What does it take to become an ambassador or high consular officer?

Excuse my grammar. Perhaps this is why I didn't make it past the essay questions.

Oh, I see you're in Portland. When I took the test it was at Mount Hood Community College, if that helps. It's offered several times a year. I recommend paying the $20 or so for the study guide, and maybe getting a high school US history text book too. You can take the test as many times as you want. Most people fail the written test several times before they make it to the oral. And I've heard of people taking the oral test a number of times, too. There are online message boards about the exam, but a scorer I know says that most of the speculation on these boards is actually 180 degrees away from what the State Department is looking for.

OK, this my last post in response to your question. Sorry for going ballistic. There aren't many questions posted to AskMe that I know this much about. If you want to become an ambassador, it will probably take you 20 years or more if you go the career State Department route, and that's if you're lucky, politically popular, and very talented. Once you are hired by the State Department, you are required to be promoted every so often or you lose your job. And unlike in high school, there are not pity promotions. I believe that you have up to 11 years to be promoted. But you can only be promoted if you go through a procedure called "opening your window," and once you open that window you have to be promoted within six years. People who play it safe tend to wait five years after a promotion before opening that window, but this makes for slow career advancement. And there is a maximum age for the Foreign Service--sixty-somthing, I think--after which you must retire. If you get promoted high enough, you will be eligible to join the Senior Foreign Service. But it's just about as hard to make the leap from regular Foreign Service to Senior Foreign Service as it is to make the leap from not Foreign Service to regular Foreign Service. And once you make it to the top you are only guaranteed employment for as long as there is a specific job need that your abilities qualify you for. If there is no such job available, it's time to retire. Becoming a consular officer or a consul general is a lot easier. If you're willing to work in a remote city or third-world country, you coulud be a consul general within a few years. The consul general is the top ranking American in that city (barring visits by occasional visits from out-of-town big wigs), and there are people who hold this title in their 20s or earlyl 30s. Working in remote cities or third-world countries has financial benefits, as well. Generally, the government will provide your housing for free while you are posted abroad. If you're posted somewhere less desireable sometimes you can also get a 20% to 30% salary boost, called "hardship pay." In third-world countries where live-in household help feels generously compensated for $30 a week, you may find yourself feeling quite well off on your government salary.

Croutonsupafreak, thanks for all the information, it is greatly appreciated. For the hell of it, I might just look into taking the tests at Mt. Hood CC. I would love to hear more about what you know about the consular officer / general positions or simply positions under those. Thanks again. pwb.

I've got a good friend who now works for the Swiss consulate in Sweden, so while I'm not as knowledgeable as croutons, I have learned something about it. The main thing was that there's a big difference between the "consulate" and "diplomacy" sides of things. The "diplomacy" side is the "outward" facing side--your government's face to the other governments in the world. (Ambassadors, etc.) The "consulate" side is "inward" facing--it's the part that helps US citizens when they're overseas. (Lost passports, etc.) To hear my friend tell it, the diplomacy side is more of the star track, and the consulate side isn't deemed as glamorous. (He was disappointed when he graduated from his training, and got ranked as a consulate member.) Apparently, there's not much crossover--the consulate side tends to be career people who are working their way up the ranks, and once you're put on that side of the fence, there's not much chance of crossing over. On the diplomacy side, though, it's clear that there's a lot of political appointments that completely skip the whole "career diplomat" thing...just think of how many movie stars, businesspeople, etc., that get appointed without any experience. Going back to crouton's point, it's apparently very possible to be a star, work your way up the diplomatic ranks, and then find all the available ambassadorships taken by political appointees. Yay.

Ambassadorships are notoriously given out as ponies to political cronies supporters. Seriously. Do your president a business or funding favor and you're in, regardless of credentials. Not all the time, but so much of the time they're just rewards. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO404E.htmlis an exception, perhaps chosen because of his CIA background and experience in supporting the Contras in Honduras. He's been down and bloody dirty before, now he's back, in Iraq. I remember a list of U.S. ambassadors to various countries and their qualifications lack of qualifications and the relationships that got them appointed, but I can't find it now. I'm googling, though.

My two cents: LairBobs distinction between outwards (ambassadors) and inwards (consulate) work can be nuanced a bit. The consulate part also deals with granting of visas to foreigners wanting to go to the country, especially when applying to immigrate etc. But it definitely is more bureacratic and administrative in nature, only rarely involving direct negotiations between countries. The ambassadors/political style work can also be very inward looking, as in promoting financial and business interests and so on. I don't know too much about the American foreign service, but it seems to me that the politically appointed ambassadors usually go to smaller places (as e.g. the american ambassador here in [small Scandinavian capital] who, if a career diplomat, makes me doubt the existence of the vigorous testing described above). It seems that the top-dogs at the more important places (UN, London, Berlin, Paris etc) are all career diplomats or otherwise skilled and educated in the fine art of cocktail parties and corridor deals.

I still can't find that list, I think mostly from the '80s and before, who were given Ambassadorships to Sunny Places. Looking over the list of current Ambassadors, many are career diplomats and are required to know a little about http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/28/terror/main646071.shtml. So I guess things have changed somewhat, but I'm betting not totally. On the other hand, maybe they're http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=37385

It seems that the top-dogs at the more important places (UN, London, Berlin, Paris etc) are all career diplomats or otherwise skilled and educated in the fine art of cocktail parties and corridor deals. Definitely not all career diplomats, but definitely all high powered. For example http://www.fact-index.com/k/ki/kingman_brewster__jr_.html, Carter's appointment as ambassador to the UK, who was formerly president of Yale. He was the only American ambassador that I have met. I met him at a gathering for American students at summer school at London. It may just have been his academic background that inclined him to attend, but if that is the sort of social whirl that fills the life of ambassadors I'm surprised that anyone takes the job.