Grades 3-9 Exit Form: Fill & Download for Free

The New government has barely taken oath , but Fake news masters have started again.Minister of HRD has clarifed :No intention of imposing any language: Govt dismisses fears of Hindi imposition in Tamil NaduNow, Why this “mandatory Hindi CLAIMS” came up??Recently Kasturirangam committee submitted its report for the “New Draft Education policy 2019”.It is a very comprehensive document to reform the India education system.It has the following features:The committee recommended to extension of Right to Education act to cover children of age 3–18 years (Earlier the UPA government had passed the Right to Education Act,2009, which had provisions for children form ages 6 - 14 years.)It proposes ECCE (Early childhood care and education) as an integral part of school education , for ALL ROUND development of child.A 5+3+3+4 curricular and pedagogical structure based on cognitive and socio-emotional developmental stages of children: Foundational Stage (age 3-8 yrs): 3 years of pre-primary plus Grades 1-2, Preparatory Stage (8-11 years): Grades 3-5, Middle Stage (11-14 years): Grades 6-8 and Secondary Stage (14-18 years): Grades 9-12.(Personally , I found this news proposal very BRILLIANT , as the exiting class 1 to class 12 has become very OUTDATED.)A new apex body, Rashtriya Shiksha Ayog, is proposed to enable a holistic and integrated implementation of all educational initiatives and programmatic interventions and to coordinate efforts between the Centre and the States.The National Research Foundation, an apex body is proposed for creating a strong research culture and building research capacity across higher educationand others..New Draft Education Policy calls for overhauling of education structure, RTE expansion - Times of India

Disclaimer: It is based solely on my last one year experience and doesn’t necessarily reflect the true picture or view of majority in the organisation.Answer is divided into sections based on questions asked:A. Career Prospects - To get into SEBI itself is a milestone in ones career. However , things doesn't stop here.(i) Promotion opportunities - As in other regulatory organisations, we have total 7 grades starting from A reaching upto F i.e. Assistant Manager to Chief General Manager.As per present policy, you become eligible for next grade after serving minimum 3 yrs in the present grade. Practically , however it takes different time for different grades.Presently, For Grade A to B and B to C it takes 3.5–4 yrs for both of them. So you can become Grade C in 7–8 years after joining as Grade A.Grade C to Grade D is a huge jump and from Grade D onward you become in Senior Administrative Grade which takes 5–10 yr at present. If enough Vacancy is not there you can become eligible for PP(Personal Promotion) after 7 yrs working as Grade C, where you get all the perks and allowances of Grade D.Again Grade D to E is not an issue. Grade E to F is again huge jump. No fixed timelines are there for these promotions. You can be promoted after 3 year also or may no get promoted even after serving 10 years. Your APAR(Annual performance Appraisal Report) matters a lot in these promotions as the opportunities at top tapers down following pyramidal structure.You can also become ED depending on your age/seniority. ED is the last position which an internal SEBI Employee can become. At present total sanctioned post for ED is 9 which is set to increase in near future. Out of 9 , two-third seats are reserved for SEBI Employees. and one-third is open for external candidates. If no suitable external candidates are found, it is filled with internal candidates as happened recently.WTM and Chairman are appointed by , DEA, MoF.SEBI came with new policy in 2018 where min age for promotion was changed from 3 to 5 yr. It was taken back after employees protests. So, present policy may change in future and it may be emphasized that you should not take your decision solely on present circumstances which can change anytime depending on requirements and structure of organisation.