politicizing the apolitical civil service: OPM's new 'Merit' Hiring Plan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reviewing four essays that are unrelated to the actual skills and knowledge of the position will not speed up hiring or make the process more efficient.

Though I agree with a push to bring in more young employees, I no longer recommend government service to new grads based on what this admin has done to the workforce.

Starting with President. Dementia Don needs to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
>
Federal hiring too often focuses on elite universities and credentials, instead of merit, practical skill, and commitment to American ideals,” the strategy states.

The word “merit” as used by the right wing is turning into a dog whistle. They don’t have any concept of what it means or how to measure it. The federal government hires lots of people right out of college, when “merit” can most easily be determined by what school you were able to get into (elite = worked hard in high school) and how well you did in what major. The reason the MAGA crowd doesn’t like elite universities is because uneducated and undereducated people are much more likely to go along with their brand of lunacy. Trying to push “merit” as an alternative is contradictory to the reality, which is that there’s plenty of merit coming out of elite universities.

They knownexactly what "merit" means. It means "how much money can you make me?" They are running the country like a business, maximinging value extracted for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm, what's wrong with any of this?

The part where it says “How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role” is the last thing any of us should want for federal hires. This is asking explicitly for people who have a partisan leaning. Why would it be good for the country if we hire only people who have a political bent? That’s exactly what the current administration has been trying (incompetently and ill-advisedly) to find and weed out.

Umm, you work for the President. If you can't work with his priorities and orders, then you shouldn't work for the Government.

If you can't faithfully execute Congress's laws, then you shouldn't be in the Executive branch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reviewing four essays that are unrelated to the actual skills and knowledge of the position will not speed up hiring or make the process more efficient.

Though I agree with a push to bring in more young employees, I no longer recommend government service to new grads based on what this admin has done to the workforce.

Yeah, I agree with bringing in more young employees. Too bad doge just fired them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
>
Federal hiring too often focuses on elite universities and credentials, instead of merit, practical skill, and commitment to American ideals,” the strategy states.

The word “merit” as used by the right wing is turning into a dog whistle. They don’t have any concept of what it means or how to measure it. The federal government hires lots of people right out of college, when “merit” can most easily be determined by what school you were able to get into (elite = worked hard in high school) and how well you did in what major. The reason the MAGA crowd doesn’t like elite universities is because uneducated and undereducated people are much more likely to go along with their brand of lunacy. Trying to push “merit” as an alternative is contradictory to the reality, which is that there’s plenty of merit coming out of elite universities.

They knownexactly what "merit" means. It means "how much money can you make me?" They are running the country like a business, maximinging value extracted for themselves.

This dynamic is seen so clearly in the visa initiatives -- slash student visas, because why should they get to come here just because they are smart and can pay tuition? but create new kinds of Golden Visas, because if you have lots of money, we'd love to have you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm, what's wrong with any of this?

The part where it says “How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role” is the last thing any of us should want for federal hires. This is asking explicitly for people who have a partisan leaning. Why would it be good for the country if we hire only people who have a political bent? That’s exactly what the current administration has been trying (incompetently and ill-advisedly) to find and weed out.

Umm, you work for the President. If you can't work with his priorities and orders, then you shouldn't work for the Government.

Wow. Yikes. As a fed, you have an actual job description and contract. Your agency has a clearly defined mission. If a potus wants to change that, there is a process to do so. And it is not by demanding that you implement all of his EOs.

I used to work for an agency that most would consider to be liberal, but I actually worked with more republicans than democrats at that agency. Politics did not guide us. Science and data guided us. It was balanced and that’s what made it effective. I can’t imagine that agency having a complete turnover every 4-8 years, just undoing and redoing whatever came before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OPM's new hiring plan calls for flag pins and few intellectuals. Or more specifically, according the Federal News Network
>
Federal hiring too often focuses on elite universities and credentials, instead of merit, practical skill, and commitment to American ideals,” the strategy states.

OPM and the White House are calling on agencies to focus their recruitment efforts on state universities, religious colleges and universities, and community colleges — and reach out to students at high schools, trade and technical schools, homeschooling groups, faith-based groups and 4-H youth programs about careers in the federal workforce.
<


Applicants for federal jobs will also be required to answer four essay questions, of which one is “How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.”


https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2025/05/governmentwide-hiring-plan-calls-on-agencies-to-recruit-patriotic-americans-into-federal-workforce/

This is so weird. So many DoD employees obtained their degrees from Regent University, Troy, American Military University, UMGC, and Phoenix University. Online Bachelor degrees for military personnel

I was thinking the same. Outside of some elite DOJ offices (e.g. OLC, SG) and the Foreign Service, most federal employees come from pretty average colleges or no college at all.

I came here to say the same. Every fed I know came from state colleges, including myself and dh. I don’t know that a lot of Ivy League grads are seeking out entry-level fed jobs. Especially now.

[Anonymous]

Feds don’t work “for the president,” except in countries where “president” is a courtesy title for dictator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exactly which part do you hate, OP?

You’re joking right? You want a government of sycophants? What a waste of money. Hire people to not think for themselves. Prioritize loyalty over everything. Sad and terrifying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm, what's wrong with any of this?

