Foreign Service Officers snooty?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have several FSOs in our neighborhood and my spouse used to work at State in a support capacity. Yes, they are full of themselves. To be fair, the ones I know are actually smart and educated, but also rude and just not interested in talking about anything besides their jobs. They all hang out together, rent homes from one another, etc -- very insular -- and if you get two in a room they only talk about who else in State they both mutually know.

I'm in the Foreign Service and take offense at many of the characterizations being levied here (I don't think I'm full of myself and have never rented to or from a fellow DOS employee)- but the bit about getting two in a room and it becoming a "who you know" contest is too funny- and true!

Taking offense is a good indicator that you're full of yourself. If you took a look around at the countries we pay to send you to instead of around the room to see who you know, you'd do a better job at what we're paying you to do. Focus. On. The. Job. Signed, your boss, a liberal internationalist taxpayer but tired of paying for out of touch snobs to trot all over the world living out an imaginary lifestyle

There is a lot of truth here. NP here. In the close in DC suburbs, the older FSO's are married to midwestern women who wanted to get out of the mid west, and marrying was the only way to do it, in their world. The women live and die (literally) by what their husband did, with not much to speak of themselves, except maybe volunteering and bridge games in their later years. Not the warmest bunch, and not much to talk about besides their travels, which would not have been possible without their husbands, sadly. Which would be fine, if they ever truly smiled in their lifetimes.

[Anonymous]

I worked overseas in an embassy filling a specialized post, not part of FS. There are a large number of people who work in embassies who aren't in the FS.

Yes, I agree that many of them are snooty and full of themselves. They often look down on DC and groan about having to do their DC post. Understandable in part because DC is expensive.

But some of them are awesome and are great professionals. It really depends on the individual.

[Anonymous]

They tend to come from upper class backgrounds (private school, foreign language fluency, trust fund, strong emphasis on public service).

So that explains a lot of the superiority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They tend to come from upper class backgrounds (private school, foreign language fluency, trust fund, strong emphasis on public service).

So that explains a lot of the superiority.

I hardly know any FS officers with that background and I have worked for another agency in embassies for years.

Their foreign language skills come from FSI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I worked overseas in an embassy filling a specialized post, not part of FS. There are a large number of people who work in embassies who aren't in the FS.

Yes, I agree that many of them are snooty and full of themselves. They often look down on DC and groan about having to do their DC post. Understandable in part because DC is expensive.

But some of them are awesome and are great professionals. It really depends on the individual.

First part is true. Last part, not so much, in general.

Agree with other PP that their language training is from FSI.

[Anonymous]

I interned at main State in college and found the FSOs on a Washington rotation pleasant, possessing solid social skills and intelligent. I was expecting them to be less normal. I think I was expecting a bit of a “worldly ivory tower” complex if that makes sense.
I am acquainted with/went to school with 2-3 FSOs and they were also cool people. They also tended to be the ones who didn’t express a big interest in being an FSO/not who I would have pegged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They tend to come from upper class backgrounds (private school, foreign language fluency, trust fund, strong emphasis on public service).

So that explains a lot of the superiority.

You are thinking of the FSO from decades ago. Back then they recruited from Ivies. Today it is so difficult to get a security clearance that the ranks are much less urbane than in previous decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They tend to come from upper class backgrounds (private school, foreign language fluency, trust fund, strong emphasis on public service).

So that explains a lot of the superiority.

You are thinking of the FSO from decades ago. Back then they recruited from Ivies. Today it is so difficult to get a security clearance that the ranks are much less urbane than in previous decades.

Such weird classicism here. Is it possible that Government wants to recruit from all the US, and not just North East private schools? And maybe, crazy thought here, there's not an association between attending an Ivy and being able to get a security clearance.

[Anonymous]

I worked at State for a few years as an appointee. There are truly great FSOs but it is a bureaucracy that is still very much governed by its origins in another era. Very very very clubby and insular - not because of the class background of FSOs but because the primary way to advance in your career involves massive amounts of networking within a closed bureaucracy. Add to that the fact that overseas postings inevitably blur the lines between work and home life - so everyone knows every personal detail about their colleagues.

My complaint about State was not the snobbiness, but the fact that so many of my colleagues spent half their days schmoozing one another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I worked at State for a few years as an appointee. There are truly great FSOs but it is a bureaucracy that is still very much governed by its origins in another era. Very very very clubby and insular - not because of the class background of FSOs but because the primary way to advance in your career involves massive amounts of networking within a closed bureaucracy. Add to that the fact that overseas postings inevitably blur the lines between work and home life - so everyone knows every personal detail about their colleagues.

My complaint about State was not the snobbiness, but the fact that so many of my colleagues spent half their days schmoozing one another.

This is the most accurate post here. You have to schmooze continually to get anywhere. Makes people focus their efforts where they need to. Only so much time and energy.

[Anonymous]

Are these schmoozers happy that their career has turned into a high school popularity contest? How depressing that our Foreign Service is so shallow. I really thought they were informed and sophisticated thinkers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I worked overseas in an embassy filling a specialized post, not part of FS. There are a large number of people who work in embassies who aren't in the FS.

Yes, I agree that many of them are snooty and full of themselves. They often look down on DC and groan about having to do their DC post. Understandable in part because DC is expensive.

But some of them are awesome and are great professionals. It really depends on the individual.

My experience of those from some SE asian and s. asian posts would be the complaining about moving back to DC bc their lifestyle would fall in a big way because of "COL" which was code for, I can't have slave labor wage household servants in DC. It used to make me kind of sick

[Anonymous]

I was in the FS. Part of the reason I moved on was the fact that I am extremely introverted. Good diplomats socialize a great deal. I married a diplomat from another country. I will not accompany him at post again because I value my privacy too much. Having live-in staff is an introvert's nightmare. I do not miss the substance of the job either because so much time is wasted on form and formality in a way that wastes taxpayers' money. My colleagues were amazing, talented, and interesting people whom I feel fortunate to have gotten to know.

[Anonymous]

As an FSO with USAID, I am positively loving this thread and agree with many of the sentiments expressed re: State FSOs.

[Anonymous]

Their personal lives of the small number I knew often had a significant amount of personal chaos and drinking. It looked like a difficult life but I did not experience any as particularly snooty or bright or privileged.