#Financial Sector Recruitment

[alliance00]

6 Easy Steps to Choose the Right Banking Recruitment Agency

Selecting the right banking recruitment agency can be a distinct advantage for both work searchers and banking foundations. The correct office can smooth out the employing system, guaranteeing that competitors with the right abilities and capabilities are coordinated with the right jobs. The following are six simple tasks to assist you with picking the best financial enlistment organization to address your issues.

1. Define Your Requirements

Before you start your advantage, it's squeezing to have a reasonable comprehension of what you really want from a banking recruitment agency. For work searchers, this recommends perceiving the sort of financial positions you're amped up for, for example, retail banking, experience banking, or cash related appraisal. For banks and monetary foundations, this integrates finishing up the particular positions you really want to fill, for example, credit specialists, consistence arranged specialists, or branch supervisors.

By framing your necessities, you can limit your rundown of expected organizations to those that have practical experience in your specific area of interest. For example, on the off chance that you're searching for significant level leaders, you could zero in on organizations with a solid history in chief hunt inside the financial area.

2. Check Their Industry Expertise

Banking is a specific field, so picking an enlistment office with profound industry knowledge is significant. Search for organizations that have a demonstrated history in banking recruitment and figure out the subtleties of different financial jobs. You can survey their aptitude by exploring their site, perusing client tributes, and requesting contextual investigations or examples of overcoming adversity.

A recruitment agency with a solid spotlight on financial will have laid out associations with industry experts and a superior handle of the abilities and capabilities expected for various jobs. This ability will be important in tracking down the right applicants or open positions.

3. Evaluate Their Recruitment Process

Understanding how an enlistment office leads its hunt and determination cycle can give you knowledge into their viability. Get some information about their way to deal with obtaining competitors, screening cycles, and how they guarantee that up-and-comers are ideal for the jobs they're filling.

For job seekers, ask about how the office coordinates your abilities and vocation objectives with accessible open doors. For bosses, it's crucial for know how the office surveys possibility to guarantee they meet your particular necessities and organizational culture.

An agency that uses a rigorous and transparent recruitment process is more likely to deliver high-quality candidates or job matches.

4. Consider Their Reputation and Reviews

Reputation speaks volumes about the effectiveness of a recruitment agency. Research online reviews, request references, and look for suggestions from associates or industry contacts. A respectable organization will have positive input from the two clients and competitors and a past filled with effective situations.

Pay attention to reviews that notice the office's correspondence, impressive skill, and capacity to comprehend client needs. These elements are significant in guaranteeing a smooth and fruitful enrollment process.

5. Assess Their Communication and Support

Effective communication is key to a successful partnership with a recruitment agency.  Assess how well the organization speaks with you during the underlying phases of commitment. Is it true that they are receptive to your requests? Do they give clear and opportune updates?

For job seekers, great help from the office remembers standard updates for requests for employment and useful criticism. For businesses, it includes straightforward correspondence about the advancement of the enrollment interaction and any difficulties experienced.

An agency that focuses on correspondence and backing is bound to give a positive and useful experience.

Conclusion

Choosing the right banking recruitment agency involves careful consideration and due diligence. By characterizing your necessities, assessing industry ability, understanding the enlistment interaction, really taking a look at notoriety and surveys, evaluating correspondence and backing, and exploring expenses and terms, you can go with an educated choice. The right agency like Alliance Recruitment Agency will assist with smoothing out your pursuit of employment or enlistment process, prompting effective results for the two up-and-comers and businesses. Carve out opportunity to follow these means, and you’ll be well on your way to finding a recruitment partner that meets your needs effectively.  Contact us now.

[hemaris]

soooooo annoying how a year ago i was like hahaaaa leaving the legal sector FOREVER & now i'm like being a public prosecutor would pay really well though 🥺🥺🥺

[zvaigzdelasas]

[USA Today is US Private Media]

Lebanon has been attacked by something the world has never seen before ‒ a mass sabotage of electronic devices remotely detonated. Tiny bombs inside pagers and walkie-talkies went off as the devices' users were in homes, supermarkets, buses and on the streets. At least 37 people, including two children, were killed and thousands wounded in two waves of attacks this week. Lebanon's government and Hezbollah, an Iran-backed group that uses the nation as a base for its militants, both blamed Israel. Israel has not claimed responsibility for the attacks directly, but anyone who pays attention to the Middle East understands that this operation almost certainly originated in Tel Aviv.[...]

On Friday, Israel launched an airstrike that reportedly killed senior Hezbollah commander Ibrahim Aqil in Beirut. Israeli officials said Hezbollah later fired dozens of rockets into northern Israel.[...]

When you turn pagers into bombs, you have to know that there will be a high risk of collateral damage. The pagers belonged not just to military members of Hezbollah, but also medical staff and others.[...]

[Now,] an entire nation, Lebanon, has been terrorized. Its medical facilities are straining to handle all the bomb victims. Some in Lebanon are comparing the feeling of insecurity to the awful aftermath of the 2020 Beirut dock explosion.[...]

As an American, I financially support Israel with my tax dollars. If they are murdering Lebanese children, then to some extent, I did that.

Sure, Hezbollah’s ability to communicate internally has been gravely damaged, at least momentarily. But this tactic is spurring anger at Israel across all sectors of Lebanese society, and indeed, the Arab world. Iraq is sending medical supplies to Lebanon; Egypt is expressing solidarity.

Will it be harder or easier for Hezbollah to get recruits? The pager and walkie-talkie explosions killed and wounded a few fighters, but there will be three or four replacements for each one who fell.

[E]ven Hezbollah’s fiercest opponents are now rallying to their support.

It also will inevitably cause more and more Americans to wonder if we should be such strong supporters of a nation that uses tactics that terrorize an entire country and inevitably leave behind dead and wounded children.

20 Sep 24

[reasonsforhope]

"Seven federal agencies are partnering to implement President Biden’s American Climate Corps, announcing this week they would work together to recruit 20,000 young Americans and fulfill the administration's vision for the new program. 

The goals spelled out in the memorandum of understanding include comprehensively tackling climate change, creating partnerships throughout various levels of government and the private sector, building a diverse corps and serving all American communities.

The agencies—which included the departments of Commerce, Interior, Agriculture, Labor and Energy, as well the Environmental Protection Agency and AmeriCorps—also vowed to ensure a “range of compensation and benefits” that open the positions up to a wider array of individuals and to create pathways to “high-quality employment.”  

Leaders from each of the seven agencies will form an executive committee for the Climate Corps, which Biden established in September, that will coordinate efforts with an accompanying working group. They will create the standards for ACC programs, set compensation guidelines and minimum terms of service, develop recruitment strategies, launch a centralized website and establish performance goals and objectives. The ACC groups will, beginning in January, hold listening sessions with potential applicants, labor unions, state and local governments, educational institutions and other stakeholders. 

The working group will also review all federal statutes and hiring authorities to remove any barriers to onboarding for the corps and standardize the practices across all participating agencies. Benefits for corps members will include housing, transportation, health care, child care, educational credit, scholarships and student loan forgiveness, stipends and non-financial services.

As part of the goal of the ACC, agencies will develop the corps so they can transition to “high-quality, family-sustaining careers with mobility potential” in the federal or other sectors. AmeriCorps CEO Michael Smith said the initiative would prepare young people for “good-paying union jobs.” 

Within three weeks of rolling out the ACC, EPA said more than 40,000 people—mostly in the 18-35 age range—expressed interest in joining the corps. The administration set an ambitious goal for getting the program underway, aiming to establish the corps’ first cohort in the summer of 2024. 

The corps members will work in roles related to ecosystem restoration and conservation, reforestation, waterway protection, recycling, energy conservation, clean energy deployment, disaster preparedness and recovery, fire resilience, resilient recreation infrastructure, research and outreach. The administration will look to ensure 40% of the climate-related investments flow to disadvantaged communities as part of its Justice40 initiative.  

EPA Administrator Michael Regan said the MOU would allow the ACC to “work across the federal family” to push public projects focused on environmental justice and clean energy. 

“The Climate Corps represents a significant step forward in engaging and nurturing young leaders who are passionate about climate action, furthering our journey towards a sustainable and equitable future,” Regan said. 

The ACC’s executive committee will hold its first meeting within the next 30 days. It will draw support from a new climate hub within AmeriCorps, as well as any staffing the agency heads designate."

