Anonymous wrote:My DC who just graduated college is supposed to join the Peace Corps this fall. I'm somewhat nervous about that because I'm wondering how much support she's going to receive from our government - especially if there's an emergency.

Anyone care to comment?

DOGE is in the Peace Corps right now. Wouldn’t count on it. Fulbrights are also being axed. Actually, current Fulbrights just stopped getting stipends and were stranded overseas. I mean, if it were my kid, we could pony up thousands and get her out of a thir world country three plane rides away. Many families can’t.

As to the Peace Corp, it won’t happen (and if it does, your kid risks being stranded with no support somewhere unsafe). And I say this very sadly as the parent of a college junior who has wanted Peace Corps for a decade, chose a college partly on Peace Corps Placement, and has been working with her college to prepare for her application process. Her college is advising her that neither Fulbright nor Peace Corp (nor several other prominent IR fellowships) are likely to happen and to pivot to grad school or a think tank and see where things are after she gets her masters or has a couple of years of work (that is, in 2028). Realistically, that dream is dead for her. As a mom, amd a Fed watching my own agency be destroyed, it’s painful. But it is. This kid did 5 APs remotely for a full year during COVID and came out stronger. She’s trying very hard to turn lemons into lemonade here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of the exam is wild. The best people.

There have long been complaints about the exam. A republican-tied career ambassador told me that he found it impossible to get his best people through it and they were limited to other functions. In general, the selection process does seem to favor bland personalities.

Why would an ambassador’s best people suddenly be taking the foreign service exam?

And maybe there’s a reason why the adjective “diplomatic” is not synonymous with flamboyant, charismatic, etc?

Not everyone in the State Department is in the foreign service. There are even ambassadors, such as this one, that are part of the career service.

His beef was more with the oral portion than the written part. He said it favored milquetoast personalities who are mostly comfortable asking everyone else at the table to share their opinion. He's right that we do need to be at least a *little* assertive to get anything done. I'd be fired if I refused to take a position on anything.

The "assertiveness" is supposed to come from the politically appointed Ambassadors and the central State Department leadership. The FSO's carry out the agenda, which is usually related to trade mission and administrative functions that should be non-political.

You're dead wrong. We cannot have only one person per country effectuating America's goals. And you're also wrong that government workers make no policy decisions, in fact, its a huge aspect of their roles at State and everywhere else. Policy isnt considered partisan within the government.

Please explain again why the bar to become an FSO should be lowered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of the exam is wild. The best people.

There have long been complaints about the exam. A republican-tied career ambassador told me that he found it impossible to get his best people through it and they were limited to other functions. In general, the selection process does seem to favor bland personalities.

Why would an ambassador’s best people suddenly be taking the foreign service exam?

And maybe there’s a reason why the adjective “diplomatic” is not synonymous with flamboyant, charismatic, etc?

Not everyone in the State Department is in the foreign service. There are even ambassadors, such as this one, that are part of the career service.

His beef was more with the oral portion than the written part. He said it favored milquetoast personalities who are mostly comfortable asking everyone else at the table to share their opinion. He's right that we do need to be at least a *little* assertive to get anything done. I'd be fired if I refused to take a position on anything.

The "assertiveness" is supposed to come from the politically appointed Ambassadors and the central State Department leadership. The FSO's carry out the agenda, which is usually related to trade mission and administrative functions that should be non-political.

You're dead wrong. We cannot have only one person per country effectuating America's goals. And you're also wrong that government workers make no policy decisions, in fact, its a huge aspect of their roles at State and everywhere else. Policy isnt considered partisan within the government.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Complete reorganization. Getting rid of FSO test.

Wonder if they are going to do what Congressman Wayne Hays tried to do in the 70s and make all State employees be part of the FS?

They want to do hiring based on “charisma” and ideological agreement with POTUS’s foreign policy agenda. Not a joke.

Of course, what happens when a POTUS changes and staff no longer align?

So the State Dept staff should only allign with democrat administrations? I mean, I realize that’s been the defacto standard until now, but why should it be?

You have this backwards. The FSO is neutral and career. Trump is the one creating the loyalty tests, not democrats or liberals.

