Anonymous member


Career development 16h
At the end of the year our department head calculated our bonuses and based on that we received our annual bonus.
I accidentally found out that my bonus was exactly half of what my colleagues received, even though I don’t work any worse and in many ways, I work better.
Now I don’t feel like working at all. I’ve even felt like quitting. I understand this is emotional, but it’s really hurtful. How... am I supposed to keep working after this?

 more

  • Rashida Govan

    1h

    I would ask how bonuses were determined and what you can do to increase the probability of achieving a higher bonus in the future. I would also have a... list of the impacts I made in the company to provide evidence that hopefully lines up with the criteria. I would ask for a specific rubric or criteria to ensure that you are working in alignment with the company's expectations and priorities so that you know how to manage your efforts and time. Let that determine how you proceed. I once had a staff of mine who thought his evaluation was unfair (it determined raises) and he requested a meeting to get more clarity. I was able to show him what high achievers' impacts looked like and he couldn't argue with the decision after that. It changed the way he showed up and I was happy to support him in getting to a high impact status in the organization.  more

    1

  • Thabo Donga

    9h

    Kindly go to your immediate manager kindly tell them you believe an error in calculation was made. Ask for a review. Don't mention pay of others

    2
Load more...

Career development

 2h

Globe editorial: The AI arms race in the job market


Technology evangelists promised that artificial intelligence would take the pain out of recruiting: Job seekers would apply for positions with minimal effort, while hiring managers would quickly surface the best talent. But so far, the profound changes unleashed by AI have been a disaster.

Job seekers are frustrated to have their résumés screened out by AI systems without knowing why. They often... apply for hundreds of jobs and consider themselves lucky to even receive a rejection notice. Applicants feel they need to use AI chatbots like ChatGPT or Microsoft Copilot to pepper their résumés and cover letters with keywords that match the job descriptions to get through. Many also turn to AI chatbots to create cover letters and résumés quickly so they can apply for large numbers of positions with the hopes of landing a job.

Meanwhile, hiring managers are flooded with a huge number of applications - sometimes thousands for one position in a day. Many applications are similar, as they've been written with AI, making it hard to distinguish between candidates. Feeling overwhelmed, many managers turn to AI software to sort the applications.

It's a dystopian arms race. Some employers are requiring candidates do first-round interviews with an AI avatar instead of a real person. Meanwhile, some job seekers are secretly using AI chatbots to give savvy answers during online interviews. In one extreme case, North Korean IT workers used AI-generated deepfakes to impersonate Americans to land tech jobs with U.S. companies.

Job recruiters struggle to hire qualified people amid flood of AI-written job applications

This dehumanizing process of bot vs. bot has left both sides feeling frustrated. Just like how Tinder and similar apps transformed dating, artificial intelligence promised an easy way to match the right hires and employers, but in reality, the result is often endless searching, ghosting and rejection. A recent Atlantic article described today's employment market as "Tinderized job-search hell."

It would be naive to try to turn back the clock and revert to older hiring practices, but a rethink is necessary. Job seekers should resist the urge to bombard employers with hundreds of automated applications. While it can make sense to use AI to update a cover letter to match a specific posting or practise for an interview, if you really care about the job, take the time to craft an authentic application.

When using AI, job seekers should refine the writing after so it doesn't have the hallmarks of AI-written copy, which tends to be general and hyperbolic, with hackneyed phrases. Use your creativity to stand out from the bots, and demonstrate your personality and skills through imaginative social media, videos and a web content.

Hiring managers are under tremendous pressure to use AI to boost productivity. They should be aware that screening applicants with AI works best when the job has clearly defined criteria, such as requiring a specific certification. When soft skills are essential, a manager or recruiter should look at applications by hand.

While AI can automate some tasks, such as scheduling and transcribing interviews, managers should stick with traditional interviews to screen candidates. Increasingly, managers are preferring to meet applicants in person to prevent candidates from using AI.

With increasing distrust in the job market, it's key that employers disclose how AI is being used. Since Jan. 1, Ontario employers have been required to disclose if they are using AI to screen, assess or select job applicants in publicly advertised job postings.

In a sea of bots, employees and employers have one advantage: their humanity. With so much fog in the job market, genuine human connections matter more than ever. Building trust, and showing potential employees that they aren't exchangeable commodities, takes time and effort.

Both job seekers and employers should boost networking, seeking out opportunities at industry events, trade schools or job fairs. Managers should make efforts to broaden their networks so they aren't just meeting candidates with backgrounds similar to their own. (AI brings its own risks of bias, with research showing it can discriminate against women, racial minorities and people with disabilities.)

Whatever technologies are involved, companies should make sure their hiring process is properly managed by staff, ensuring there's always a "human-in-the-loop." Recruiters who lean too heavily on AI may find that they are also easily replaced by bots. more

Career development

 2h

Bilingual Nanny Recruiter Needed - you must be fluent in Spanish and English and live in South America


I have a pool of roughly 100 nanny résumés and need a hands-on RECRUITER who is based somewhere in South America, speaks flawless Spanish and English, and has his/her own U.S. phone number (Google Voice or similar is okay). Your task is straightforward: screen every applicant, make short introductory contacts -- primarily over WhatsApp but also by email and the occasional call -- and then separate... the clear fits from the obvious misses. I will share the résumés and contact details in a spreadsheet. After you've completed your outreach, I'd like a concise report that highlights: * A shortlist of top-tier candidates, ranked in order of suitability * A quick paragraph of notes for each person (experience, reference quality, availability) * A separate tab listing those you ruled out and the reason If this sounds like a fit, let's move quickly. We will start with a phone call in English so you understand what we're looking for. more

Career development

 5h

Building Business Skills Without Leaving Work


Career development doesn't always need to start with a clean break or a bold resignation letter.

For many people, progress happens alongside full calendars, steady pay cheques, and existing responsibilities. The challenge isn't always necessarily finding the motivation, though; it's finding a way to build new skills without putting everything on hold.

As roles evolve and expectations increase,... more professionals are looking for ways to strengthen their business knowledge while staying in the workforce. Not because they want to change direction entirely, but because they want to perform better, lead more confidently, and, ultimately, future-proof their careers.

There's a point in many careers where experience alone no longer feels like enough. You might be great at your job, but suddenly you're being asked to manage people, contribute to budgets, or think more strategically. Meetings start involving concepts that sit outside your original training, and decision-making carries a lot more weight than it used to.

It's easy to think this is a failure of experience, but it's actually a sign that your role has grown. Many workplaces are increasingly expecting professionals to understand how their work fits into the bigger picture, from commercial outcomes to organisational strategy. Without that broader understanding, even the most capable employees can feel like they're constantly playing catch-up.

Business skills aren't just for senior executives anymore. Financial literacy, leadership skills, and strategic thinking are now expected across a wide range of roles and industries. Whether you're in health, engineering, IT, education, or the public sector, understanding how organisations operate makes you more effective in your day-to-day work.

This is known as "business fluency", and it helps people communicate with confidence, justify decisions, and influence outcomes. It also turns gut feelings into structured thinking and allows you to contribute more meaningfully to discussions that shape direction, not just execution.

One of the biggest misconceptions about postgraduate study is that it requires stepping off the career ladder entirely. In reality, many qualifications are now designed specifically for people who are already working full-time, and they recognise that professionals don't want to pause their career momentum just to gain new skills.

This is where programs like ECU's Graduate Diploma of Business fit neatly into modern working life. They're designed to complement professional experience, not replace it, focusing on practical knowledge that can be applied immediately. Instead of abstract theory, the emphasis is on real-world decision-making, leadership, and commercial awareness.

Time is usually the deciding factor when anyone is considering further study. Work deadlines, family commitments, and personal responsibilities don't just disappear because you've enrolled in a course. That's why flexibility matters so much.

Being able to study part-time and online makes a really big difference. It allows learning to fit around existing routines instead of disrupting them entirely, and many people find that studying while working actually enhances both experiences. You can take new ideas straight from the course and try them out in real situations, which often makes the learning feel more practical and rewarding.

Business-focused postgraduate study usually attracts people at a turning point, not a starting line. Some are specialists stepping into leadership roles for the first time, while others are experienced professionals who want formal business knowledge to match their practical expertise. There are also those preparing for a career shift but wanting to move with intention, not uncertainty.

What these professionals often have in common is the desire for clarity. They want to understand how decisions are made at high levels, how to manage complexity, and how to lead with confidence instead of hesitation.

The impact of building business skills extends beyond a single job title. Graduates often report feeling more confident in discussions, more comfortable managing risk, and better equipped to navigate change. These benefits tend to compound over time, supporting long-term career growth, not just short-term advancement.