-via Government Executive, December 20, 2023

-

This news comes with your regularly scheduled reminder that WE GOT THE AMERICAN CLIMATE CORPS ESTABLISHED LAST YEAR and basically no one know about/remembers it!!! Also if you want more info about the Climate Corps, inc. how to join, you can sign up to get updates here.

[hyperlexichypatia]

I think the way nonprofits and public agencies are funded leads us to adopt some of the worst aspects of a capitalist mindset towards our service users.

In a business, the goal is clear: Generate profit. Sell more product, to generate more profit. Recruit more customers, to generate more profit. Upsell customers to a more expensive product, to generate more profit. Convince customers to keep coming back and buying more things, to generate more profit.

Manipulation is built into the process, and it's understood by all parties. When a business does something "for you," it's in the hopes that you'll buy (or keep buying, or buy more of, or persuade other people to buy) their product. When a company offers free ice cream with your insurance quote, it's not because they like you and and want you to have ice cream; it's because they want you to come for the ice cream, stay for the insurance quote, and buy their insurance policy before you leave, so they can get your money. Everybody knows this.

Nonprofits and public agencies theoretically don't have this motive. Theoretically, the services we offer are for you, the service user. Theoretically, there is no profit motive, and thus no motive for manipulation. Theoretically, whether or not people choose to use the services we offer has no effect on us, so our only goal in promoting or raising awareness of our services is so that potential users can know about them and decide whether or not to use them.

Theoretically.

But in reality, public agencies and nonprofits are funded by governments, foundations, and donors. They demand "data" to justify their funding, and a major source of "data" is the number of service users. Markers of success have to be measurable and numerical, even if that metric doesn't really make sense. So even if there's not directly a profit motive for recruiting service users as "paying customers," there can still be a financial incentive for recruiting as many service users as possible, including using "sales" techniques like giveaways and gimmicks.

Now, this isn't inherently a bad thing -- after all, people in the nonprofit sector want people to use our services, so we want to get the word out about what we have to offer. I'm not saying it's inherently wrong for a nonprofit to use a raffle or a giveaway or a pizza party or whatever to get the word out and recruit new service users.

But since the services we offer are supposed to be for the service users' own benefit, sometimes the attitude around promoting them slips into the idea that the people we're ostensibly trying to serve have to be manipulated or bribed or tricked into accepting services for their own good, because they don't know or care what's good for them.

This can get into some really unfortunate implications territory in the context of the demographics of people who tend to work at nonprofits and public agencies, compared to the demographics of people those agencies tend to serve.

Attitudes can quickly morph into "Those People don't care about their children's health/education/etc., so we have to trick and manipulate and bribe them with food and prizes."

There's a difference between "Giveaways are a fun way to get the word out about our services" and "Those People don't care about their children's diabetes risk unless we make them sit through a lecture before we give them food." And way too many public agency and nonprofit workers, in private, in what they think is a sympathetic audience, are way too open about saying the latter.

[letteredlettered]

What an interesting topic. I’ve heard that a large percentage of employees cite their bosses as the reason they leave their jobs. What are some ways companies try to mitigate this?

They don't.

I can really only answer for my company, which cared about retention (of employees) a lot. Many companies do, because it costs much less to recruit/onboard/train as little as possible, and because it can be hard to get the work done without adequate staffing. I'd add that my company had one area in which staffing was a nation-wide crisis; also my company was in the public sector and was in the press a lot, which mean they cared about their image.

They still didn't do that much to ensure that people had good bosses. That has less to do with this company and more to do with the structure of business in capitalist society. This is a big reason HR is never going to be that helpful unless you've got a tiny company that, completely by luck, has mostly good folks.

A company isn't going to take a generalized point about folks leaving their job because they don't like their bosses as fact. Companies feel they are too diverse and the financial risk is too great to pour money into something if they don't have hard data, so the first step to retention is getting data. You would think exit interviews would be really informative, but those require a lot of time which equals staff which equals money. Some employers do them but mine would only do one if you asked, and then they did nothing with the info. This is because the company's mentality was "well, if you're leaving you're probably really dissatisfied and we don't want to hear about that." I know this makes no sense. But in general, not just in the business but in this society (formed by capitalism), the idea seems to be if you're dissatisfied it's your fault. Meanwhile the company is interested in data about why people stay; they figure if folks are satisfied, that's the company's fault and they want to keep doing the same so they can retain employees.

Our company had a huge employee satisfaction survey they did every year that included questions about employee opinions about the company, their colleagues, and their bosses. You get emails to remind you to take it and if you can't get time in the workday, bosses are supposed to allow time for it. Some problems with that are you still have to remember to take it; if you don't have time you have to ask a boss you might not like to get that time; some folks at my company literally had jobs that literally are life or death so it can be hard to take time to take a survey; the survey is only in English; the survey is only in the computer; the reminders are only in email. So you have to be a moderately good English speaker who regularly checks email and knows how to use a computer and gets regular access to a computer for the company to get your data about your satisfaction. As you can imagine, our most vulnerable employees often get missed.

If the survey showed that folks were really dissatisfied with a particular boss, that boss got put into a series of trainings. Training is good, but US businesses (and plenty of employees themselves) seemed to have latched onto the idea that training is the be-all, end-all of improvement. Many of us saw this in response to the discussions about EDI (equity, diversity, and inclusion) that came about in 2020; business promised to be anti-racist and had some EDI seminars to prove it, and that was all. Why is it like this? What is really needed to make bosses better bosses? And why isn't that being done?

When it comes to "why is it like this": recruiting and retaining good leaders is hard. The way someone becomes a boss in almost any organization is a) management likes them, and/or b) they were good at a job in a lower level or different department, or c) they come from the outside with a good resume and what sounds like good experience. But a lot of time, management likes people who aren't disruptive, and sometimes folks who aren't disruptive are the folks who are not thinking for themselves and not asking questions and doing everything the way they're told even when it doesn't make sense. That doesn't make a good leader. As for folks who are good at the lower level job in the hierarchy or in another department, they aren't always good at managing. It's a different skill set, but I've seen a lot of leaders and employees make this mistake. They think that that the folks who are great at the job should be promoted, and honestly that really doesn't make sense. And last but not least, folks who get hired from the outside are a complete crapshoot, because experience with leadership does not necessarily a good leader make.

As for what is needed to make bosses better bosses, imo what you would really need is someone embedded within the department who is managed by the boss and is doing the same work as the other employees, but also has the training and experience to evaluate what the boss is doing well and isn't doing well, and then also has the authority and buy-in to work with the boss so that the boss can shadow and learn the leadership skills they need. Then, if the boss can't improve, there would need to be the will within the org to fire or demote that boss, and often that will doesn't exist because recruiting bosses is so hard and the training is usually monumental.

Side note, what I'm describing is what consultants should do and normally don't. Consultants come in and ask a lot of questions and do focus groups and maybe some observations, but they are not in there doing the work understanding what it is like to live in this world, and without that I frankly find a lot of the work they do useless. That said, consultants are almost always hired to identify inefficiencies; they're not really there to make it a more satisfying job. Imo, the greatest efficiency is a satisfied worker, but it is hard to get the data to point that way, and again, companies only want data, and again, your dissatisfaction is your own fault.

Another side note, this is why unions are so great. Union stewards are folks who work for the company but can act as a union representative. This means they're embedded in the department and doing the work everyone does, but they can also at times step outside that role and carry the authority of an outside entity that does have some power to use against the employer. This is why all employees should have a union.

So, why aren't companies doing this? As you can imagine, hiring the ambassador to embed within a department, training them, paying them for their time--all of these are just too cost prohibitive to justify when they only thing you're getting out of it is employee satisfaction. It is also possible to improve employee satisfaction by paying employees more, which is in fact why I stayed in this job I hated as long as I did. I was getting paid so much that it just did not make sense to walk away without a firm plan in place. In the end, paying employees more costs less than ensuring they have a good boss.

I have lots more to say about this, but I've said a lot already, so if anyone has follow up questions, feel free to send more asks.

