, IDIOT!"Bf20204 (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2009 (EST)
Also, Lastly Bevinbell. I'm surprised that you feel "violated." You know where I got your name? The Congressional Record that has your nomination that had to be ok'd by Congress. Do you feel "violated" that you are in the Congressional Record? I thought that was considered an honor? I guess you just feel "violated" on certain things.
Bf20204 (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2009 (EST)