Today we had a goup meeting at work on how the mistakes we make cost the company. Problem was, they kept using jargon and acronyms that I really did not understand in the least. It was a nice powerpoint presentation with pictures, some colorful graphs and such and there were several speakers. But what mistakes were we making and how do I correct them? I have only the slightest fragment of an idea. Something about beer ads and electric toothbrushes, and I think I was doing okay before. At least I hope I was.

Sometimes you have confusing meetings like that where you just don't really know what is going on. It happens. In fact, not understanding meetings was one topic of still another meeting I attended a few days earlier. That one was a focus group meeting I was randomly invited to, and the message was a little bit clearer.

The focus group meeting was just a few random people asking questions to a high-up boss. We were supposed to ask anything we felt was important to address, or anything we thought our co-workers would like to know (information that would have been helpful to have known BEFORE the meeting). Several questions centered around outsourcing, and the answer was basically not anytime soon, but a possibility down the road. I never really thought we got paid all that much, but apparantly people around the world think we do and will do our job for less. That is how Capitalism "works." I am not worried right now, so I am not frantically searching the wanted ads yet. But my eye will be cast upon them from time to time.

Posted by Andrew S on March 22, 2007 at 6:48 PM | Leave a Comment (0)

"Transforming Higher Education: Access and Affordability for All Students" airs live on March 20 from 8:00 pm to 9:00 pm ET.

Tips for parents on paying for college, as well as a discussion on why postsecondary education is so vital to career success will be the focus of the March edition of the U.S. Department of Education's TV show, "Education News Parents Can Use."

The program will be carried from 8 to 9 p.m. EDT tonight on the Dish Network, dozens of PBS stations and numerous cable outlets. Others, including The Learning Channel, will broadcast the show on a tape-delayed basis. A complete listing of viewing options is available at www.ed.gov/news/av/video/edtv/index.html. In addition, the program will be webcast live and archived at www.connectlive.com/events/ednews/.

Tonight's program, entitled, "Transforming Higher Education: Access and Affordability for All Students," will examine:

Why is a college education more important than ever? What federal, state and local strategies are helping us to meet this demand?

How accessible is higher education? And how can we make it more affordable?

How can we help students, especially minority youth, prepare for and succeed in college?

How will the Commission on the Future of Higher Education's final report and U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings' Action Plan improve the accessibility, affordability and accountability of U.S. colleges and universities?

When should parents and students start thinking about saving for college, and what programs and resources are available to help?

Among the guests will be U.S. Under Secretary of Education Sara Martinez Tucker, who until joining the Education Department recently served as president of the Hispanic Scholarship Fund. The organization generates funds for $195 million in scholarships to more than 78,000 students and helps organize community outreach programs to raise college expectations in Latino families and communities.

Also appearing will be Derek Canty, co-founder and vice president at College Summit, a nonprofit organization dedicated to raising college enrollment rates nationwide, as well as Beverely J. Elliott, a school counselor in Tucson, Ariz., and the 2006 Secondary School Counselor of the Year.

The "Education News Parents Can Use" TV series airs monthly during the school year.

Posted by Shawn Augustson, CollegeRecruiter.com on March 21, 2007 at 3:17 PM | Leave a Comment (0)

This is in response to the credit check entry.

When I started to read this entry, my eyes grew wide. Employers doing credit checks upon employment, I believe, is wrong. It's absurd, especially for college students. College graduates have years of debt from tuition, books, room/board, supplies, food, not to mention other bills, such as cell phone, car insurance/payments, and doctor bills.

Of course, when an employer looks at the credit history, it probably won't look that great, but there are a lot of people today, with and without a college education, that are also living paycheck to paycheck (unless the person is a graduate student who has already found a good paying job).

Maybe I just don't understand the definition of a credit check. I guess the check would be all right if the employer was looking to make sure the candidate didn't steal, etc. but on the other hand, it is an invasion of privacy. It makes me wonder what they are going to come up with next.

I shouldn't complain though. At my office job, my bosses are paying for my notary public commission. I don't have the money to pay for it and it's nice that I don't have to come up with money that I don't even have. I'm hoping that once my notary commission is ready for me to use and I add it to my resume, more employers will take notice. I'm trying to learn as much as I can being a legal secretary. I want to use that experience for future jobs.

Posted by Jill E on March 20, 2007 at 9:05 PM | Leave a Comment (0)

I read yesterday that more employers are now using the financial histories of prospective employees as a factor in the hiring process. Job applicants may get noticed from first impressions of their resumes and/or cover letters; however, having bad credit could potentially cost them legitimate job opportunities. Naturally, any job candidate should expect to take a drug test, have a background check done, and even expect a review of past jobs. But they may not know that employers across the country are increasing the use of credit checks as a cost-effective method to identify trustworthy and responsible workers.