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

⭕️👋Hi I’m new, I really like your character analysis, world lore analysis etc,…I think they’re very accurate and provide more insight into the twisted wonderland world,

do you think NRC gets enough funding cause they’ve been losing to RSA for like almost 100 years now and the Magift incident where the recruiter’s and scouts probably didn’t really pay attention to most of the players cause of Malleus .I know they probably get funding and tuition and stuff from affluent parents who care about the quality of education & environment of their children but is that really enough? Is Crowley secret Stressed about funding cause of their losing streak to RSA???

I just wondered what your thoughts were on the matter

Hello and thank you very much ^^ It always warms my heart to hear that people enjoy my more analytical writings!

Now to answer your question, I don’t think NRC is hurting for money. Like, at all.

You did bring up a fair point about NRC’s almost a 100 year loss streak to RSA + the lack of interested Spelldrive/Magical Shift scouts in book 2, but that’s not enough of the big picture. RSA is only one rival magic school out of several. Just because NRC is not doing well against one other school doesn’t mean that NRC is suddenly deemed “lesser”—NRC is still considered a top arcane academy and eclipses other magical institutions like Noble Bell College. In regards to the pro recruiters, I don’t think it has a huge impact?? Sports is only one sector at NRC; they’re still doing relatively well outside of it (such as in academics, extracurriculars, and connections for internships) in the grand scheme of things. Things like not winning VDC and not being noticed by scouts seems to only really impact the career prospects of students who were interested in the entertainment/sports industries; I doubt that this would seriously hurt whatever funding NRC is receiving.

Night Raven College is a private school, so they are most likely receiving money from tuition and not the government. Though tuition is not explicitly mentioned in TWST (at least not that I am aware of), if we assume the average cost for one student to attend a British boarding school—for which NRC is modeled after—that means 25,000 pounds per person, PER YEAR. Let us assume that NRC had only 800 students (this is the rough estimate TWST provides us). That means, from one year’s worth of tuition alone, the school is raking in 20,000,000 pounds or 4,058,310,000 madol. Note that this is just money in, not yet factoring for expenditures, taxes, etc.

The school also receives 10% of Mostro Lounge’s proceeds, and while we cannot put an exact number to that, we do know that most menu items range from 600 to 1500 madol. The lounge must also make significant enough money to pay for its ingredients, nice silverware (something which Azul stresses to give customers a high class experience), and even provide pay to workers (Ruggie would not be doing labor for free and refers to his time at Mostro Lounge as “a job”; see: his Ceremonial Robes vignettes). While this doesn’t make up a large part of NRC’s money, it’s still a nice little bonus to account for.

NRC also has many, MANY wealthy students, including literal celebrities and royalty. In fact, the upper middle class to flat-out rich make up the majority of the main cast (close to like 70-75%). If this is also the case for the regular mob students, then there are many other ways for the school to get huge donations. In the main story alone, two significant donations are mentioned: Kalim's dad gave enough money for NRC to completely renovate Scarabia and the Shroud parents paid for all the damages caused to the school's buildings. Additionally, Crowley says that the Shrouds made "substantial contributions toward expanding [NRC's] facilities."

Please note that this is just donations from current students’ families. Think about potential donations coming from NRC alumni too!!

It should be noted that NRC has the financial power to spend liberally, and no one really says that this will put the school in a touch spot. For example, Crowley literally buys up Sam's entire stock of goods during Ghost Marriage... and if you know anything about Sam, it's that he can magically keep things "IN STOCK NOW!!" Crowley even indicates in one of his voice lines that he is in constant competitions to buy out Sam's stock and has scarcely managed to one-up him--so the fact that Crowley does buy out Sam during an event is meaningful and speaks to how much of the school's money he is throwing to save it. He also tells Sam to bill the school for the cost of the fairy dust in Fairy Gala.

Both times, Crowley complains about how he would rather not spend money, but he does so anyway. This in of itself does NOT prove that NRC is in need of money, this is just proof of Crowley's cheapness. (We see many other examples of this greed and stinginess of his; he guilts Yuu for spending money on them, constantly tries to get free food and souvenirs from his students, and cuts costs for Halloween candy.) If NRC were truly hurting financially though, then they would not be able to throw lavish events or donate back to the community, both of which still happen multiple times. For example, NRC holds a huge Halloween event every year in which they open their campus to outsiders. This event is entirely free and involves a budget large enough for each dorm to create intricate decorations and costumes for 800ish students. There is also enough money to throw a celebration party for the students at the end of it—and let’s remember, NRC has the money to afford five star ghost chefs to regularly cater, serve in the cafeteria, AND teach their Culinary Crucibles/Master Chef courses.

While explaining the nature of the Halloween events, Crewel cites that NRC has survived this long in part due to the "While explaining the nature of the Halloween events, Crewel cites that NRC has survived this long in part due to the "understanding, cooperation, and subsistence of Sage's Island locals." This implies that the immediate community on the island also supports NRC in some ways. Perhaps it isn't financially, but it's clear that NRC still has social capital and a good reputation in spite of its losses to RSA.

In Port Fest, Crowley states that setup, food supplies, and all other expenses will be covered by the school. Half of the proceeds will then be donated to charity and the other half will be granted to the students to celebrate their hard work. Again, would NRC be giving away this money if they really needed it for the institution itself? They're not obligated to give money to the students, yet Crowley easily agreed when Azul asked for an incentive.

And let's not forget the school cultural festival, which was largely open for the public to attend. If they choose to spend on additional things (such as food and drink or VDC tickets, which are a "hot commodity"), that's on the individual. The school itself is hosting the event for free.

Yuu is offered a large sum of money (if the NRC tribe wins VDC)... and Ramshackle renovations (from Crowley) in book 5 in exchange for letting the boys host their training camp in their dorm. Look at how old and run-down Ramshackle is; there is no doubt that such repairs would be pretty expensive—but Crowley doesn't complain about the cost, he's not above bribing someone to make himself and his school look good.

Crowley caring about his reputation isn't new either, it's a pattern. We see him getting upset at NRC's loss in book 5 and lamenting bad publicity/being excited about good publicity in numerous events (Ghost Marriage, Wish Upon a Star, etc.) The school has been under his care for a long time, so naturally he will feel proud and/or slighted whenever NRC is involved.

This leads me to the conclusion that Crowley, the figurehead and headmaster of NRC, and his own personality quirks are being misconstrued as an indication that NRC is in a bad financial spot. His own fixation on triumphing over their rival school, acquiring and maintaining material goods for himself, and wanting positive attention do not reflect the state of the school. Notice how no one but Crowley whines about the financials and how while Crowley still complains about spending money, he has no qualms with spending lavishly himself on school events and holidays. This means NRC has money to spare, but Crowley is just stingy about how those funds are allocated.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Intuit: “Our fraud fights racism”

Tonight (September 27), I'll be at Chevalier's Books in Los Angeles with Brian Merchant for a joint launch for my new book The Internet Con and his new book, Blood in the Machine. On October 2, I'll be in Boise to host an event with VE Schwab.

Today's key concept is "predatory inclusion": "a process wherein lenders and financial actors offer needed services to Black households but on exploitative terms that limit or eliminate their long-term benefits":

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2329496516686620

Perhaps you recall predatory inclusion from the Great Financial Crisis, when predatory subprime mortgages with deceptive teaser rates were foisted on Black homeowners (who were eligible for better mortgages), resulting in a wave of Black home theft in the foreclosure crisis:

https://prospect.org/justice/staggering-loss-black-wealth-due-subprime-scandal-continues-unabated/

Before these loans blew up, they were styled as a means of creating Black intergenerational wealth through housing speculation. They turned out to be a way to suck up Black families' savings before rendering them homeless and forcing them into houses owned by the Wall Street slumlords who bought all the housing stock the Great Financial Crisis put on the market:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/08/wall-street-landlords/#the-new-slumlords

That was just an update on an old con: the "home sale contract," invented by loan-sharks who capitalized on redlining to rip off Black families. Back when banks and the US government colluded to deny mortgages to Black households, sleazy lenders created the "contract loan," which worked like a mortgage, but if you were late on a single payment, the lender could seize and sell your home and not pay you a dime – even if the house was 99% paid for:

https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Plunder-of-Black-Wealth-in-Chicago.pdf

Usurers and con-artists love to style themselves as anti-racists, seeking to "close the racial wealth gap." The payday lending industry – whose triple-digit interest rates trap poor people in revolving debt that they can never pay off – styles itself as a force for racial justice:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/01/29/planned-obsolescence/#academic-fraud

Payday lenders prey on poor people, and in America, "poor" is often a euphemism for "Black." Payday lenders disproportionately harm Black families:

https://ung.edu/student-money-management-center/money-minute/racial-wealth-gap-payday-loans.php

Payday lenders are just unlicensed banks, who deploy a layer of bullshit to claim that they don't have to play by the rules that bind the rest of the finance sector. This scam is so juicy that it spawned the fintech industry, in which a bunch of unregulated banks sprung up to claim that they were too "innovative" to be regulated:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/01/usury/#tech-exceptionalism

When you hear "Fintech," think "unlicensed bank." Fintech turned predatory inclusion into a booming business, recruiting Black spokespeople to claim that being the sucker at the table in the cryptocurrency casino was actually a form of racial justice:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/07/business/media/cryptocurrency-seeks-the-spotlight-with-spike-lees-help.html

But not all predatory inclusion is financial. Take Facebook Basics, Meta's "poor internet for poor people" program. Facebook partnered with telcos in the Global South to rig their internet access. These "zero rating" programs charged subscribers by the byte to reach any service except Facebook and its partners. Facebook claimed that this would "bridge the digital divide," by corralling "the next billion internet users" into using its services.

