|
5.25 out of 7 to pass. However then you get put on an order of merit list and racked and stacked with everyone else who passed. What you need to stand a realistic chance of getting hired varies depending on what cone you want and how competitive the selection is. I think they've gone down to a 5.4 for the political cone, whereas previously you wanted a 5.6 or higher to stand a good shot.
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2009 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:15 |
|
|
drat, this thread got good. Way more substantive than the usual "tell me about the test" threads that pop up all the time. I have a few questions myself. I have a couple hesitations about joining the foreign service I'd like to get an FSO's take on. The first one centers around the first job or two that you get directed to take upon finishing A-100. I'm told that they are usually consular positions and largely admin in nature. Does prior skill/experiences come into account? I'm at the position in my career now where doing 2-3 years of admin work would be a serious step backward. Granted, I understand the importance of paying dues, but paying dues gets old after a while. My second concern is the scope of work for a political officer. I'm not entirely comfortable with what I envision the daily work to be. Your portfolio would be whatever domestic issue is going on in the country that the US would care about. For some issues and in some countries this would be compelling, but for others I can see myself caring significantly less. I take it this is what you guys have been talking about when you said that smaller embassy footprints make for better work than larger ones. If I was a political officer in Paris I could see myself being focused on French trade union politics, their arms industry, which party is gaining ground in their rural provinces, etc. But if you were a political officer in a small mission you would have a larger portfolio of comparably higher value items. My third concern is a corollary of the second, but I'm not sure if what State focuses on is what I'm interested in. I'd like to focus more on security related issues - with DoD's gargantuan worldwide footprint established through the CoComs I feel that they are more relevant on these matters than State, even given State's primacy on foreign policy. But, all that said, the foreign service is definitely a compelling career route. I'm especially attracted to the idea of changing jobs on a regular basis - every 1-3 years or so. Seems like a great way to stay fresh and keep learning.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2009 21:55
|
|
|
yoslow posted:I'm going to be a sophomore in the fall. I'm majoring in Poli Sci and I'm in Army ROTC. I've been looking into being a psychological operations officer in the army. I really like Foreign Affairs and becoming a psychological operations officer provides a wide variety of jobs both in the army and after I'm out. After doing that or while doing it if I chose to be reserves, I was thinking about working for the Department of State in the foreign service or for the CIA in the analyst field. I'm at the point where I should start considering what to do after I complete my undergraduate because I need to start taking law classes. I was where you were at 6+ years ago when I was back in college. Getting a law degree won't make you more competitive. You sometimes see people with JD's who hold cool senior foreign policy jobs - these were gained through political connections and not anything derived intrinsically from a JD. PsyOps is generally not available for lieutenants and is something that you will have to branch into once you are a branch-qualified captain. In English this means that going into the psyops career field will happen in your 6-8 year mark IIRC. It might have changed now, but if so you would have to wait until you were a senior 1LT. Doesn't take that long to happen - however the key point is that you won't get branched as a psy-ops officer straight out of ROTC and will have to be in another branch afterward. If you want good experience that will make you competitive afterward you should look at being a military intelligence officer or an infantry officer. You should also angle to get put at the BN level if your intel, and get a platoon if you are infantry. Both will get you a lot of experience that will be useful to a later career. Truthfully you'll probably get more mileage with the national intel agencies if you have a MI background, even though an infantry officer will also bring with him a wealth of useful knowledge. I'm not tracking why you need to pick a grad school now. If you are doing ROTC that will funnel you straight into the Army upon graduation. edit: holy poo poo, law school is not the place to figure out if you want to be a lawyer or not. Law school is not a catch-all universal degree. It is not the graduate equivalent of an undergraduate liberal arts major. Law school is first and foremost a trade school. If you do not want to work in the trade than you should not go to it. If you want to give yourself maximum flexibility and options upon graduation here is what you need to do. Learn a useful foreign language (Mandarin, Arabic, Farsi, French (for Africa), Korean, Russian, etc). Take a hefty dose of rigorous quantitative economics and statistics classes, try to obtain the highest possible security clearance from the Army, if possible spend a summer abroad at a relevant country (i.e. don't just go to western Europe to get drunk). If you still have time and want to also keep academia open as a possibility than do a senior thesis or get published someplace. If you want a career in foreign affairs those steps are probably the best thing you can do as an undergraduate to set yourself apart and give you maximum flexibility. The key is the rigorous econ/stat and the foreign language. Taking yet another class on generic international relations, or international law III, or