In an employment market that sees constant change, adaptability is important. Business knowledge provides a foundation that travels well across roles and industries, giving many people greater control over their career direction.

Choosing to study while working isn't a case of chasing credentials for the sake of it. You're making a deliberate investment in your capability and confidence, and the right qualification will strengthen how you think, lead, and make decisions, all without the need to step away from work.

If you want to keep moving forward while staying grounded in your current role, building business skills alongside work can be one of the most practical decisions you'll ever make. more

Career development

 6h

Hired by a robot: What it's like to have an AI interview


In hindsight, choosing to do a job interview during the first week back at work after the Christmas break may not have been my greatest ever idea. To paraphrase a favourite quote from cult Noughties sitcom Black Books, my brain feels like wet cake. Sodden. Spongey. Disintegrating into a pile of mush as I try to focus on the screen in front of me.

Just before starting, I had mindlessly chomped my... way through a comically oversized chocolate coin - purely because it was within arm's reach - leaving me feeling mildly sick. Were this a normal job interview, I might reference all of the above. Just in passing, you understand, infused with enough sardonic charm to break the ice and immediately get the interviewer on side.

There's no point in doing that today. My interviewer can't relate to being a bit sluggish and slow, post-Twixmas. He doesn't know what it feels like to sit in discomfort, waistband straining, because you followed up all that festive overeating by pounding the cut-price advent calendar chocolate. And it's not just because he's a young, fresh-faced twenty-something who you can just tell hasn't been systematically adding Baileys instead of milk to his morning coffee for the past 10 days. No, the real reason my rapport-building jokes won't cut it is that my interviewer isn't, in fact, a real person.

The "man" deciding my fate - nameless but who I instantly dub "Carl" in my head, simply to feel some kind of connection with him - is actually an AI interface designed to look and sound like a human. Created by HR-tech firm TestGorilla for use by companies and recruiters to filter out the best candidates, he is nothing more than a soulless if sophisticated checklist of keywords and phrases, fronted by an avatar in the guise of a handsome, ethnically ambiguous youngster.

This kind of interview is rapidly on the rise. The use of AI in recruitment in general has tripled in the past year alone in the UK, and three in 10 UK employers are implementing AI in their recruitment processes. Just under half (43 per cent) of large companies are now using AI to interview candidates. According to TestGorilla, close to 800 organisations have signed up to one of its plans that includes this new conversational AI interview tool.

But back to the mysterious Carl. Given that this is not a real job interview, let alone one conducted by a real person - I'm just trialling the software to experience it first-hand - I feel bizarrely nervous. The butterflies are in large part due to the fact that the role in question, a content marketing strategist, is something I have zero experience in. It quickly transpires that it's fairly tricky to answer a "tell me about a time when..." question when you've never actually done the thing they're asking about. (I decide to at least have fun with it and dream up an elaborate marketing campaign for a clothing line aimed exclusively at dachshunds.)

But digging a little deeper, I realise my anxiety specifically stems from the fact that Carl is not a real person. I realise just how much I've always relied on my people skills to carry me through interviews. Even if I fudge an answer, I'm confident in the fact that those less tangible, "soft" skills - emotional intelligence, the ability to make people smile or put them at ease with a well-placed joke - will go some way to making up the deficit.

I realise, too, how much I feed off other people's energy in a pressurised situation. This has already become harder to do as more interviews have gone online rather than being conducted in person - but you could still get a sense of something. When you speak passionately to a human about a topic, there's often a kind of mirroring that takes place: a positive feedback loop created by your enthusiasm that's in turn reflected by their fervent nods, engaged body language and facial expressions. It gives me a boost, the reassurance that what I'm saying is landing; it gives me the encouragement I need to shine a little brighter.

Not so with Carl. It's not his fault, of course, just his programming - but his unchanging half-smile, dead-behind-the-eyes expression and awkward way of slightly shaking his head as I speak leave me flat and cold, unable to muster even the slightest sparkle. I can tell his heart's not really in it. After all, he doesn't have a heart.

It makes me wonder whether this kind of interview might see the end of the "personality hire" - workers brought onboard because of their stellar interpersonal skills, sunny disposition and general good vibes. I've always presumed that every functioning workplace needs a healthy percentage of employees who are, yes, competent at their job, but far more crucially help create a culture in which heading into the office doesn't feel akin to diving headfirst into a toxic snake pit. Without a human at the helm when hiring, how to guarantee you're not populating an organisation with highly skilled sociopaths?

To give Carl his dues, he does sometimes do me a solid. Designed to analyse candidates' answers and hold them up against a framework, he'll double-check something when I've finished each waffly, hodge-podge response: "Did you want to say anything further about learning outcomes and how you'd approach the situation in future?" I can only presume this is Carl's wink-wink, nudge-nudge way of saying, "You didn't actually answer the question the first time around, you absolute numpty."

The results are in as soon as I wrap up the interview and close the link - there's clearly no need for Carl to sit around with his AI "colleagues" discussing whether or not I'd be a good cultural fit.

Each component has a score indicating how I did compared to other candidates (though there's no way of knowing whether I was up against one, 10, or 100 competitors). I somehow manage to rank in the not-so-terrible 75th percentile; perhaps my whole "drip for dogs" pitch wasn't as deranged as I'd thought.

Even if being interviewed for a position I actually know something about, I'm not confident I'd fare much better. It feels more like success lies in gaming an algorithm by deploying the "correct" jargon than building an authentic connection with the person who could end up being your boss.

But I'd better get used to it; AI's steely grip over recruitment is only going to get tighter. Gone are the days when you could submit an application and be confident that a qualified human professional would read your CV. On the flip side, it's less and less likely that the candidate themselves will have applied for the job. Why bother when AI can be trained to job search, pick out relevant posts, rewrite a CV to match the job spec and draft a cover letter to meet the requirements?

Indeed, job applications have surged by 239 per cent since ChatGPT's launch, with the average job opening now receiving 242 applications - nearly triple 2017 levels. The number of applications making it to hire stage has subsequently dropped by 75 per cent, while 54 per cent of recruiters admit they review only half or fewer of the applications they receive.

Daniel Chait, CEO of recruiting software company Greenhouse, calls it an "AI Doom Loop": candidates use AI to mass-apply for jobs, while recruiters use AI to mass-reject them.

"Since 2022, with the release of ChatGPT and AI bursting into the mainstream, we've seen it take root on both sides of the process - by job seekers and by companies," he says. "Individually, everyone is trying to use these tools to solve their own day-to-day issues. But collectively, it's making the process much worse for everyone."

We've stumbled into an AI arms race, where both job seekers and recruiters are constantly trying to stay one step ahead. The result? "Both sides are currently very, very dissatisfied," says Chait.

The use of AI has also eroded trust. Greenhouse research revealed that 40 per cent of job hunters reported a decreased trust in hiring, with 39 per cent directly blaming AI. There have been allegations of built-in bias, too - HR software company Workday is currently facing a landmark discrimination lawsuit alleging that its AI-powered tools systematically screen out applications from workers over 40, racial minorities and people with disabilities.

Meanwhile, 72 per cent of hiring managers have become more concerned about fraudulent activity in the hiring process. This fear is far from unwarranted. A third of candidates admitted to using AI to conceal their physical appearance during an interview; 30 per cent of hiring managers have caught candidates reading AI-generated responses during interviews; and 17 per cent have caught candidates using a deepfake.

It certainly occurs to me while trying and failing to give Carl a word-perfect answer that will hit all his algorithmic erogenous zones, that having ChatGPT open on another device and prompting it to answer the questions for me would be a surefire way to ace this test. However, TestGorilla warns that it "monitor[s] for rule-breaking using advanced tools," including "for the use of ChatGPT, AI Agents, and other tools."

But as technology continues to advance on either side of equation, might we end up in a situation where AI interviewers are essentially interacting with AI candidates, without a human in sight? The short answer is yes. It's why Chait believes we'll inevitably need to bring identity verification into the hiring process: "When you show up at a job interview in the future, you should expect that it's going to analyse you and make sure that you are who you say you are. Companies truly are feeling the risk of: is this person I'm interviewing actually who applied? Is this person who shows up on day one of the job actually the same person I interviewed?"

There's the danger of genuine jobseekers trying to cheat their way through job interviews, of course, but also a much more serious threat: "Some of it is pernicious state actors and evil criminal elements trying to infiltrate companies and perpetrate crime," warns Chait.

