Pdf - Accounting - Mercer University: Fill & Download for Free

I can exactly remember my emotions on that particular day. Let me give you some background first.It was my FOURTH attempt. I had reached till mains stage in the 3rd attempt and did not able to clear the first stage in the first two attempts.But I was expecting something positive, despite past failures as I had performed well in all the stagesThe last Interview was scheduled for 26th October (Friday). I devoted almost the entire day after 1st November to the UPSC website. I did not go to my home during Diwali time. I have promised myself that I will go home only after my selection. I thought that the result will come before Diwali and I will be able to celebrate Diwali with my family.Slowly Diwali went. But alas, nothing came. I was not able to concentrate on my studies due to the increased anxiety level. My frustration level started increasing day by day as the date of prelims exams getting closer and I was not studying at all.On D-Day:I kept refreshing the UPSC website. However, hopes of seeing the result being declared started subsiding for the day.Once I reached home after office I checked UPSC Website. Some aspirants have written on PagalGuy that they had called UPSC and UPSC told that the result will be declared on Monday i.e. 12-November. I convinced myself that I have to wait for the result for the next two days.I went to a restaurant and order some foods. I was waiting for my order and finally, the moment came, a message popped up on my Whatsapp. My friend from BSNL Meet Rajvir texted me.Thanks, Meet Bhai for giving the first update.For the last few days, in my mind, I had planned to do a number of things when the PDF finally arrives. I had convinced myself that I shall not do the CTRL+F on the PDF in any way. Instead, I would scroll up and down and search for my name on the list. It was learning from my past mistakes. Because immediately my mood turned off when I found 0 results found. It is not only the question paper of UPSC (Unpredictable Public Service Commission) which is unpredictable but the whole process is unpredictable.I just wanted to cross check the result, I opened the pdf, done CTRL+F, and it was 1 result found. From, No result found to 1 result found I can not describe in words how my life has changed.Frankly speaking that day I understand the importance of the digital system in our life.Then I called my parents and as expected my mother became emotional. I talked to my grandmother. Her last wish is to see me as an officer in the Government of India, I am glad that I have done that.I spoke to my bhabhi (Sister in law). She was diagnosed with Cancer (stage 4). She was very happy after knowing my result. Now, she is no more with us. When she was fighting for her life and was in so much pain I made her happy for a moment. That feeling I can never forget in my life.Till the time I received almost a hundred calls from family, friends, and relatives. Everyone was very happy. That day I realized the difference between a friend and best friend. The latter were behaving like they have cleared this exam.I was not able to sleep the whole night. The entire journey from Infosys to Mercer and then selection in IES was running in my mind. I recalled how difficult were those days.When I had joined the coaching at that time I was working in night shift. So I used to reach home at 4 in the morning and I have to attain classes from 8 am. Hardly, I was able to get 2–3 hours of sleep. In the beginning, I was not able to study for more than one hour, It was very difficult to sit and concentrate for the whole day in coaching. It was very difficult to manage both a job and study. So I had left my job for ESE preparations. Most of my friends had advised me to leave the coaching as I was doing well in my career. One of my friends had challenged me that I won't be able to attain the classes after 2–3 months and I will quit my preparations. After the result, He called me and said: “finally nikal ke hi mana”.Somehow I would have managed all those things, but here come the relatives. They are very different species in this universe. They will ask the same question again and again knowingly or unknowingly to hurt you(for example still you are not working? Why you are wasting your money and time?, if you would have prepared for MBA then you would have got a better job now, start preparing for a bank job, SSC jobs, etc ).It was a mixed feeling. I was relaxed that I don’t have to study again for this exam.I had deactivated my social media account because whenever I logged into Facebook, the only thing that I saw was my friends partying, someone was going to onsite, someone was marrying, someone was buying flat/cars and I was confused between when to study during early morning or during the night, which newspaper to read The Hindu or Indian Express, How much Maggy should I cook 1.5 or 2 :). So to stop distraction, I kept myself away from social media. I activated my Facebook account after a gap of 4 years. I posted the news of my selection. Most of my friends and relatives were not able to believe that because they have no idea about my ESE preparations.Next day news about my selection was published in all the local newspapers.I am blessed because there were people in my life who looked after me when I was in utmost need. If you have a purpose and some good friends around you, you'll find a way to do something good in your life. It doesn't have to be an exam or any post make you feel motivated. Improvement should be the guiding principle.

