Action Report 2 Example

Activity Report 2 Example Activity Report 2 †Article Example Activity Report 2 The huge issue, as per Stiglitz concerns whether total national output (GDP) offers a prevalent proportion of expectations for everyday comforts. In various cases, GDP insights seem to recommend that the money related framework is improving contrasted with most residents own considerations (Stiglitz 1). Likewise, the focus on GDP prompts clashes: pioneers (political) are asked to amplify it, yet residents, then again, additionally necessitate that consideration be given to improving security, lessening water, air, just as clamor contamination, and the preferences †all of which may diminish GDP development. Similar issues in making examinations at the appointed time identified with correlations across countries (Stiglitz 1). The US utilizes more cash on human services looked at some other countries yet gets a lot more unfortunate outcomes. Some portion of the uniqueness between GDP per capita in Europe and the US may consequently be because of the manner in whic h individuals measure things.Another noteworthy change in many nations is an ascent in disparity (Stiglitz 1). This implies there is a rising difference between the middle pay (that of the typical worker, whose compensation lies falls in the pay dispersion table) and normal pay. In the event that a couple of individuals working in the bank get more extravagant, normal or mean pay can increment, even as most peoples’ livelihoods are diminishing (Stiglitz 1). In this manner, GDP per capita measurements probably won't reverberation what is happening to most residents. Any appropriate proportion of how well nations are performing should consider supportability, also (Stiglitz 1). Similarly as an organization requires estimating the decrease of its capital, so does national records require mirroring the drop of characteristic assets, just as the debasement of the environment.Work CitedStiglitz, Joseph. The incomparable GDP cheat. N.p, 2009. Web.

Marketing Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 1

Promoting - Case Study Example As far as character, Starbucks targets individuals who need to stand apart as people while Dunkins clients are individuals who need to be a piece of a group. The portion that Dunkins is endeavoring to reach through situating is the thing that can be delegated regular person - the center salary blue-and cubicle laborers over all ages, races; who like to have a place in a group; who despite the fact that qualities more pleasant stores they like it to interest the normal Americans. These individuals don't care for the extravagant store designs of love seats, workmanship brightened dividers and diverse music; they likewise don't care for impressively sounding labelsâ€they grumbled that considering a hot sandwich a panini is excessively extravagant, in this manner it is renamed as stuffed liquefy. They like increasingly available items like flatbread sandwiches and gourmet treats as opposed to pinwheels of batters loaded down with different fillings, which help them to remember something they have during mixed drink hours rather than not too bad suppers. Truly, certainly. Showcasing is tied in with finding the correct clients and giving qualities. A gigantic market can't be served distinctly by one player. There are various kinds of shoppers, and even to a huge player, giving all the necessities and needs of the entire market will demonstrate expensive and will dissolve their benefits. Consequently, they decide to serve the clients they serve best. In the coffeehouse advertise, the higher pay and expert gatherings are the objective of Starbucks, individuals who need to stand apart as people. Yet, there are different kinds of clients. Furthermore, seeing this fragment not being served well gives a gigantic favorable position to Dunkins. In the wake of knowing the unmistakable needs of this section, an incentive that conveys the message about the advantages the organization offers to satisfy these requirements is simply sensible. In the event that Dunkins rather contends with Starbucks in the other section of the market and give a simi lar incentive, it will just come up as second best, or an imitator

Admission Decisions Piles of Files COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - SIPA Admissions Blog

Admission Decisions Piles of Files COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - SIPA Admissions Blog The most common question we are getting on the phone and via email these days is, “When will I find out about my admission decision?” In a perfect world I could tell you all the exact date and time, and I could also guarantee that every decision would be published on the same day. However, we live in the real world and not the perfect world. The real admission world, just like the real policy world, can be a bit tricky. With numerous people reading files and some subcommittees meeting to discuss certain applications in more detail it is a balancing act. When applications are confirmed as complete they are assigned to readers and begin the review journey.   Readers belong to three general groups: faculty, students, and administrators.   Each group brings their own viewpoint to the table so there is nice balance. After the readers have filled out their review sheets and discussed their feelings about each candidate with other readers the files are divided into three major groups. Let me elaborate on the process by describing the following picture Pile #1 is representative of applications where there is unanimous agreement among Committee members. I would say that about 60-65% of applications fall into this group. Pile #2 represents those where the reviewers of the file did not entirely agree and they have asked for additional review by a Senior Member of the Admissions Committee prior to making a final decision. Approximately 20-25% of applications fall into this category. Pile #3 represents those who the readers believe should be considered for first year fellowship awards â€" approximately 15-20%. These files take longer to process because they have to go through additional rounds of meetings by the Fellowship Committee. Reviewing applications is not an exact science and decisions may not go out in the simple 1-2-3 order described above, but this is generally how the process works. Rather than make the majority of applicants wait until the Committee has reviewed all of the files, we will start to send out decisions when the majority of decisions have been made. Our goal is to start sending decisions in the first or second week of March.   We will inform you of when your decision is ready to view by sending you an email telling you to log in to the application site to view your decision letter.   I will also post an entry to this blog when the first round of decisions have been sent. Admitted applicants will receive a paper copy of the same letter posted on the site a number of weeks later. Applicants who are not admitted will only see the letter on the application Web site; we do not send a paper copy of letters to those who are not admitted. I hope this provides a bit of insight into the process and I will continue to elaborate on the process in the coming weeks.