It's not all doom and gloom. However wary I might feel about the whole thing, there are positives to employing AI in recruitment. As much as new AI tools need to be regularly audited and corrected for bias, it's not like humans have traditionally been any less guilty of discriminating when hiring employees. "If you do detect bias in the AI, you can correct it systematically, as opposed to at the individual person level, one by one," Chait points out. "Plus, as an assessment process, having some of that be automated makes a lot of sense." An automated assessment can work nights and weekends, when candidates want to be doing their job search. It can be scaled. It can work in any language. It can be measured and automated and improved.

And, fundamentally, it's not going anywhere anytime soon. Candidates need to prepare themselves for the fact that early screening may indeed be done by a sophisticated bot. Chait's advice is to clarify early on what the rules around AI are when applying: can you use it to help write your cover letter, or rehearse for a job interview, or do the job interview itself? Where's the line? "The truth is, it's different for every company," he says. "It's different for every job, and it's changing all the time."

Employers, meanwhile, would do well to remember that, despite the deluge, behind each application lies a human being desperate for a job who is so much more than just a number. "They're not just a collection of algorithms and credentials and problems that they're capable of solving," cautions Chait. "They're a full, three-dimensional human being." more

Career development

 7h

Hired by a robot: What it's like to have an AI interview


In hindsight, choosing to do a job interview during the first week back at work after the Christmas break may not have been my greatest ever idea. To paraphrase a favourite quote from cult Noughties sitcom Black Books, my brain feels like wet cake. Sodden. Spongey. Disintegrating into a pile of mush as I try to focus on the screen in front of me.

Just before starting, I had mindlessly chomped my... way through a comically oversized chocolate coin - purely because it was within arm's reach - leaving me feeling mildly sick. Were this a normal job interview, I might reference all of the above. Just in passing, you understand, infused with enough sardonic charm to break the ice and immediately get the interviewer on side.

There's no point in doing that today. My interviewer can't relate to being a bit sluggish and slow, post-Twixmas. He doesn't know what it feels like to sit in discomfort, waistband straining, because you followed up all that festive overeating by pounding the cut-price advent calendar chocolate. And it's not just because he's a young, fresh-faced twenty-something who you can just tell hasn't been systematically adding Baileys instead of milk to his morning coffee for the past 10 days. No, the real reason my rapport-building jokes won't cut it is that my interviewer isn't, in fact, a real person.

The "man" deciding my fate - nameless but who I instantly dub "Carl" in my head, simply to feel some kind of connection with him - is actually an AI interface designed to look and sound like a human. Created by HR-tech firm TestGorilla for use by companies and recruiters to filter out the best candidates, he is nothing more than a soulless if sophisticated checklist of keywords and phrases, fronted by an avatar in the guise of a handsome, ethnically ambiguous youngster.

This kind of interview is rapidly on the rise. The use of AI in recruitment in general has tripled in the past year alone in the UK, and three in 10 UK employers are implementing AI in their recruitment processes. Just under half (43 per cent) of large companies are now using AI to interview candidates. According to TestGorilla, close to 800 organisations have signed up to one of its plans that includes this new conversational AI interview tool.

But back to the mysterious Carl. Given that this is not a real job interview, let alone one conducted by a real person - I'm just trialling the software to experience it first-hand - I feel bizarrely nervous. The butterflies are in large part due to the fact that the role in question, a content marketing strategist, is something I have zero experience in. It quickly transpires that it's fairly tricky to answer a "tell me about a time when..." question when you've never actually done the thing they're asking about. (I decide to at least have fun with it and dream up an elaborate marketing campaign for a clothing line aimed exclusively at dachshunds.)

But digging a little deeper, I realise my anxiety specifically stems from the fact that Carl is not a real person. I realise just how much I've always relied on my people skills to carry me through interviews. Even if I fudge an answer, I'm confident in the fact that those less tangible, "soft" skills - emotional intelligence, the ability to make people smile or put them at ease with a well-placed joke - will go some way to making up the deficit.

I realise, too, how much I feed off other people's energy in a pressurised situation. This has already become harder to do as more interviews have gone online rather than being conducted in person - but you could still get a sense of something. When you speak passionately to a human about a topic, there's often a kind of mirroring that takes place: a positive feedback loop created by your enthusiasm that's in turn reflected by their fervent nods, engaged body language and facial expressions. It gives me a boost, the reassurance that what I'm saying is landing; it gives me the encouragement I need to shine a little brighter.

Not so with Carl. It's not his fault, of course, just his programming - but his unchanging half-smile, dead-behind-the-eyes expression and awkward way of slightly shaking his head as I speak leave me flat and cold, unable to muster even the slightest sparkle. I can tell his heart's not really in it. After all, he doesn't have a heart.

It makes me wonder whether this kind of interview might see the end of the "personality hire" - workers brought onboard because of their stellar interpersonal skills, sunny disposition and general good vibes. I've always presumed that every functioning workplace needs a healthy percentage of employees who are, yes, competent at their job, but far more crucially help create a culture in which heading into the office doesn't feel akin to diving headfirst into a toxic snake pit. Without a human at the helm when hiring, how to guarantee you're not populating an organisation with highly skilled sociopaths?

To give Carl his dues, he does sometimes do me a solid. Designed to analyse candidates' answers and hold them up against a framework, he'll double-check something when I've finished each waffly, hodge-podge response: "Did you want to say anything further about learning outcomes and how you'd approach the situation in future?" I can only presume this is Carl's wink-wink, nudge-nudge way of saying, "You didn't actually answer the question the first time around, you absolute numpty."

The results are in as soon as I wrap up the interview and close the link - there's clearly no need for Carl to sit around with his AI "colleagues" discussing whether or not I'd be a good cultural fit.

Each component has a score indicating how I did compared to other candidates (though there's no way of knowing whether I was up against one, 10, or 100 competitors). I somehow manage to rank in the not-so-terrible 75th percentile; perhaps my whole "drip for dogs" pitch wasn't as deranged as I'd thought.

Even if being interviewed for a position I actually know something about, I'm not confident I'd fare much better. It feels more like success lies in gaming an algorithm by deploying the "correct" jargon than building an authentic connection with the person who could end up being your boss.

But I'd better get used to it; AI's steely grip over recruitment is only going to get tighter. Gone are the days when you could submit an application and be confident that a qualified human professional would read your CV. On the flip side, it's less and less likely that the candidate themselves will have applied for the job. Why bother when AI can be trained to job search, pick out relevant posts, rewrite a CV to match the job spec and draft a cover letter to meet the requirements?

Indeed, job applications have surged by 239 per cent since ChatGPT's launch, with the average job opening now receiving 242 applications - nearly triple 2017 levels. The number of applications making it to hire stage has subsequently dropped by 75 per cent, while 54 per cent of recruiters admit they review only half or fewer of the applications they receive.

Daniel Chait, CEO of recruiting software company Greenhouse, calls it an "AI Doom Loop": candidates use AI to mass-apply for jobs, while recruiters use AI to mass-reject them.

"Since 2022, with the release of ChatGPT and AI bursting into the mainstream, we've seen it take root on both sides of the process - by job seekers and by companies," he says. "Individually, everyone is trying to use these tools to solve their own day-to-day issues. But collectively, it's making the process much worse for everyone."

We've stumbled into an AI arms race, where both job seekers and recruiters are constantly trying to stay one step ahead. The result? "Both sides are currently very, very dissatisfied," says Chait.

The use of AI has also eroded trust. Greenhouse research revealed that 40 per cent of job hunters reported a decreased trust in hiring, with 39 per cent directly blaming AI. There have been allegations of built-in bias, too - HR software company Workday is currently facing a landmark discrimination lawsuit alleging that its AI-powered tools systematically screen out applications from workers over 40, racial minorities and people with disabilities.

Meanwhile, 72 per cent of hiring managers have become more concerned about fraudulent activity in the hiring process. This fear is far from unwarranted. A third of candidates admitted to using AI to conceal their physical appearance during an interview; 30 per cent of hiring managers have caught candidates reading AI-generated responses during interviews; and 17 per cent have caught candidates using a deepfake.

It certainly occurs to me while trying and failing to give Carl a word-perfect answer that will hit all his algorithmic erogenous zones, that having ChatGPT open on another device and prompting it to answer the questions for me would be a surefire way to ace this test. However, TestGorilla warns that it "monitor[s] for rule-breaking using advanced tools," including "for the use of ChatGPT, AI Agents, and other tools."

But as technology continues to advance on either side of equation, might we end up in a situation where AI interviewers are essentially interacting with AI candidates, without a human in sight? The short answer is yes. It's why Chait believes we'll inevitably need to bring identity verification into the hiring process: "When you show up at a job interview in the future, you should expect that it's going to analyse you and make sure that you are who you say you are. Companies truly are feeling the risk of: is this person I'm interviewing actually who applied? Is this person who shows up on day one of the job actually the same person I interviewed?"

