you have to wonder what the rationale really is

Somebody has leaked about a possible retooling of the examination system that the State Department uses to bring in diplomats into the Foreign Service. Seems the idea is to de-emphasize the written test -- by reputation, a very difficult exam -- and instead look at resumes, references, and "intangibles" to decide who should get to become an American diplomat.

One of the anonymous people involved mumbled something about the "war for talent". But unlike other federal agencies, State does well -- hell, it was the only US government agency rated in the list of top 10 desirable places to work, along with corporations like General Electric and Goldman Sachs. And, as the Post article points out, it is consistently highly ranked by federal employees as a place to work.

So, what could the real rationale be from an Administration that has tried to weaken federal employees unions (look at the Department of Homeland Security) and generally make everybody more directly beholden to the ruling party? Well, what sort of person generally benefits from a hiring process that looks at resumes, references, and "intangibles?" Answer -- well-connected people, people who say, get into Yale because their father went there and maybe only get a gentleman's C but manage to pass. People who know important people, maybe because their grandfather was a senator and their father was oh, say, director of the CIA or maybe the roommate of somebody important in the current Administration. East Coast elite grads from elite universities. Or people who have worked for Senator Filibuster or were an intern for Ambassador Striped-Pants in London. Not uppity types who went to some state university in Missouri or Arkansas or Wisconsin who are smart enough to pass the test but really aren't up to those indefinable Yale I mean State standards.

Hope this doesn't go through, because if it does it'll be back to the 1950s for hiring at State.