During the Cold War, the nation’s premier universities bragged a pipeline between top-level university talent to the CIA. Frank Wisner, one of the CIA’s Founding Officer, described college recruits as open-minded “amateurs” who possessed “grace and confidence under pressure,” making them ideal intelligence officers. These graduates, excited to dedicate their lives to public service, went on to become some of the agency’s most influential figures, such as former director Porter Gross. NASA followed similarly relied upon the country’s top engineering and mathematics students to fill critical gaps left by its retirees. At its peak in the 1960s and 1970s, NASA competed impressively against its Russian counterpart in the Space Race—a feat impossible without NASA’s younger members. While the demand for university talent has continued to increase among federal agencies since the 70s, enthusiasm for government work among college students is historically low today.
The nation’s top graduates are steadily flocking to the private sector as just 40 percent of current graduate students are considering federal employment. This can be attributed directly to the federal government's outdated hiring practices and uncompetitive salaries compared to the variety of benefits working for a private firm or company. Logistical shortcomings arising from outdated hiring practices are one reason why federal agencies have fallen behind private-sector competitors in the eyes of young graduates. On average, federal agencies take 98 days to identify, interview, and hire new employees. From start to finish, the federal hiring process is tedious and time-consuming, not only discouraging potential candidates from applying but also preventing managers from efficiently assessing applications. While marginal improvements have been made, the private sector’s recruiting apparatus is far more sophisticated and their average time-to-hire is just 36 days. The discrepancy in time-to-hire between federal agencies prevents public sector employers from competing with efficiency-oriented private sector counterparts.
Budget limitations are also responsible for federal agencies’ ineffective hiring practices, and the management personnel throughout federal agencies are aware of their system’s inefficiencies. For many government employees, however, the motivating factors for public service extend into the realm of self-actualization. A successful career in public service allows one to fulfill patriotic desires and gain immense personal purpose. Federal agencies rely on the unique ability of public service to deliver patriotic fulfillment as an important recruitment incentive, but in the modern era, patriotism no longer possesses the emotional pull that it once did.
Additionally, the demise of the USSR, and a clear opponent to the United States’ pursuit of global hegemony, also serves as a significant factor in declining attitudes toward government service. From missile strikes to ideological dominance, the Soviet threat was ubiquitous and multi-faceted. In his 1963 commencement speech at American University, President John F. Kennedy emphasized the importance of government service to an audience of graduates, using the Soviet threat as a context for his message. “Every man sent out from a university should be a man of his nation,” proclaimed Kennedy, “and I am confident that the men and women who carry the honor of graduating from this institution will continue to give from their lives, from their talents, a high measure of public service and public support.” By championing public service on the national stage, Kennedy extended an ideological call to arms to his audience of impressionable listeners. Federal agencies utilized the emotional appeal of patriotism to form impressive recruitment campaigns, offering college graduates the opportunity to contribute to the protection of the free world through their employment with the federal government. These tactics contributed to the success of agencies such as the CIA and NASA throughout the Cold War.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, however, the power of patriotic appeal has been ineffective in attracting college students. Federal hiring data shows that a historic downturn in federal hiring began in 1991 following the fall of the Soviet Union and continued to decline through the end of the decade. While several factors contributed to this steep reduction in the size of the federal government, the conclusion of the Cold War and the subsequent decline in overall patriotism is significant. This phenomenon has continued to influence the professional desires of college graduates.
The use of patriotic appeal was central to the federal government’s effective college recruitment strategies throughout the Cold War. In the 21st century, however, the lack of a unifying threat has prevented federal recruiters from promoting a sense of patriotic duty among graduates. The objective shortcomings of government employment, such as extensive time-to-hire periods and relatively noncompetitive salaries, further exacerbate students’ apathy for government work. While salary levels and time-to-hire periods can be improved through simple budget improvements, instilling patriotism among a generation of disinterested college graduates presents a more difficult task.
At this point, federal agencies must reconsider their approach to young professionals who seek a progressive work-life balance, competitive salary rates, and are discouraged by high experience demands from employers. Otherwise, the nation’s best and brightest will continue to opt for a private sector job over federal service.