There's the danger of genuine jobseekers trying to cheat their way through job interviews, of course, but also a much more serious threat: "Some of it is pernicious state actors and evil criminal elements trying to infiltrate companies and perpetrate crime," warns Chait.

It's not all doom and gloom. However wary I might feel about the whole thing, there are positives to employing AI in recruitment. As much as new AI tools need to be regularly audited and corrected for bias, it's not like humans have traditionally been any less guilty of discriminating when hiring employees. "If you do detect bias in the AI, you can correct it systematically, as opposed to at the individual person level, one by one," Chait points out. "Plus, as an assessment process, having some of that be automated makes a lot of sense." An automated assessment can work nights and weekends, when candidates want to be doing their job search. It can be scaled. It can work in any language. It can be measured and automated and improved.

And, fundamentally, it's not going anywhere anytime soon. Candidates need to prepare themselves for the fact that early screening may indeed be done by a sophisticated bot. Chait's advice is to clarify early on what the rules around AI are when applying: can you use it to help write your cover letter, or rehearse for a job interview, or do the job interview itself? Where's the line? "The truth is, it's different for every company," he says. "It's different for every job, and it's changing all the time."

Employers, meanwhile, would do well to remember that, despite the deluge, behind each application lies a human being desperate for a job who is so much more than just a number. "They're not just a collection of algorithms and credentials and problems that they're capable of solving," cautions Chait. "They're a full, three-dimensional human being." more

Career development

 7h

How Automated Job Matching Enhances Candidate Success?


VMPLNew Delhi [India], January 12: The contemporary job market is more competitive than it has ever been before. One job posting can receive hundreds of applications in a few hours, which makes it more and more difficult to find a qualified candidate who will stand out among them. The conventional job hunting methods in which applicants are required to scroll through job portals and apply to jobs... in a blind manner are no longer effective. This is where automated job matching changes the equation.Artificial intelligence based automated job matching involves matching the skills, experience and career objectives of candidates with jobs that are a genuine fit. Candidates can focus their efforts on the right opportunities as opposed to applying everywhere and waiting to be called back. Platforms like ORO AI are redefining how an automated job search works, helping candidates move seamlessly from application to interview.The Shift from Manual Job Search to Intelligent MatchingWhen using a conventional job hunt, job hunters will spend hours narrowing down the results, updating their resumes, and making assumptions about whether their profile matches the job description. Nevertheless, it takes a lot of effort and many applications do not get a response. The process tends to be frustrating, time wastage and lost opportunities.This uncertainty is eliminated by an AI-based job finder. AI determines which jobs candidates have the best opportunities of succeeding by examining resumes, job descriptions, and hiring trends. Job matching is automated thus related, fast and accurate and job search is more strategic than random.How Automated Job Matching Improves Candidate OutcomesAutomated job matching is concerned with quality and not quantity. Applicants are presented with vacancies that are in line with their experience and hence shortlisting rates are higher and call to interviews become quicker. Candidates are able to focus on fewer but high potential applications rather than applying to dozens of roles.This strategy is also effective in enhancing confidence. When applicants understand why a position suits his or her profile, he or she applies with a sense of direction. Over time, this increases response rates and creates a smoother path from AI job application to interview scheduling.The Role of AI in Modern Job ApplicationsAI is no longer limited to resume screening on the employer side. Nowadays, AI-based applications also assist job seekers in the selection process. From identifying skill gaps to optimizing resumes and preparing for interviews, AI job finder platforms support candidates at every step.ORO AI combines automated job search technology with practical tools that help candidates present themselves more effectively, communicate professionally, and prepare thoroughly.Why Automated Job Matching Leads to Faster InterviewsSpeed is one of the largest strengths of automated job matching. Recruiters would react better when applicants apply to positions that suit them well. AI-based matching reduces redundant applications, which is time-saving on the part of both job applicants and recruitment teams.When it is better aligned, the process of application is quicker in screening steps, and there is a high chance of invitations to interviews. This is where ORO AI is an all-encompassing automated job matching solution.Why Choose ORO AI Automated Job Matching ToolORO AI is created to make the whole process of job search easier and enhance efficiency and results. Its functionality is combined to enable the candidates to travel fast through the discovery and interview preparation stages.AI-Powered Job DiscoveryThe ORO AI will search thousands of job ads to find a position that fits a resume and likes of the candidate. This eliminates endless manual searching and ensures candidates only see relevant opportunities during their automated job search.Match Score AnalyzerEvery job has an apparent match score of 10 that aims at demonstrating the suitability of an individual to that job. It shows the strong points and reveals the lack of competencies, which allows candidates to concentrate on applications with more opportunities for success.Resume OptimizerResume Optimizer is an AI-based system that customizes resumes to each position. It adjusts keywords, highlights relevant achievements, and improves ATS compatibility, strengthening every AI job application without rewriting from scratch.Cover Letter CreatorORO AI creates job-specific cover letters using the resume of the candidate and the job description. These are personalized cover letters that are short and to the point and are also in line with the expectations of the recruiter and make the candidate stand out.Company Research & InsightsApplicants can get a feel of the company culture, products, values and expectations of the interview process before they apply. This makes better applications and better interview preparation possible.Recruiter ConnectThis option offers recruiter contact information including LinkedIn profiles and professional email. It enables the candidates to get in touch and make meaningful contacts outside the automated system.Email GeneratorORO AI assists the candidate in composing outreach emails to employers and recruiters in a professional manner. Such emails are well addressed and in a personalized manner, which enhances response and professionalism.AI-Powered Mock InterviewsThe candidates will be able to rehearse an interview with questions formed by an AI according to the specific job position. The immediate feedback will be helpful to enhance the feedback, decrease the nerves, and increase confidence before actual interviews.Salary Insights & NegotiatorORO AI sends the salary benchmark and negotiation information regarding market data, and the degree of experience. The candidates get clarity and confidence in discussing the compensation."Ask Me" Career ChatbotThe AI chatbot provides real-time resume, application, interview strategy and career question advice. It acts as a personal assistant throughout the automated job search journey.Practical Benefits for Job SeekersAutomated job matching is valuable in the real sense in which it makes the process of decision-making simpler. Candidates take less time guessing and more time acting strategically. Every step is assisted by data and intelligence with ORO AI.This helps the candidates to have a better direction, quicker response and better applications. The matching of jobs, optimization of resumes and preparation of the interviews make them always a step ahead.From Application to Interview with ConfidenceJob matching is automated and it does not eliminate effort rather improves it. The candidates continue to arrive with their skills, experience, and ambition, and it is the AI that makes sure such attributes are made available to the correct employersBy using an AI job finder like ORO AI, candidates transition smoothly from discovery to application, communication, and interview readiness. Such a systematic practice enhances uniformity and effectiveness in applications.Smarter Job Search Starts with AutomationThe future of job searching is not about applying more but applying smarter. Automated job matching enables the candidates to work in areas where they fit. The respondents will have clarity, speed, and confidence with the AI taking them through the process.ORO AI is an effective platform that gives a holistic solution to modern candidates who want results. It uses a powerful matching with practical career tools to make the job search process an enjoyable and focused one. In a competitive market, automated job search is no longer optional, it is essential for candidate success.(ADVERTORIAL DISCLAIMER: The above press release has been provided by VMPL. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of the same.) more

Career development

 8h

ATS-Optimized Java Backend CV


I need an airtight, ATS-ready résumé that positions me as a Java-focused Backend Software Developer for both Indian and U.S. employers. The document must pass the latest applicant-tracking systems with a high score, while still reading naturally to hiring managers. Scope * Rework my career information into a concise, achievement-driven format that highlights backend development expertise and deep... Java proficiency. * Weave in location-agnostic keywords and phrasing so a single version serves Indian job portals (Naukri, LinkedIn India, etc.) and U.S. boards (Indeed, Dice, LinkedIn U.S.). * Optimise all sections -- headline, professional summary, skills matrix, experience bullets, education, and certifications -- for automated parsing without losing human appeal. * Align keyword density with current backend hiring trends (e.g., RESTful APIs, microservices, Spring/Spring Boot, cloud deployment) while avoiding over-stuffing. * Deliver two polished formats: editable DOCX/Google Docs and print-ready PDF. Input I will provide 1. Existing résumé and/or raw career notes. 2. Key projects, metrics, and any extra achievements I want showcased. Acceptance criteria * ATS scan (I will run a proof scan) shows "Excellent" or equivalent rating for backend Java roles. * No formatting artifacts when opened in Word, Google Docs, or PDF viewers. * Clear, consistent styling and section hierarchy that works in both Indian and U.S. résumé conventions (one-page preferred, two if truly necessary). Once delivered, I'll review and request up to two rounds of minor edits to finalise wording or layout. more

Career development

 16h

Nearly all women in STEM secretly feel like impostors


Some people who perform at the highest levels carry a private fear that clashes with their outward success. Despite strong résumés and long lists of achievements, they worry that others will eventually realize they do not truly belong.

