Register for the FSOT!

The registration for the new and improved Foreign Service Officer's Test (formerly the FSWE) is now open! The basic changes are as outlined in my previous post, but once you register, available slots are offered on a first come first serve basis, with a total of 5000 slots being offered during each 'window'. Registration is on a continual basis, but the available testing windows will only be offered at various times throughout the year, for a period of 8 days each. Currently they are scheduled for September and December of 2007, and March, June, August, and November of 2008.

Once you register, your registration will remain 'active' for a period of twelve months, or until the FSOT is take, whichever comes first. Applicants are permitted to take the test only once during each twelve-month period.

After the registration packet has been submitted, you will receive an email with instructions on how to secure a test seat during one of the testing windows, provided one is available. The crucial difference now is that if you are a no-show, and do not call to cancel or reschedule your test seat, you will be required to pay a $50 fee, and will not be allowed to reserve a future seat until this has been paid.

Interestingly, if you indicate on the application form that you are a speaker of a CNL (Critical Needs Language - Arabic, Chinese-Mandarin, Hindi, Persian-Dari, Persian-Farsi, or Urdu) you will additionally receive emailed instructions on how to set up a telephone interview to be tested in that language. Traditionally, this occurred after passing the FSOA, so it will be interesting to see if this still counts toward a language points bonus once they get on the register.

The rumor still says that if you've been able to pass before, you should have no difficulty passing again, but then again, that consolation is worth exactly what you just paid for it. ;)

Best of luck!

The Selection Process, revamped

As many of you know, the FSWE (and the process as a whole) has been largely reworked.

The FSWE is now going to be computer-based, instead of the traditional pencil and paper format that we have come to know and love. It's rumored that it will be somewhat shorter than before, and will still include the beloved essay; the only omission will be the cone-specific sections that State had experimented with during the past two years. I liked that aspect of the exam as it gave a very slight advantage to those candidates who were actually interested in the position and had done some preliminary research into what would be expected of them in the field. Alas, it is no more.

The biggest changes are in the Registration Process and the introduction of the QEP (Qualifications Evaluation Panel).

Now when the candidates begin to register, they will be required to complete and submit an Application Form, which includes "information about their schooling, work history, and volunteer activities", and a Personal Narrative, consisting of descriptions of the candidates' experiences and qualifications. After submission, the candidates will receive instructions about how to make a reservation to take the FSOT (Foreign Service Officer Test).

Here's where it gets interesting. The FS Careers Site states "Candidates must achieve a passing score on the test in order to have their essay scored. If candidates pass both the test and the essay, they will move forward to the next step, the Qualifications Evaluation Panel."

The first part is nothing new; every candidate knows that a minimum score must be reached to have their essay scored, and that onward progress is impossible without passing that critical section.

The QEP, however, is the big black box in the equation. Again, the FS site states: "The Qualifications Evaluation Panel will adopt a comprehensive Total Candidate approach in reviewing candidates’ test scores, essay scores, application forms, and personal narratives. In evaluating candidates, the panel will apply guidelines that are based on the actual knowledge, abilities, and skills required to effectively carry out the work of the Foreign Service. In the end, the Qualifications Evaluation Panel will identify those candidates who will advance to the Oral Assessment."

Until it becomes clear how the QEP will function, there will be some concern. In the past, there were two cutoff scores to the FSWE: the first was to score the essay; the second (and higher of the two) was to determine whether the candidate could progress on to the Oral Assessment.

It has been rumored that the QEP will use the Application Forms and Personal Narratives as "bonus points" to help bump up those applicants who display strengths suited to the FS, but whose test score may not have been quite high enough to move them along normally. If this is the case, it will certainly help the FS stem the high attrition rate of the applicant pool.

However, if they opt to use the Application Form and Personal Narrative as an additional Pass/Fail section (like the essay), then I am afraid we would see the end of the FS as being representative of the US population as a whole, and a return to the Ivy League Fancy Pants Cookie-Pushing Elite that characterized the FS of a century ago.

