A Letter From the Director, Board of Examiners for the Foreign Service
Oral Assessment Summary
The Oral Assessment
    - The Group Exercise
    - The Structured Interview
    - Case Management
    - Exit Interviews

 

January 21, 2004

Dear Candidates for the Foreign Service,

The Foreign Service Act of 1980 tasks the U.S. Department of State, and the Board of Examiners (BEX) specifically, with the responsibility for the evaluation and selection of candidates for the Foreign Service. The Department takes this charge seriously and has devoted significant resources to the development of a written examination and an oral assessment with the goal of providing all candidates, regardless of socioeconomic background, education or experience, an equal chance to demonstrate their merits as a Foreign Service Officer. The Foreign Service Oral Assessment is designed to challenge candidates and give them the opportunity in three different settings (a group exercise, a structured interview, and a written case management exercise) to demonstrate the thirteen dimensions that have been identified as being the qualities necessary to become a successful Foreign Service Officer. Thus, the validity and integrity of the assessment process as being a fair and accurate selection method for Foreign Service Officers is vital to the U.S. Department of State's mission and purpose.

To ensure no bias in favor of an candidate, BEX periodically revises its testing material. We also require any candidates to sign a non-disclosure statement before beginning the assessment, and we have implemented other safeguards. Please note that divulging contents of the exam will lead to an invalid oral assessment score or denial of suitability for the Foreign Service.

I encourage you to approach the oral assessment drawing on your own merits, to show that you have the potential to serve as a Foreign Service Officer.

With best wishes for success,

Margaret M. Dean

Director, Board of Examiners for the Foreign Service

RETURN TO TOP

 

Oral Assessment Summary

Candidates who pass the Foreign Service Written Examination and the written essay are invited to participate in the Oral Assessment, a series of exercises that constitutes the next stage of their candidacy. For the testing cycle beginning in August 2004, and continuing into late Spring or early Summer 2005, we will assess in Seattle, San Francisco, Atlanta, and Chicago, as well as in Washington, D.C.

Candidates must report to their assigned Assessment Center at 7:00 a.m. on their scheduled day. The assessment may end as late as 6:00 p.m. for successful candidates. The letter or email message that advised candidates that they had passed the Foreign Service Written Exam also advised candidates what documents they need to bring to the Assessment Center. This list of documents can be downloaded at http://careers.state.gov/general/resources/forms.html. In addition to the listed documents, candidates are also asked to bring the Social Security numbers of family members who might be traveling with them overseas. This will help the medical clearance process. Provisions for candidates with disabilities will be made available at each Assessment Center but must be arranged with the U.S. Department of State's Board of Examiners in advance.

The Oral Assessment is an examination, not a job interview, for selection as an entry level Foreign Service Officer, that is, a member of America's Diplomatic Corps. Oral Assessment exercises are based on a job analysis of the work of the Foreign Service and reflect the skills, abilities, and personal qualities deemed essential to the performance of that work. The oral assessment measures the following dimensions:

Written Communication. To write concise, well organized, grammatically correct, effective and persuasive English in a limited amount of time.

Oral Communication. To speak fluently in a concise, grammatically correct, organized, precise, and persuasive manner; to convey nuances of meaning accurately; to use appropriate styles of communication to fit the audience and purpose.

Information Integration and Analysis. To absorb and retain complex information drawn from a variety of sources; to draw reasoned conclusions from analysis and synthesis of available information; to evaluate the importance, reliability, and usefulness of information; to remember details of a meeting or event without the benefit of notes.

Planning and Organizing. To prioritize and order tasks effectively; to employ a systematic approach to achieving objectives; to make appropriate use of limited resources.

Judgment. To discern what is appropriate, practical, and realistic in a given situation; to weigh relative merits of competing demands.

Resourcefulness. To formulate creative alternatives or solutions to resolve problems; to show flexibility in response to unanticipated circumstances.

Initiative and Leadership. To recognize and assume responsibility for work that needs to be done; to persist in the completion of a task; to influence significantly group activity, direction, or opinion; to motivate others to participate in the activity one is leading.

Experience and Motivation. To demonstrate knowledge, skills or other attributes gained from previous experience of relevance to the Foreign Service; to articulate appropriate motivation for joining the Foreign Service.

Working With Others. To interact in a constructive, cooperative, and harmonious manner; to work effectively as a team player; to establish positive relationships and gain the confidence of others; to use humor as appropriate.