human rights II, or whatever follow-on specialized IR course, is going to yield diminishing returns in comparison to developing your quantitative or foreign language skills quote:Perhaps a reach, but does anyone here work for USAID? I passed the FSOT and I'm waiting to hear back if I'll be going to the Orals, but in all honesty, I'm much more interested in the work that USAID does. I applied for a Crisis, Stabilization and Governance Officer job (junior) back in March, received an e-mail saying my qualifications were a match, and since then, nothing. I called USAID's HR and got a recorded message saying I *might* get a call for an interview within 2-8 months. haven't worked at USAID however I've worked on the periphery of some of what they do. A big complaint with USAID right now is that they were completely gutted during the 90's. A lot of what USAID does now is contract management. Figure out a bunch of projects to do, write a contract and put it out for bidding, finally perform quality checks on the contractor to make sure he completes everything in accordance with the scope of work. Again, I can't speak first hand, however this is an oft-cited complaint about USAID right now. Happydayz fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Jul 31, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2009 22:48
|
|
|
yoslow posted:If I get into grad school the army will help pay for it and the time I have to give back doesn't start until I finish. there are some positions that will require you to resign your reserve commission. Foreign service definitely. A national level intel agency - generally not. Also, I'd be hesitant to roll into grad school straight out of undergrad on the Army's dime. That will likely come with a large price tag with respect to time owed to Uncle Sam. At this point you don't even know if you like Army life. And here's a hint - ROTC does not equal Army life.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2009 15:22
|
|
|
that is incredibly surprising. I'm not sure how you could meet your reserve commitments while in the foreign service. It's especially interesting because given that the reserves may require a mobilization which would obviously put the hamper on your FSO job. There are certain jobs that are labeled "emergency essential" and require someone to get out of the reserves if they take these civilian positions. Basic definition of emergency essential is a civilian position that must be filled under a state of mobilization/war-time. In other words you are doing a job as a civilian that if we are in WWII would take precedence over a reserve mobilization - and therefore you cannot stay in the reserves. Looks like I was wrong with the FS and the reserves - oops.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2009 18:45
|
|
|
TCD posted:I've been meeting some recent A100 graduates... All their resumes are pretty impressive. I think it's important to point out to people interested in the foreign service not to get too hung up with these people having impressive resumes. Let's not get confused with cause and effect here. The people in A100 and FSO's did not get into the foreign service because they have impressive resumes. Rather the type of person who gets into the FS tends to be the type of person who can build an impressive resume. We have a remarkably meritocratic system for selecting our countries diplomats that is a world apart from how many other countries do so.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2009 13:11
|
|
|
Natural Ice posted:I didn't pass my OA unfortunately. I passed the GE and SI, but failed the CM pretty badly. Just keep at it. You get better with every try. I've taken the orals twice and did noticeably better having the experience under my belt. Definitely agree with the case management portion. I can sail through the structured interview no problem. Group exercise isn't that bad but unfortunately some of it is outside of your control depending on who is in your group. The case management though I've bombed every time I've taken it. I'm an incredibly fast reader and my job requires me to go over large amounts of data and synthesize it. However the CM just puts me on my rear end. The second time I took the orals I did it with the plan to just haul rear end through all of the documentation, pull out just enough to make an argument, and get writing. Even then I barely managed to finish in time.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2009 14:29
|
|
|
what's up QEP rejection buddies! I got rejected from the QEP when it was first implemented. This previous post here makes a ton of sense though: quote:The panels review these files by career track considering the criteria outlined on the web site under the QEP. So in a hypothetical scenario let's assume the Department wanted to hire 100 political officers candidates and 100 management candidates but has 2000 applications for political officers and 700 for management candidates. They can invite the top 200 or top 300 candidates in each group to the oral assessment, but that is a very different percentage between the two cohorts. Competitively it makes getting an invitation to the Oral much more difficult for those in career tracks that are more highly sought. The two previous times I took the FSOT I took it for granted that I'd get the invitation to the Orals. When I didn't the third time it was a shock out of the blue. I couldn't figure out how someone who had 1) worked internationally for 4 years, 2) had significant amount of responsibilities working with foreign militaries, and 3) had previously passed the orals, could get rejected by the QEP since a large part of the rationale for the QEP was to drive up Oral Exam passage rates. A possible good thing about the QEP is that it should hopefully raise the caliber of person taking the oral exam, which in turn makes the oral exam easier for those going through it. I passed the group exercise the last time but had significant difficulty