I’ve been thinking that I’d like to look into working for the State Department of the United States in some capacity. Does anyone have any idea what the best way to go about looking into this is? I’m currently employed by a large financial services institution, but it just isn’t me. I know history, geography and languages. I speak fluent French plus a smattering of German and Spanish. I’ve lived in Europe and I maintain a keen interest in world affairs. I write well, and I’m congenial and diplomatic.
I’m not sure exactly what I’d like to do for them. I’m not sure how to find out what they’re looking for. I wouldn’t mind working for an embassy or NATO or the UN or as an American adjunct to the Council of Europe (we must have some sort of attaché there, I’m sure.) I’d like to stay in the New York area, but I wouldn’t mind moving to Washington or any other major metropolitan area in the States. Moving to Europe would be fine with me, too.
I’m 33. Am I too old? Am I too naïve? I’m not quite sure what questions even to ask here. If anyone has any databases concerning what the State Department might be looking for, please let me know.
Be aware that working for the State Department means putting your conscience aside. The State Department is, well, the US’s foreign policy department, and that means you could be supporting policy you find repulsive. Take a look at any history of the US’s role in Latin America in the past century and you’ll find plenty of reason why the State Department isn’t for you.
Also, the State Department could really care less about any experiences to intercultural understanding you’ve been though. They expect their employees to be 100% supportive of the US, and if you enjoyed meeting people of languages other than English, governments other than that of the US (and a few allies), and different viewpoints on world affairs, the State Department’s atmosphere will probably soon drive you crazy.
Caveat: I never worked for that State Department, but I served in the Navy in the linguist field and its objectives, lack of perspective, and disregard for the privacy of others and the possibility they may be right have often been compared to…the U.S. State Department, which is often the one who initiated the orders that work their way down to some branches of the military.
I had the pleasure of doing some contract work with a subset of the State Department some years ago, and I enjoyed it very much. I nearly got hired aboard, but then at the last minute a former employee with hiring preference decided she wanted to return to the position. Bummer. They were for the most part extremely bright, very nice folks to work for, and there were some unusual perks as well. Let’s just say it’s the only job I ever had where a full liquor cabinet was hauled out roughly bi-weekly for ahem, “employee functions.”
I have either worked for or closely with a number of federal agencies, and each one has its own “culture” and environment. EPA is very provincial and self-competitive; parts of Interior border on dysfunctionality; the Smithsonian is stodgy and in my personal experience, somewhat dishonest. Only the State Department was what I would call pleasant, fair, and truly enjoyable.
This summer, I had a nice chat with some federal employees about trying to get a government job and they all told me that the place to go is www.usajobs.opm.gov . Something like 75% of all federal openings are listed there, and most of them can be searched by branch, agency, and what have you.
I’m also told that if you think you meet the job requirements you owe it to yourself to apply. While there is usually no lack of applicants for virtually any federal position, many of them are the equivalent of spammers who just don’t have what the Feds are asking for. One person I spoke to told me she nailed her first federal job because she spoke Spanish, and despite her total lack of other qualifications for the job at hand she was the only applicant who did. That proved to be more important than anything else, so she waltzed right in.
Let me give some observations, given I have had direct contact with State people at various levels.
First, yes, you are a civil servant and you job will be to support US policy to the best of your ability, regardless of personal opinion (within certain limits to be sure).
Painting this as negative strikes me as absurd and naive. As a professional you have to do this one way or another. I do not talk down my firm’s product or policies to the public while on the job, and avoid the subject otherwise.
Second, State is not as much about diplomacy as you may expect. It is a bureacracy and you do not make policy until well advanced. I frankly have not been terribly impressed with US diplomats, well, diplomatic skills. The hiring process is terribly bureacratic, which has the advantage of excluding too much nepotism, but I have frequently come away from a reception thinking “that maladjusted freak represents us on trade matters?”
The actual application is an exam, followed by an oral. I would presume that you will find it easy to pass the written. The oral is rather harder, or so I am led to understand. A good friend of mine sat for the 3rd time. I am not sure what they are looking for in the orals – not what they say they are looking for but what they are actually looking for.
State BTW does not hire for Foreign Service Officers (aka diplomats) through OPM - the process is seperate. Sofa King’s reference is better for technical hires, but does allow you a number of options.
To my understanding there are also foreign service hires through Commerce and USAID, on seperate programs. With a financial background, Commerce or USAID development may be good routes.
I have a strong interest in foreign affairs, speak other languages, etc., and I scored very high on their tests to gauge whether Foreign Service is the right job for me. Then it dawned on me… AM I OUT OF MY MIND?! I find much of U.S. foreign policy repulsive (to steal Unu’s word) and I want no part in promoting it. Considering your post about the war on Iraq, Chance, I suspect that you might have some qualms about it too.
Also, be advised that you would not get to choose where you go and will move around frequently. You can’t just say, “Gee, Paris would be nice.” You have to be prepared for Bangladesh.
I really can’t agree with this fully. Being reasonably cynical about my profession, I can see that extracurricular experiences in State’s employees means that they have expreience that the Department doesn’t have to pay for, so they’re actively recruiting people with “nontraditional” backgrounds. The Department has changed a lot under Powell, and most everyone thinks it’s for the better.
State is one of the best agencies to work for, and the only one that routinely sends its employees to fascinating destinations around the world to do some of the most interesting (and some of the most stultifying) work in the world.