The fact that this would make "Facebook" synonymous with "the internet" was just an accidental, regrettable side-effect. Naturally, this was bullshit from top to bottom, and the countries where zero-rating was permitted ended up having more expensive wireless broadband than the countries that banned it:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/countries-zero-rating-have-more-expensive-wireless-broadband-countries-without-it

The predatory inclusion gambit is insultingly transparent, but that doesn't stop desperate scammers from trying it. The latest chancer is Intuit, who claim that the end of its decade-long, wildly profitable "free tax prep" scam is bad for Black people:

https://www.propublica.org/article/turbotax-intuit-black-taxpayers-irs-free-file-marketing

Some background. In nearly every rich country on Earth, the tax authorities send every taxpayer a pre-filled tax return, based on the information submitted by employers, banks, financial planners, etc. If that looks good to you, you just sign it and send it back. Otherwise, you can amend it, or just toss it in the trash and pay a tax-prep specialist to produce your own return.

But in America, taxpayers spend billions every year to send forms to the IRS that tell it things it already knows. To make this ripoff seem fair, the hyper-concentrated tax-prep industry, led by the Intuit, creators of Turbotax, pretended to create a program to provide free tax-prep to working people.

This program was called Free File, and it was a scam. The tax-prep cartel each took a different segment of Americans who were eligible for Freefile and then created an online house of mirrors that would trick those people into spending hours working on their tax-returns until they were hit with an error message falsely claiming they were ineligible for the free service and demanding hundreds of dollars to file their returns.

Intuit were world champions at this scam. They blocked their Freefile offering from search-engine crawlers and then bought ads that showed up when searchers typed "freefile" into the query box that led them to deceptively named programs that had "free" in their names but cost a fortune to use – more than you'd pay for a local CPA to file on your behalf.

The Attorneys General of nearly every US state and territory eventually sued Intuit over this, settling for $141m:

https://www.agturbotaxsettlement.com/Home/portalid/0

The FTC is still suing them over it:

https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/192-3119-intuit-inc-matter-turbotax

We have to rely on state AGs and the FTC to bring Intuit to justice because every Intuit user clicks through an agreement in which we permanently surrender our right to sue the company, no matter how many laws it breaks. For corporate criminals, binding arbitration waivers are the gift that keeps on giving:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/24/uber-for-arbitration/#nibbled-to-death-by-ducks

Even as the scam was running out, Intuit spent millions lobby-blitzing Congress, desperate for action that would let it continue to privately tax the nation for filling in forms that – once again – told the IRS things it already knew. They really love the idea of paying taxes on paying your taxes:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/20/turbotaxed/#counter-intuit

But they failed. The IRS has taken Freefile in-house, will send you a pre-completed tax return if you want it. This should be the end of the line for Intuit and other tax-prep profiteers:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/17/free-as-in-freefile/#tell-me-something-i-dont-know

Now we're at the end of the line for the scam, Intuit is playing the predatory inclusion card. They're conning Black newspapers like the Chicago Defender into running headlines like "IRS Free Tax Service Could Further Harm Blacks,"

https://defendernetwork.com/news/opinion/irs-free-tax-service-could-further-harm-blacks/

The only named source in that article? Intuit spokesperson Derrick Plummer. The article went out on the country's Black newswire Trice Edney, whose editor-in-chief did not respond to Propublica's Paul Kiel's questions.

Then Black Enterprise got in on the game, publishing "Critics Claim The IRS Free Tax Prep Service Could Hurt Black Americans." Once again, the only named source for the article was Plummer, who was "quoted at length." Black Enterprise declined to tell Kiel where that article came from:

https://www.blackenterprise.com/critics-claim-the-irs-free-tax-prep-service-could-hurt-black-americans/

For Intuit, placing op-eds is a tried-and-true tactic for laundering its ripoffs into respectability. Leaked internal Intuit memos detail the company's strategy of "pushing back through op-eds" to neutralize critics:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6483061-Intuit-TurboTax-2014-15-Encroachment-Strategy.html

Intuit spox Derrick Plummer did respond to Kiel's queries, denying that Intuit was paying for these op-eds, saying "with an idea as bad as the Direct File scheme we don’t have to pay anyone to talk about how terrible it is."

Meanwhile, ex-NAACP director (and No Labels co-chair) Benjamin Chavis has used his position atop the National Newspaper Publishers Association to publish op-eds against the IRS Direct File program, citing the Progressive Policy Institute, a pro-business thinktank that Intuit's internal documents describe as part of its "coalition":

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6483061-Intuit-TurboTax-2014-15-Encroachment-Strategy.html

Chavis's Chicago Tribune editorial claimed that Direct File could cause Black filers to miss out on tax-credits they are entitled to. This is a particularly ironic claim given Intuit's prominent role in sabotaging the Child Tax Credit, a program that lifted more Americans out of poverty than any other in history:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/06/29/three-times-is-enemy-action/#ctc

It's also an argument that can be found in Intuit's own anti-Direct File blog posts:

https://www.intuit.com/blog/innovative-thinking/taxpayer-empowerment/intuit-reinforces-its-commitment-to-fighting-for-taxpayers-rights/

The claim is that because the IRS disproportionately audits Black filers (this is true), they will screw them over in other ways. But Evelyn Smith, co-author of the study that documented the bias in auditing says this is bullshit:

https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/working-paper/measuring-and-mitigating-racial-disparities-tax-audits

That's because these audits of Black households are triggered by the IRS's focus on Earned Income Tax Credits, a needlessly complicated program available to low-income (and hence disproportionately Black) workers. The paperwork burden that the IRS heaps on EITC recipients means that their returns contain errors that trigger audits.

As Smith told Propublica, "With free, assisted filing, we might expect EITC claimants to make fewer mistakes and face less intense audit scrutiny, which could help reduce disparities in audit rates between Black and non-Black taxpayers."

Meanwhile, the predatory inclusion talking points continue to proliferate. Nevada accountants and the state's former controller somehow coincidentally managed to publish op-eds with nearly identical wording. Phillip Austin, vice-chair of Arizon's East Valley Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, claims that free IRS tax prep "would disproportionately hurt the Hispanic community." Austin declined to tell Propublica how he came to that conclusion.

Right-wing think-tanks are pumping out a torrent of anti-Direct File disinfo. This surely has nothing to do with the fact that, for example, Center Forward has HR Block's chief lobbyist on its board:

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/4125481-direct-e-file-wont-make-filing-taxes-any-easier-but-it-could-make-things-worse/

The whole thing reeks of bullshit and desperation. That doesn't mean that it won't succeed in killing Direct File. If there's one thing America loves, it's letting businesses charge us a tax just for dealing with our own government, from paying our taxes to camping in our national parks:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/30/military-industrial-park-service/#booz-allen

Interestingly, there's a MAGA version of predatory inclusion, in which corporations convince low-information right-wingers that efforts to protect them from ripoffs are "woke." These campaigns are, incredibly, even stupider than the predatory inclusion tale.