(ii) Knowledge/Exposure - You will regulate most dynamic and complex segment of economy. All the departments in SEBI have something to offer whether it's IMD, CFD, IVD, MRD .You will be transferred every 4–5 years to different departments and by the end of your career can have 360 degree view of the functioning of Capital Market. As you are regulating mostly private players and industry you have fair deal of exposure to Brokers, MFs, Investment Bankers, CRAs, Law firms etc. Hence, its very common in SEBI (Compared to other Govt bodies) people switching to private sector after building relevant profile. So, you have better exit opportunities here.(iii) Innovation/Challenge - As its a very dynamic, complex and at same time filthy market where every player is trying to manipulate market, task of regulation , supervision, investigation and enforcement all are equally challenging. Data mining, Data Analytics, Artificial Intelligence is need of the hour which is actively promoted by SEBI. Training of selective officers are done in best of places including NUS, Singapore. Internal teams are being developed to make Investigation more effective. One of our senior has developed program in Python which is now being used for analysis. Such things are strongly promoted here. However, you cannot expect same reward as you might have got in private sector for putting such extra efforts. Its all depends on personal initiative of officers who want to put extra effort apart from their regular job without expecting the reward for the same.To, summarize, you get opportunities both inside and outside SEBI to hone your skills and learn cutting edge technologies and innovations happening in Financial Market.B. Salary - For Salary details refer to following links :Rakesh Mohan's answer to What is the in-hand salary availed by a Grade A Officer in SEBI? Also, what are the other perks and allowances/benefits availed by the same? orRahul Mishra's answer to What is the in-hand salary availed by a Grade A Officer in SEBI? Also, what are the other perks and allowances/benefits availed by the same?C. Work Environment and Work PressureGenerally and most of the time work environment is very cordial and pressure is very much manageable. However, things vary according to department, Boss, time of the year, news/events in Indian/Global markets.Few departments due to their inherent nature of Job demand more time and energy whereas few departments are very relaxed.As people here are very anxious and serious about their APAR (for faster promotion), their relationship with BOSS/Super- BOSS matters a lot which sometimes may develop into some form of buttering, favoritism and yes boss culture.Also, as organisation is small and mainly headquartered base, people - senior , colleagues and junior know you by your face and any positive/negative news about you spreads very fast which can be both positive and negative in the sense of work environment.As the organisation gives you a decent lifestyle and almost most of your things are being taken care off by the organisation, in such conditions when people have free time they will involve in many grapevine communication which can make you uncomfortable at some times and may create a negative environment as people prefer to cry over what they don’t have rather than enjoying what they have got.It will require a constant dose of motivation from within to be high on energy which can be either the lure of faster promotion, working for internal satisfaction, desire for doing challenging work, recognition for doing something extraordinary work etc. In every govt job people just settle down for mediocrity as initial enthusiasm runs out of steam and one become used to perks and facilities provided by the organisation. What stays with you is the internal motivation to create some difference through your work, take up new challenges and constant learning.SEBI is one of the few governments organisations which provides you this opportunity. You can innovate, create new tools, suggest new ideas, give inputs in any new regulation/policies having advantage of information and data on your side. Being a small organisation you can create a place in the sun for yourself.I would conclude by quoting our present Chairman’s Shri Ajay Tyagi which he told to our batch during interaction : “All those big buildings, big seats will haunt you when you will have nothing to do other than seating whole day doing nothing substantial. “ SEBI fortunately provide you the opportunity, taking or leaving it depends on you.

