When we first arrived in the United States, we were all dumbstruck to find out the cost of education. You could spend $22,000 to $60,000 or more per year if you wanted to enroll in a university with good reckoning. Where does that leave the aspiring U.S. youths from disadvantaged economic backgrounds when it comes to securing jobs?
The question is of not just monopolization of the educational sector but also its fallout in the U.S.’ administrative and bureaucratic structure, important pillars of a representative government and indeed democracy. If average Americans aren’t able to secure higher degrees, how will they find a berth in the country’s bureaucracy? Will it not create conditions for an elite-exclusive ascendancy culminating in an assault on the very principle of fair representation?
The World Press Institute organized a guided tour of the U.S. State Department. It was an eye-opener. The highest officials there gave us an insightful account of how the bureaucracy in the United States operates. And yes, they do tackle the question of equality.
The Department’s senior officials, who had requested not to be quoted as they are not at liberty to talk to the media individually, informed us about the irrelevance of college degrees when it came to selecting a candidate for services in the State Department. The U.S. State Department has a holistic approach based on a qualifying examination for selection of the aspirants. The candidates take a test and based on their performance they are shortlisted for an interview.
This means that there will be no unfair distillation of talent just because a talented person didn’t have the required capital to get a college education. It is not necessary that a candidate should qualify in the first attempt. One can make more attempts until one qualifies or gives up. “I made it on the third attempt,” chuckled a senior official who was part of the team briefing the WPI cohort.
This was quite an eye-opener for many fellows in whose country’s college degrees are the first criteria for shortlisting candidates. In a country like India, which is still grappling with poverty alleviation, I thought it is a wonderful, egalitarian model that I can take back home to policy makers and mobilize public opinion by writing about it in my columns in leading newspapers.
Another bureaucrat gave us a feel for what the interview entails: “The panel wants to see not only your knowledge but also your presence of mind, your ability to deal with discomforting situations,” she said.
She shared an anecdote from her own experience. She was asked about the number of a particular Constitutional amendment. Though she didn’t have an answer to it, she strategized cleverly to figure out which amendment it could be. She thought aloud that this couldn’t be the 44th amendment or the 45th one because they are related to other legislations. And then made a guess.
While her answer was incorrect, her confidence and her patience in a trying situation were applauded. The officer said it is the body language, grace, confidence, politeness and ease that all are weighed along with one’s answers.
Even as the WPI fellows visited the State Department on a day Iran launched a military offensive against Israel and the staffers were busy preparing for press briefings, two officials shared their perspectives on important issues related to the state of U.S. democracy and the attempts underway to make it more egalitarian.
On the question of diversity in the department, the officials said it was a work in progress and that a calibrated stately is at work to include more people of color and deserving candidates from the enormous talent pool in the country regardless of one’s background. They, however, also directed our attention to academic works available outlining that more effort is required toward diversifying. This was a tacit acceptance that the U.S. bureaucracy is still not as heterogeneous as it should be ideally.
The visit to the State Department was nothing short of a momentous addition to our understanding of geo-politics in real time. It was an enviable opportunity to learn how the most powerful country in the world watches the world, brainstorms everyday geopolitical movements and strategizes its responses.
When we first arrived in the United States, we were all dumbstruck to find out the cost of education. You could spend $22,000 to $60,000 or more per year if you wanted to enroll in a university with good reckoning. Where does that leave the aspiring U.S. youths from disadvantaged economic backgrounds when it comes to securing jobs?
The question is of not just monopolization of the educational sector but also its fallout in the U.S.’ administrative and bureaucratic structure, important pillars of a representative government and indeed democracy. If average Americans aren’t able to secure higher degrees, how will they find a berth in the country’s bureaucracy? Will it not create conditions for an elite-exclusive ascendancy culminating in an assault on the very principle of fair representation?
The World Press Institute organized a guided tour of the U.S. State Department. It was an eye-opener. The highest officials there gave us an insightful account of how the bureaucracy in the United States operates. And yes, they do tackle the question of equality.
The Department’s senior officials, who had requested not to be quoted as they are not at liberty to talk to the media individually, informed us about the irrelevance of college degrees when it came to selecting a candidate for services in the State Department. The U.S. State Department has a holistic approach based on a qualifying examination for selection of the aspirants. The candidates take a test and based on their performance they are shortlisted for an interview.
This means that there will be no unfair distillation of talent just because a talented person didn’t have the required capital to get a college education. It is not necessary that a candidate should qualify in the first attempt. One can make more attempts until one qualifies or gives up. “I made it on the third attempt,” chuckled a senior official who was part of the team briefing the WPI cohort.
This was quite an eye-opener for many fellows in whose country’s college degrees are the first criteria for shortlisting candidates. In a country like India, which is still grappling with poverty alleviation, I thought it is a wonderful, egalitarian model that I can take back home to policy makers and mobilize public opinion by writing about it in my columns in leading newspapers.
Another bureaucrat gave us a feel for what the interview entails: “The panel wants to see not only your knowledge but also your presence of mind, your ability to deal with discomforting situations,” she said.
She shared an anecdote from her own experience. She was asked about the number of a particular Constitutional amendment. Though she didn’t have an answer to it, she strategized cleverly to figure out which amendment it could be. She thought aloud that this couldn’t be the 44th amendment or the 45th one because they are related to other legislations. And then made a guess.
While her answer was incorrect, her confidence and her patience in a trying situation were applauded. The officer said it is the body language, grace, confidence, politeness and ease that all are weighed along with one’s answers.
Even as the WPI fellows visited the State Department on a day Iran launched a military offensive against Israel and the staffers were busy preparing for press briefings, two officials shared their perspectives on important issues related to the state of U.S. democracy and the attempts underway to make it more egalitarian.
On the question of diversity in the department, the officials said it was a work in progress and that a calibrated stately is at work to include more people of color and deserving candidates from the enormous talent pool in the country regardless of one’s background. They, however, also directed our attention to academic works available outlining that more effort is required toward diversifying. This was a tacit acceptance that the U.S. bureaucracy is still not as heterogeneous as it should be ideally.
The visit to the State Department was nothing short of a momentous addition to our understanding of geo-politics in real time. It was an enviable opportunity to learn how the most powerful country in the world watches the world, brainstorms everyday geopolitical movements and strategizes its responses.
