dChan
Anonymous ID: 0fad26 Feb. 28, 2025, 6:09 p.m. No.22677811   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7924 >>8039 >>8044

'Utterly Botched': Glitchy rollout of new California bar exam prompts lawsuit and legislative review

 

Test takers seeking to practice law in California experienced chaos this week as the State Bar of California fumbled the rollout of its new attorney licensing test, leaving many unable to complete their bar exams and some filing a proposed federal class action lawsuit.

 

The online testing platforms repeatedly crashed before some applicants even started. Others struggled to finish and save essays, experienced screen lags and error messages and could not copy and paste text from test questions into the exam’s response field — a function officials had stated would be possible.

 

“It was quite a debacle,” David Drelinger, a 2023 graduate of Lincoln Law School in Sacramento, told The Times.

 

read moar:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/utterly-botched-rollout-california-bar-110036831.html

Anonymous ID: 0fad26 Feb. 28, 2025, 6:32 p.m. No.22677970   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7985 >>8039 >>8044

Booz Allen Hamilton gets 98 percent of revenue from U.S. govt

 

Memo calls for review of $65 billion in contracts that go to Booz Allen Hamilton and other big firms that do government work.

 

The Trump administration is looking to cut federal contracts. Few companies stand as exposed as Booz Allen Hamilton BAH -2.71%decrease; red down pointing triangle.

The venerable Washington, D.C., area firm works on projects across the U.S. government. It operates a website visitors use to reserve campsites at national parks. It is modernizing healthcare records for veterans, beefing up technology at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and rolling out a suite of artificial-intelligence and cybersecurity tools across the Department of Defense and other federal agencies.

A memo sent this week from Stephen Ehikian, the acting administrator of the General Services Administration, calls on procurement officials at federal agencies to list and justify consulting contracts from 10 companies—including Booz Allen, Accenture, Deloitte and International Business Machines—that the agencies intend to keep. The responses are due March 7.

 

Booz Allen generates 98% of its roughly $11 billion in annual revenue from contracts in which the end client is a U.S. government agency or department. It has told investors that it sees the U.S. government as the world’s largest consumer of management consulting and technology services. Since the election of President Trump in November, its stock is down about 30%.

In the memo, viewed by The Wall Street Journal, Ehikian said the GSA has identified that the 10 highest-paid consulting firms are set to receive more than $65 billion in fees in 2025 and future years. “This needs to, and must, change,” Ehikian wrote, bolding the sentence for emphasis.

Some consulting firms say it is unclear how the $65 billion figure was calculated.

Ever since 1940, when Booz Allen took on a project advising the secretary of the Navy ahead of World War II, the company has had a foothold in the federal government. Booz Allen separated its corporate-consulting arm from its government-advisory business in 2008, with the government business retaining the original name.

 

Today, the company, which employs more than 34,000 people, operates not as a consulting firm but as a technology company, Chief Executive Horacio Rozanski said in an interview. Booz Allen says it now has one of the largest AI businesses in the federal government. About 70% of its employees work in technology today, up from about 20% in 2012.

Booz Allen has been through presidential transitions before, and will weather the reviews of federal contracts, Rozanski said. The company’s work also aligns with the Trump administration’s priorities, he said.

“We recognize that in the short term there could be some disruption to the market, but in the long term we are really well aligned,” he said. “If the government wants to operate with fewer people, it will need to operate with more technology, and technology that works. And our stuff works, and it works beyond the prototype.”

 

The Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency has already claimed to cut a small number of Booz Allen contracts, including at the Labor Department and the Commerce Department. Some of the company’s competitors, such as Accenture and Deloitte, have also had contracts cut. Spokespeople for Accenture and Deloitte didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Accenture got 17% of its North American revenue from the U.S. government last year. Another big federal contractor, Leidos, got about 87% of its revenue from the government providing national security and technology services, including scanners at airport checkpoints.