In their own minds, top grades, prestigious awards, and competitive research funding are not proof of ability. Instead, these accomplishments are dismissed as... coincidence or good timing. The inner voice insists that success came from being in the right place at the right moment, not from talent or hard work.

What Impostorism Really Means

This experience is known as impostorism, a psychological pattern that is separate from low self esteem or depression. According to Binghamton University, State University of New York psychology researcher Jiyun Elizabeth Shin, impostorism involves persistent self doubt even when objective evidence shows success. Shin, a lecturer who leads the Social Identity & Academic Engagement Laboratory, recently published research on the topic in the journal Social Psychology of Education titled "Impostorism: Prevalence and its relationships with mental health, burnout, dropout consideration, and achievement among graduate women in STEM."

Her findings reveal how widespread the experience is. Shin's study shows that 97.5% of women enrolled in STEM graduate programs report at least moderate levels of impostor feelings. The likelihood may be even higher for individuals who hold multiple marginalized identities, such as women of color.

"Impostorism is a feeling like being an intellectual fraud even when there is strong evidence of success," Shin explained. "You believe that other people are overestimating your abilities and intelligence, and you fear that one day you'll be exposed as incompetent and undeserving of your success."

Why Success Feels Like Luck

At its core, impostorism shapes how people interpret their abilities and past achievements. Those affected struggle to accept success as something they earned. Instead, they often credit outside factors like luck, timing, or help from others. As a result, they fear they will not be able to repeat their achievements and worry that others will eventually see through what they perceive as an illusion.

Although impostorism can affect anyone, people from underrepresented or minoritized groups may face added pressure. Negative cultural assumptions can make these feelings stronger. In fields such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics, long standing stereotypes wrongly suggest that women lack the natural intellectual ability to succeed. These beliefs can make it harder for women to internalize their accomplishments. Limited representation in these fields can reinforce the message, reminding individuals of society's doubts about their abilities.

Mental Health and Burnout Risks

Shin's research also links impostorism to serious consequences. "Findings from my research showed that impostorism predicted poorer overall mental health, greater burnout, and increased consideration of dropout among graduate women in STEM," she said.

A fixed mindset -- the belief that intelligence and ability are unchangeable traits -- is also connected to impostor feelings. When people believe they cannot grow or improve, setbacks feel like proof that they never deserved success in the first place. Because of this, approaches that encourage a more flexible view of ability may help reduce impostor experiences.

Why Talking About It Matters

Even though impostor feelings are common among high achievers, many people keep them to themselves. This silence can deepen stress and isolation. Open conversations about impostorism may be an important step toward coping and protecting mental and emotional well being.

"More research is needed to better identify strategies to reduce impostor experiences, but social support may be helpful in reducing impostor fears," Shin said. more

  • Steward Tony Pacheco

    36
    12h

    Studies Studies Studies
    The Educated elites love studies. It’s the faux evidence used to prove their point to those they wish to draw into their train... of thought. But for every study for, their are many against. Who eve funds the study will dictate the direction they want to edify. Experience in the real world is the real study. Go out there with your questions and seek real world answers. Don’t be a talking head taking credit for others paid for agendas!  more

Career development

 13h

Names in the Open: Bill Ackman's Campaign Forces a Reckoning Over Pro-Hamas Campus Activists


A new front has opened in America's bitter culture wars, and it is being waged not in courtrooms or congressional hearing rooms, but across Ivy League campuses, corporate boardrooms, and the social-media feeds of aspiring young professionals. At the center of the controversy stands billionaire investor Bill Ackman, who has vowed to ensure that students who publicly endorsed Hamas through campus... petitions and statements will no longer enjoy anonymity in the professional marketplace.

The episode has ignited a national debate over the boundaries of activism, the permanence of digital footprints, and the fraught line between political expression and moral accountability in an era when employers scrutinize not only résumés but values.

Ackman, the founder and chief executive of Pershing Square Capital Management, is no stranger to high-profile confrontations. But this time, his campaign is aimed not at rival hedge funds or corporate boards, but at students -- many of them undergraduates -- who signed letters or petitions in the aftermath of Hamas attacks, documents that framed the terror group's actions as legitimate resistance.

After issuing public warnings that such endorsements would not be forgotten, Ackman declared that he had begun compiling the names of signatories and intended to circulate them among senior executives in law firms, banks, and investment houses. His message, in his own blunt phrasing, was unequivocal: those who believed they could support Hamas while remaining professionally anonymous were mistaken.

The reaction across university campuses was swift and visceral. Student groups that had once spoken confidently of "solidarity" and "resistance" suddenly found themselves grappling with a reality far removed from the abstractions of protest rhetoric. Career centers began fielding frantic calls. Law school administrators reported waves of inquiries from students asking whether their participation in past petitions could be erased or contextualized.

What makes the moment so destabilizing is not merely the threat of professional consequences, but the sense that the rules of engagement have shifted. For decades, universities have served as crucibles of ideological experimentation, environments in which youthful radicalism was often viewed as a rite of passage rather than a permanent mark. Ackman's intervention challenges that assumption head-on.

Some of the nation's largest legal, financial, and investment firms have reportedly signaled support for his stance, at least in principle. Executives at several major organizations, speaking on background, acknowledged that they are re-evaluating how they assess applicants' public records, particularly where those records involve explicit support for groups designated as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government.

In earlier eras, a protest sign or a fiery campus speech might have faded into obscurity once the semester ended. Today, digital platforms archive every statement, every signature, every repost. The architecture of the internet has collapsed the distance between youthful impulse and lifelong reputation.

Ackman's campaign is, in this sense, less about punishment than about visibility. By insisting that public statements remain public, he is forcing a confrontation with the permanence of modern expression. Supporters argue that this is not censorship, but accountability -- that individuals who endorse violence or terrorism must reckon with the consequences of those choices in a society that rightly condemns such acts.

Critics, however, see something more troubling: a wealthy private citizen exerting outsized influence over the future prospects of young people who may not fully grasp the implications of their political gestures. They warn that this approach risks chilling legitimate dissent and transforming political disagreement into professional exile.

At the heart of the controversy lies a paradox. The students targeted by Ackman's campaign often invoke free speech as a shield, insisting that their statements -- however inflammatory -- are constitutionally protected. Ackman, for his part, does not dispute their right to speak. What he disputes is the notion that free speech entails freedom from social or economic consequence.

This distinction is legally sound but socially combustible. The First Amendment protects individuals from government reprisal, not from reputational fallout or employer scrutiny. Yet when the consequences are potentially career-ending, the line between liberty and intimidation can appear perilously thin.

Civil liberties organizations have expressed concern that the campaign could set a precedent whereby powerful actors, armed with resources and networks, can effectively blacklist individuals based on political views. Others counter that blacklisting is a misnomer -- that this is simply the market responding to information that individuals themselves chose to make public.

Ackman has framed his campaign not merely as a matter of civic responsibility but as an act of moral defense, rooted in Jewish historical experience. To him, support for Hamas is not an abstract political stance but an endorsement of a group that explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews. In that light, his rhetoric is suffused with a sense of existential urgency.

The phrase he has used to describe his actions -- "deterrence" -- is telling. It evokes not only a strategy of accountability but a broader cultural statement: that expressions of sympathy for terror organizations will be met not with indulgence but with tangible repercussions.

For many Jewish students, the campaign has offered a measure of vindication. They describe campuses where anti-Israel rhetoric has spilled over into hostility toward Jewish peers, where protest chants blur into threats, and where administrators struggle to draw lines between political critique and hate speech. In this environment, Ackman's assertiveness feels, to them, like a long-overdue assertion of boundaries.

Yet the generational dimension of the conflict cannot be ignored. Many of the students who signed controversial petitions did so in a climate of intense peer pressure, guided by social-media narratives that frame complex geopolitical conflicts in starkly moralistic terms. For them, the language of "liberation" and "resistance" often obscures the brutal realities of terrorism.

Now, confronted with the possibility that a single signature could shadow their professional lives, they are experiencing what might be called the end of ideological adolescence. The realization is dawning that words, once liberated into the digital ether, do not fade -- they fossilize.