For example, there's a well-coordianted campaign to block the junk fees that the credit card cartel extracts from merchants, who then pass those charges onto us. This campaign claims that killing junk fees is woke:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/04/owning-the-libs/#swiper-no-swiping

How does that work? Here's the logic: Target sells Pride merch. That makes them woke. Target processes a lot of credit-card transactions, so anything that reduces card-processing fees will help Target. Therefore, paying junk fees is a way to own the libs.

No, seriously.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/27/predatory-inclusion/#equal-opportunity-scammers

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved in our archive

No mention of covid or long covid, but lots of mention of "cost to taxpayers" and "learning losses." I wonder what *specific* actions should be taken besides forcing sick people to stay in the classroom? Hmmst...

By Poppy Wood

Concerns that absence crisis provoked by the pandemic continues to disrupt learning

About 14,000 teachers in England called in sick every day last year, analysis has found.

Department for Education (DfE) data show that about 2.5 million school days were lost in 2022-23 as more than 326,000 teachers missed class owing to sickness.

Each teacher who took sick leave reported an average of eight days off work last year. It equates to almost 13,700 teachers calling in sick on any given day during the 190-day school year.

About 66.2 per cent of England’s teaching workforce were off school because of illness last year, according to the DfE’s school workforce statistics.

It marks a slight decrease on the 67.5 per cent of teachers who called in sick in 2021-22, but is still far above the pre-pandemic rate of 54.1 per cent.

The figures will raise concerns that an absence crisis provoked by the pandemic continues to disrupt learning, with the number of pupils missing school also significantly higher post-Covid.

In total, 7.8 million school days have been lost to sickness since in-person teaching resumed following the pandemic, according to analysis of DfE data by the TaxPayers’ Alliance.

Compared with the 2018-19 academic year – the year before the pandemic – an extra 461,500 teaching days were lost last year because of staff illness.

Joanna Marchong, investigations campaign manager of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “Taxpayers will be shocked by the sheer number of sick days taken by teaching staff.

“Alongside their generous holiday entitlements, hundreds of thousands of teachers are frequently absent, leaving classrooms in disarray and forcing taxpayers to bear the significant costs of finding covers.

“Schools must tackle this issue if they want to deliver a consistent quality of education that is value for money for taxpayers.”

‘Deteriorating mental health’ While the Government does not collect statistics centrally on the reasons for teacher absence, experts have pointed to increased stress and deteriorating mental health.

In some secondary schools, as many as 166 teachers took sick leave at some point during the 2022-23 academic year, compounding financial pressures on already stretched school budgets.

Most teachers in England receive full sick pay for 25 working days off work in their first year in the profession, rising to 100 working days in their fourth and successive years of teaching.

The Telegraph revealed last week that teacher absences are forcing schools to spend billions on supply staff each year as headteachers scramble to plug gaps in the workforce.

In 2022-23, schools gave £1.2 billion of taxpayers’ cash towards expensive teacher supply agencies to fill vacancies and cover long-term sickness. It is almost double the £738 million spent on supply teachers in the year before the pandemic.

Labour has promised to allow teachers to complete more tasks from home in an attempt to make the profession more attractive. The Government is also exploring how to use artificial intelligence to reduce staff workloads, after almost one in 10 teachers quit the profession last year.

It is hoped the measures will help tackle the recruitment and retention crisis and stem the tide of staff calling in sick each day.

Daniel Kebede, the general secretary of the National Education Union (NEU), called on the Government to improve teacher pay to prevent a growing exodus from the sector.

“We need to see a concerted effort by the Government to retain teachers in the profession. This will need changes to accountability so we have a collaborative and supportive system,” he said.

“This will also require action on closing the pay gap between teachers and other graduate professions, reducing workload and more flexible working in education”.

Mr Kebede blamed the rise in the teacher absence rate since the pandemic on “excessive teacher workload driven by a high-stakes assessment and accountability system”.

He warned this would continue to “leave many teachers burnt out, leading to stress, sickness and people leaving the profession” without urgent government action.

Labour has come under fire for bowing to pressure from education unions on above-inflation public sector pay deals and demands.

Last month, the NEU voted to accept the Government’s pay offer of a 5.5 per cent uplift for most teachers this year, but warned that it will push for a bigger hike next year.

It suggests the UK’s largest teaching union will continue to wield the threat of further strike action as it seeks long-term funding to address the retention crisis.

‘Severely absent’ pupils Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary, has warned of a “dire” inheritance from the previous government as she faces calls for further funding from across the sector.

Schools are also struggling with dwindling pupil attendance levels since the pandemic, with Ms Phillipson warning recently that it was quickly becoming an “absence epidemic”.

More than one in 50 pupils in England are now missing at least half the school year, official figures show.

The proportion of children classed as “severely absent” – meaning they failed to show up for 50 per cent or more of classes – rose to 2.1 per cent in the autumn and spring terms of 2023-24.

It means that about 158,000 pupils were severely absent from school during those teaching periods, according to DfE data.

The DfE was approached for comment.

[thundercrack]

Study of Elite College Admissions Data Suggests Being Very Rich Is Its Own Qualification

By Aatish Bhatia, Claire Cain Miller and Josh Katz July 24, 2023 (full text under the cut)

Elite colleges have long been filled with the children of the richest families: At Ivy League schools, one in six students has parents in the top 1 percent.

A large new study, released Monday, shows that it has not been because these children had more impressive grades on average or took harder classes. They tended to have higher SAT scores and finely honed résumés, and applied at a higher rate — but they were overrepresented even after accounting for those things. For applicants with the same SAT or ACT score, children from families in the top 1 percent were 34 percent more likely to be admitted than the average applicant, and those from the top 0.1 percent were more than twice as likely to get in.

The study — by Opportunity Insights, a group of economists based at Harvard who study inequality — quantifies for the first time the extent to which being very rich is its own qualification in selective college admissions.

The analysis is based on federal records of college attendance and parental income taxes for nearly all college students from 1999 to 2015, and standardized test scores from 2001 to 2015. It focuses on the eight Ivy League universities, as well as Stanford, Duke, M.I.T. and the University of Chicago. It adds an extraordinary new data set: the detailed, anonymized internal admissions assessments of at least three of the 12 colleges, covering half a million applicants. (The researchers did not name the colleges that shared data or specify how many did because they promised them anonymity.)

The new data shows that among students with the same test scores, the colleges gave preference to the children of alumni and to recruited athletes, and gave children from private schools higher nonacademic ratings. The result is the clearest picture yet of how America’s elite colleges perpetuate the intergenerational transfer of wealth and opportunity.

“What I conclude from this study is the Ivy League doesn’t have low-income students because it doesn’t want low-income students,” said Susan Dynarski, an economist at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, who has reviewed the data and was not involved in the study.

In effect, the study shows, these policies amounted to affirmative action for the children of the 1 percent, whose parents earn more than $611,000 a year. It comes as colleges are being forced to rethink their admissions processes after the Supreme Court ruling that race-based affirmative action is unconstitutional.

“Are these highly selective private colleges in America taking kids from very high-income, influential families and basically channeling them to remain at the top in the next generation?” said Raj Chetty, an economist at Harvard who directs Opportunity Insights, and an author of the paper with John N. Friedman of Brown and David J. Deming of Harvard. “Flipping that question on its head, could we potentially diversify who’s in a position of leadership in our society by changing who is admitted?”

Representatives from several of the colleges said that income diversity was an urgent priority, and that they had taken significant steps since 2015, when the data in the study ends, to admit lower-income and first-generation students. These include making tuition free for families earning under a certain amount; giving only grants, not loans, in financial aid; and actively recruiting students from disadvantaged high schools.

“We believe that talent exists in every sector of the American income distribution,” said Christopher L. Eisgruber, the president of Princeton. “I am proud of what we have done to increase socioeconomic diversity at Princeton, but I also believe that we need to do more — and we will do more.”

Affirmative action for the rich

In a concurring opinion in the affirmative action case, Justice Neil Gorsuch addressed the practice of favoring the children of alumni and donors, which is also the subject of a new case. “While race-neutral on their face, too, these preferences undoubtedly benefit white and wealthy applicants the most,” he wrote.

The new paper did not include admissions rates by race because previous research had done so, the researchers said. They found that racial differences were not driving the results. When looking only at applicants of one race, for example, those from the highest-income families still had an advantage. Yet the top 1 percent is overwhelmingly white. Some analysts have proposed diversifying by class as a way to achieve more racial diversity without affirmative action.