dealing with one extremely socially awkward guy in my group. He was literally dragging the other four of test takers down with him and both myself and another group member who ended up passing were both taking turns trying to neutralize him and get the group on track. With a strict QEP in place this should hopefully decrease the likelihood of someone like him making it into the orals again. quote:This is what really sucks about the QEP. There is no feedback whatsoever. FSOT has score breakdowns. With the FSOA you at least have a feeling for how you've performed in each section. With the QEP it could be because your roommate put an ASCII cock at the bottom of your personal essay, and you'd never know. I just don't know about the QEP. It was an idea that McKinsey cooked up when State hired them to help improve the FSOT. So let's say that the political cone can invite 200 oral exam test takers, and 1000 political cone applicants pass the written. So only the top 200 go through. In that case what do they judge the top 200 on? Judge them on educational background or foreign travel? If the decision is made by the personal narrative portion than people with compelling life stories/experiences will be more attractive. In all of these cases they may very well be accepting in a higher quality applicant based on all available information. However what I've always liked about State hiring is how meritocratic it was. A Harvard grad had on paper just as much chance as someone with a GED and no college. All that mattered was the written examination and the orals. For both the written and orals your background, education, income, etc were irrelevant. What mattered is how you performed on test day. If you didn't have thousands of dollars to spend on lots of international travel and thus couldn't talk about how you handled cultural differences with foreigners, you could still explain how you overcame cultural differences here in the US during your oral exam. Now with the QEP there seems to be a built-in bias toward those with richer educational, professional, and leisurely backgrounds. They can tell more compelling stories while those without the means will have a harder time making it to orals and presenting their life story during the structured interview process edit: there's also the good possibility that the QEP will make the foreign service more homogeneous. Under the old system the main barrier are the tests. With the QEP you need to beat people on paper. That sort of system drives standards closer toward established norms than the more free-flowing entry process of the old system. So yeah. Some good about the QEP, but also some not-so good. But, I could also still be bitter about getting rejected by the QEP back in 2007. Happydayz fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Sep 15, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2009 03:56
|
|
|
Yahoo Groups - search for Foreign Service Oral Exam. There is a LOT you can do to prepare. The easiest way to get bang for your buck is preparing for the structured interview. The whole point of the SI is to match you up against the 13 core dimensions and score you on how well you fit each dimension. Every question they ask you is geared toward this. So you will benefit enormously by writing out each dimension and then listing 3-4 life experiences which show how you meet this dimension. So when the structured interview comes around and they ask a question that is getting at dimension A, presto! You have a perfect example to provide them with. Not only does this make you more confident but it maximizes the use of your time. You only have a set amount of time in the interview. The more time you spend knocking out dimensions the better off you are. That means clearly articulated stories helps you help the examiners get what they need so they can continue to the next question and help you score more points Case management exercise: there should be 2-3 real case samples there, maybe more. Take these under timed test conditions. CM has always been the hardest test for me, so practice makes perfect. Group exercise - just read up on how the group exercise is scored so you know what they are looking for. Again, the 13 dimensions are key, so keep those in mind during the group exercise. The yahoo groups also form informal group classes amongst themselves that aren't limited by the official State Dept prep sessions. Definitely link up with one of these groups and have at it. As for first time test taking - a lot of people pass on their first time. A lot of people also pass on their second, third, or subsequent tries. I passed my second try at the orals with 2x other people - one had been trying for 4-5 years and also participated in the Yahoo Groups, the other was still a senior in college and passed with a 5.7 having done zero preparation.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2009 06:52
|
|
|
xanthig posted:the economist publishes a series of "pocket guides" which thoroughly explore the jargon of various business subjects. I suggest picking up the management guide. I think it may have morphed into a more comprehensive tome since I picked up my copy, but here's a link to the now out of print version that I have. I found this book incredibly helpful in navigating the jargon. that question is loving bullshit. It's a great way to limit the foreign service to people from upper-middle class backgrounds who've taken the prep school -> Ivy League -> White Collar route that McKinsey loves to hire from
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2009 21:32
|
|
|