I may be wrong, but I don't see that happening. I'm confident that this process is changing to help the State Department streamline the hiring process, to minimize candidate attrition, and to continue to show the world the 'face of America'.

We'll know for certain before long.

Catching Up

It's been an unexpected hiatus. Since my OA, I intended to lay low for a few weeks and commiserate, but my daughter (18 months at the time) injured her hip and ankle about Christmastime, and the doctors still are unable to make a diagnosis as of this posting.

I've updated my blog (retroactively) to include my OA recap, which is posted below, and plan to comment on the upcoming changes to the FSWE once I am able to get it organized.

In many respects, I'm glad I didn't pass this time around as processing the clearances and the other preparations would have been extremely burdensome.

Thank you, everyone for your comments and your support, both online and off--I'm fortunate to be able to call you friends, and look forward to the day when I can call you my colleagues.

D-Day Arrives

I was scheduled to test on Friday, December 1st, 2006, in Austin.

We left Wednesday afternoon after picking up the kids from school, and ran into a snowstorm in Oklahoma City. Traffic slowed down to 30mph at times, with a steady stream of cars in both ditches and the median, but we made it as far as Gainesville, TX before calling it a night. Thursday morning, we drove the remaining four hours to Austin and checked into our hotel early that afternoon. We stayed at the Residence Inn--about 4 blocks from the test site. After unpacking and relaxing for a bit, we drove around to find the test site, before heading off to eat dinner at a pleasant little Cajun place, where the tables are covered with huge sheets of paper--for drawing entertainment while you wait, then double as plates when the food arrives. The kids thought that was pretty cool. Back at the hotel, we swam for an hours or so before tumbling into bed about 9:30 for a great night's sleep.

Friday morning, I had a light breakfast before taking a cab over to the test site. I was the second to arrive. At a little before seven, Kelli (who is as awesome as everyone says she is) took us upstairs to the testing area, and we began filling out the additional paperwork. There were twelve of us, six men and six women. Nine from TX, one from OK, one from KS, and one from DC. Most of us were CON, although there was one MGMT, one POL, and one ECON.

The break area was shared with other office in the building--basically there was a coffee machine, a refrigerator, TV, small table and four chairs. No public terminals.

GE: three of the candidates shilled for their projects during the presentation, and one or two even stated right off the bat that they felt their projects weren't worth considering. I think I could have redirected this, but didn't, and I think that hurt everyone. Everyone had time left over for questions, and I had questions for everyone. During the discussion phase, I recommended going around again so everyone could make a brief statement as to why their project should be considered. Most of the group misunderstood this and tried to re-present their project entirely. We were able to quickly narrow the projects. I had serious reservations about certain aspects of mine, and found myself awkwardly countering the person who recommended using mine. Another candidate wanted to examine each aspect of each project to see if it met each and every US objective for that country. I could feel we were getting bogged down, politely interrupted him and moved us on to consensus. Well, it was more like ramrodding them to consensus. Not one of us passed this section (that I am aware). In retrospect, I feel I could have rearranged my presentation to greater effect, as it was fairly complicated to keep track of the up- and downsides of all components. There also was additional material that I failed to reference during the discussion that might have allowed us to make a better decision. It was a minor point in the paperwork, but could have been critical to the decision-making.

Although I was pleased with the outcome, there were definite shortcomings that dragged all of us down. Everyone in my group expressed surprise that I did not pass, but we know what that's worth, right? ;)

The CM: The quantity of material was neither more nor less than I had expected. Other than an initial slowdown on the first instruction, I felt it flowed easily and came together nicely. The math was easy, and the answers seemed fairly straightforward. One comment in one of the emails niggled at me throughout, and only afterward did I come to realize that addressing it should have instead been my primary response--which would have taken my paper in a completely different direction. Of course, it didn't help when the entire city of Austin had not one, but two national emergencies during that time, with sirens screaming in from all directions. I didn't pass this section, either, although I was still pleased at my effort this first time out.

