Thoughts on the PMF test

For those that are interested, this year's "PMF Assessment Battery" differs substantially from that of previous years. [See p. 25 of this article for more details.] This year’s test consisted entirely of written, multiple choice questions. The whole process took three and a half hours (from 9:00 to 12:30).

The first part was Critical Thinking Skills; it was 50 minutes long. There were six reading passages with seven questions each (42 total), and they were very similar in style and format to the sample questions in the Assessment Preparation Guide. The questions included some sort of statement based on the reading, and you had to mark whether the statement was True, False, or Insufficient Information.

The second part was Life Experience; 125 questions, 45 minutes. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) says answers are accepted in good faith, subject to verification, and that any misrepresentation is grounds for dismissal. Some questions had to do with things I hardly remember, like “what was your most common grade in high school math classes?” or “how often did you miss school?” Others were more timely, but still easy to see through: “What is the biggest motivating factor in your desire to work for the government?” A.) money, B.) job security, C.) benefits, or D.) the chance to serve the public.

The third part was Writing Fundamentals; 40 questions, 70 minutes. Strangely, there’s no writing needed -- this is more a test of proofreading ability. After reading a passage, you may have to choose the best order of the paragraphs (C,A,D,B), select the best word that would fill in the blank (“assess” strengths and weaknesses), or find the error in subject-verb agreement. Again, it's similar to those in the guide hyperlinked above.

There was an optional fourth section as well; the administrator said it was "experimental," and added that it wouldn't count towards our scores. Though we had the option of leaving everything blank, we couldn't leave early if we didn't want to participate, so I think everyone did it. There were 58 questions in that section. Answers to statements like "I often feel blue" and "I have a good imagination" ranged from "I strongly agree" to "I strongly disagree."

Overall, I was a bit surprised by how easy the test was, and how silly some of the biographical questions were. In some ways, how one answers "My peers see me as [blank]" says more about their test-taking skills than their self-confidence, and it's hardly verifiable. I mean, everyone in the room was a graduate student; if someone was a jerk, they’re probably smart enough to answer “correctly.”

[Similar opinions found here]

I'm trying to figure out why OPM changed the test. Certainly it's easier and cheaper to grade, but I think it's more than that. I think OPM is deliberately setting the bar lower so that more people can pass.

From what I’ve read online, the PMF program has been very successful and Finalists (those who pass the test) are popular among federal agencies. Fellows have the necessary job skills to perform their duties, they are intrinsically motivated by the concept of public service, and they're easier to hire than external candidates. In a good number of the DC area universities, just getting nominated is the hard part -- nominations are given on a limited and competitive basis.

With fully 50 percent of all federal workers eligible to retire in the next five years, the PMF program represents a great opportunity for federal agencies to get high-quality people in the system quickly. Due in part to lengthy clearance processes and hiring procedures, only about 15 percent of GS-9 to GS-15 vacancies are filled by external candidates.¹

My concern is that PMF seems to be evolving from a management development program into a general hiring tool. The purpose of the program, as stated by President Bush, is "to attract to the Federal service outstanding men and women from a variety of academic disciplines and career paths who have a clear interest in, and commitment to, excellence in the leadership and management of public policies and programs."²

Yet many agencies that hire PMFs do not provide the mandatory training or the rotational assignments that characterize the experience. Rather, they view PMF as a glorified temp agency or a way to get around hiring freezes.

And once hired, it doesn't seem like PMFs actually get any kind of preference. Fellows have an attrition rate roughly equal to non-fellows, and promotions to supervisory positions are just as likely to go to non-PMFs.³

On paper, the PMF program sounds pretty cool -- it comes across as a fast track to senior management. Yet with none of the 125 Life Experience questions dealing with the issue of leadership experience, I'm afraid that the program's future will be the same as it's past -- after ten years, fewer than one in five of the participants in 1990 were in a supervisory position.^{3, p.12}

In any case, to me the PMF program represents the best way to get hired by the federal government. At this point, getting in doesn't seem to be a problem. Now I just have to get a good position.