Composure. To stay calm, poised, and effective in stressful or difficult situations; to think on one's feet, adjusting quickly to changing situations; to maintain self-control.

Quantitative Analysis. To identify, compile, analyze and draw correct conclusions from pertinent data, to recognize patterns or trends in numerical data, and perform simple mathematical operations.

Objectivity and Integrity. To be fair and honest; to avoid deceit, favoritism, and discrimination; to present issues frankly and fully, without injecting subjective bias; to work without letting personal bias prejudice actions.

Cultural Adaptability. To work and communicate effectively and harmoniously with persons of other cultures, value systems, political beliefs, and economic circumstances; to recognize and respect differences in new and different cultural environments.

Candidates are evaluated solely against these criteria by four assessors who observe the performance of candidates in a variety of situations designed to enable the candidates to demonstrate the requisite skills. The assessors are Foreign Service Officers from various career tracks with a wide variety of experience in the geographic and functional Bureaus of the Department. Assessors receive training from professional consultants on how to conduct assessments in an objective manner in which the candidate's performance is observed and where the candidate's score correlates to an established performance standard.

The Oral Assessment is not an adversarial process. Candidates do not compete against one another but instead are judged on their capacity to demonstrate the skills and abilities necessary to be an effective Foreign Service Officer.

RETURN TO TOP

---

The Oral Assessment

1. The Group Exercise

Preparations

For the first exercise of the day, candidates are brought together in a group of three to six to comprise an Embassy task force charged with allocating resources to competing projects in their host country. Candidates are given information concerning the individual project each is asked to present, as well as a package of common background materials consisting of the following:

General instructions

• Memorandum from a senior US Embassy official in one of various mythical countries appointing the candidate to a task force to consider proposals for use of scarce resources
• The U.S. Country Plan and Objectives
• Lists of senior U.S. Embassy and host government officials
• A map of the country and background notes

Candidates are given 30 minutes to read and absorb these materials; they may take notes.

The Presentation Phase

When the 30 minute preparation time is over, four assessors join the group and take seats in the corners of the room. At this point in the assessment, the assessors know nothing about the candidates. The assessors do not participate; they only observe the group exercise. Candidates are briefed on the ground rules and are invited to begin their individual project presentations in any order they choose; however, they are cautioned that projects are not to be compared or evaluated in the presentation phase. Each candidate has six minutes to present his or her project to the others, covering all relevant facets of the project, including both negative and positive points, U.S. interests, and required resources. Time may be left at the end of the presentation for questions from other candidates.

The Discussion Phase

After the last presentation has been made, the lead examiner informs the group that it is now entering the discussion phase of the exercise, the stage in which the candidates must reach a consensus on project selection and allocation of their limited resources.

In this phase, candidates discuss and debate the merits and/or drawbacks of the various projects in order to make recommendations to the Ambassador. Toward that end, the group negotiates and debates pros and cons with the goal of reaching, within the time allotted (20-25 minutes - depending on group size), a consensus on which projects should be supported and at what level.

The group exercise measures oral communication, objectivity and integrity, ability to work with others, information integration and analysis, planning, judgment, initiative, leadership, and composure. Strong candidates are those who keep in mind the objective of the exercise: to help the Ambassador decide how best to allocate limited U.S. Government resources among a number of worthy projects. They have the ability to integrate information not just about their own projects but also about projects presented by their colleagues. They may suggest original ideas and solutions. A good leader can draw out others and help move the group to consensus.

Active participation is essential to successful performance. Examiners cannot judge qualities they cannot see. Even if a candidate presents a clear project, lack of involvement in the discussion phase can make the difference when the scores are determined.

Sample Project

A candidate might be expected to describe the following information, based on four or five background documents, in the presentation phase:

Gargon University in the country of Erewhon requests Embassy help in purchasing equipment to complete the university's new sports facility.

Benefits of the project: The University would purchase U.S. equipment, aiding U.S. business interests and providing good public relations for the U.S.; the Chairman of the Board of the University would be rewarded for being the instrumental force in Erewhon's opposition to a hostile neighboring country's efforts to host the Summer Olympics; Gargon Regional Rehabilitation Hospital, now sadly under-equipped, would be able to use the pool and gymnasium.

Negative aspects: Gargon is a private university and there is some question whether U.S. Government funds should be used to support it; this grant would not improve economic conditions or raise living standards of the majority of people; Gargon is the home district of chief opposition leader Reubello--a grant might displease the Prime Minister.

Benefits to the U.S.: A grant would promote U.S. export trade and support U.S. business interests in Erewhon; it would enhance public and official perceptions of the United States.

Project costs: The Embassy's total cost is $75,000. The host government would contribute $10,000. Total cost: $85,000.

2. The Structured Interview

All candidates participate individually in a Structured Interview conducted by two assessors. For this portion of the Oral Assessment, assessors will have reviewed the candidates' DS-1950 (Application for Employment), Statement of Interest, and stated career track preference. Candidates are expected to respond to questions based on their personal background, experience, and motivation.

This portion of the assessment consists of three testing modules lasting a total of approximately one hour.

A. Experience and Motivation Interview

In this portion of the assessment, the candidate should convey to the examiners a clear and precise picture of him/herself, including personality traits, and his/her understanding of the Foreign Service. The candidate's work experience and motivation to join the Foreign Service, as well as cross-cultural skills are considered. Assessors will evaluate a candidate's potential to serve successfully as a Foreign Service Officer, including in the selected career track, by discussing what the candidate has done with the opportunities presented to this point in his or her life. Candidates must be succinct and persuasive in responding to the examiner's questions. Candidates should have previously informed themselves about the Foreign Service in general, and also about the work related to the career track they have selected.

B. Hypothetical Scenarios

The second assessment module in the Structured Interview consists of a series of hypothetical scenarios designed to test the candidate's situational judgment.

Assessors will give the candidate a brief scenario to read that provides information about the country and the candidate's position in the embassy, setting the scene for the hypothetical situation. Assessors' questions test the candidate's interpersonal skills, problem-solving abilities, initiative, objectivity, judgment, planning and organizing skills, composure, and cultural adaptability. Although the problems presented in this exercise are hypothetical, they are closely related to real-life situations regularly encountered by Foreign Service Officers overseas. Candidates are advised, however, that, while the problems occur in a Foreign Service setting, candidates are not expected to know how an Embassy operates or to be familiar with government rules and regulations. They are asked to fashion a solution that employs good judgment and common sense.

The hypothetical scenarios challenge candidates to think quickly. Assessors look for a candidate who can organize for action, take responsibility, and respond to new situations creatively and effectively. While there is no single right or correct answer, a strong candidate will demonstrate mature thinking, recognize alternative approaches, and consider both the long- and short-term consequences of responses.

Sample Hypothetical Exercises

Review of Embassy Operations

You are working at a large Embassy where a number of U.S. agencies besides the U.S. Department of State are also represented; one of your many responsibilities is supervision of the consolidated warehouse operation. You learn that a team of seven inspectors (equivalent to bank auditors) will arrive in four weeks to review Embassy warehouse operations, including inventory control and storage procedures. What do you do to prepare for the upcoming inspection?

Follow-ons:

A. As you and your staff begin preparations for the inspection, you learn that other agencies using the consolidated warehouse are not assisting with organizing and reconciling certain documents. What do you do?

B. Time is growing short. Your section is understaffed and you still are not getting adequate cooperation. Without help you will not complete the warehouse inventory before the upcoming inspection. What do you do?

Suggested Responses:

• Inform your supervisors about the inspection and discuss it with them.
• Ask Washington for information concerning itinerary, flight, accompanying spouses, medical or special food requirements, offer to meet and assist, request hotel requirements, offer to set up special meetings, etc., ask if there are any particular concerns to be addressed.
• Make required logistical arrangements. Meet with your staff and administrative staff from other agencies.
• At that meeting inform the participants of inspection requirements and develop a checklist of tasks that must be accomplished to prepare warehouse operations for the inspection.
• Schedule regular meetings to check on the progress of preparing the warehouse for the inspection.
• Meet with respective agency heads to reiterate the need for full cooperation. Explain that it is essential that everybody work together to get the job done. Ask the Ambassador to request cooperation of the other agencies.
• Meet with senior American officers from all agencies in the Embassy. Explain that time is running out and you need volunteers to help complete the warehouse inventory. Consider hiring assistance on a short-term contract.

Auto Accident

You are assigned to an Embassy in a developing country. You learn that a local American businessman has been involved in a car accident in a distant small town. The driver of the other car was killed, and the American was critically injured. medical care available there is rudimentary, and the American's wife wants him moved to a private hospital in the capital. What would you do?

Follow-ons:

A. The local magistrate investigating the accident refuses to allow the move because the American may be criminally responsible for the accident. What action might you take?

B. The local hospital insists on full payment before releasing the patient. What do you do?

C. The town is more than 400 miles from the capital. What arrangements would be needed to transfer the patient?

D. What other resources might you call on for assistance?

Suggested Responses:

• Initiative and leadership are shown by the candidate who gets actively involved in assisting the Americans.
• Planning skills are needed to determine whom to consult and what information to gather in arranging a move.
• Judgment and resourcefulness, in addition to interpersonal skills, must be shown in making persuasive arguments to the magistrate. These skills would also be needed in arranging payment through the businessman's connections.

Critical Senator

You are assigned to an Embassy in a country where corruption and human rights abuses are common. The host government is starting to move toward eliminating these abuses but continues to be highly sensitive to criticism. The opposition party announces the visit of a prominent American senator who is a strong critic of the host government and of U.S. policy toward it. You know the opposition will welcome the senator warmly and the local media will widely publicize his views. The host government is sure to be angry with the United States. The Ambassador asks for your advice. What do you say?

Follow-ons:

A. The opposition party calls you to say it is organizing a press conference for the senator. Out of courtesy, they want to invite the Ambassador. How do you respond?

B. You personally agree with the senator's views, and think he has good criticisms to make. What do you do?

C. During his visit, the senator is more critical than ever and infuriates the host government with inaccurate interpretations of U.S. policy towards the country. What damage control can you exercise?

Suggested Responses:

• The strong candidate would show cultural sensitivity and good judgment in recommending contact with host government officials before the visit.
• Resourcefulness and initiative might be shown in broadening the contacts of the senator during the visit, and in finding ways to restate official U.S. positions to the host government. The candidate might explain the role of Congress and explain the diversity of views in the United States.
• Judgment and objectivity are important in dealing with the follow-ups. For example, a candidate might suggest that a lower-ranked official rather than the Ambassador attend the press conference. Regarding one's own views on the subject, a candidate should realize that a Foreign Service Officer must provide public support for U.S. Government policy regardless of his or her personal views.

C. Past Behavior Interview

In the final segment of the Structured Interview, the assessors ask the candidate a series of questions, to which the candidate should respond with examples from his or her own experience. The questions are designed to assess a range of dimensions determined through a documented job analysis to be key to successful performance as a Foreign Service Officer.

3. Case Management

The third part of the oral assessment is the 90-minute Case Management Exercise. The purpose of this segment is to evaluate the candidate's management skills, interpersonal skills and quantitative ability. Writing concise, correct, and persuasive English is also important in this exercise. This exercise is indicative of the candidate's ability to integrate and analyze information, to interpret quantitative data, and to display sound judgment. The candidate will be asked to incorporate data and other statistical information in the analysis and recommended solutions.

The candidate is given a memo describing the tasks to complete and a variety of information about the central issue, including a summary of the major issues (from the candidate's supervisor), an organizational chart, e-mail messages from a host of different perspectives at different levels in the Embassy and details about the past performance of the staff. A calculator is not needed in reviewing the quantitative data, but these data must be incorporated in the analysis and recommendations.

The candidate may want to spend 30 minutes reading and analyzing the material, 45 minutes writing the required memo, and 15 minutes reviewing and revising.

A Sample Exercise:


You are the newly arrived Supervisory General Services Officer at a medium-sized embassy in a country with few amenities. General Services Officers are responsible for the embassy's logistics operations: leasing, maintenance, transportation, procurement, management and inventory of property, and the like. Your supervisor, the Management Officer, Steve Hansen, is out of the office, and has left you a memorandum, indicating that a file on the top of your desk should be your number one priority. His memorandum indicates that a conflict has developed between your deputy, Sharon Smith, who has recently arrived on her first tour, and the Junior Officer in the consular section, Mitch Stevens. The maintenance chief, Peter, a local national who reports to Sharon, is also involved. There are no other American personnel in the section; Sharon is responsible for leasing, maintenance, and property inventories, while you are responsible for procurement, transportation, and overall management of the section. The Management Officer instructs you to draft for his consideration a two-page memo that presents the facts and offers recommendations on how to resolve the issue, including at least one alternative.

You review the file in front of you. It contains:

1. an exchange of e-mails between Sharon and Mitch: Mitch complains that the work orders for repairs at his residence are not being completed to his satisfaction; he has received no follow-up information. Sharon responds that many of his requests are not appropriate use of the embassy's limited maintenance staff. Mitch responds that this was never a problem under Sharon's predecessor, and furthermore, that he himself, as a General Services Officer on his previous tour, allowed such practices and certainly knows the regulations at least as well as Sharon. She in turn retorts that Mitch's personal friendship with her predecessor resulted in favoritism that should never have happened in the first place. Mitch in turn alleges that Sharon must bear a personal grudge against him, apparently because he was recently tenured (while she was not).
2. a memorandum from Mitch's supervisor to the Management Officer, complaining that the maintenance section's failure to handle Mitch's household repairs is having an unsatisfactory effect on his work in the Consular Section, and referring to an incident the previous Friday evening at the Marine House, in which Sharon and Mitch apparently resorted to name-calling after a few beers. The Consular Officer also suggests that, since Sharon's arrival, embassy morale has suffered considerably; she is known as "the lady who can only say 'no.'"
3. Mitch's work orders, as follows:
   • repair torn window-screen in kitchen: marked "Low Priority" by Sharon, with the notation that this is the third time in two years that this particular screen has been torn and is in need of replacement
   • repair motorcycle: marked "Not approved" by Sharon, with the notation that this is Mitch's personal property and should not be repaired using U.S. Government funds or personnel
   • build tool shed in back yard: marked "Not approved" by Sharon, with the notation that there is ample space for tools in the garage, but this space is being used by Mitch's two motorcycles instead
   • replace draperies throughout the house: marked "Defer" by Sharon, with the notation that the draperies were all changed upon Mitch's arrival eighteen months ago, and that they are changed only once per occupant, regardless of the circumstances
   • replace living room carpet: marked "Approved" by Sharon, with the notation that carpet cannot be purchased at the present time because the embassy has no funds for the procurement of furniture and furnishings
4. a memorandum from Peter, the local maintenance chief, to Sharon, cc: Steve, indicating his discomfort with Sharon's new policy of disapproving so many work orders. He says he has been with the embassy for 15 years, and has always provided quality and courteous service to the American staff, at both their homes and offices, and indicates he has a large, able staff of workmen ready to be of service. He is concerned about the effect that the new policy is having on embassy morale, and in particular on the relations between his section and the American staff.
5. a memorandum from the budget chief to Sharon, cc: Steve indicating that, barely halfway through the fiscal year, the General Services Section is considerably over-budget. A line-by-line tally is attached. Costs are all in U.S. dollars.

Activity Annual Budget Expended to Date Remaining Local Salaries $450,000 $230,000 $220,000 Overtime $10,000 $95,000 -$85,000 Benefits $100,000 $52,000 $48,000 Awards $8,000 $10,000 -$2,000 Supplies $500,000 $355,000 $145,000 Utilities $675,000 $455,000 $225,000 Furniture and Furnishings $250,000 $200,000 $50,000 Equipment $75,000 $95,000 -$20,000 Travel $5,000 $5,000 $0 Transportation $100,000 $85,000 $15,000 Fuel $145,000 $100,000 $45,000

(6) A statistical summary of work orders for past month, as follows:

DATE REQUESTOR WORK REQUESTED STATUS

3/16 Stevens Repair torn screen Deferred 3/19 Johnson Repair a/c Completed 3/19 Berman Paint kitchen Scheduled 3/20 Jones Replace stove Deferred 3/21 Stevens Repair motorcycle Not approved 3/22 Cass Repair refrigerator Completed 3/23 Stevens Build tool shed Not approved 3/29 Haskell Fix drain Completed 3/30 Stevens Fix loose tiles in kitchen Deferred 4/1 Echeverria Pest control (ants) Scheduled 4/2 Hadley Repair a/c Completed 4/2 Haskell Fix drain (again) Completed 4/3 Stevens Replace LR carpet Approved 4/3 Sanchez Repair a/c Scheduled         Approved/Completed 5 36% Approved/Scheduled 3 21% Approved/Not Scheduled 1 7% Approved/Deferred 3 21% Not Approved 2 14%

Questions:

1. Summarize the situation

Suggested reply:

Sharon feels that Mitch's requests are frivolous. His friendship with her predecessor allowed his every wish to be granted (bankrupting the section's overtime and supply budgets), and -- his previous tour as a General Services Officer aside -- he now needs a reality check. Mitch, in turn, feels Sharon is being dismissive of requests that are legitimate in the local hardship environment, inconsistent with past precedent, and disrespectful of his own self-acknowledged expertise in her area. Mitch's requests constitute a third of all those made in the past month, and the only ones not approved.

Mitch's requests are not critical, even in a hardship environment; he has probably been getting by with more than he deserved because of his close friendship with Sharon's predecessor. At the same time, Sharon appears to be too rigid and, perhaps, has failed to communicate to Mitch the justifiable reasons for her actions. Her actions are having a serious effect on morale, not only according to Mitch but also other (perhaps more objective) observers. She needs to understand that following regulations and giving good service are not mutually exclusive.

An analysis of the budget reveals that, although the fiscal year is only half over, several categories have less than 50% of their annual allocation remaining: overtime, awards, supplies, furniture and furnishings, equipment, travel, transportation, and fuel.

2. How do you propose to resolve the situation?

Suggested response:

Meet separately with Mitch and Sharon and then meet with them together to determine what can and should be done to address Mitch's work orders. Perhaps the three of you could visit Mitch's house to find practical ways in which he can better help himself where the embassy can't help him. Work out with Sharon a system by which all employees submitting work orders receive prompt communication on the status of their requests, including reasons for their refusal. Suggest a pro-active notice to American employees on what maintenance actions the embassy is responsible for, and which it is not, and anticipated time delays in completing them. Also consider the division of duties between Sharon and yourself; perhaps you'd like to swap the maintenance and transportation functions, so you can get a better idea on how the maintenance section is being utilized. To deal with the budget problem, put an immediate moratorium on overtime, furniture, supply, and equipment purchases, awards, and travel; do not fill any vacant positions unless absolutely necessary; look at ways of conserving energy.

Be sure to follow the instructions, particularly for the writing sample. Do not make assumptions that are not clear from the instructions. Be as complete as possible in the time allotted. This essay is intended not only to test your management and quantitative skills, but also your written communication ability. Pay just as much attention to how you write as to what you say.

RETURN TO TOP

Scoring the Exercises

Assessors observe the candidate's performance closely, taking notes during the testing module. At the end of each exercise, assessors individually enter their scores into a computer. The average of the exercise scores determines a candidate's overall score. The Oral Assessment cut-off score to continue a candidacy is 5.25 out of a possible 7. For this cycle, each exercise and each component of each exercise have equal weight. The Group Exercise, Structured Interview, and Case Management Study each count for one-third of the total grade. Within the Structured interview, the Experience and Motivation, Hypothetical and Past Behavior modules are equally weighted. Overall scoring is on a scale from 1 to 7, with 1 representing poor performance and 7 representing an outstanding performance. In the first half of 2004, roughly one out of five candidates passed the oral assessment.

Exit Interviews

After the assessors complete the integration of their scores, candidates are notified whether they have been successful in reaching the cut-off score. Along with their final overall score, candidates receive an indication as to whether they reached or exceeded the cut off score on any of the three major components of the exam.

Unsuccessful candidates are informed of their results in a private interview with two assessors. At this point, the candidate is given an opportunity to ask questions about the assessment process and future exams. Assessors are not permitted to provide specific feedback or critiques of the candidate's performance. This prevents any undue advantage to those who take the exam more than once.

Successful candidates are given a briefing on the next steps in the Foreign Service hiring process, including information on the security background investigation, language bonus point system, veteran's preference points, the medical examination, and final suitability review. Candidates are also given the opportunity to ask questions about Foreign Service life. A Diplomatic Security background interview may be initiated on the day of the assessment for candidates whose passing score qualifies for an immediate conditional offer.

Immediate Conditional Offer Policy for Assessment cycle beginning August, 2004:
Immediate Conditional Offers (ICO) will be made to the following candidates:

1. Political candidates who achieve a minimum score of 5.6;
2. Economic, Public Diplomacy, and Consular candidates who achieve a minimum score of 5.5;
3. Management candidates who achieve a score of 5.25.

Political, Economic, Public Diplomacy, and Consular candidates who pass the exam (passing score remains 5.25) but do not qualify for an ICO will be put on a list of eligible hires. Candidates can remain on this list for up to twenty-four months.

Register List

The Register List is a rank order list of all candidates who have completed the pre-employment process and are waiting for a job offer. Candidates can remain on this list for up to 18 months after which their candidacy expires.

In order to be placed on the Register List, candidates must have a Medical Clearance, a Security Clearance, and a Suitability Clearance. Candidates may be denied suitability on the basis of any of the eight suitability factors, including: drug usage; alcohol abuse; misconduct in prior employment; financial irresponsibility; misrepresentation in the application process; poor judgment; criminal conduct; and questionable loyalty to the U.S.

RETURN TO TOP

 

Equal Opportunity Employer.