Skandiaavity posted:Am I 'too far ahead' in my career where it seems unusual for me to drop my current job to go stamp visas for two years? How does State feel about hiring GS-9/11/13 (and respective FS scale) positions externally? I think you need to scale back your ambitions and your opinion of yourself. GS-9/11/13 track? Give me a break. You aren't in a position to land a political appointee job if you are hoping to enter equivalent to a GS 13 skill set. Frankly you are a while off. Knowing senior level / senior grade people is not a big deal. Name dropping a flag grade equivalent isn't a big deal unless you are in a direct mentor/mentee relationship and of sufficient rank for this to be feasible (see GS-15 / O-5 or O-6 level. If you are in a GS-9/13 slot you can suck it up and stamp passports for a bit.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2009 04:24
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:
In terms of a first job - at least it's interesting. I think Vilerat did a service in making clear that it isn't all cocktail parties and glamor. Every job has its lovely part and I've found that some of the unhappiest people in any profession are those who went into it with completely skewed expectations. As for State replacing DoD (or more appropriately getting back from DoD) a lot of the overseas authority on foreign policy. Meh, I doubt it. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that Sec Powell and Rice both tried this without much success. And the Obama administration frankly does not seem up to the task of anything right now, let alone a fundamental re-organization of how we represent US interests overseas. Right now a lot of DoD is actively trying to push responsibilities back unto State's plate where it rightfully belongs. However a lot of this is being driven by the difficulties in waging multiple operations oveseas and the strain this is putting on the DoD. So from a purely bureaucratic perspective it makes sense that you hear so many senior DoD civilians and uniformed officers talking about strengthening State. However, the money gravy train is going to be turned off, and probably sooner rather than later. You can bet your rear end that DoD will make a power play to protect its budget once that happens. DoD has a congressional constituency. Who does State have?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2009 18:27
|
|
|
Business of Ferrets posted:Have you been hearing rumblings that State's funding will be reduced? I figured the opposite would happen. Oh no, I'm sure that you guys are good budget wise. But DoD's budget has grown for 9 straight years, it's going to end eventually. When it does I can see it trying to justify keeping some of the cuts by arguing about how much "civilian" work it does that should be done by non-uniformed parts of the government. State's budget is tiny - all of $15 billion give or take. And I can't see where budget cuts can even come in at seeing how you have so many fixed expenses.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2009 03:08
|
|
|
don't worry about foreign travel for your clearance - especially if it was tourism related. Going to some crazy countries might be an issue - but if you have a history of international travel to a variety of countries there is a ready explanation right there.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2009 22:31
|
|
|
what's $30? Just do it. You could get enough points easily from the bio re-grade
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2009 20:33
|
|
|
Vilerat posted:5 or 10 pt veterence preference. it works out to be a substantive preference. 5.25 out of 7 passes the orals. Historically a 5.6 was needed to be competitive for political or economic, while with a 5.25 you stood a chance for consular. I think points have trended lower of late, although I'm not sure. A 5 pt preference = .175 points, a 10 pt = .35 So even if you just squeek by with a 5.25, if you are a purple heart recipient or otherwise earned a 10 pt preference that bumps you way up to 5.55
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2009 04:03
|
|
|
AKA Pseudonym posted:You can always come to Eastern Europe and save postage on your bride. I was going to say - single diplomats posted overseas are going to have a lot of appeal. And not even in poorer countries - it's a very prestigious job much more so in other countries than here in the US. I imagine this only applies to males though. The dynamics would likely work the opposite way for females.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2009 21:22
|
|
|
I think people with critical needs languages get an automatic pass to the oral exams.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2009 03:42
|
|
|
Miss Fats posted:After doing all kinds of research into what life has in store for me (domestic policy work, grad school, law school, campaign work, or mcdonald's) I've basically decided this is what I want to do. I applied to take the FSOT the other day and should be hearing back in January. Well you are already cruising for a bruising. The foreign service should NEVER be your first choice, and you should not decide you want to do it after a long, deliberative thought out process. The reason is that it is 1) extremely difficult to get into, and 2) a LONG on-boarding process even if you do get hired. Your best bet is to go full steam with another course of option while still applying for the foreign service, and if you get in well that's just gravy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2009 23:41
|
|
|
Miss Fats posted:I'm obviously not putting all my eggs in the FSO basket. I am just trying to figure out what to do and I've decided that State is my #1 priority - as in I would drop everything else if I got hired. Just so you know, Peace Corps = (likely) never going to work in the intelligence community. Maybe that's not your thing, but you should think carefully before closing off an option.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2009 04:23
|
|
|
I wouldn't get a visible tattoo or body piercing as a male. The federal government is a conservative place in general. Not politically per se, but in behavior. Here's a good article in the Washington Post about visible tattoos in the workplace specific to DC: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/09/AR2009120904631.html?sid=ST2009120904794 quote:In D.C. area, workers find tattoos are taboo from 9 to 5 Note: this is just in DC in the private sector. Not even in conservative work environment like State or DoD