First things first: employees are always and everywhere a cost. They are never an asset. That which they produce is the asset - but not the employee themselves. This goes for highly-paid experts as much as it does for menial laborers. Think of it this way: do you consider your local barista to be an asset of yours? You shouldn't. You have to give up one asset, your money, in order to get access to another asset, a cup of joe. There's no real pertinent difference between the barista who works at the Starbucks location you patronize and the barista you employ to keep up morale. "Jobs are a cost" is a mantra that will inoculate you from political hucksters of every stripe.Second thing: the real minimum wage cannot be raised with legislation, because the real minimum wage is $0/hour. That happens when someone isn't employed. The magic of semantics makes some people think that simply because you call a legislated price floor for labor services the "minimum", that it's actually impossible for people to earn less. This error is often accompanied by appeals to unequal distributions of wealth, heartfelt and earnest concern for the poor, and possibly appeals to contribute to the speaker's campaign.Right. On to the question."What happens when ... the minimum wage [is increased]?"The only thing that happens is that low-skill labor becomes relatively more expensive for employers to legally hire. That's it.The consequences of that change depend upon the circumstances of the time and place of the employer and employee.From the Firm's PerspectiveA firm that primarily employs low-skill labor will see their labor-wage costs rise. They can compensate in a few ways:Reduce their reliance on low-skill labor by hiring a larger proportion of high-skill labor. (This may include firing presently employed low-skill laborers.)Reduce their labor-wage costs by lowering the number of hours worked by low-skill labor.Reduce their labor-wage costs by substituting automated machinery to accomplish the same task.Reduce their labor-wage costs by shifting responsibilities to non-wage (salaried or commissioned) employees.Reduce their labor-wage costs by exiting the formal labor market and engaging in the unregulated informal labor market (black market) using less-easily-tracked cash payments.Mitigate the rise in labor-wage costs by lowering the non-wage compensation offered to low-skill (or indeed, all) employees. For example, perhaps they cancel the annual Holiday party; or a restaurateur reduces or eliminates the options for discounted food for servers during shifts.Maintain the previous profit margins by increasing the prices they charge to customers.Sustain the previous amount of low-skill employment at the same number of hours by operating with lower profit margins.Exit the market. (Shutter the business, or otherwise completely restructure.)Some concerns with these alternatives:Options 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are all less desirable from the employer's point of view because these were options before the legislated change in the labor price floor, and they decided that it was better to hire low-skill labor at that rate. So even if employers won't shoulder the full increase of costs that the legislated rise might suggest, the legislation will impose some costs.Options 1, 2, 3, and 4 depend upon the availability of substitutes for low-skill labor to accomplish the task. Or, in economics jargon, it depends upon the wage elasticity of demand for labor. The less readily available substitutes are for low-skill labor, the less able employers will be to shift out of low-skill employment or reduce their weekly hours. Reliable econometrics demonstrate that the demand for low-skill labor is fairly inelastic; there are few available substitutes. However, these findings are consistent with the exit of all firms who can exit from the low-skill labor market (the legislated price floor having been around for 80 years now), and say nothing about the ability of firms to innovate new low-skill labor saving machinery which would enable further exit from the market (Automated checking machines at grocery stores allow grocers to reduce their reliance on low-wage checkers and baggers.), nor how the wage elasticity of demand changes over time [see Price elasticity of demand].Option 5 suggests that legislated price floors incent criminality among labor-demanding employers. No doubt. The parallel argument runs that legislated price ceilings do the same thing for product-demanding consumers (think booze during prohibition or narcotics presently). But since our concern is for the employee, note that while this arrangement can maintain the low-skill laborer's employment at his previous wage, he has lost the benefit of legal protections present in formal labor markets. He will also likely receive a lower wage than before because the employer faces potential costs of legal action taken against him.Option 6 demonstrates fungibility within employee compensation: paying $50 cash or providing $50 worth of beer and pizza to people that help you move your home furnishings is fundamentally identical from an employer's point of view; the consumptive preferences of the employee will largely determine the optimal mix, along with the relative tax rates on wages vs company revenues. It's not obvious that forcibly shifting the mix of compensation from non-monetary to monetary improves employee satisfaction.Option 7 is unlikely to be successful: if the firm believes they could raise end-user