Desegregation and Affirmative Action are theoretically entirely different policies but they are two different nameplates on the same idea that race is a “problem” that must be “fixed” in a racially anti-discriminating way based on the dubious idea of “proportional representation” that the correct number of any group in any school or career is exactly the same as the population, excluding fields like sports or entertainment that are dominated by minorities.Anything that De Blasio implements is going to have to be consistent with the settlement in San Francisco’s Lowell High School where judges ruled that school districts can NOT use race quotas as a final reason for school assignment. Race policy always says they fight discrimination which means treating people the same regardless of race, then imposes proportional quotas which actually treats people different because of race. That’s the scam they always get away with. The 1983 consent decree that claimed to stop assignment of students by race REQUIRED assignment by race if they did not meet a racial quota. I’ll bet old Henry Der is still defending anti-Chinese quotas.What’s the correct percentage of black nuclear physicists or Google programmers? About 10 percent. You don’t need to know anything else except US census figures. What’s the correct percentage of female attack helicopter pilots, firefighters, javascript programmers at Amazon or brain surgeons or FAA air controllers? Without knowing anything about the actual qualifications of any population, any ivy league educated judge knows it’s always 50 percent.Any “Diversity and Inclusion Officer TM” worth their $150,000 salary and $2M CEO who hires her and fires people like the hapless Google memo guy knows the MOST IMPORTANT JOB OF ANY CORPORATION IS TO PROMOTE DIVERSITY AND SMASH WHITE MALE CISGENDER PRIVILEGE. If you thought business school teaches that the mission of Ford, Amazon FAA or Waste Management was making cars, software, or making sure airplanes don’t crash into each other, or even collecting garbage you are mistaken. This is not how a totalitarian system that puts politics first is supposed to work.Historically few high schools have tried to implement affirmative action. The most prominent case in the 90s was San Franciso’s Lowell high school which was under a “desegregation” consent decree order. In theory desegregation is supposed to ELIMINATE racial segregation. In the beginning, segregation was simply closing off schools entirely to black students, which is obviously wrong. However it evolved to the idea that any schools with TOO MANY of one race was TOO FEW of another race. Black students would get a better education if they had FEWER Chinese classmates. Does anybody believe that for a moment?Henry Der got way too little recognition for being one of the only Asians WORKING AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF CHINESE STUDENTS AND PARENTS. His organization Chinese For Affirmative Action should have been called Chinese For Affirmative Action Against Chinese because they got paid off to justify the quota set up so that no group was more than 50 percent. Since the Chinese in many neighborhoods WERE AT 50 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION. Lowell was a competitive examination school, and knowing how well Chinese do at test scores, especially math, you can imagine that they got way more than 50% of the best scores.Guess how they fixed the “problem” of too many Chinese? The “desegregation” order fixed this by setting a quota. Now you might wonder didn’t the Bakke case make quotas illegal? Well the courts thought so … in colleges, and affirmative action, but this was “desegregation”, not a quota. Yeah right. I swear I don’t think a single Asian American besides myself ever complained that this policy was stupid, evil or both.Gary Orfield, Ph.D. — The Civil Rights Project at U CLA is the most famous proponent of desegregation consent decrees, any liberal on Quora will sing his praises. His books all prove that every school system that is “segregated” by any number of measures has poorer outcomes than affluent white suburban school districts. However it does not follow that desegregation therefore must be the obvious fix without any evidence that would or ever did work. Who benefits? People like Henry Der whose salary was paid by the court ordered consent decree. Affirmative action really benefits the people who have made a multi million dollar industry about fixing America’s race problems as opposed to the very small number of admission spots at Harvard and Stanford that is only the 0.000001% (I exaggerate but you get the idea it is way less than 1 digit) of the African American population that could possibly benefit from such preferences, the flip side being the 0.001% of Asians who are complaining about it.Orfield and his friends did not and have never proven that any consent decree or throwing any amount of government money at a forcibly “desegregated” school district results in poor minority children that score the same as suburban whites or Asians. The result is always 1) hundreds of millions or billions are poured into some place like Kansas City and 2) test scores