The part where it says “How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role” is the last thing any of us should want for federal hires. This is asking explicitly for people who have a partisan leaning. Why would it be good for the country if we hire only people who have a political bent? That’s exactly what the current administration has been trying (incompetently and ill-advisedly) to find and weed out.

Umm, you work for the President. If you can't work with his priorities and orders, then you shouldn't work for the Government.

That's not true in any sense. Is your post satire...or are you genuinely this ignorant?

I can’t believe this. When I first came to DC I asked a guard how to get into the Supreme Court. He said, “through the front doors. It belongs to the people.”

Honestly I weep for the low expectations. Have some awareness of what’s ours as Americans. Don’t tread on me refers to the government, not liberals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm, what's wrong with any of this?

The part where it says “How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role” is the last thing any of us should want for federal hires. This is asking explicitly for people who have a partisan leaning. Why would it be good for the country if we hire only people who have a political bent? That’s exactly what the current administration has been trying (incompetently and ill-advisedly) to find and weed out.

Umm, you work for the President. If you can't work with his priorities and orders, then you shouldn't work for the Government.

That's not true in any sense. Is your post satire...or are you genuinely this ignorant?

I can’t believe this. When I first came to DC I asked a guard how to get into the Supreme Court. He said, “through the front doors. It belongs to the people.”

Honestly I weep for the low expectations. Have some awareness of what’s ours as Americans. Don’t tread on me refers to the government, not liberals.

I don’t live in DC, but my family spent lots of time there several years ago because dh is a fed. I loved how we could just wander around federal buildings, historical sites, and museums. It really made us feel like it was ours, and we took pride in it. We had such a love for this country back then. Our kids learned so much during that time about our government and our history. Obama was president. It felt so calm and peaceful. Now I won’t even go to DC. Not until he’s gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm, what's wrong with any of this?

The part where it says “How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role” is the last thing any of us should want for federal hires. This is asking explicitly for people who have a partisan leaning. Why would it be good for the country if we hire only people who have a political bent? That’s exactly what the current administration has been trying (incompetently and ill-advisedly) to find and weed out.

Umm, you work for the President. If you can't work with his priorities and orders, then you shouldn't work for the Government.

If you can't faithfully execute Congress's laws, then you shouldn't be in the Executive branch.

Presidents must operate within the constitution. The civil service has zero problems implementing Trump policies, as long as they’re Constitutional. Trump is mad because during his first term folks were unwilling to break the law. Americans should take comfort in a non-political civil service and ignore the vitriolic rhetoric from politicians and Musk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The unelected swamp runs things. The elected executives come and go.

Trump is ending the unconstitutional horror

BS.

What Trump is doing is getting up a DICTATORSHIP.

He is putting in his MAGA followers who will pledge to HIM.
I knew when Musk started firing people, a few months later, Trump would rehire his MAGA loyal. This was the plan clearly written in Project 2025.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
>
Federal hiring too often focuses on elite universities and credentials, instead of merit, practical skill, and commitment to American ideals,” the strategy states.

The word “merit” as used by the right wing is turning into a dog whistle. They don’t have any concept of what it means or how to measure it. The federal government hires lots of people right out of college, when “merit” can most easily be determined by what school you were able to get into (elite = worked hard in high school) and how well you did in what major. The reason the MAGA crowd doesn’t like elite universities is because uneducated and undereducated people are much more likely to go along with their brand of lunacy. Trying to push “merit” as an alternative is contradictory to the reality, which is that there’s plenty of merit coming out of elite universities.

I hate the Orange Cheeto.
But, I disagree with you that all elite university students are there on merit. I directly talked to companies that “help your kid get into elite college” for $100K+ per YEAR. One in NYC was $1Million for “helping your kid track correctly from freshman year”. Many elite universities have a separate track that donor’s children go through. Many openly say that they only take full-pay kids off the wait list. Oh, and they have a 3-6% admit rate…..nothing like the 30% admit rate of the 1990s. Plenty of kids with 1600 SATs and straight A’s and 5s on stem APs get rejected.

I couldn’t afford the $90K a year for an elite university. My kid is a double engineering major at a state university and doing really well. Does that make her doomed?
It’s the attitude that “smart people would have gone to an elite school as it filters people out” that can really alienate people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm, what's wrong with any of this?

The part where it says “How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role” is the last thing any of us should want for federal hires. This is asking explicitly for people who have a partisan leaning. Why would it be good for the country if we hire only people who have a political bent? That’s exactly what the current administration has been trying (incompetently and ill-advisedly) to find and weed out.

Umm, you work for the President. If you can't work with his priorities and orders, then you shouldn't work for the Government.

That's not true in any sense. Is your post satire...or are you genuinely this ignorant?

I can’t believe this. When I first came to DC I asked a guard how to get into the Supreme Court. He said, “through the front doors. It belongs to the people.”

Honestly I weep for the low expectations. Have some awareness of what’s ours as Americans. Don’t tread on me refers to the government, not liberals.

Hmm. But not the Capitol. You cannot enter the Capitol unless you're okay facing years in prison for trespassing.