The application process is involved, and I’ll second what others have said. I also served on an advisory committee for the Board of Examiners to revamp the oral examination. I can give anyone who’s interested some pointers and what to expect about the hiring process and beyond. I’d advise you to check out State’s recruitment page. I like working for State, and hey, they’re paying me a very decent salary (plus rent, plus a 20% post differential, plus a R&R in Sydney) to go to a tropical island for two years and be a striped-pants cookie-pusher, so I can’t complain.
You don’t have to do anything for your employer that you don’t believe in. Each of us has to make decisions about where we draw the line, based on our own sense of ethics. I do not intend to ever work for anyone who engages in activities I find objectionable, such as killing innocent people.
Affaires of state, and many other affaires require one to grapple with complex, non-black and white issues and decisions, the consequences of which are complex and often not fully foreseeable. They are best left to adults who have a reasonable estimation of the actual costs and benefits.
As to the objectionableness of American or any other state’s foreign policy, there are lots of ugly choices to make in life, above all if one leaves the comfortable little world of the developed world, with all its security. I presume our Gardener is not some starry eyed youth or naive fool, and understands that such business does not allow, by its very nature, cheap moral purity.
I would rather ask False God to hold forth - my own views of State are rather cynical, based on what I have seen in my professional dealings. Notwithstanding some truly excellent State folks who have helped me out immensely. In fact, I would be very interested in hearing False God’s views on the degree to which recruitement, above on economic affaires and for people with real people skills has changed. I know you have it hard, competing for a narrow pool but I suspect you’ve got a better pool in that area than you’ve had in years, if not decades.
So Collounsbury, insults are allowed in GQ if they’re slightly veiled? I’m not a child, nor naive, nor a fool, nor have I lived my whole life in comfort in the developed world. And the term is “moral integrity,” not “moral purity,” and it certainly does not come cheap.
Interesting does mean worthy of support. I’m sure the State Department’s work in Guatemala in 1953 or Iran during the Shah’s regime was very interesting, but also abhorrent. Embassies are more centers for spying than for diplomacy, and violation of privacy of individuals outweighs the legitimate interception, with employees often listening in on local cellular calls just for fun.
And sure, you might go to fascinating destinations around the world, but with large restrictions on what you can do. You’re surrounded by a foreign culture but you can’t actually participate in it much, you’re limited to what political organizations you can take part in, and falling in love with a person of the wrong nationality can cost you your job. What person who honestly loves travel and intercultural understand would want to be under that yoke?
First, let us leave aside the concept of original sin. Gautemala 1950. Second, as I mentioned, the making of FP and its execution is not for children or naive idealists or foolish idiots - our dear Gardner is presumably an adult aware of the world.
Embassies provide key support to American businesses and trade, they host a variety of activities that the non-paranoid are aware the majority are not spying.
The intelligence activities are certainly there, I’ve met enough FSO’s who I am sure were intelligence, but the majority were not.
As for this bullshit about employess listening in on local cellular calls for fun… What the fuck ever. (I would be pleased if the American diplomatic corps had enough langauge skills for that little game to be both possible and entertaining, frankly they do not. Not to mention that it would be terribly boring.)
First, anyone with professional responsibilities has de facto limitations on what political organizations they can participate in if one has serious ambitions, and of course those organizations one might be limited in regards to are hardly worth consideration if one is actually interested in this line of work. To be a civil servant, here, or elsewhere in the developed world one largely engages to keep a low, non-political profile. That is the name of the game. Wanna a be an activist, go be an activist. Wanna be a diplomat, go be a diplomat.
As to marrying foreigners, every third FSO I have met was married to a foreigner - there are some basic anti-espionage rules which I am sure an insider can explain, for the FSO’s own protection but it hardly is a bloody glass cube.
Yoke… whatever.
Despite my negative words, it is a decent career for someone who has interest in . Of course if you’re into Lefty ideological purity, it is not the career for you, that is already more than evident. However, for other adults, the real drawbacks are the bureaucratic nature of the organization, from all I have heard. My own opinion is there is far too little people skills, so if Chance has them he should go for it.
Cheap ideological purity and moral posturing aside.
As a former U.S. Federal employee (USDOJ, Office of the Immigration Judge), with mildly left-leaning tendencies and a distaste for bureaucratic stupidity, I found working for the Feds even in a relatively low-level capacity (interpreter/court clerk) to be both an immensely frustrating and an immensely rewarding experience, sometimes within moments of each other. I can’t imagine that State would be that much different, depending on what area one was assigned to, if one has the type of mind that sees the huge potential ripple effects of even a low-level job in the foreign policy realm.
If one has strong political opinions, and a desire to help one’s fellow human beings, particularly ones who are in the process of being screwed by sleazy and/or incompetent counsel or mindless bureaucratic procedure which serves no purpose except covering the DOJ’s butt from the perceived potential of lawsuits, it is sometimes very, very difficult to keep one’s mouth shut and/or avoid the appearance of impropriety. I always felt that my job was very important in the sense that I had a very real ability to influence the outcome of, say, a political asylum case, either by the quality of my interpreting work or by the advice I gave a pro se respondent at the front desk, either in terms of seeking counsel or proceeding pro se. It blows my mind how much power a GS-5 clerk can have in what are potentially life-and-death matters. And then, of course, were the Nazi war criminals in deportation proceedings; as a Jew who lost unknown numbers of extended family members due to the events of the mid-20th century, I had a hard time not spitting on those folks when they (or even their counsel) came in.
But hey, everyone has a different tolerance for hypocrisy. I just found it hard to stand by, basically powerless to make even the smallest decision, no matter how sensible it might be for all concerned. That’s why I gave up and left for grad school.