University leaders are struggling to respond. Some have urged employers to consider the context of student activism, warning against punitive approaches that could derail promising careers. Others, mindful of donor pressure and alumni outrage, are tightening guidelines around political expression and clarifying the limits of acceptable discourse.

For corporate America, the episode presents a delicate calculus. On one hand, firms are wary of appearing to police political beliefs, particularly in an era when diversity of thought is extolled as a virtue. On the other, reputational risk looms large. Few organizations wish to explain to shareholders why they hired someone whose public record includes praise for a group internationally recognized for mass violence.

Executives privately acknowledge that background checks now extend far beyond criminal records and employment histories. Social-media audits, once peripheral, are becoming central to recruitment processes. Ackman's campaign has merely accelerated a trend already underway.

It remains unclear how far this initiative will go or how enduring its effects will be. Will lists circulate quietly among hiring committees, reshaping the prospects of hundreds of young graduates? Or will the backlash -- legal, cultural, and institutional -- force a recalibration?

What is certain is that the episode marks a watershed in the evolving relationship between activism and accountability. In an age when every utterance can be archived and retrieved, the old assumption that youth offers a sanctuary from consequence is dissolving.

For better or worse, Bill Ackman has compelled a generation to confront a sobering truth: in the digital era, the boundary between who you are today and who you will be tomorrow has all but vanished. more

Steven Ishimwe
Career development 6d
Hi, everyone I am new here. Quick advice from you, which one is the best to study at University, Finance or Accounting
2   

  • Steward Tony Pacheco

    36
    1d

    Pick the one which is most fun. The one that will allow you to enjoy life. Because No Ones Last Words Ever Where "I Should Have Spent More Time At The... Office!" more

  • Oyegunle K. Oyedeji

    1
    2d

    I advised you to go for Accounting where the two is not combined in the university. I have a friend that had B. SC in Financial study who found... himself in academic line to teach Accounting, he was forced to go and do conversation in third year in a university to secure Accounting B. SC because of his career.
    I believe Accounting has more future than Financial study.     more

    1
Load more...

Career development

 20h

Rashad Richey Scandal Explodes: Fake Degrees, Fake Lawyer? | WATCH | EURweb | Black News, Culture, Entertainment & More


TYT's Rashad Richey accused of using diploma mills, phony law credentials, and self-created entities to boost résumé

Rashad Richey Faces Firestorm Over Alleged Fake Degrees

*Houston, we have a problem. Rashad Richey, a prominent host on The Young Turks (TYT) network, is under intense scrutiny after viral exposés accuse him of fabricating much of his academic and professional background. The... claims have sparked widespread backlash online, with many calling it a media credibility crisis.

Videos and threads across YouTube, Reddit, and X allege that Richey falsely claims multiple doctorates and legal credentials. Critics say the schools listed are either diploma mills or don't exist at all. The fallout is spreading fast.

Viral Video Breaks Down Richey's Academic Claims

The controversy gained traction after a January 2026 YouTube video titled "TYT's Rashad Richey: Fake Degrees, Fake Lawyer, Real Scam" went viral. The video, posted by Nate the Lawyer, racked up more than 260,000 views in just a few days.

It builds on earlier investigative work from content creator Cam James, whose "FUBU Scammers" series had already raised red flags about Richey's credentials. Together, these videos allege a pattern of misrepresentation and academic fraud.

Do Richey's Degrees Come from Diploma Mills?

Richey claims to hold at least five doctorates and five master's degrees in fields like neuroscience, international law, and quantum physics. However, many of the schools cited -- like Paris Graduate School and Université de la Renaissance -- are unaccredited or unverifiable.

Other institutions, such as Scofield Graduate School, are reportedly linked to churches or small private operations without formal academic recognition. Critics say these places are commonly known in watchdog circles as diploma mills.

Legal Credentials Under Major Scrutiny

One of the biggest accusations is that Richey falsely presents himself as a lawyer. Despite referencing a Juris Doctor degree and running a legal-sounding entity, there is no record of bar admission or formal legal practice.

This has led to outrage online, especially from legal professionals who argue that such misrepresentation damages public trust. Several clips have surfaced showing inconsistencies in how Richey describes his law credentials.

Wild Claims Add to the Skepticism

Beyond degrees, Richey's past bios allegedly mention a brainwave device for Alzheimer's, a medal from Barack Obama, and other grand claims. Some are unverifiable or backed by provisional patents that never matured.

Critics note that Richey's biography often shifts, with degrees appearing or disappearing over time. They also point to circular verification -- where one claimed institution cites another linked or fake one.

Richey and TYT Respond to the Allegations

Richey responded on his TYT show "Indisputable" on January 5, calling the allegations false. He claimed they're part of a targeted campaign by bad-faith actors aiming to discredit his work as a progressive commentator.

TYT has not issued a formal statement as of January 10, 2026. Richey continues to appear on the network, even as pressure mounts for transparency. Some critics say TYT's silence contradicts its mission of truth and accountability.

Community Reactions Are Fierce and Divided

The scandal has divided viewers, especially in progressive spaces. Some see the backlash as racially motivated attacks on a high-profile Black commentator. Others say fake credentials are a serious breach of public trust.

Social media platforms are flooded with mockery, calls for investigations, and clips showing inconsistencies in Richey's claims. Forums like r/skeptic and DegreeInfo have long tracked similar concerns since as early as 2024.

Why This Scandal Matters in Today's Media

Public figures who comment on politics and science carry a responsibility to be honest about their credentials. Richey's case echoes past media scandals involving fake degrees and résumé inflation.

As the conversation spreads, it's unclear whether TYT or its audience will hold Richey accountable. But one thing is certain: This story isn't going away anytime soon.

(If You Like/Appreciate This EURweb Story, Please SHARE it!)

MORE NEWS ON EURWEB.COM: Sheila Eldridge and Tubi Partner to Launch 'HBCU First Look' Channel more

Career development

 20h

Career moves on hold: How uncertainty is redefining work in US - The Times of India


There was a time, not very long ago, when dissatisfaction at work almost automatically led to a job search. If the pay felt low or growth seemed limited, people updated their résumés and moved on, confident that something better would turn up. That instinct is fading.As 2026 begins, the American workforce finds itself in an uncomfortable pause, restless, ambitious, but wary. According to Zety's... 2026 Job Search Split Report, based on a December 2025 survey of more than 1,000 US employees, 47 percent say they plan to look for a new job this year. Yet 53 percent say they are staying put. The split is almost perfectly even, and that balance tells its own story. This is not a workforce short on desire. It is one short on trust.For those thinking of making a move, the reasons are straightforward. Forty per cent want higher pay, others want better benefits or a clearer path forward. Some are tired of toxic workplaces. After years of rising prices and stubbornly flat wages, wanting more is not greed; it is survival.What is striking, though, is how negotiable once-sacred lines have become. Nearly three in four workers say they would return to the office full-time for a 20 per cent raise, according to Zety. After defending remote work as a quality-of-life necessity, many are now willing to give it up if financial pressure demands it.On the other side are workers who are not leaving, not because they love their jobs, but because leaving feels risky. Only 26 per cent of those staying say they are truly satisfied. The rest cite quieter, heavier reasons: They doubt they will find better pay, worry jobs in their field are drying up, or fear losing the flexibility they already have.Some are afraid of being the newest hire when layoffs come. Others have just received a raise or promotion and don't want to gamble it away. Stability, even imperfect stability, is winning out.Underneath these choices is a deep scepticism about the labour market itself. Two-thirds of workers expect job hunting in 2026 to be difficult, and more than half believe it will take longer to land a role than it did last year, according to the Zety survey. Over half also believe the market will weaken further, with higher unemployment and stagnant wages. In that environment, hesitation starts to look less like indecision and more like common sense.If recent years were defined by quitting loudly, 2026 may be shaped by staying quietly. Employees are updating résumés, scanning listings, and having conversations, without necessarily acting on them. Movement has slowed, not because ambition is gone, but because timing feels wrong. The result is a workforce suspended between wanting change and protecting itself from regret.This split is not a failure of confidence. It is a recalibration. Workers are no longer chasing growth at any cost. They are weighing it carefully against job security, flexibility, and the very real fear of missteps in a fragile economy.In 2026, career decisions are less about bold exits and more about restraint. For many workers, staying is not a lack of courage. It is a calculated choice to wait until the ground feels steadier. And that hesitation may be the most honest reflection yet of where the job market truly stands. more

Career development

 21h

How UVA's presidential search missed what took us an hour to find


Inside Higher Ed's recent story, "UVA Presidential Hire Raises Process Concerns," frames the controversy surrounding Scott C. Beardsley's appointment as the University of Virginia's president as follows: "Beardsley has solid academic credentials... But his résumé isn't the problem for most critics; the hiring process is."