prices to increase revenues, it seems manifestly likely they would have done this before the legislated increase in the price floor. Firms may (and do) err when they price their product, but there's no reason whatsoever to think that they systematically err on the side of pricing their product below what will maximize their profits such that a mandated rise in their labor costs by politicians unfamiliar with their financials will do so. A possible way to get around the quantity-demanded diminishing effects of raised prices is to increase prices by way of a surcharge listed on the bill; restaurants already do by excluding taxes from the full cost of items - something they could easily include on their menu (gas stations include taxes in their listed prices). Seeing higher prices in the form of a surcharge may affect patrons' quantity demanded differently than a non-itemized price increase.Option 8 is undesirable for firms for two reasons: one, when these firms are facing a booming market for their product, they have less liquidity built up from previous periods to fund expansion; discovered profit opportunities will be exploited by firms with greater funds to draw upon. Alternatively, when these firms are facing a busting market, they have less profit from previous periods to sustain production through a downturn in the business cycle; those firms with less liquidity will be the first to exercise Option 9.Option 9 is undesirable for both firm and employee: it involves a (hopefully) temporary suspension of income.It is unambiguously the case that all alternatives available to low-skill employing firms involve additional expected costs for the reasons stated above.That's a single predominantly low-skill employing firm on its own. But firms don't operate in a vacuum; they operate with and against other firms who offer similar products to consumers. Other similarly predominantly low-skill employing competing firms would have no advantage under the new legislated wage floor; but competing firms which employ proportionately more high-skill employees will indeed have an advantage:They will be less exposed to the new higher costs of low-skill labor because they hire a smaller proportion of it (Options 1-3 are relatively less costly and less complicated); they have a larger pool of high-skill laborers to spread former low-skill responsibilities among, and will be able to maintain a larger degree of their non-wage compensation because they have fewer additional legislated costs to mitigate, making them relatively more desirable firms to work for as far as high-skill laborers are concerned; they have less need to take legal risks by entering into informal labor markets and may present a face of moral propriety to attract potential customers; they are better able to expand their business during booms and better able to weather busts.The degree to which their products differ in quality, and the degree of the difference which these firms employ either low- or high-skill labor will moderate the magnitude of the advantage gained by the firm which employs high-skill labor when higher wage floors are legislated. But the creation of that advantage itself by legislation is unambiguous.So if firms that employ relatively more high-skill labor have those advantages, why would any firm ever want to hire low-skill labor?Consider NFL quarterbacks drafted out of college. Typically, these QBs are given fairly low-paying 5-year guaranteed contracts, and for good reason: most quarterbacks don't pan out, and there are plenty of college QBs competing for the 32 starting spots and ~64 backup spots on the roster every single year. NFL scouts do what they can to identify those candidates most likely to be successful, but for every 7th round Tom Brady there are a dozen 1st round Ryan Leafs. In any case, rookie QBs don't earn that much. But every now and again they perform masterfully, far above expectations, and far above their pay grade. The Ravens' Joe Flacco had about as good a first 5 years in the league as you could ask, culminating in a dominant postseason performance and a Super Bowl victory. Right as his rookie contract ended. Joe demonstrated that he could play at a very, very high level. And he got paid for it when it came time for contract renegotiations. Boy-howdy did he. But during those 5 years his performance was worth more than he was getting paid; which means the Ravens were able to afford more talent elsewhere; were able to take more risks with other unknown players to develop them; were able to field a higher-quality team that would otherwise be possible. And for them it worked.Employers of low-skill labor have the opportunity to discover previously unknown talent, those who produce far more for their employer than they get paid in wages.But like the Ravens with Joe Flacco, once the quality in excess of wages of an employee's labor is recognized, you have to pay him. Which explains why folks who work for wages at the floor receive raises more often in higher proportion to their current wage than laborers elsewhere.Secondly, wage-floor workers tend to work part-time; few work more than 35 hours per week - legislated punitive overtime bonuses disincent employers from such a practice - unless they work multiple wage-floor paying jobs. Which means that compared to firms hiring full time high-skill workers, their labor pool is relatively discrete, more fluid for seasonal adjustments, and is more robust to higher rates of employee turnover.Some industries will favor