Agree but realistically, Statw skews very li real (and I am a liberal).

It's called self-selection. MAGAs are too selfish for things like the Peace Corps, which along with Vets and college international relations majors, forms the cornerstone of State Department employees.

So, I guess we just end soft power and diplomacy all together then.

+1. and I hate to say it, MAGAs are less educated. We know that education correlates strongly to voting patterns. Even the top MAGAs are not the best and brightest - I always noticed how Vought menos from OPM during Trump I were written like a Sixth grader and full of errors.

as well - there is an inherently liberalizing impact of living abroad and learning a second language, which all FSOs have done or aspire to do.

Hopefully, elitist snobs like you won't be representing our country in any meaningful capacity anywhere.

So … you want people without college degrees to run out foreign policy? Ok sounds great! let’s also make sure they only speak English and don’t have passports.

PP here. I didn't say that. You're making stuff up. Learn to read.

Please explain to us how getting rid of the foreign service exam ensures the best & brightest will be our FSOs?

You must be confusing posters? I've never even commented on the exam.

the proposal is to get rid of the exam because it is too elitist. It’s too “elitist” apparently because it is very difficult. Like it or not, higher education and foreign literacy is not a strong point of MAGA. they don’t have enough MAGAs or even conservatives to pass the exam. the conservative kids smart enough to pass the exam are uninterested in public service.

Or do you think we need a DEI program for less qualified MAGAs?

Maybe ask Harvard how to admit weaker candidates.

DP

Yikes! Show us on the doll where Harvard hurt you.

You'll need to ask the DEI admits who had lower admissions standards.

Like Donald Trump and JD Vance?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of the exam is wild. The best people.

There have long been complaints about the exam. A republican-tied career ambassador told me that he found it impossible to get his best people through it and they were limited to other functions. In general, the selection process does seem to favor bland personalities.

Why would an ambassador’s best people suddenly be taking the foreign service exam?

And maybe there’s a reason why the adjective “diplomatic” is not synonymous with flamboyant, charismatic, etc?

Not everyone in the State Department is in the foreign service. There are even ambassadors, such as this one, that are part of the career service.

His beef was more with the oral portion than the written part. He said it favored milquetoast personalities who are mostly comfortable asking everyone else at the table to share their opinion. He's right that we do need to be at least a *little* assertive to get anything done. I'd be fired if I refused to take a position on anything.

You mean … a test for our jr diplomats assessed how diplomatic they are? Shocking!

Diplomacy isn't about being pleasant. It's about pushing America's agenda overseas. And neither the left nor the right has been particularly pleased with the way the State Department has done its job over the past couple decades. I don't think the democrats will push hard against this shake up. If at all.

No, you're completely wrong. It's about gathering information, to allow our policy makers to make better decisions, and gaining influence, to allow our policy makers to have more input on decisions.

That's what intelligence does, not diplomacy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Complete reorganization. Getting rid of FSO test.

Wonder if they are going to do what Congressman Wayne Hays tried to do in the 70s and make all State employees be part of the FS?

They want to do hiring based on “charisma” and ideological agreement with POTUS’s foreign policy agenda. Not a joke.

Of course, what happens when a POTUS changes and staff no longer align?

So the State Dept staff should only allign with democrat administrations? I mean, I realize that’s been the defacto standard until now, but why should it be?

You have this backwards. The FSO is neutral and career. Trump is the one creating the loyalty tests, not democrats or liberals.

Agree but realistically, Statw skews very li real (and I am a liberal).

It's called self-selection. MAGAs are too selfish for things like the Peace Corps, which along with Vets and college international relations majors, forms the cornerstone of State Department employees.

So, I guess we just end soft power and diplomacy all together then.

+1. and I hate to say it, MAGAs are less educated. We know that education correlates strongly to voting patterns. Even the top MAGAs are not the best and brightest - I always noticed how Vought menos from OPM during Trump I were written like a Sixth grader and full of errors.

as well - there is an inherently liberalizing impact of living abroad and learning a second language, which all FSOs have done or aspire to do.

Hopefully, elitist snobs like you won't be representing our country in any meaningful capacity anywhere.