The SI: This was the section I had tried to prepare for the most, yet it was ironically the section for which I was least prepared. Many of the PBQ questions only obliquely touched on the stories I had prepared, and to my downfall, I tried to force them to fit. Many of my best stories could not be used. One of the hypotheticals was fairly tame, which caught me off guard, and I under-answered. The other, in retrospect, had several other options I could have brought into play, but which did not occur to me until afterward.

We were called out by number--and I was the eleventh candidate. Many of the others were waiting in the lobby when I went down--only one had passed; she was already low on the ECON register (5.3), and was trying for CON. She passed with a 5.7.

Overall, I never lost composure--or had need to lose composure. The assessors were amiable and polite--even downright friendly. The pace of the day was actually more relaxed and focused than a "normal" work day, despite all of the emergency responses (another occured during my debriefing). I was pleased with my performance during the GE and CM--not quite so the SI--and was disheartened to score an unimpressive 4.6. I had expected to not pass, but I hadn't expected to score to poorly. In retrospect, however, I see how I could have improved my performance significantly in every area. For the first time, it's still disappointing, but not outrageously bad.

The assessors did hint that they were strongly considering re-implementing two cycles per year, although the 180-day rule would likely remain in effect, and that the website would have more information in January. They encourage me to reflect on the day and to try again. I asked their opinion of the Yahoo Groups, and the said "Officially, no opinion", however, unofficially, they said that many candidates found them quite useful, and that they did monitor them for inconsistencies. Nothing negative there.

Back at the hotel, I felt hollow and empty, and I was glad the rest of the family was there. They dragged me back to my feet and we went to eat Mongolian BBQ. The kids were a pleasant distraction from the disappointment of the day. They wanted to swim again once we got back to the hotel, and that helped work off much of the accumulated stress.

In some ways, I am disappointed to have not passed, but in some ways, it was a small relief, as it gives us a little more time to streamline, to sort through and discard our extra junk.

On toward April!

OA Prep Group

I recently had the opportunity to get together with a few (err, all) of our local Group Members to have a sort of stop-and-go OA prep session. This year's cycle marks the first time any of us will have been able to progress on to the OA, and, since we are about 600 miles from the nearest DIR, attending an official Prep Session would have been difficult, if not downright impossible.

We used one of the preparation materials posted to the Group alongside the OA Summary information available on the SD's career site. The material is not there to be representative or actual OA material, nor is it an attempt to reconstruct the OA. No one wants to risk their candidacy on something so immensely stupid as violating the NDA. Rather, the sample materials are available to give the candidate an idea as to the style and type of material that may be encountered.

There is some question as to how beneficial the ad hoc prep groups can be, and the sample materials from the Group were nowhere near the volume or detail purported to be found during the OA itself, but I found the experience to be extremely useful, as it allowed me to try out my understanding of how the GE, CM and SI sections of the OA were to be addressed. I didn't take away any earth-shattering insights, but it did underscore the need to be especially attentive to detail--and to the passage of time.

The OA itself is reportedly grueling, but for the six hours or so that we remained focused on the materials, the task at hand went by quickly, almost pleasantly. But then again, it was quite a relief to be able to focus on a task for thirty or sixty minutes without interruption or distraction. My present job is essentially hours and hours of continuous interruptions, divided by brief periods of refocusing, reallocating and reprioritizing. :D

I doubt that repeating the experience would help me to prepare any more than it already has. There was never any question in my mind as to the types of information I would be facing--rather it was just good to have the opportunity to observe myself "going through the motions" and to debrief myself, looking for ways to finetune my observeable performance.

Whether this actually benefits me, or whether it has simply lulled me into having a false sense of security remains to be seen, as my OA is still several weeks off.

But the rest of the group: S, V, C, and D--you guys are awesome; thank you for putting it all together!

Best of luck at your own OA's!