firms that hire high-skill laborers, others low-skill laborers. Legislation that raises the wage floor will push the advantage towards high-skill employing firms; inflation that lowers real wages relative to the wage floor pushes the advantage towards low-skill employing firms.From the Employee's PerspectiveWho doesn't want to get paid more for the same job, eh?That's going to depend a great deal on whether or not you can get hired in the first place. If you are a known quantity and have demonstrated a history of good work then you will pose less of a risk to potential employers than someone who's a complete unknown. If both the known and the unknown applicants are forced to compete for the same job at the same wage, it seems obvious that the employer will chose the known quality.If you allow the unknown applicant to underbid his known competitor, he may entice his potential employer to take the risk. Whatever the risk preferences of employers are, removing the wage floor enables relatively unknown laborers to demonstrate their capacities and become a known quality. The ability of laborers to underbid their competition is a critical tool to erode the influence of nepotism and similar "unfair" advantages some laborers posses.And if both applicants are known, but one is known to be more productive than the other? Then certainly the employer, if he is obliged to pay whomever he hires the same wage as he is with a wage floor, will elect to hire the more productive worker. The less productive worker gets left out.There's a similar action between [favored] and [disfavored] workers[1]. If I'm a bigot who prefers [favored] workers to [disfavored] workers, then just as employers will presumably select the known-quality applicant to the unknown-quality applicant when they both ask for the same wage, I am going to hire the [favored] worker when the [disfavored] worker is forced by law to ask for the same wage. Under that circumstance, I, the bigot, bear none of the economic burden for exercising my preference for bigotry: I must pay the same wage no matter whom I hire. But if the [disfavored] worker can underbid the [favored] worker? In that case, if I do hire the [favored] worker, I pay the economic price for my bigotry every time I sign a paycheck. Alternatively, I, the bigot, hire the [disfavored] worker. Yes, for lower wages than what would have been the wage floor, but higher than the real minimum wage - $0 - that the [disfavored] worker would have gotten had he not been hired.So from a potential employee's perspective, it's the unknown, low-skill, and [disfavored] workers that have the most to fear from the effects of an increased minimum wage: the incentives are all aligned for employers to hire the relatively known, higher-skill, and [favored] worker.That's just getting the first job when they're 16 or so. What happens to the 25 year old who is still unknown, [disfavored], and lacks the 9 years of on-the-job experience that could have raised his productivity (and therefore wage prospects)? That guy is S.O.L. now and his prospects don't look good. He'd better hope that his state-administered education isn't complete shite that rubber stamped his worthless high-school diploma despite not having taught him a damned thing over his elementary and secondary education career. Oh yeah, and also there are fewer firms hiring low-skill labor now because of all the stuff upthread.But if you're a relatively known, high-skill, and [favored] worker? The minimum wage is a real boon to you. Congrats.Effects on the General Economy?Honestly, probably not much given a) a small increase, and b) the wage floor is sufficiently below the median wages. "a" means that the change of costs facing employers won't be too large in magnitude, and will be relatively easy to adjust to; "b" means that you're talking about a small percentage of the population. See [Austin Middleton's answer to What are the consequences of Seattle raising the minimum wage to $15?]Wage-floor workers constitute about 1-2% of the labor force (so with a Labor Force Participation Rate around 65%, they represent about .5-1.5% of the total population). Marginally diminishing the prospects of such a small proportion of the population - particularly when the diminishment is largely a transfer of prospects to higher-skill laborers and their employers - simply won't have massive effects on the overall economy. For an example of a wage floor close to the median wage, see Puerto Rico over the last 50 years. Massive unemployment because they, living on an island with lower average productivity (and therefore lower wages), are obliged to hire workers for no less than the wage floor in the covered industries. And so PR depopulates.But then, you could round up and execute all red-haired, blue eyed, left-handed, trilingual practicing Catholics in the country, all 30 of them[2], and the $18T economy wouldn't be impacted too much. Doesn't make it a good idea, even if you also confiscate their property and redistribute it to the most deserving folks.[1] I use the example of Angus Campbell and Hamish MacDonald trying to get work in Glasgow - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Glencoe - when I discuss the topic with potentially sensitive delicate snowflakes in my economics courses, but you can insert whichever groups into [favored] and [disfavored] and it works just as well.[2] I have no idea how many red-haired, blue eyed, left-handed, trilingual practicing Catholics there are in the US.Thanks for the AtA.