U.S. Department of State

During my last testing cycle (FSOT in Febraury 2011) my cohort did not have the option of taking the OA test on the west coast. I had to travel to DC, which was problematic because of the time change and the cost.

However, I noticed that the next FSOT test-takers (October 2011, I beleive, were offered OA test dates in San Francisco).

My question is: will my FSOT testing cohort's lack of west coast OA testing options be taken into consideration during my next available cycle (I re-took the FSOT in Febraury 2012)?

In other words, am I stuck in a cycle that does not have west coast OA options or is this option rotated year-to-year? Or better yet, will the lack of this option last cycle guarantee me the option next cycle?

If the geographic options of previous testing cyles are not a consideration when deciding whether to offer certain locations for upcoming OA tests, they really should be. Otherwise, the system seems unfair.

Thanks for any clarification you can offer.

If traveling to D.C. is difficult for you, I don't know how well being posted to Zimbabwe is gonna work out for you...
Maybe you should really think hard if the "realities" part of the FS would be a good fit for you.

I didn't think the OP's question was too unreasonable. (What does the cost of a flight to DC have to do with fitness for being posted to somewhere like Zimbabwe? I also didn't see the OP saying that he couldn't handle the jetlag, just that it creates an uneven playing field.)

However, I wonder what costs State incurs from doing OA's outside of DC. In regions where they have large concentrations of interviewees, I bet most candidates would be willing to pay a 100-200 fee to bring the interviewers closer to them instead of having to spring for plane tickets and a couple of nights in an inevitably expensive DC hotel.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear.

All I really want to know is whether it is happenstance whether some OA testing cycles offer the choice to test in, e.g., San Francisco, Chicago, or Atlanta, as opposed to only Washington, DC.

If it is relatively random (or based on budgets or something) could BEX please rotate this option so that if a testing cycle in the past was not offered non-DC testing sites, they would be more likely to in the future.

I think you made yourself adequately clear; I don't think anyone is confused about what you're asking.

I think we should definitely expect BEX to take into consideration the difficulties posed to you when they are administering their highly competitive examination process They should most certainly go out of their way, when they are already in a budget crunch, to cater to those unwilling to commit to the process enough to travel to the exam. They should definitely spend extra funding to accommodate you, to the detriment of those who are willing and committed enough to joining the Foreign Service to suffer the hardship and expense of traveling to the testing site, only to likely not pass the exam, and try again in subsequent years.

I'm sorry if you think you are stuck in a cycle where DC is the only testing site. But why do you think it would necessarily be cheaper to travel to an alternate location? At least you know the test will be administered in DC, you can count on that, as opposed to a rotating alternate site that may or may not be cheaper or more convenient for you. For those of us willing to travel to Timbuktu if it means a shot at joining the Foreign Service, being forced to choose a day or two within a three-month window to spend in our Nation's Capitol is an opportunity not a chore.

I was satisfied by McCoy's answer: in essence, he said that State will try to work with anyone who needs accommodation.

That said, Annoyed's sarcasm was uncalled for. Let's not forget that plane tickets to DC pose a greater burden on some people than on others. There may be people working for close to minimum wage who would make fantastic FSO's and travel to DC may be prohibitively expensive for them, especially if they have a family to worry about. Although commitment to the FS is obviously important if you're hired, this entire process is not and should not be about who has the deepest drive to join. It's about getting the best possible people for our country.

SFcandidate, we hear you, and we’d love to be able to offer the Oral Assessment in various cities across the country each year, but budget constraints make it impossible to do more than a couple.

This year, we are assessing in San Francisco for three weeks in March. If budget numbers hold, we’ll also be assessing outside of DC again next October – at a city to be determined.

At this point, the February 2012 and June 2012 FSOT cohorts should have a chance to sign up for the next rounds of non-DC assessments (October 2012 and February/March 2013, respectively). But there are a number of unknown factors at play here, so we cannot guarantee it.

Thanks for your suggestions. We are aware of the considerable investment of time, money, energy and brain cells that we demand of candidates – and we appreciate your dedication.

One slight amendment to my previous reply: contingent on confirming an appropriate venue, the intention is to provide Oral Assessments in Chicago in October 2012. And, if plans hold, we'll be offering assessments again in San Francisco in the February/March timeframe of 2013.

Thanks for your detailed response.

You confirmed my suspicion that there is little effort (or awareness of the need) to distribute this "benefit" among the various testing cohorts.

For several years in a row, the test will be offered on the west coast to candidates who sat for the test in Summer and Fall. But for at least the second year in a row it will not be an option for those who took the test in Winter.

It doesn't seem that difficult to rotate this option among the test dates year-to-year (especially since so many other OA/FSOT elements are calibrated to the one-year testing cycle).

It would, however, require an awareness that offering this option to the same testing cohorts year after year (and excluding other cohorts) is an issue.