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2009 05:39
|
|
|
the QEP: sigh. Don't feel bad. A lot of great people don't get past the QEP cut. It's somewhat arbitrary but I guess it does serve a purpose. I imagine that the oral exams are expensive to put on so making another round of cuts likely helps cut costs even if it might not have a noticeable effect on the quality of new hires. Urdu speaker - just apply for a job at CIA, DIA, or NSA. Those three will have the biggest demand for Urdu speakers. Alternatively there are other programs like the Pat Roberts Scholar program that you might be eligible for - they'll get you in the door and pay for an overseas education in your language.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2010 02:26
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:The FSOA list is rapidly becoming a helpful tool in exercising my self-control. Every so often there is a post on there that I want to reply to (snarky or otherwise) and sometimes I get to drafting the email before hitting discard. I'd rather not sabotage my application with the risk that some HR person is reading the list. I found the FSOA yahoo group to be extremely useful when I used it back in 2003. Lot of great information there that you would have no idea about unless you had previously taken the test. Just ignore the crap and go through the files. It will give you a good idea of what to expect and how to prepare. Two of the three sections; the case management written exercise and the group exercise have a lot of variables outside your control. However there is absolutely no reason you should not ace the structured interview. It is almost a freebie if you prepare by drafting out a bunch of life stories tied to the 13 dimensions.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2010 18:11
|
|
|
I've said it before, but the structured interview is the easiest part to prepare for. You don't have to pass all three sections - you just need to get above a 5.25. So the SI is when you should rake up as many points as possible. Just get a list of the 13 dimensions and then come up with 2-3 life experiences apiece that demonstrate how you met the dimensions. Or at the very least sit down and write out some of your major life experiences/jobs/examples so you are able to confidently reference them during the interview.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2010 04:44
|
|
|
xanthig posted:Did you figure out of they were calling people out in order of candidate number? the last people called in to receive their scores are the ones who passed. Once you get the offer there is a lot of admin stuff you need to take care of that will take a half hour or more. A 5.5 is awesome. There's a great chance that you'll get an offer. Congratulations. quote:To do what you did, you got at least a 6.1 on the interview. Seriously people. The structured interview is the easiest part to rake up big points. It is also the easiest part to prepare for. quote:To add another opinion to the fire, I would agree with others that the FSOT is disturbingly easy, the QEP oddly inscrutable, and the OA a decent test of poise and verbal ability, but perhaps a touch overly dependent on luck. The written exam historically has a ~30% pass rate. This is notable because those interested in the foreign service are already a self-selected group. If given to the general population the pass rate would likely be much lower. So while we can say that it is disturbingly easy, I think big picture it is safe to call it a difficult test. I mean there is nothing hard per se on the questions - you either know the answer or you don't. The QEP is just confusing, and I definitely agree with the OA's being overly dependent on luck at least with respect to the group exercise. quote:After all, the skills you learn there are readily applicable to the private sector. It may not, however, be a viable choice for a full career. An informal survey of State's website reveals extremely few officers at the DCM, much less Ambassadorial level who came from any cones other than Political or Economic, State's repeated protestations notwithstanding. Business of Ferrets addressed this better than I can hope to. But I think some perspective is due. So management cones are underrepresented at the DCM and Ambassadorial level. So what? What percentage of FSO's make it to DCM or Ambassador? I would wager surprisingly few. I think that making it to FS-1 is considered the culmination of a successful career for a FSO. To say that you are hesitant to pursue a certain path because you won't make DCM is like someone hesitating to join a particular military skill because he is less likely to make General, or hesitating to getting hired at a Fortune 50 company because there's no clear career track to CEO. All of those are long shots and should not be the primary factor in making a career choice Happydayz fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Feb 27, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2010 00:52
|
|
|
Politics and Prose needs to not be way the gently caress up the redline. I'm sure that helps in keeping the audience free from know-it-all college kids and far left/right zanies, but Kramer's really takes the cake due to the sheer convenience factor of being right in Dupont Circle.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2010 01:25
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:gently caress yeah. You should be good to go. State is hiring 800+ FSO's this year - about 3x their normal hiring rate which is tied to attrition. So they should be processing a lot of people off the register. The big thing is getting on it as soon as possible to ride that list for all its worth.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2010 01:15