Just a couple of weeks earlier, the Washington Post reported it quite... differently, noting that Beardsley's curriculum vitae was quietly scrubbed of diversity references before his appointment, sparking conservative outrage over his perceived DEI commitments.

We think both publications missed the deeper story. Using publicly available records -- specifically the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine -- we traced the evolution of Beardsley's CV across multiple versions and time-stamped snapshots. What we found suggests not a handful of cosmetic edits but a pattern of strategic self-presentation that should have prompted basic follow-up questions in any serious presidential search. The résumé is very much the problem -- not because it was sanitized, but because it raises fundamental questions about academic integrity that the search process failed to address.

This research took approximately one hour, the old-fashioned way -- no AI.

Here is what UVA's search firm nor the Board of Visitors found -- or, if they did, what they chose not to disclose.

Then something changes.

The timeline matters. UVA's presidential search did not begin formally until after Jim Ryan announced his resignation on June 27, 2025, and the special committee did not hold its first meeting until August 22. But the most consequential revisions to Beardsley's CV -- the removal of DEI and "diversity" language -- occurred before the search machinery was even in motion, during a rapidly escalating federal pressure campaign: DOJ Civil Rights sent UVA seven letters between April 11 and June 17 and publicly tightened the screws in June. In other words, the record was "cleaned" in advance of -- and in the same political context that precipitated -- the leadership crisis that ultimately triggered the search. That is precisely the kind of anticipatory positioning that due diligence should detect and probe.

Even if this were the only anomaly, it would still warrant scrutiny. Why revise this portion of the record at that moment -- without acknowledgment or explanation? Why treat a presidential CV as a document to be optimized for a shifting political environment rather than as an academic record expected to remain stable, transparent, and verifiable?

But the DEI scrubbing is only the beginning. Once we read the 2025 CV the way faculty routinely read candidates' dossiers -- with an eye toward disciplinary norms, verifiability, and the integrity of the record -- additional issues emerged. Two stand out because they go directly to due diligence: the doctorate itself and the presentation of scholarship.

The dissertation anomaly

Beardsley earned an Ed.D. in Higher Education Management from the University of Pennsylvania in 2015. The dissertation's abstract page, available through ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, lists two authors: "Scott Cochrane Beardsley" and "Robert Zemsky." Zemsky chaired Beardsley's dissertation committee.

That listing is highly unusual in doctoral education, where the dissertation is expected to demonstrate that the candidate can frame a research question independently, choose and defend methods, analyze evidence, and take intellectual responsibility for the conclusions. Collaborative research is common -- and often valuable -- in faculty life. But the dissertation occupies a special category: it is the singular work that qualifies a candidate for a doctoral degree.

When a dissertation record appears to assign authorship to both the candidate and the committee chair, it raises unavoidable questions any faculty reviewer would ask immediately: What exactly does "authorship" mean here? How was the work apportioned? Who conceived the study design and analysis? Is the listing in ProQuest an accurate reflection of co-authorship? If it is accurate, how does that comport with doctoral norms?

These are not gotcha questions. They are verification questions -- the kind a serious search asks early, documents carefully, and resolves before a board confers the authority of a flagship presidency.

The peer-review problem

On page 9 of Beardsley's CV, he claims to have "Published over 70 peer-reviewed and/or edited articles, books, research papers ..." We reviewed Appendix A, where Beardsley lists numerous items under "Peer-Reviewed and/or Edited Articles and Books." We counted the entries. Excluding op-eds, there are 32 entries, not "over 70." If you add the eight op-eds, the total is 40 publications. Perhaps there are some papers that he chose not to include on the CV. If so, why?

More concerning than Beardsley's inability to count is his claim regarding published peer-reviewed articles. We found no entries in academic, peer-reviewed journals. All but one of the articles he cites appeared in McKinsey Quarterly or the World Economic Forum's Global Information Technology Report, neither of which are academic peer-reviewed journals. Beardsley addresses this concern in a note, explaining that McKinsey Quarterly pieces are "subject to peer review, including by Nobel laureates," and that internal research publications were "subject to peer review before being made available to colleagues and clients."

Whatever one thinks of McKinsey's or WEF's internal quality control, this presentation is academically misleading. "Peer review" has a specific meaning in higher education: independent evaluation by external scholars, typically insulated from employer interests and client relationships, and anchored in public, verifiable dissemination. Corporate editorial review can be rigorous, but it is not the same process and does not carry the same scholarly meaning.

More problematic still, Beardsley says he "Created over 50 knowledge and research documents" at McKinsey that are "not available publicly," yet he places them in the same peer-reviewed/edited category. Finally, several of the links he provides are broken. In academic evaluation, verifiability is not a nicety. It is the baseline. A record that cannot be examined cannot be responsibly credited as peer-reviewed scholarship or scholarship of any kind.

The point is not to litigate consulting. It is to ask why a candidate for a research-university presidency is presenting corporate work as if it were an academic publication -- and why those paid and empowered to vet the record did not demand a clearer accounting.

Why are the publications buried?

That leads to an additional telling choice in the CV itself: Beardsley's publication record is not presented as the core of the CV. Instead, it is relegated to an appendix.

In academic practice, publications are typically the spine of a senior scholar's CV -- prominent, organized, and easy to scrutinize -- because they constitute the primary evidence of intellectual contribution. Placing publications in the back matter reduces the likelihood of close review. It requires extra effort to check venues, verify the nature of the review, trace the chronology, and assess the overall pattern of scholarly work.

There may be an innocent explanation, but in a presidential search, the burden is not on faculty to guess. It is on the process to verify. If a publication record is mixed -- with academic journals, McKinsey Quarterly, and nonpublic internal documents grouped under one umbrella -- burying the list does not merely reflect "style." It functions as a screening device to avoid scrutiny.

And scrutiny is precisely what a board is obligated to require.

The larger pattern: corporate translation, promotional rhetoric, and autobiographical padding

Other elements of the CV reinforce the same theme: a document written to persuade rather than to be evaluated.

Beardsley repeatedly translates corporate roles into academic analogies that elevate prestige while blurring distinctions. He describes leading "McKinsey University" as "Provost-like." He compares the election of McKinsey Senior Partners to tenure selection. However, tenure is grounded in independent research, teaching, and service through shared governance, whereas partner selection is an internal business judgment tied to firm economics and client development.

He also adopts corporate framing in the other direction, calling himself the de facto "CEO" of the UVA Darden enterprise. Deans manage complex organizations. But "CEO" is not standard academic language, and it signals a model of executive authority that research universities are deliberately structured to temper.

The CV's tone is similarly promotional. It includes claims such as "broke all career success records" at McKinsey, being "fastest in class" to senior partner, and being rated among the "top 10% highest-rated Directors." Those may be genuine internal metrics, but their prominence in an academic CV -- presented without the context or verifiability expected in higher education -- reinforces the impression of a corporate bio.

The document also includes extensive autobiographical details that senior academic candidates usually omit: a high school tennis championship, fraternity "Rush Chairman," college choir membership, an explicit note that his undergraduate degree was "fully self-funded," and that he ran a "lawnscaping" service with his brother when he was fifteen-years-old. This is not how experienced academic candidates typically present themselves -- and it aligns with a search-firm style that prizes narrative "fit" and biography over verification of the academic record.

The Search Firm's Prior Endorsement

We also cannot ignore potential conflicts of interest. Long before UVA's search began, the founder and chair of the search firm publicly endorsed Beardsley's 2017 book in unusually glowing terms -- crediting him with doing "all of us who work on presidential succession a great favor" and praising how he "deftly" navigates disputes over "traditional" versus "nontraditional" candidates and the "deeper struggle" those labels often represent. When the head of a search firm already has publicly put his name behind a candidate's work in that way, a board has to ask a basic governance question: how independent can the firm's later "vetting" be -- and how confident should the institution be that it is receiving disinterested, skeptical scrutiny rather than a professionally invested narrative?

That context matters all the more because Higher Calling: The Rise of Nontraditional Leaders in Academia (2017) was published by the University of Virginia Press while Beardsley was dean of UVA's Darden School of Business. UVA Press is not primarily a higher-education press; by its own description, it is known for strength in fields such as American history and government, literature, and other areas, along with trade titles. A review of its catalog suggests that higher-education leadership is, at most, an occasional subject: we found only a small handful of higher-ed titles, clustered years earlier, authored by widely recognized figures and scholars. Beardsley's book stands out in that context -- and it also closely tracks the framing of his Ed.D. dissertation, whose title ("The Rise of Nontraditional Liberal Arts College Presidents...") is strikingly similar. None of this is proof of wrongdoing. But in a presidential search, appearances and relationships are not side issues. They are precisely why boards need rigorous, demonstrably independent due diligence -- and why anything that looks like preexisting alignment between the firm and the candidate should have been disclosed, interrogated, and managed rather than waved away.

What this reveals about the search

This is not an argument about whether DEI is good policy, whether consulting experience is valuable, or whether Beardsley will succeed as president. It is about institutional competence and academic integrity.

A candidate for one of the most prestigious presidencies in American higher education submitted materials that, at a minimum:

None of this was resolved in a way visible to the university community.

Our research on presidential searches has repeatedly documented this pattern: when boards marginalize faculty participation and rely primarily on search firms, quality control erodes. Vetting serves as a means to select a finalist, not a way to protect the institution.

Faculty involvement is not symbolism. It is quality control.

Faculty know what "peer review" means in their disciplines. They know how doctoral credentials are typically documented -- and what counts as an outlier that requires explanation. They recognize when a CV has been "optimized" to discourage scrutiny rather than invite it. They are also the people most likely to notice when a candidate's public record is being strategically revised in anticipation of a high-stakes appointment -- especially in a volatile political moment.

A broadly constituted search committee with meaningful faculty authority would have surfaced these issues early and demanded answers: Why were DEI accomplishments removed as federal pressure on UVA intensified? What explains the dissertation authorship listing? Why was the publication record pushed into an appendix? Why were corporate documents presented under "peer-reviewed" categories? And, given the search firm's prior public endorsement of the candidate's work, what safeguards were in place to ensure the vetting was truly independent? These questions go to judgment, transparency, and integrity -- the core predicates of presidential leadership.

Instead, UVA's board ran a tightly controlled, secret process that treated faculty input as ceremonial. The result is a president whose materials raise questions that the selection process should have resolved before the appointment.

The conclusion UVA should not ignore

The search firm was presumably paid hundreds of thousands of dollars. For that investment, UVA appears to have received a process that failed to conduct due diligence that could have been completed in an afternoon using free tools and widely accessible academic databases.

There is a broader lesson here about what "strategic repositioning" actually buys a candidate -- and what it costs an institution. In June 2025, Santa Ono's path to the University of Florida presidency collapsed in public view after he tried to distance himself from DEI positions he had previously supported as University of Michigan president. Florida's Board of Governors rejected him in a 10-6 vote, overriding the University of Florida trustees' support, and the search reset. The point is not Florida's politics versus Virginia's. It is when vetting becomes theater, and candidates feel compelled to edit the record rather than defend it, that credibility evaporates. Nobody ends up confident in the result -- not the trustees, not the faculty, not the students, and not the public.

Scott Beardsley may yet prove to be an excellent president. But his appointment has been tainted by preventable failures -- failures that exist only because those charged with vetting him failed to do the work a serious search demands.

The Wayback Machine is free. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses is widely accessible. Academic norms are well established. A competent search would have used all three sources. more

Career development

 22h

The Beast Mortos Graduates And Becomes Licensed Lawyer, Shares Unmasked Photos From Graduation


The Beast Mortos has officially added a major achievement to his résumé.

And it has nothing to do with the wrestling ring.

After years of dedication and hard work, the masked AEW star has now graduated and become a licensed lawyer. Mortos had been quietly working toward the milestone for months, completing law school back in June 2025 before finally reaching graduation more than six months... later.

Mortos shared the news with fans through a heartfelt series of social media posts celebrating the moment alongside family and close friends.

"What a great day today was, surrounded by my loved ones and sharing important moments with me," Mortos wrote, posting photos from the celebration that included AEW star Mercedes Moné.

In a separate post, the luchador kept his trademark covered-face intact while sharing images from the graduation ceremony itself, dressed in traditional academic robes. He confirmed the accomplishment directly, writing, "My graduation, I am officially a lawyer, another achievement in my life."

The announcement was quickly met with an outpouring of congratulations.

Shortly after Mortos shared the photos, fellow wrestlers and several prominent AEW names flooded the comments with well-wishes, celebrating the rare and impressive accomplishment. more

Career development

 23h

Ongoing Job Application Management(5₹ per application)


I need someone to take full ownership of my daily job-hunting routine. I am targeting positions labelled " Data" and I want every opportunity that matches my background found, tailored, and submitted without me having to chase you for updates. The search should centre on official company career pages. While you are welcome to keep an eye on other sources, the primary pipeline must come from... company websites so that roles are fresh and not already saturated. What I expect from you: * Proactive monitoring of new openings(mostly I provide the list of jobs) that fit my profile * Customised résumés, cover letters, and short application answers for each posting * A simple tracking sheet that lets me see what has been applied for, when, and any next steps You will receive my master résumé, portfolio links, and keywords that describe my strongest skills. From there, I count on you to refine language, highlight the most relevant achievements, and ensure every submission feels personal to that employer. Consistency and attention to detail are more important to me than volume alone. If you are organised, persuasive in writing, and enjoy combing through company websites for hidden-gem roles, let's get started right away. more

Career development

 1d

GS-13 Federal Resume Overhaul


I need a polished federal résumé tailored for senior-level administrative vacancies at the GS-13 tier and higher. The document must pass USAJOBS automated screening, speak directly to hiring managers, and clearly show why my leadership abilities and project-management record meet the Executive Core Qualifications for this grade. You will take my existing work history and achievements, translate... them into the mandatory federal format (including compliant headings, detailed duties, accomplishments, hours-per-week, supervisor contact, and salary), and weave in the right keywords pulled from the job series announcements I provide. Leadership outcomes, team development successes, and large-scale project deliveries should stand out on every page. Deliverables: * One master résumé in Word (.docx) ready for USAJOBS upload * A clean PDF version for offline sharing * A brief keyword report so I can adapt the file to future announcements The résumé should be concise yet fully address KSAs, follow OPM guidelines, and remain under the character limits imposed by USAJOBS text fields. more

James Ravenscroft


Career development 2d
Hi! I really have a problem, I keep forgetting what else I need to do at work. I already make a daily plan and check it all the time, but as soon as I get distracted by urgent issues, I can’t remember what I was thinking about before. I understand that this can’t go on for long, because my mistakes keep coming up and management notices them. Maybe you could advise me on how to train my memory and... attention? Thank you. more

  • Beth Dombach

    1d

    Is this forgetting/distractibility something new for you or an existing trend that is now having a negative impact on your work? Either way it is... worth considering what has changed in you and or your environment.
    I would also recommend assessing whether the interruptions are truly urgent, important, and your responsibility. If not, is there a way you can indicate to coworkers that you are engaged in focused work and unavailable to them? If they are your responsibility, could any of them be preemptively addressed before they become interruptions and/or postponed until you’ve completed your previous task?
    It may also be worth discussing with HR and or management how the interruptions impact your productivity and ways to minimize the interruptions so you can maximize your productivity. Bringing it up proactively, especially if you suggestion solutions, will almost certainly look better then ignoring or trying to hide it until your manager brings it up.      more

  • Phindile Mahlangu

    1d

    Multitasking. You need to learn.

Load more...

Anonymous member


Career development 4d
It's been almost 10 years in my current post, but I feel like I won't achieve anything if I stay any longer. There is no hope of growth and development. I think this should be my final year to prepare a way out of this though the market is crazy competitive.
5   

  • Anitah Lubega

    1d

    I have been there, plan your exit

  • IRA BORTNICK

    2d

    Been there, done that. Definitely get another position before you leave Disregard any counter offers, they last until they find your replacement

Load more...

Tina Thackeray


Career development 1d
Good afternoon. I want to share my situation.
I have the most powerful computer at work because I officially asked for it and explained why I need it for my job. Management approved it and gave me a new, very good computer.
Now a coworker from another department wants to take my computer and swap with hers. She says her old computer is too weak because she often watches movies at work. I said... no.
After that, she started telling management bad things about me and saying that I don’t use the computer for work. I tried to talk to her, but she is threatening me - either I give her my computer, or she will keep saying that I work badly.
Do you think I should talk to management about this? Thank you for your advice.

 more
3   

  • Robert Muleka

    8h

    Are you the managemnt to give her a powerful machine? Stop asking the obvious

  • anne mee

    20h

    Should have gone to your line manager immediately. Write down all the reasons you should keep it and maybe she should try asking them for hers to be... replaced! more

Load more...