The new data showed that other selective private colleges, like Northwestern, N.Y.U. and Notre Dame, had a similarly disproportionate share of children from rich families. Public flagship universities were much more equitable. At places like the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Virginia, applicants with high-income parents were no more likely to be admitted than lower-income applicants with comparable scores.

Less than 1 percent of American college students attend the 12 elite colleges. But the group plays an outsize role in American society: 12 percent of Fortune 500 chief executives and a quarter of U.S. senators attended. So did 13 percent of the top 0.1 percent of earners. The focus on these colleges is warranted, the researchers say, because they provide paths to power and influence — and diversifying who attends has the potential to change who makes decisions in America.

The researchers did a novel analysis to measure whether attending one of these colleges causes success later in life. They compared students who were wait-listed and got in, with those who didn’t and attended another college instead. Consistent with previous research, they found that attending an Ivy instead of one of the top nine public flagships did not meaningfully increase graduates’ income, on average. However, it did increase a student’s predicted chance of earning in the top 1 percent to 19 percent, from 12 percent.

For outcomes other than earnings, the effect was even larger — it nearly doubled the estimated chance of attending a top graduate school, and tripled the estimated chance of working at firms that are considered prestigious, like national news organizations and research hospitals.

“Sure, it’s a tiny slice of schools,” said Professor Dynarski, who has studied college admissions and worked with the University of Michigan on increasing the attendance of low-income students, and has occasionally contributed to The New York Times. “But having representation is important, and this shows how much of a difference the Ivies make: The political elite, the economic elite, the intellectual elite are coming out of these schools.”

The missing middle class

The advantage to rich applicants varied by college, the study found: At Dartmouth, students from the top 0.1 percent were five times as likely to attend as the average applicant with the same test score, while at M.I.T. they were no more likely to attend. (The fact that children from higher-income families tend to have higher standardized test scores and are likelier to receive private coaching suggests that the study may actually underestimate their admissions advantage.)

An applicant with a high test score from a family earning less than $68,000 a year was also likelier than the average applicant to get in, though there were fewer applicants like this.

Children from middle- and upper-middle-class families — including those at public high schools in high-income neighborhoods — applied in large numbers. But they were, on an individual basis, less likely to be admitted than the richest or, to a lesser extent, poorest students with the same test scores. In that sense, the data confirms the feeling among many merely affluent parents that getting their children into elite colleges is increasingly difficult.

“We had these very skewed distributions of a whole lot of Pell kids and a whole lot of no-need kids, and the middle went missing,” said an Ivy League dean of admissions, who has seen the new data and spoke anonymously in order to talk openly about the process. “You’re not going to win a P.R. battle by saying you have X number of families making over $200,000 that qualify for financial aid.”

The researchers could see, for nearly all college students in the United States from 1999 to 2015, where they applied and attended, their SAT or ACT scores and whether they received a Pell grant for low-income students. They could also see their parents’ income tax records, which enabled them to analyze attendance by earnings in more detail than any previous research. They conducted the analysis using anonymized data.

For the several elite colleges that also shared internal admissions data, they could see other aspects of students’ applications between 2001 and 2015, including how admissions offices rated them. They focused their analysis on the most recent years, 2011 to 2015.

Though they had this data for a minority of the dozen top colleges, the researchers said they thought it was representative of the other colleges in the group (with the exception of M.I.T.). The other colleges admitted more students from high-income families, showed preferences for legacies and recruited athletes, and described similar admissions practices in conversations with the researchers, they said.

“Nobody has this kind of data; it’s completely unheard-of,” said Michael Bastedo, a professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Education, who has done prominent research on college admissions. “I think it’s really important to good faith efforts for reforming the system to start by being able to look honestly and candidly at the data.”

How the richest students benefit

Before this study, it was clear that colleges enrolled more rich students, but it was not known whether it was just because more applied. The new study showed that’s part of it: One-third of the difference in attendance rates was because middle-class students were somewhat less likely to apply or matriculate. But the bigger factor was that these colleges were more likely to accept the richest applicants.

Legacy admissions

The largest advantage for the 1 percent was the preference for legacies. The study showed — for the first time at this scale — that legacies were more qualified overall than the average applicant. But even when comparing applicants who were similar in every other way, legacies still had an advantage.

When high-income applicants applied to the college their parents attended, they were accepted at much higher rates than other applicants with similar qualifications — but at the other top-dozen colleges, they were no more likely to get in.

“This is not a sideshow, not just a symbolic issue,” Professor Bastedo said of the finding.

Athletes

One in eight admitted students from the top 1 percent was a recruited athlete. For the bottom 60 percent, that figure was one in 20. That’s largely because children from rich families are more likely to play sports, especially more exclusive sports played at certain colleges, like rowing and fencing. The study estimated that athletes were admitted at four times the rate of nonathletes with the same qualifications.

“There’s a common misperception that it’s about basketball and football and low-income kids making their way into selective colleges,” Professor Bastedo said. “But the enrollment leaders know athletes tend to be wealthier, so it’s a win-win.”

Nonacademic ratings

There was a third factor driving the preference for the richest applicants. The colleges in the study generally give applicants numerical scores for academic achievement and for more subjective nonacademic virtues, like extracurricular activities, volunteering and personality traits. Students from the top 1 percent with the same test scores did not have higher academic ratings. But they had significantly higher nonacademic ratings.

At one of the colleges that shared admissions data, students from the top 0.1 percent were 1.5 times as likely to have high nonacademic ratings as those from the middle class. The researchers said that, accounting for differences in the way each school assesses nonacademic credentials, they found similar patterns at the other colleges that shared data.

The biggest contributor was that admissions committees gave higher scores to students from private, nonreligious high schools. They were twice as likely to be admitted as similar students — those with the same SAT scores, race, gender and parental income — from public schools in high-income neighborhoods. A major factor was recommendations from guidance counselors and teachers at private high schools.

“Parents rattle off that a kid got in because he was first chair in the orchestra, ran track,” said John Morganelli Jr., a former director of admissions at Cornell and founder of Ivy League Admissions, where he advises high school students on applying to college. “They never say what really happens: Did the guidance counselor advocate on that kid’s behalf?”

Recommendation letters from private school counselors are notoriously flowery, he said, and the counselors call admissions officers about certain students.

“This is how the feeder schools get created,” he said. “Nobody’s calling on behalf of a middle- or lower-income student. Most of the public school counselors don’t even know these calls exist.”

The end of need-blind admissions?

Overall, the study suggests, if elite colleges had done away with the preferences for legacies, athletes and private school students, the children of the top 1 percent would have made up 10 percent of a class, down from 16 percent in the years of the study.

Legacy students, athletes and private school students do no better after college, in terms of earnings or reaching a top graduate school or firm, it found. In fact, they generally do somewhat worse.

The dean of admissions who spoke anonymously said change was easier said than done: “I would say there’s much more commitment to this than may be obvious. It’s just the solution is really complicated, and if we could have done it, we would have.”

For example, it’s not feasible to choose athletes from across the income spectrum if many college sports are played almost entirely by children from high-earning families. Legacies are perhaps the most complicated, the admissions dean said, because they tend to be highly qualified and their admission is important for maintaining strong ties with alumni.

Ending that preference, the person said, “is not an easy decision to make, given the alumni response, especially if you’re not in immediate concurrence with the rest of the Ivies.” (Though children of very large donors also get special consideration by admissions offices, they were not included in the analysis because there are relatively few of them.)

People involved in admissions say that achieving more economic diversity would be difficult without doing something else: ending need-blind admissions, the practice that prevents admissions officers from seeing families’ financial information so their ability to pay is not a factor. Some colleges are already doing what they call “need-affirmative admissions,” for the purpose of selecting more students from the low end of the income spectrum, though they often don’t publicly acknowledge it for fear of blowback.

There is a tool, Landscape from the College Board, to help determine if an applicant grew up in a neighborhood with significant privilege or adversity. But these colleges have no knowledge of parents’ income if students don’t apply for financial aid.

Ivy League colleges and their peers have recently made significant efforts to recruit more low-income students and subsidize tuition. Several now make attendance entirely free for families below a certain income — $100,000 at Stanford and Princeton, $85,000 at Harvard, and $60,000 at Brown.