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:Hmm, though that might have bearing on my plans of officially moving up here. And now I don't actually remember what I put as my permanent residence on my forms. You definitely absolutely totally want per diem. Do not under any circumstances make DC your permanent residence between now and then. Well, run the math. If you are in a total podunk area right now you MIGHT be better off with COLA over per-diem, but I seriously doubt this. quote:Happydayz: whoa, I didn't realize State was on a massive hiring blitz this year. I know, it's ridiculous. I heard this first hand from a FSO in State's personnel section who is in a position to know. So not just a crazy internets rumor. As for 2011/2012/2013/etc, I have no idea what their hiring numbers are projected to look like. State has been talking about expanding its ranks for literally years now. I think there have been some hiring pushes in the past - but I'm not sure if this is the last gasp of hiring pushes or just one of several others expected to come down in the years ahead.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2010 23:55
|
|
|
onezero posted:Let's say, theoretically, that I very recently decided that I would like to pursue becoming an FSO, and today filled out the online registration. With invites to June's test just going out, do I have pretty much a snowball's chance in hell of sitting for the exam this time around? I would think so. The written exams are normally done is large auditoriums or testing halls. The marginal cost of an extra exam-taker is low, especially compared to the marginal cost of an oral examinee
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2010 00:42
|
|
|
Business of Ferrets posted:Promotions up to 04 are administrative. An officer will be promoted to 05 after 12 months as an 06. Promotion to 04 is after 18 months as an 05. If you are an 04 and tenured, you are eligible for promotion to 03, which is competitive. After that, you have to spend three years at grade before being considered for promotion to the next grade. Steps generally come one year after your most recent promotion and each year after until the next promotion. Once you get to the high end of a pay grade, the steps might only come every two years, but I'm not 100% clear on that. The new pay grade/step after a promotion is calculated in such a way as to ensure you will be making more money at the new grade even if you were near the top of the old grade, so you don't have to worry about losing money, etc. Speaking of which - is the foreign service up or out? Or can you sit in a grade for a while. Also at what grade do most people generally retire it. In the Army it's as an O-5, which would be equivalent to a FS-2.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2011 01:27
|
|
|
so do most competent people retire at FS-1? Or is FS-2 where most people retire at?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2011 18:31
|
|
|
code:Last I heard the QEP was still up in the air with regards to what it being looked for. At least now we get to fill it out after passing the FSWE. When it first rolled out you had to submit one before even registering for the written exam which was a major pain
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2011 18:16
|
|
|
Dameius posted:Well, PNQ is due today for everyone that passed the FSOT with me. Hopefully everyone has got their answers in or are wrapping it up. Good luck to the four or five of you guys that came out of the woodworks. Yep! You too. I submitted for the QEP the first time they had rolled it out. Hopefully this time around I'm more successful, although it's hard to judge what exactly they'll be looking for out of each 200 word response
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2011 03:22
|
|
|
I thought Pickering still needed to pass the orals? edit: wait, so they just need to pass the orals and they are good to go? No need to worry about the register? Happydayz fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Mar 29, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 02:22
|
|
|
question on the EPAP or other EFM programs. I might get posted to London for 3x years as a DoD civilian. Would my wife qualify for the EPAP program even though we aren't State employees? We would both receive black passports if that matters. She's currently qualified to perform an entry level FS position in terms of possessing the right skills and basic employment requirements (bachelors, multiple foreign languages, etc) but doesn't have a clearance. So assuming that she is eligible for the program, would she first have to get sponsored for a clearance? And if so, who would be the sponsoring agent? edit: also if it helps - the current person filling the position also has a wife. I'm not sure if she ever found a job, but there was someone in the Embassy helping her with job placement as part of his duties Happydayz fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Feb 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
zzonkmiles posted:I'm a Civil Service employee with State. What do you want to know? foreign affairs officer - how likely is it to get a FAO job without employment preference or PMF?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:15 |
|
|
Nutrimentia posted:Anyone have any direct experience or secondhand knowledge about working in INR? Any specific questions? I don't work in INR but have had a lot of interactions with it. If you can get a job in INR I would absolutely take it. One of the best regarded analytic sections within the intelligence community, and people tend to stay within INR a long time which is probably a good indicator of workplace morale. The main benefit of INR is that it is a really short path from the analyst to the principal. INR has far fewer layers of bureaucracy than the other major agencies, so the distance between you and an Assistant Secretary or Under Secretary is minimal.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2015 02:36
|
|