The Foreign Service Journal, April 2007

Student Loans and Retention I write to protest the recent State Department decision to limit the number of people who can apply for the Student Loan Repayment Pro- gram. Previously officers serving in 15-percent differential posts were eli- gible, but now only those at posts with differentials of 20 percent or higher can benefit from the SLRP. This change hurts me personally. When I was bidding on my first post, I limited my choices to only those posts that had a differential of 15 per- cent or more. I currently serve in Mexico City, which has a 15-percent differential. I know other people who used the same bidding strategy. Knowing that up to $4,000 could be knocked off your student loan debt was a huge incentive to avoid lower- differential posts. More importantly, however, I think that this change hurts the State Department as an institution, espe- cially in terms of retaining officers. I read with some interest that the director general would be making changes to the Foreign Service exam to make it more accessible to interest- ed parties, as well as to shorten the hiring process for those who pass. This would allow the department to compete with top private companies for talent. But what is the point of fighting for talent if we make changes to the SLRP that then hurt retention? I like to think my story is somewhat typical for those who have recently entered the Foreign Service. I was raised in a single-parent, blue-collar household in the Midwest, and was then fortunate enough to get into a very good — and expensive — private college, where the annual tuition was more than my mother’s salary. I joined State with nearly $20,000 of student loan debt. Many of my friends who entered the Foreign Service after two years of graduate school training easily had five times that amount of debt. It may be true that cutting the SLRP will drive us to more dangerous posts, but what about the people who specifically sought out 15-percent dif- ferential posts? Where does this fit with retaining top talent? Why both- er seeking out 20-percent differential posts for our second tours if the bar can so easily be raised again? Another challenge for retention that affects many of us is our loyal and highly educated spouses. My wife is a medical professional who might never realize her full potential as an occupational therapist if we continue to travel the world with the Foreign Service, due to language differences, work agreements and licenses to practice. There were countless such stories in my A-100 class; just decid- ing to join the Foreign Service is a sacrifice that cannot be a win-win for many spouses. In the face of such sacrifice, the decision to limit the SLRP will only keep people from staying with the Foreign Service. It seems as though the Service wants to open the doors widely and quickly for those qualified to join, then do little to retain these very able and educated people. The Foreign Service started as a career for wealthy children of the Eastern establishment. While few will deny the great contributions of FSOs like Hiram Bingham IV, W. Averell Harriman, Dean Acheson and Charles Bohlen, I think that everyone would agree that the Foreign Service has become a better and more dynamic career now that it is more open to women, people of color and people from lower socio-economic backgrounds. In what other foreign ministry can you find female ambas- sadors serving in the Middle East, or citizens of Indian descent doing con- sular work in Pakistan? Our example shows the entire world that different is not necessarily bad, that even peo- ple who have not come from much can achieve anything they dream. I look up to people like George Kennan. Maybe he never felt like he fit in with the establishment because of his blue-collar, Milwaukee back- ground, but one would not guess this from his influential words and deeds. The State Department should do all it can to retain the young talent that it has already attracted by continuing to offer the SLRP to as many people as possible. Rob Doyle FSO Embassy Mexico City Hold the Applause Your report on Doug Kent’s legal victory (“CG on Duty,” October 2006) concluded that “no one should have to experience what Doug Kent has gone through.” I wonder if that would include the young Russian vic- tim of Mr. Kent’s accident who is now spending the rest of his life in a wheelchair? As an FSO, I applaud this important legal victory for the Foreign Service and thank AFSA for its strong support, but I feel that your parting shot on the story lacked sensi- tivity. Before joining the Foreign Service, I spent three years in Vladivostok. The roads there are treacherous and impossibly dark at night. Moreover, the locals drive in a reckless manner. During my entire stay in the Russian Far East, I always let a trusted local driver do my driving. Mr. Kent could have done the same. Sure, his deci- sion to drive himself may have been about “saving money for the govern- ment” as you reported but, nonethe- less, it showed a total lack of judg- ment. Let’s not forget that Mr. Kent’s decision to get behind the wheel resulted in dire consequences for the Russian involved. So, while we celebrate the legal decision, it’s hard to get too sympa- A P R I L 2 0 0 7 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 7 L E T T E R S