So … you want people without college degrees to run out foreign policy? Ok sounds great! let’s also make sure they only speak English and don’t have passports.

PP here. I didn't say that. You're making stuff up. Learn to read.

Please explain to us how getting rid of the foreign service exam ensures the best & brightest will be our FSOs?

You must be confusing posters? I've never even commented on the exam.

the proposal is to get rid of the exam because it is too elitist. It’s too “elitist” apparently because it is very difficult. Like it or not, higher education and foreign literacy is not a strong point of MAGA. they don’t have enough MAGAs or even conservatives to pass the exam. the conservative kids smart enough to pass the exam are uninterested in public service.

Or do you think we need a DEI program for less qualified MAGAs?

Maybe ask Harvard how to admit weaker candidates.

DP

Yikes! Show us on the doll where Harvard hurt you.

You'll need to ask the DEI admits who had lower admissions standards.

Maybe we can send Nancy Mace to some small country in Africa? Or Mongolia? This could be good.

Anonymous wrote:My DC who just graduated college is supposed to join the Peace Corps this fall. I'm somewhat nervous about that because I'm wondering how much support she's going to receive from our government - especially if there's an emergency.

Anyone care to comment?

I would assume it isn't going to happen, sadly.

Anonymous wrote:Complete reorganization. Getting rid of FSO test.

sending MAGA goons overseas?!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of the exam is wild. The best people.

There have long been complaints about the exam. A republican-tied career ambassador told me that he found it impossible to get his best people through it and they were limited to other functions. In general, the selection process does seem to favor bland personalities.

Why would an ambassador’s best people suddenly be taking the foreign service exam?

And maybe there’s a reason why the adjective “diplomatic” is not synonymous with flamboyant, charismatic, etc?

Not everyone in the State Department is in the foreign service. There are even ambassadors, such as this one, that are part of the career service.

His beef was more with the oral portion than the written part. He said it favored milquetoast personalities who are mostly comfortable asking everyone else at the table to share their opinion. He's right that we do need to be at least a *little* assertive to get anything done. I'd be fired if I refused to take a position on anything.

The "assertiveness" is supposed to come from the politically appointed Ambassadors and the central State Department leadership. The FSO's carry out the agenda, which is usually related to trade mission and administrative functions that should be non-political.

Anonymous wrote:My DC who just graduated college is supposed to join the Peace Corps this fall. I'm somewhat nervous about that because I'm wondering how much support she's going to receive from our government - especially if there's an emergency.

Anyone care to comment?

RPCV here…I would be very, very worried about joining PC right now. I’m not sure I’d do it.

Should have said Americorps has been ended.

Peace Corps may not exist this fall. America has been ended. Personally I’d watch which embassies and consulates are being closed. I’d only want my kid to go to a country that still has a US embassy or at least a consulate.

My DC who just graduated college is supposed to join the Peace Corps this fall. I'm somewhat nervous about that because I'm wondering how much support she's going to receive from our government - especially if there's an emergency.

Anyone care to comment?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of the exam is wild. The best people.

There have long been complaints about the exam. A republican-tied career ambassador told me that he found it impossible to get his best people through it and they were limited to other functions. In general, the selection process does seem to favor bland personalities.

Why would an ambassador’s best people suddenly be taking the foreign service exam?

And maybe there’s a reason why the adjective “diplomatic” is not synonymous with flamboyant, charismatic, etc?

Not everyone in the State Department is in the foreign service. There are even ambassadors, such as this one, that are part of the career service.

His beef was more with the oral portion than the written part. He said it favored milquetoast personalities who are mostly comfortable asking everyone else at the table to share their opinion. He's right that we do need to be at least a *little* assertive to get anything done. I'd be fired if I refused to take a position on anything.

You mean … a test for our jr diplomats assessed how diplomatic they are? Shocking!

Diplomacy isn't about being pleasant. It's about pushing America's agenda overseas. And neither the left nor the right has been particularly pleased with the way the State Department has done its job over the past couple decades. I don't think the democrats will push hard against this shake up. If at all.

No, you're completely wrong. It's about gathering information, to allow our policy makers to make better decisions, and gaining influence, to allow our policy makers to have more input on decisions.