Critics say the practice of credit checks is discriminatory, and could unfairly hurt young, low-income, or minority applicants. Financial service and banking companies were the first to regularly pull credit histories of applicants; other industries are now following the trend, along with the use of behavioral assessments to measure a candidate's integrity. Why credit checks? Well, to determine if applicants have a motive to steal, can responsibly manage their own money, or if they are able to make charges on their credit card as part of their job.

One person said credit checks should not be a decisive factor when hiring someone; they are only an indicator and need to be discouraged when not tied directly to job performance. Critics believe these checks violate privacy and unfairly punish low-income and young workers because the average American college student has $3,000 in credit card debt. Also, other Americans depend on credit for emergencies such as medical bills. A credit check does not merit a character check to prospective employees, but many employers are looking at it that way.

The federal law requires employers to inform applicants that they are requesting a credit history report, typically within the job application as a consent form. Even with varying policies from each employer, a failure to consent might terminate a person's job prospect. The law also says that if bad credit is the reason an applicant is not hired, the company must say so. With the exception of financial and banking industries, there are no clear career areas that consistently use credit checks as a hiring practice. It is a choice that can vary from company to company, and even job to job.

Posted by William F on March 19, 2007 at 11:22 AM | Leave a Comment (1)

The following should be sung to the tune of "Where Have All The Flowers Gone?" and it's just for fun. I think it's been two months since my last entry, so it's directed as much at myself as at anyone else who has regularly contributed:

Where have all the bloggers gone?
Long time passing.
Where have all the bloggers gone?
I miss them so.
Where have all the bloggers gone?
Employers have hired them everyone.
Oh, will they ever return?
Will they ever return?

This is what happens to you when you grow up reading Mad magazine.

Posted by Candice Arnold on March 16, 2007 at 6:52 AM | Leave a Comment (0)

Hey everyone! I just read an article explaining the difference between "resume posting" and "resume blasting". I'm sure most of you have heard of the former, but like me, may not have heard about the latter. In any case, I'll define them both:

Resume posting is putting your resume on various job sites. When doing so, you usually must establish an account and fill out a form to post your resume. As a result, recruiters and potential employers can search you in a database to find you as a job candidate. When posting your resume, make sure you include keywords, which will stir employers interest and separate you from the crowd of resumes to be read.

Resume blasting is sending your resume and a cover letter to several recruiters and potential employers in a database usually maintained by a company that can blast your resume for you. In order to blast your resume, you typically must sign up with a blasting service and give them a resume (and generally a cover letter) to send out. The author of this article said the most he has seen to do that is to fill out a form, or send a resume in Word format. When you blast your resume, make sure both the resume and the cover letter are appealing enough for recruiters to read and understand. If any problems with your resume exist such as a small font, they most likely will not give it the proper attention. Remember, you have seconds to make a good first impression.

So, which one is better to choose, resume posting or resume blasting? The writer says to use both tactics in an attempt to get hired faster. By posting a good resume and cover letter, and blasting them to specfic recruiters, you should be able to increase your exposure and reduce the time it takes to get a job.

Oh, I forgot to mention one thing when it comes to resume blasting. Be sure to choose a reputable blaster that will not target every single recruiter; they don't like it and it may not do you much of a favor. I guess they believe you are not interested in everyone out there (ha ha).

Posted by William F on March 8, 2007 at 10:25 AM | Leave a Comment (1)

In the mail today, I received a 'availability survey' from the local government. I thought that I was getting a survey for a full-time job that would pay well. But little to my surprise, the position paid only $7.25/hr. and was part-time. Now, in order to receive this survey, I had to take the tests for the state. I thought that after taking this tests I would be able to find a better paying job.

When I read the survey and the description of the job, I couldnt' believe it. It upset me that the job paid slightly over $7.00. Many jobs today pay the same or almost the same and that's for jobs that don't require a college degree or state testing. Why is that?

I would have marked the column that read 'I am available for this job," but didn't because with the description above and the distance I would have to travel to get there, it wouldn't be worth it. Perhaps, if the position was a little closer to home, there might not be a problem. I could deal with the low pay and if hired, work there and recieve some experience.

My main problem is, it's hard to find a job out of the area due to gas expenses and living expenses. I simply cannot afford it. What do other college graduates do when they hardly have any money and his/her family isn't able to help with the costs?

Posted by Jill E on March 2, 2007 at 12:29 PM | Leave a Comment (1)