for low income minorities are still worse than Whites or Asians and places like Fergeson Missouri still erupt in riots. Seattle blacks lobbied for keeping their children in their communities during desegregation instead of being scattered into places like Ballard where they still make jokes about bad Nordic drivers while in Silicon Valley the black children of East Palo Alto were scattered to the four corners of Santa Clara county with minimal effect on equalizing academic performance compared to white and Asian children of Hewlett Packard or Apple engineers or Stanford professors.What I found in 1990s Seattle area test scores is that blacks in the “terrible segregated” Seattle schools score THE SAME as blacks in mostly white suburbs, and nobody think that’s remarkable. If Seattle schools were so awful, why did Whites (kids of affluent education government and tech workers) in Seattle score HIGHER than in the (Boeing worker) suburbs”. And if Asians are so damn affluent and smart, why did Asians in Seattle [think Chinatown and refugees and Samoan pacific islanders] score WORSE than Seattle whites or suburban Asians? Asian in Renton score as well as whites in Bellevue, Asians in Bellevue scored as well as whites in the next rung up at Mercer Island, etc. I pointed this out in now defunct Asian Week but of course nobody cared. And SAT breakdowns show that Asians score as well as Whites with much higher incomes, who in turn score higher than Blacks with higher incomes, which might be explained that high income blacks are in fields where you can make money without having the same education patterns as whites.These are not things that you can erase with the wave of the Magic Affirmative Action Wand or Vice President Diversity Inclusion (Call 1–800-FIX-RACE Just $2m consent order decree! Order now and you’ll get money for new buildings too!)Some people might wonder how the highest scoring most over-represented group the Asians got that way, but Asian parents have zero interest in adding more Asians to the curriculum, setting race preference goals, hiring more Asians teachers, and making sure Calculus and Physics text books integrate social justice stories and heroes. Of course, Asians are an anomaly as other groups as their experience obviously cannot be expected to lift themselves up by the bootstraps and studying their brains out at the expense of other non-academic pursuits.There is a special place in heaven for people like Der, his website says this is what he is doing now:Senior Program Officer, Four Freedoms FundHenry Der is the son of immigrant parents, and has been associated with Four Freedoms FundTMsince 2006. For more than 22 years, he was the Executive Director of the San Francisco-based, membership-supported Chinese for Affirmative Action, working to promote the civil rights of Asian American and other racial minority groups in employment, education, voting and access to public services. A former Peace Corps volunteer in Kenya, Henry has also served as Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction at the California Department of Education, with oversight responsibilities for programs that address the needs of adult immigrant, at-risk and special needs students. He was appointed by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to be the State Administrator to bring Emery Unified School District out of fiscal bankruptcy. Active in community and education affairs, Henry has led coalition efforts to promote equal educational opportunities and access for immigrant students at the City College of San Francisco, including the recently-completed construction of the Chinatown/North Beach campus facility serving more than 6,500 adult immigrant students, as well as raising private donations to support education programs at this campus facility. He also currently serves on the University of California President’s Advisory Council on Campus Climate, Culture and Inclusion, as well as the Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation Board of Directors.Articles on Lowell case:This left-wing article says Asians should have supported quotas and not right wing racists: On the Wrong Side: Chinese Americans Win Anti-Diversity Settlement and Lose in the End Color Lines May 20, 1999 - By all accounts, San Francisco's Lowell High School is one of the nation's ... The consent decree—the result of a lawsuit filed by the NAACP—allowed no ... for Affirmative Action, argues: “The end of the consent decree may ...February, a small group of Chinese Americans, supported by anti-affirmative action right-wingers, won a settlement in a lawsuit over Lowell’s admissions policies—overturning three decades of integration efforts in San Francisco’s schools. As a result, 50 percent fewer blacks and Latinos will enter Lowell next year—including only a handful of black males in an entering freshman class of over 600. Asian American and other critics call the group’s efforts narrow, selfish, and hypocritical—and bound to inflame racial tensions. “Chinese Americans are being used as a proxy of anti-affirmative action and anti-integration viewpoints, which ultimately increase discrimination against our community,” says Diane Chin of Chinese for Affirmative Action. “This case is a tremendous setback for coalition politics,” says Henry Der, the California State Deputy Superintendent of Education Equity, Access, and Support…. “None of the three plaintiffs ever proved that they were discriminated against. In fact, I don’t believe that they had a case,” says Henry Der.A 1983 federal consent decree, Lowell has also had to ensure integration of its student body. The consent decree—the result of a lawsuit filed by the NAACP—allowed no single ethnic group to constitute more than 45 percent of the student body at neighborhood schools, and 40 percent at magnet schools, and required each San Francisco school to enroll students from at least four of nine defined ethnic/racial groups.