The Foreign Service Journal, June 2008

with a maximum of 5,000 taking the written exam during any giving test period. The first online test was given Sept. 8-15, 2007, at over 200 U.S. locations: 2,254 people took the test, and 447 were invited to the Oral Assessment. The test was given again Dec. 1-8 at U.S. testing centers and at 86 diplomat- ic posts worldwide; 2,417 people took it, and 575 were invited to the orals. The March 1-8, 2008, testing window drew about 3,210 applicants. There will be two more test- ing periods of eight days each this year: July 12-19 and Nov. 1-8. On their chosen day, candidates report to the designat- ed testing center and log on to a computer terminal to take the online test. It includes the following sections: Job Knowledge, English Expression, Biographic Information and the Written Essay. Though it no longer contains sep- arate career track sections, career-specific questions remain. HR says that 90 percent of candidates rate the online test experience favorably. The allotted time to write the essay has been cut from 50 minutes to 30. Composing the essay on the computer rather than in longhand clearly saves time for most, and exchanges with applicants generally reflect great relief for being able to take the test on a computer. However, sev- eral candidates told the Journal that the time allocated for the essay is too short. “The reduction of the essay time is certainly a bone of contention with many people,” says Tom Duval, who has experience with both the new and the old test. “I don’t believe that having to write by hand (on the old test) was equal to the 20 minutes taken away.” HR has a different view. The time for thoughtful, well- crafted writing is during registration, in the mini-essays and in the Statement of Interest (a personal statement that is presented during the orals), HR’s Christenson explains. The educational psychologists who evaluate the test tell HR that giving more time for the essay would not have an impact on results. In fact, Foreign Service work often requires rapid drafting under deadline — the VIP’s plane is departing in one hour and the report on her meeting with the presi- dent must be signed off on before she leaves, or the ambassador has a meeting with the foreign minister and needs talking points in 20 minutes — so it may be useful to see how a candidate writes under severe time pressure. As always, there is a cutoff passing score. Results for the September and December 2007 tests were sent out from testing contractor ACT, Inc., after about three months. March 2008 test results were sent out after eight weeks, and HR is working to further reduce the time it takes to send out results. Candidates can request a break- down of their scores by contacting the company directly, and many do. The Mysterious QEP Before the new system was implemented in 2007, every candidate who passed the written test was invited to the Oral Assessment. No longer. There is a new gate through which each candidate must successfully pass to be invited to the orals: the Qualifications Evaluation Panel. The Yahoo e-mail groups devoted to the written exam and the orals swirl with commentary and concern about the QEP. (Each group has about 3,800 members who carry on daily discussions related to getting into the Foreign Service.) More than a dozen candidates who offered input to the Journal highlighted concerns about the panel. These concerns focus not so much on whether the QEP is a valid screening process (no one seems sure yet), but on what candidates see as a lack of transparency. Many candidates call the process a “mystery.” The problem is that those who get turned down by the QEP are not told why. This is in contrast to the availabil- ity of score breakdowns for the written test, which some candidates try to use to determine what areas to strength- en. Candidates can keep taking the Foreign Service exams over and over again (although only once a year) until they pass, and many do keep trying. “Many [September test-takers] scored amazingly high on the exam but failed the QEP,” says candidate Chrysta Stotts. “What’s more frustrating is that no explanation was given as to why they were not invited on to orals. Had this been under the old paradigm, they would have been invit- ed without question.” Worse, for some candidates who did not pass the QEP, references had already been con- tacted, leading them to assume they would be going on to the next phase of the process. HR officials contend that there is no great mystery to the QEP, explaining that the panels operate under strict guidelines and procedures based on specific criteria, and go through extensive training. Sometimes called the Screening Panel, the QEP is composed of three Foreign Service officers serving on the Board of Examiners. These are the same people who conduct the Oral Assessments. Candidate files are divided up by career tracks, and each panel reviews candidates from a particular track. F O C U S 20 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / J U N E 2 0 0 8