At Princeton, one-fifth of students are now from low-income families, and one-fourth receive a full ride. It has recently reinstated a transfer program to recruit low-income and community college students. At Harvard, one-fourth of this fall’s freshman class is from families with incomes less than $85,000, who will pay nothing. The majority of freshmen will receive some amount of aid.

Dartmouth just raised $500 million to expand financial aid: “While we respect the work of Harvard’s Opportunity Insights, we believe our commitment to these investments and our admissions policies since 2015 tells an important story about the socioeconomic diversity among Dartmouth students,” said Jana Barnello, a spokeswoman.

Public flagships do admissions differently, in a way that ends up benefiting rich students less. The University of California schools forbid giving preference to legacies or donors, and some, like U.C.L.A., do not consider letters of recommendation. The application asks for family income, and colleges get detailed information about California high schools. Application readers are trained to consider students’ circumstances, like whether they worked to support their families in high school, as “evidence of maturity, determination and insight.”

The University of California system also partners with schools in the state, from pre-K through community college, to support students who face barriers. There’s a robust program for transfer students from California community colleges; at U.C.L.A., half are from low-income backgrounds.

M.I.T., which stands out among elite private schools as displaying almost no preference for rich students, has never given a preference to legacy applicants, said its dean of admissions, Stuart Schmill. It does recruit athletes, but they do not receive any preference or go through a separate admissions process (as much as it may frustrate coaches, he said).

“I think the most important thing here is talent is distributed equally but opportunity is not, and our admissions process is designed to account for the different opportunities students have based on their income,” he said. “It’s really incumbent upon our process to tease out the difference between talent and privilege.”

Source: Raj Chetty, David J. Deming and John N. Friedman, “Diversifying Society’s Leaders? The Determinants and Causal Effects of Admission to Highly Selective Private Colleges”

[mariacallous]

The FBI, working closely with an international team including the Czech and Baltic intelligence services, has helped link a series of international cyberattacks to a shadowy unit associated with the Russian secret service, the GRU.

According to a joint cybersecurity advisory report issued on Friday, the cyberattacks were undertaken by a group tied to Unit 29155 of the GRU.

Previously, the same unit has been blamed for an explosion at an ammunition site in 2014 in Vrbětice, deep in the Czech Republic’s southeast, as well as “attempted coups, sabotage and influence operations, and assassination attempts throughout Europe.”

However, in 2020, Unit 29155 expanded its portfolio “to include offensive cyber operations.”

Among other objectives, this offshoot group was used to collect information for espionage, cause reputational harm by stealing and leaking sensitive information, and destroying data.

“Unit 29155 cyber actors [are assessed] to be junior active-duty GRU officers under the direction of experienced Unit 29155 leadership,” said the report.

“These individuals appear to be gaining cyber experience and enhancing their technical skills through conducting cyber operations and intrusions,” it continued. Additionally, the report assessed that non-GRU officers had also been recruited, including known cybercriminals.

The unit is believed to be responsible for unleashing WhisperGate, a multi-stage wiper that has been deployed against the Ukrainian government, non-profit and tech organizations since January 2022. In addition to launching WhisperGate against Ukraine, the group has also targeted NATO states as well as countries in Latin America and Central Asia with its activity, including website defacements, infrastructure scanning, data exfiltration, and data leak operations. “Since early 2022, the primary focus of the cyber actors appears to be targeting and disrupting efforts to provide aid to Ukraine,” the report revealed. Furthermore, over 14,000 cases of domain scanning had also been recorded, with these impacting 26 NATO members and several other EU nations. “Whether through offensive operations or scanning activity, Unit 29155 cyber actors are known to target critical infrastructure and key resource sectors, including government services, financial services, transportation systems, energy, and healthcare sectors of NATO members, the EU, Central American, and Asian countries,” said the report. Led by the FBI, the investigative operation also involved teams from Britain, Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Estonia, Latvia, and the Czech Republic. Together, their joint findings have enabled the Cybersecurity Advisory to develop tactics, techniques, and procedures to thwart further actions by Unit 29155.

[the-ace-with-spades]

My firefighter!Bradley and naval aviator!Jake AU might be silly and a bit cracky but in all seriousness, I like to think that after they've been together for a few years and Jake retires from the Navy, they'd work together - aerial firefighting is an Actual Thing in California and I like to think they'd pair up to fly tactical for CAL FIRE or other company that is outsourcing for them.

Bradley would advance from Lieutenant to Captain and Jake would retire as a Commander, maybe, and they would both qualify to fly OV-10 Bronco.

Tactical pilots usually work with Fire Captains -- they, to simplify things, fly the plane while the captain takes account of the fire patterns on the ground (direction, spread speed, weak spots, wind changes, potential residential areas to evacuate, etc) and then fly over the flames from higher up so the captain can guide the airtanker's water drops.

I like to think it'd be Jake's idea. He'd get a promotion offer to Captain but with that promotion would come moving to Virginia and Bradley's whole life was in California - his parents, his family, twenty years of a career in SDFD, his childhood memories. So when he tells Bradley, he just kind of shuts off, congratulates him and says he's proud of him but it's clear he's given up already. He doesn't want to be bitter about it b/c Jake is obviously happy about it but it feels like an inevitable end for him.

Even if he did want to move, Jake knew that he'd most likely have to start from the bottom of the ladder if he switched to a fire department in VA and that's if at the time they'd have recruitment open. All his hard work would just be gone and he'd just have Jake to compensate for all the things he sacrificed.

And over the years they had multiple arguments about how Jake doesn't treat Bradley's job as equal to his own just because Bradley doesn't have deployments or orders that are set in stones (i.e. how the first Christmas Jake wasn't deployed, Bradley had a shift and wouldn't call out even if he could b/c his crew was counting on him or how he couldn't pick Jake up from the airport when he got stuck at five alarm fire) so just thinking about asking Bradley to leave his whole life behind to stay with Jake brings a sour taste to his mouth.

And in the end, Jake doesn't think it's worth it. Sure, his pension will be lower and he won't make it to admiral like he thought he'd when he went to the academy, but his flying time would be cut anyway and in all honesty, the thought of settling down makes him much happier than being stuck at the other end of the country with occasional video call from Bradley and no other family in his proximity. They wanted to have kids eventually and he didn't want to be a dad that just kind of comes around six weeks a year and leaves all the hard work of raising kids to his partner.

Obviously, he'd have to find some type of work and he doesn't really have much of any idea aside from that he wants to keep flying. Airline pilot seems boring since it's all so automated and private sector is kind of hit or miss and financially unstable. Flight instructor would be a good one if he was a bit more patient but he isn't.

Two weeks before he has to make a decision, Bradley volunteers to take a crew from his station to help with the wildfires up north. He kits out, Jake drives him to the station so he can take the spare fire truck without leaving his car in the parking lot for days. Jake gives him a kiss goodbye and tells him he'll visit the camp with some snacks and pick-me-up things for the crew.

For the first time since they've got together, Bradley tells him not to bother.

It's kind of heartbreaking so Jake decides to ignore it and drives up to the main camp anyway. Bradley is out on a trail with a crew so Jake just waits.

Then wind changes and he hears that Bradley's crew got cornered up the hill. The next five hours is the worst five hours of his life.

Finally, a Super Huey lands in the camp and Bradley, sooted up so badly his yellow jacket is basically black, with red, teary eyes, steps down out of the helicopter's cockpit. Doesn't even let Jake hug him because I'm covered in carcinogens, baby, you stay away until I have a shower.

He does take a shower and Jake follows him to the bathroom, not letting him out of his sight. Jake asks what happened and Bradley says something along the lines of thank god for aerial firefighting and Jake has a lightbulb moment.

The next morning, Bradley is sent out again and Jake stays in the camp, helping around as much as he can. It gets a bit dead when all the crews are sent out so to take his mind off Bradley being god knows where after he almost burned to a crisp yesterday, Jake starts to research aerial firefighting, bumps into info about tactical pilots, has another lightbulb moment.

Declines the promotion offer while still waiting on Bradley to come back to the main camp.

[careermantradotorg]

Top MBA Specializations to Boost Your Success

In today’s fast-paced, competitive world, obtaining a Master of Business Administration (MBA) is often seen as a gateway to professional growth and leadership roles. However, choosing the right MBA specialization is crucial in shaping the trajectory of your career. With an array of MBA specializations available, selecting the one that aligns with your interests and professional goals can significantly enhance your career prospects. This blog explores the Top MBA Specializations to help you make an informed decision and ensure long-term success.

