The Foreign Service Journal, March 2019

16 MARCH 2019 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL The value of international education is not lost on other countries. The global number of international students has grown from 2.1 million in 2001 to 4.6 million in 2017. Although the United States has consistently attracted about a quarter of all international students, friends and competitors alike are seek- ing to use education to attract hearts and minds, as well as talent and rev- enue. It has never been more important for FSOs to ensure the complementarity of our approaches to diplomatic and economic engagement in this area. FSO Alfred Boll is currently posted to the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Af- fairs as EducationUSA branch chief. He volunteers as a member of the FSJ Editorial Board. Professional Education and Formation: Defining Who You Are &What You Do BY STEPHANIE SMITH KINNEY M att Boland’s September arti- cle on turning U.S. mission strategies into results (“You Have a Strategy. NowWhat?” ) calls for “promoting a strategic culture,” which, he notes, requires a significant shift in existing “habits, hearts and minds.” The role of corporate culture lies at the heart of any institutional modernization, which is why repeated efforts to align the Foreign Service and the Department of State with 21st-century requirements and realities have uniformly come to little. Reports and recommendations mount, but nothing strategic happens institu- tionally. For those in the department disheartened by the “Redesign” process, it’s time to take what you learned and lead your own call for change. Promoting a “strategic culture,” as Mr. Boland correctly advocates, requires a new vision at the Foreign Service Insti- tute, one based not on random “training,” but on purposeful professional education that forms our diplomats for the future. Professionalism rests on a shared profes- sional curriculum, formation (education, ethics and know-how) and experience. For Foreign Service officers, this would mean a shared, long-term curriculum of professional education and formation and the replacement of existing perverse incentives and values with more con- structive ones. Efforts must begin now to build the political and intellectual support required for any meaningful change to emerge several years from now. Having been successfully divided and institu- tionally “conquered” through narrow cones, interconal rivalries and subcul- tures, identity politics and hyphens, and the short-termism of politics and indi- vidual careerism, it is time for the Foreign Service to come together to define itself and its collective professional mission and purpose. By doing so, it will also bet- ter serve the nation. We must acknowledge that today’s wonderful diversity of background, edu- cation and experience properly and nec- essarily enriches the Foreign Service, but only if this diverse talent and experience shares a purposefully formed collective commitment to a common professional identity and ethos, intellectual integrity and formation and a strategic under- standing of its national purpose and mission. The place to start is to jettison the shibboleth that FSOs are “educated” and so only need random “training.” What other national service would only ran- domly “train,” as opposed to profession- ally educate and purposely form its com- missioned officers? Our military services certainly do not take this approach! Starting with A-100, which has not changed significantly (except it’s shorter) since the mid-1970s, a broadly consulta- tive process is needed to move FSI from a random “training by trainers” modality to a professional education and formation curriculum for a 21st-century diplomatic service. Eventually the course of study should be comprehensive and rigorous enough to merit (over time between entry and FS-1) a Masters in Diplomatic Service. Such a curriculum would command respect and by its very content (over time) come to define what is required for professional American diplomacy in terms of intellectual preparation, as well as policy expertise, in-depth field experi- ence and managerial and technological know-how. If this continues to be unde- fined and undefinable, then, indeed, anybody can do the job. The structure for A-100, mid-level and senior curricula would always start with enduring basics and fundamentals appropriate to each level; then dive into the ever-changing geopolitical envi- ronment, its drivers and future conse- quences; and update and hone essential diplomatic tradecraft. Curricula and