THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | JULY-AUGUST 2026 37 Evidence-Based, Competitive Entry Under Threat Beginning with the Rogers Act, the State Department sought to perfect a merit-based entry process over the course of a century, using competitive exams and objective assessments to identify successful candidates. A written exam assessed a candidate’s knowledge of economics, history, and English usage (and, until this past year, workplace situational judgment). The QEP examined candidates’ backgrounds to identify those with relevant experience and skill sets for Foreign Service work, including foreign language and leadership skills. The impartial and multifaceted oral exam looked at a candidate’s experience and motivation, assessed responses to challenging hypothetical questions, and judged the ability to work under pressure with colleagues. The entirety of the exam was evaluated and regularly improved with input from industrial psychologists and, in the case of the McKinsey study, was validated as best in class. Exam questions were studied for effectiveness in terms of their relevance for successful Foreign Service work and regularly revised based on job analyses— workforce surveys—that provided up-to-date feedback on contemporary skills required of Foreign Service officers. Many Foreign Services officers are aware of and have participated in these surveys. This rigorous, merit-based entry process changed significantly in 2025. While the extent to which changes to the FSOT and FSOA will alter the profile of incoming Foreign Service officers is unknown, there are troubling signs. First, despite the recommendations from McKinsey and industrial psychologists, department leadership announced in a brief September 2025 press release the elimination of the personal narratives, a part of the QEP in which candidates wrote essays about their background and experience and addressed six core areas of Foreign Service work. Second, the same press release described a new logical reasoning section of the FSOT—evidently modeled on the Law School Admission Test—without explaining why the format and substance of a graduate school admissions exam might have relevance in selecting Foreign Service officers. The announcement did not include information about a new job analysis or workforce survey to explain why these changes would improve Foreign Service officer selection. Third, while the department has yet to unveil what will be in a new FSOA or whether the FSOA will even change, it is reasonable to assume that the FSOT and QEP changes will also result in FSOA changes. When the department announced the FSOT changes in September 2025, it also announced, without explaining why, that all candidates who had passed the previous version of the FSOT needed to retake the new version to remain eligible for the FSOA. The department administered the new FSOT in October 2025. With the elimination of the personal narratives and, perhaps, the QEP altogether, will the department also eliminate the experience and motivation sections of the FSOA that were recommended by McKinsey to provide a whole-of-candidate review? If so, will the department explain why and provide evidence to support its case? Will time-tested FSOA elements such as the group exercise remain? If there are changes to the FSOA, will the department use, as it has for decades, information gathered from workforce surveys to indicate that the same level of detailed job analysis was done to identify skill sets needed by Foreign Service officers? Perhaps most importantly, the Foreign Service Act of 1980 mandated in law that the State Department assess its exams for adverse impact on certain groups. The Palmer and Thomas settlements were also based on the department righting past wrongs in terms of discriminatory practices. Without rigorous analysis of the basis for any changes to the FSOT and FSOA and with the elimination of the personal narratives, it is unclear what the impact on candidates will be. Congress should insist that the department comply with the law and the settlements in class action suits and explain how it will monitor the FSOT and FSOA for adverse impact on certain groups. Almost 150 years ago, the United States tested the spoils system and concluded that it was detrimental to American interests. Yet today, more than 90 percent of ambassadors are political appointees and the administration is selecting members of the Foreign Service who publicly affiliate with an ideologically aligned organization for senior-level positions. With these trends hinting at a return to the spoils system, the department has an obligation to prove that the career Foreign Service will remain nonpartisan, selection will be merit based, and the Foreign Service will represent all the United States. n While the extent to which changes to the FSOT and FSOA will alter the profile of incoming Foreign Service officers is unknown, there are troubling signs.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODIyMDU=