Back to the future: what aspiring diplomats need to know. (Youth Perspectives).

Every year the Public Service Commission Post-Secondary Recruitment Campaign for government jobs introduces significant changes without notice. The autumn of 1999 was no exception. The affected candidates were those applying for Foreign Service (FS), Management/ Consular (AS) and Development Officer (PM) positions.

Almost all candidates believed that the changes were indeed `new' when in fact the campaign was - from the vantage point of one who has followed it intimately for over twenty years - a `back-to-the-future' exercise. A look at how and why I arrive at that conclusion may help future test-takers - as well as those they approach for advice.

Academic criteria

The shift to a Bachelor's degree only for FS candidates surprised many. Historically, however, this is the norm, not the exception. From 1928 to 1992 a Bachelor's was the FS entry ticket (though aspiring diplomats often had advanced degrees, plus languages). The 1993 to 1998 interregnum, when either two degrees or one degree plus an exotic foreign language were mandatory, reflected two contextual issues: a buyer's market approach by government which took advantage of the situation in which lots of people with multiple degrees were chasing few jobs, and the federal deficit which dictated a reduction in the number of candidates to limit the per head cost of processing them.

Concerning PM eligibility criteria, the proliferation of degree specialties identified in 1999 simply verifies the continuing confusion shown in recruiting by the Canadian International Development Agency. For the record, AS academic criteria changed only marginally.

An unpublicized purpose for lowering the FS entry bar was to combat increasingly high attrition rates over the past five years among officers hired with advanced academic degrees, specialized language skills, and considerable real-life experience. The government's presumption underlying the change was that younger, less highly educated people would be happier with the FS job, its potential and salary than those longer in the tooth. In fact, the notion is misguided because abundant numbers of older candidates still emerged and will succeed in the competition. Foreign Affairs interviewers traditionally select the brightest, most mature, and best-performing candidates for the eligibility list. This often - though not always - disadvantages those with little experience of any type, particularly when they assume, incorrectly, that their academic work is relevant to the exams and interviews, and that they need not prepare for a competition in which, typically, only one and a half to two per cent of candidates from any level are successful.

One final, important note about academic criteria. Despite what government literature and recruiters say to FS, AS and perhaps PM candidates, neither degrees nor scholarly achievements are relevant in selection for an interview, a job, or for assignments and promotion after hiring. First, test scores (plus an affirmative action formula in some cases) and, then, interview performance determine hiring success. It was always thus.

Candidate Volume

The government's 1999 campaign goal was to double the number of candidates from last year in the FS, AS and PM groups. This meant about 8,000 or more were expected to apply for FS jobs, and about 3,000 to 4,000 each for PM and AS positions. The method to get the volume increase was to lower or broaden academic criteria, as described above. The back-to-the-future benchmark for setting anticipated numbers: about 6,500 applied for FS jobs in 1992, when the criterion of a Bachelor's degree only was last used.

Why the volume push? More people stepping up to the hiring plate makes government work look attractive again and makes the Public Service Commission look effective as a recruiter in a time when the job market for grads is hot. Also, the higher the volume of candidates and the broader the range of acceptable academic disciplines, the greater the likelihood of increased participation by under-represented social groups, which attempts to address diversity concerns in government employment statistics.

Test changes

The back-to-the-future movement was evident in alterations to two of the three tests in 1999 (the Written Communication or WCT test remained the same). The cognitive Graduate Recruitment Test (CRT) required for ES, AS, and PM candidates was tinkered with as usual. In place of five types of exercises in 80 questions, as in 1998, the `new' version had four types of exercises in 55 questions, with a disproportionately small reduction in test time. Not only were many of the questions the same as in 1998, several were the same as in 1989 and years following when the Entry Level Officer Selection Test (ELOST) was used.

Why the changes? Very few finished the long, more varied 1998 exam, and that caused cut-off scores that were the lowest in recent memory, possibly ever. Higher scores, and particularly higher passing scores inevitable with a pool of 4,000 to 8,000 test takers (depending on career stream), will be the result from the 1999 CRT.

As to the Foreign Service test required for FS candidates only, it underwent the biggest alteration. But - again - it was not as radical as interpreted by uninformed test-takers. The main change was that the old knowledge-type geopolitical and policy questions were eliminated. (These had been used in one form or another - essay or multiple-choice or both - since Lester Pearson was the first successful national test recruit in 1928.) Instead, the `new' Foreign Service Written Simulation Test (FSWST) provided four detailed, heavily nuanced, hypothetical situations that diplomats could encounter and asked candidates to respond, in point form, as to how they would deal with the scenarios.

Though new to the exam, these questions were fundamentally the same as, and were graded similarily to, the verbal situational and role-play questions used for decades in the Foreign Service interview. Also, they resembled old `judgement questions' which accompanied the former FS knowledge test in the 1970s and 1980s. Result? Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose.

What prompted these changes? Three things. Government recruiters decided, arguably in the opinion of many current and former diplomats, that competency testing provides a better indication of job aptitude than knowledge testing for prospective FS officers. Indeed, the government has for years been downgrading the importance of international geopolitical and policy knowledge in candidates' cumulative (cognitive/writing/Foreign Service) test score until in 1998 the FS exam was worth only 10 per cent of the final total.

A second reason for change alleged that candidates from presumed nontraditional academic backgrounds for the Foreign Service would have a better chance of passing. This is not so, but another article would be needed to demonstrate why. The third reason for test changes was to prevent - horror of horrors - candidates from `studying' for the exam. Nonetheless, while ingestion of knowledge was not possible, or necessary, to prepare for the new exam, my analysis of interview reports and hiring results in the past repeatedly proves that training on how to approach the situational questions, sample answers, and evaluation advice raises scores dramatically.

Conclusion

In 1999, the government probably encountered more people from different and lower-level academic backgrounds who knew less about the tests they were about to take than in recent memory. As for candidates, more of them were taken aback by the `new' eligibility criteria and tests sprung on them with little notice and less background information than ever before.

For the benefit of those attracted to FS, AS, or PM careers in next year's Post-Secondary Campaign, a few words of advice. All detailed questions about tests should be directed not to local government offices/spokespersons or to hastily assembled and badly briefed campus information teams, but rather to informed Ottawa-based co-ordinators of the campaign at the Public Service Commission and the Foreign Affairs Department where there is a modicum of institutional memory about the process and how it really works. Comments about the tests and interviews by former diplomats and, occasionally, by faculty can be helpful, but bear in mind that people will likely talk about their test experience, which was long ago, far away, and differently evaluated. On a positive note, conferring with serving and ex-diplomats or their family members can help candidates understand the milieu they aspire to work in once the arcane vicissitudes of the exam, interview, eligibility, and hiring process are successfully negotiated.

Barry Yeates, President, Foreign Service Examination and Career Counselling Inc. Mr. Yeates, a former diplomat and senior university administrator, provides preparatory seminars and study materials to help candidates across Canada and internationally prepare for the FS, AS, and PM exams and interviews. Well over 200 of his clients serve in all branches of the Foreign Service.