“The plan represented our best thinking at the time,” says Albert Cheng, who oversaw integration efforts for the San Francisco Unified School District through the early ‘80s. “We knew that if we did not desegregate Lowell High School, the school would have been dominantly Asian and white.”1992, some Chinese American parents began to argue that the consent decree discriminated against them because it capped Chinese enrollments, thereby forcing them to have higher grades and test scores than whites in order to be admitted to Lowell. Some began to discuss suing the school district. But Asian American civil rights organizations—who could see that Lowell was already over 50 percent ethnic Chinese and 70 percent Asian American—worried that it could be fodder for affirmative action opponents.February, lawyers for the parents and the NAACP unveiled an eleventh-hour settlement which overturned the sixteen-year-old consent decree and ended San Francisco’s use of racial considerations in student assignment. When the settlement was announced, Amy Chang of the Legal Foundation crowed, “The era of racial bean-counting is over.”By 1984, Asian American progressives noticed anti-Asian quotas at many elite universities, including those with strong pro-affirmative action leadership—such as Ira Michael Heyman’s Berkeley, Derek Bok’s Harvard, and Bill Bowen’s Princeton. After white alumni began to complain about increasingly diverse campuses, university leaders seemed to cap Asian admissions at no more than 20 percent of the student body.… At the time of the 1983 consent decree, African American students were the largest ethnic group in the San Francisco school district, and the most racially isolated. Now Chinese Americans are the largest ethnic group, making up a quarter of the district—and over half of Lowell High.San Francisco NAACP v. SAN FRANCISCO UNIF. SCHOOL, 59 F ...San Francisco NAACP v. SAN FRANCISCO UNIF. SCHOOL, 59 F. Supp. 2d 1021 (N.D. Cal. 1999) In 1983, the Court approved a Consent Decree to resolve the NAACP action. ... of Chinese descent of school age who are current residents of San Francisco and ..... behalf of the Coalition to DefendAffirmative Action By Any Means Necessary.In 1978, the San Francisco National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("NAACP") filed the NAACP action, seeking desegregation of the San Francisco Unified School District ("SFUSD") on behalf of a class of all children of school age who are or may in the future become eligible to attend the public schools of the SFUSD. The suit was brought against the SFUSD, its Board Members, and its Superintendent (collectively the "Local Defendants"), and the California State Board of Education, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the State Department of Education (collectively the "State Defendants").In 1983, the Court approved a Consent Decree to resolve the NAACP action. See San Francisco NAACP v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 576 F. Supp. 34 (N.D.Cal.1983). Paragraph 13 of the Consent Decree, as amended, sets forth racial and ethnic guidelines for the assignment of *1024 San Francisco schoolchildren to the schools of the SFUSD. Pursuant to paragraph 13, no school may have fewer than four racial/ethnic groups represented in its student body, and no racial/ethnic group may constitute more than forty-five percent of the student enrollment at any regular school, or more than forty percent at any alternative school. Paragraph 12 of the Consent Decree identifies nine racial/ethnic groups for the purpose of defining the racial/ethnic composition of each school: Spanish-surname, Other White, African-American, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Filipino, American Indian, and Other Non-White.In 1994, several schoolchildren of Chinese descent filed the Ho action against the State and Local Defendants, alleging that paragraph 13's student assignment plan constitutes race discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In January 1995, the Ho plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint adding the NAACP as a defendant.Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court's finding that the assignment of students by race subjects the students to a race-based classification by a state actor. Id. at 862. Such racial classifications are subject to strict scrutiny, and may be used by the government only if necessary to correct the effects of government action of a racist character. Id. at 864 (quoting Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 224, 115 S. Ct. 2097, 132 L. Ed. 2d 158 (1995), and citing Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 494, 112 S. Ct. 1430, 118 L. Ed. 2d 108 (1992)). The Ninth Circuit found that the burden of justifying the racial classification fell upon the defendants. Id. at 865. It described the issues remaining for trial as follows:As race may permissibly be used by government in the very limited way described, two issues remain for trial: Do vestiges remain of the racism that justified paragraph 13 of the consent decree in 1983? Is paragraph 13 necessary to remove the vestiges if they do remain?Id. at 865.The Ninth Circuit found defendants' evidence to be conclusory. Id. It specifically noted that defendants could not prevail at trial unless they produced more concrete evidence than they submitted in opposition to the Ho plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Id. The Ninth Circuit stressed that defendants' evidence must tie the current vestiges of segregation to the discriminating practices and policies that justified the adoption of the Consent Decree in 1983.terms of the settlement are as follows:A. The Consent Decree entered in [the NAACP action] shall be modified to provide (a) that it will terminate no later than December 31, 2002, subject to Court approval; and (b) that any party may move for unitary status prior to that date. The parties anticipate that no later than such time, the state and local governmental defendants will have taken all reasonably practical measures to remedy any vestiges of segregation.B. Pursuant to paragraph 50 of the Consent Decree, the SFUSD and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction shall develop a new student assignment plan consistent with the criteria contained in this agreement. The SFUSD and the State Superintendent shall submit the proposed modifications to the San Francisco NAACP and the Ho plaintiffs for review and comment.C. The parties acknowledge that SFUSD officials have the duty and authority to determine lawful criteria for admission to all schools in the SFUSD. The parties further acknowledge that in setting those criteria, state and federal law provide that district officials may consider many factors, including the desire to promote residential, geographic, economic, racial and ethnic diversity in all SFUSD schools. However, race or ethnicity may not be the primary or predominant consideration in determining such admission criteria. Further, the SFUSD will not assign or admit any student to a particular school, class or program on the basis of the race or ethnicity of that student, except as related to the language needs of the student or otherwise to assure compliance with controlling federal or state law.D. Paragraph 12 of the Consent Decree shall be modified to provide that the SFUSD may request, but not require, that parents and/or students identify themselves by race or ethnicity at the time of actual enrollment.The preliminary injunction shall provide that the SFUSD will not assign or admit any student to a particular school, class or program on the basis of the race or ethnicity of that student, except as related to the language needs of the student or otherwise to assure compliance with controlling federal or state law. The preliminary injunction shall take effect only upon Court approval.Ho by Ho v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 965 F. Supp. 1316 ...Ho by Ho v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 965 F. Supp. 1316 (N.D. Cal. 1997)The Consent Decree entered on April 30, 1983, in San Francisco NAACP v. ... because these *1319 schools were "capped out" for students of Chinese descent. ..... purposes in the same manner it would a voluntary affirmative action program.[PDF]Chinese Americans Challenge San Francisco's Desegregation Planhttps://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&context...by CM Liu - ‎1998 - ‎Cited by 14 - ‎Related articlesgiven more tailwind to the political maelstrom against affirmative action. The case has ... vancement of Colored People (N.A.A.C.P.), which claimed that the district had promoted .... treatment under the San Francisco consent decree. Brian Ho ...As Courts Flip-Flopped on School Integration, Diversity Has Remained ...https://sfpublicpress.org/.../as-courts-flip-flopped-on-school-integration-diversity-has-...Feb 5, 2015 - San Francisco schools no longer exhibit the level of racial isolation they ... 1978: TheNAACP files a lawsuit seeking resumption of school ... University of California that affirmative action is acceptable in some ... SFUSD, the district agrees to a consent decree barring the use of race in school assignments.Court challenge advances on S.F. school racial caps - SFGatehttps://www.sfgate.com/.../Court-challenge-advances-on-S-F-school-racial-3129604.p...Sep 29, 1995 - he noted that because the consent decree separates Chinese ... 1995-09-29 04:00:00 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- As the wave against affirmative action ... "I'm very disappointed," said Eva Paterson, an NAACP attorney on the ...