Why MBA Specializations Matter

An MBA degree offers you a solid foundation in business management, but the specialization allows you to dive deep into a specific domain, equipping you with the expertise needed to excel in that field. Your choice of MBA specializations can determine the industry you enter, the roles you assume, and the salary you command. Hence, understanding the options available is critical to ensuring your professional success.

Top MBA Specializations to Consider

MBA in Finance Arguably one of the most popular MBA specializations, an MBA in Finance prepares students for leadership roles in banking, investment management, financial planning, and corporate finance. Graduates are equipped with the skills to manage financial resources, analyze market trends, and make data-driven financial decisions. High demand in sectors like investment banking, asset management, and insurance makes this specialization a strong choice for those looking to climb the corporate ladder.

MBA in Marketing If you're passionate about creativity, consumer behavior, and brand management, an MBA in Marketing might be the perfect fit. This specialization focuses on product management, digital marketing strategies, sales management, and consumer insights. Marketing MBAs are highly sought after in industries such as retail, e-commerce, advertising, and media. With the rise of digital marketing, graduates are often positioned to lead marketing campaigns that leverage data analytics, SEO, and social media strategies.

MBA in Human Resource Management (HRM) Businesses rely on human capital to thrive, and MBA specializations in Human Resource Management focus on equipping professionals with the skills to manage and develop this essential resource. Graduates with an MBA in HRM are trained in employee relations, talent management, recruitment strategies, and leadership development. This specialization is ideal for individuals who enjoy working with people and are interested in organizational development and change management.

MBA in Operations Management For those with an interest in logistics, supply chain management, and process optimization, an MBA in Operations Management is a top choice. This specialization emphasizes the efficient management of business operations, including product manufacturing, service delivery, and resource allocation. With the rise of globalization and technological advancements, professionals in this field are in high demand across sectors like manufacturing, e-commerce, and logistics.

MBA in Information Technology (IT) As technology continues to drive business innovations, an MBA specialization in Information Technology prepares students for leadership roles in tech-driven environments. This specialization integrates management principles with technical expertise, covering topics like IT strategy, project management, and systems analysis. Graduates can pursue roles such as IT managers, Chief Information Officers (CIO), and project consultants in industries ranging from software development to IT services.

MBA in International Business In a globalized economy, businesses are increasingly operating across borders, making an MBA in International Business highly relevant. This specialization focuses on global trade practices, international marketing, and cross-cultural management. Graduates are equipped to handle the complexities of managing international teams, navigating foreign markets, and developing global strategies. It's an excellent option for those aspiring to work with multinational corporations or in the export-import sector.

MBA in Entrepreneurship If you're driven by innovation and want to start your own business or lead startups, an MBA in Entrepreneurship could be your gateway to success. This specialization covers topics like venture capital, business plan development, and startup financing. With the growing startup ecosystem worldwide, this MBA specialization enables graduates to turn business ideas into viable ventures or take leadership roles in fast-growing companies.

MBA in Healthcare Management With the healthcare industry expanding rapidly, an MBA in Healthcare Management is becoming an increasingly popular specialization. This program equips students with the skills to manage healthcare facilities, lead healthcare teams, and navigate healthcare policies and regulations. Graduates are sought after for roles in hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and healthcare consultancy firms.

How to Choose the Right MBA Specialization

Choosing the right MBA specialization depends on your career goals, personal interests, and the industry trends you want to tap into. Ask yourself the following questions:

What are my strengths and areas of interest?

Which industries are growing, and where is there a high demand for skilled professionals?

What are the long-term career prospects of each MBA specialization?

By answering these questions, you can align your MBA specialization with your career aspirations and boost your chances of success.

Conclusion

Selecting the right MBA specialization is a pivotal decision that can shape your future career path. Whether you aim to lead in finance, marketing, operations, or any other industry, a well-chosen MBA specialization will equip you with the knowledge, skills, and network to excel in your professional journey. Explore these top MBA specializations, assess your goals, and take the first step toward a successful career!

[techytoolzataclick]

Top Futuristic AI Based Applications by 2024

2024 with Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the backdrop of what seems to be another revolutionary iteration across industries. AI has matured over the past year to provide novel use cases and innovative solutions in several industries. This article explores most exciting AI applications that are driving the future.

1. Customized Chatbots

The next year, 2024 is seeing the upward trajectory of bespoke chatbots. Google, and OpenAI are creating accessible user-friendly platforms that enable people to build their own small-scale chatbots for particular use cases. These are the most advanced Chatbots available in the market — Capable of not just processing text but also Images and Videos, giving a plethora of interactive applications. For example, estate agents can now automatically create property descriptions by adding the text and images of listings thatsurgent.

2. AI in Healthcare

AI has found numerous applications in the healthcare industry, from diagnostics to personalized treatment plans. After all, AI-driven devices can analyze medical imaging material more accurately than humans and thus among other things help to detect diseases such as cancer at an early stage. They will also describe how AI algorithms are used to create tailored treatment strategies personalized for each patient's genetics and clinical past, which helps enable more precise treatments.

3. Edge AI

A major trend in 2024 is Edge AI It enables computer processing to be done at the edge of a network, rather than in large data centers. Because of its reduced latency and added data privacy, Edge AI can be used in applications like autonomous vehicles transportations, smart cities as well as industrial automation. Example, edge AI in autonomous vehicles is able to get and process real-time data, increasing security by allowing faster decision-making.

4. AI in Finance

Today, the financial sector is using AI to make better decisions and provide an even stronger customer experience. Fraud detection, risk assessment and customised financial advice have introduced insurance into the AI algorithm. AI-powered chatbots and virtual assistants are now common enough to be in use by 2024, greatly assisting customers stay on top of their financial well-being. Those tools will review your spending behavior, write feedback to you and even help with some investment advices.

5. AI in Education

AI is revolutionizing education with individualized learning. These AI-powered adaptive learning platforms use data analytics to understand how students fare and produces a customised educational content (Hoos, 2017). This way, students get a tailored experience and realize better outcomes. Not only that, AI enabled tools are also in use for automating administrative tasks which shortens the time required by educators on teaching.

6. AI in Job Hunting

This is also reverberating in the job sector, where AI technology has been trending. With tools like Canyon AI Resume Builder, you can spin the best resumé that might catch something eye catchy recruiter among a dozen others applications he receives in-between his zoom meeting. Using AI based tools to analyze Job Descriptions and match it with the required skills, experience in different job roles help accelerating the chances of a right fit JOB.

7. Artificial Intelligence in Memory & Storage Solutions

Leading AI solutions provider Innodisk presents its own line of memory and storage with added in-house designed AI at the recent Future of Memory & Storage (FMS) 2024 event. Very typically these are solutions to make AI applications easier, faster and better by improving performance scalability as well on the quality. This has huge implications on sectors with substantial data processing and storage demands (healthcare, finance, self-driving cars).

Conclusion

2024 — Even at the edge of possible, AI is revolutionizing across many industries. AI is changing our lives from tailored chatbots and edge AI to healthcare, finance solutions or education and job search. This will not only improve your business profile as a freelancer who create SEO optimized content and write copies but also give your clients in the writing for business niche some very useful tips.

[ladymazzy]

‘Sold a dream’: migrant workers at children’s care chain left without pay for months

From the article:

'The affected workers were hired through agencies as part of a drive to fill 400 vacancies at Cambian children’s services – part of the CareTech group – and are mostly female nurses from India recruited for residential support worker roles.

They are understood to have spent as much as £18,000 each on relocation costs, “training” charges and other fees to take up jobs in homes that provide taxpayer-funded care for disabled and vulnerable children, including those with complex trauma and learning difficulties.

Before they left India, the nurses were promised by agents that they would receive financial support from their 11th day in the UK while inductions and background checks were completed. But after they landed earlier this year they were told this was not the case, and they would be paid only after starting shifts, according to evidence seen by the Observer.

Administrative delays and the temporary closure of several Cambian children’s homes – leaving fewer vacancies than expected – means some workers have been waiting for up to four months to start work, without any income. They are unable to find other work because their visas are tied to their employer.'