Throughout this week, the Washington Examiner’s Restoring America project will feature its latest series titled “Reforming the Deep State: Reining in the Federal Bureaucracy.” We invited some of the best policy minds in the conservative movement to speak to the issues of what waste, fraud, abuse, and unaccountability exist throughout the federal government and what still needs to be done. To learn more about the series, click here.

I was excited to take the Foreign Service Exam a bit over a quarter century ago. I had always been a foreign policy nerd; I had memorized the flags of every country in the world in kindergarten and would reproduce them with crayons at the art table.

Recommended Stories

• Declare antifa a foreign terrorist organization
• Return of the self-deluding Barack Obama
• Humphrey's Executor case shouldn't survive the Trump presidency

I entered college as a molecular biophysics major, but got sidetracked by the smorgasbord of history classes on offer: My freshmen year I took Middle Eastern history and delved into Southeast Asia. Later it was Japan and Russia, Chinese history, Sir Michael Howard’s military history, Paul Kennedy’s diplomatic history, and Robin Winks’ history of intelligence.  The Foreign Service Exam was fun: It was like Trivial Pursuit, but not much more substantive. The oral exam was also predictable: Take charge and delegate but don’t dominate; keep your notes artificially clear since proctors will collect and assess them. The subjectiveness of the oral exam and group exercises allows the State Department to fulfill its diversity quotas. The State Department long argued that “to advance national security,” it must build “a more diverse, equitable, inclusive, and accessible State Department.”

I was 27 years old and weeks away from my Ph.D. when I got the offer to join the Foreign Service and be a U.S. diplomat. I turned it down. I am grateful I did.

I may have had the academic credentials, but I had spent nearly my entire life in school. I had minor jobs on the side here and there, but no real job. I had never supported myself beyond receiving scholarships or teaching stipends, and I had never had to manage a household or manage a payroll. I now only realize decades later how limited my experience was, and I realize that for the country, I made the right decision.

Simply put, if the State Department wants the best Foreign Service Officers, it should prioritize experience over superficial categories of diversity. The State Department should hire no one within ten years of graduating university. Rather, it should require that all potential diplomats have meaningful and successful private sector or military experience. It should not look at diplomats as equal lumps of clay to shape, but should select based on accomplishment post-university. Diplomats often claim language fluency, but often exaggerate. Rather than expecting the State Department to train diplomats toward fluency, the Foreign Service should prioritize those who demonstrate language ability by acquiring fluency on their own, be it in study, on travels, or as businessmen.  Hospitals do not hire doctors before they first learn medicine, so why should the State Department make itself the basis for language training as opposed to language perfection?

The State Department often rotates diplomats through the economic portfolio where they focus on economic development; some make the economic cone their career. For anyone to presume to specialize on business development and economic growth without having experience in business, however, is an own-goal.

Just as many volunteers leave the Peace Corps but pollinate their onward careers with the language and cultural experience they gained, so too should the State Department hire rotational positions for mid-career private sector fellows who could teach veteran diplomats a skillset a career in the State Department does not otherwise bring and who could then further American interests when they rotate out of diplomatic service. Their broad connections, however, could help embassies broaden their networks as alumni who understand how the sausage is made can refer contacts to diplomats who otherwise might remain constrained by out-of-date contacts they inherited from predecessors.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE ‘REFORMING THE DEEP STATE’ SERIES

America is at its strongest when it puts forward its best and brightest, not because of the color of their skin, but because they have proven their skills before they ever set foot in the State Department’s introductory A-100 class.

It is time to stop selecting diplomats based on arbitrary and random tests, and instead start selecting America’s representative as corporate America’s might: based on the skill set they bring to the table.  

Michael Rubin is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential. He is the director of analysis at the Middle East Forum and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.