The memo this week came after the GSA earlier asked federal agencies to explain why consulting contracts were necessary as part of the Trump administration’s “efforts to weed out fraud and waste,” a GSA spokeswoman said. “We determined a need for more in-depth responses, and are in the process of collecting additional information at this time.”

 

A range of government officials have recently taken aim at consultants. In a post on X Tuesday, Doug Collins, the Department of Veterans Affairs’ newly confirmed secretary, said the VA was canceling nearly $2 billion in contracts. “No more paying consultants to do things like make Power Point slides and write meeting minutes!” he wrote.

The VA said earlier this week that no final decisions have been made, but nonmission-critical contracts, in areas such as executive support and coaching, will be eliminated.

Booz Allen’s Rozanski said the company is already talking to Trump officials about how the government can deploy its technology on everything from space defenses to using AI to reduce fraud.

“We are not in the business of writing PowerPoints. We’re in the business of writing code and of using commercial technology to create real results in the federal government,” he said.

 

The GSA memo also asks that agencies justify consulting contracts by explaining why they are “mission critical” and provide substantive technical support. The exact impact of the review remains to be seen, said Stan Soloway, CEO of the consulting firm Celero Strategies, and the former head of the largest trade association of government-service contractors.

“There’s a lot of questions,” Soloway said.

It is unclear what “mission critical” means, and how it might align with existing agency budgets and goals, said Soloway, a former defense official under President Bill Clinton. Executives within firms are trying to meet with Trump administration officials or explain the value of their services, but see the potential cuts as a risk.

“A lot of these companies are doing serious technology work,” Soloway said. “Now they don’t even know what the next six months or year might hold. Nothing disturbs a market more than uncertainty.”

 

https://archive.is/gbKzl#selection-6715.0-6727.196

Anonymous ID: 0fad26 Feb. 28, 2025, 6:38 p.m. No.22678012   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8039 >>8044

The $1 Million ‘Survivor’ Prize Has Never Been Worth Less

 

Competition shows are in an amazing race — against inflation — to give away the fattest stacks as streaming rivals offer bigger payouts: “This is about establishing dominance,” says Mr. Beast.

 

“Want to know what you’re playing for?”

 

It’s a line Survivor executive producer and host Jeff Probst has said countless times, right up there with the immortal catchphrase “the tribe has spoken.”

 

But what Survivor contestants are playing for isn’t what it used to be. Legacy competition shows largely haven’t kept pace with inflation, while newer reality shows on streaming network are aggressively flooding the zone with massive Lotto-sized payouts.

 

When CBS launched Survivor in 2000, the competition series’ $1 million prize seemed like an unfathomable amount of money. The payout equaled the highest possible prize on ABC’s quiz show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, which launched a year earlier. The following year, CBS debuted another competition series, The Amazing Race, which likewise offered a $1 million prize.

 

Suddenly, $1 million was the monetary TV prize ideal, and it sounded wonderful each time it was said on screen: “One … million … dollars.” For that kind of money, you could buy a house pretty much anywhere, along with a luxury car and a few vacations to islands where could enjoy a few gourmet meals instead of rice and beans.

 

What a difference 25 years makes — especially amid a years-long inflationary spike that’s refusing to entirely recede.

 

Want to know the value of $1 million compared to back then? That prize today is worth $534,850 in 2000’s buying power, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 

Asked about the Survivor’s prize shrinking buying power, a source close to the show replied, “$1 million is still a lot of money — more than many other shows offer — for what is a lifetime opportunity for those fortunate to participate. The money isn’t the only motivating factor — the life experience and personal growth is a big driving force for those who audition.”

 

Which is true enough, and Survivor — which returns for its 48th season tonight — remains a ratings titan as it approaches its 50th season (averaging 8 million viewers and ranking as the top non-sports primetime program in the adult demo). The program actually once tried offering a $2 million purse for 2020’s Survivor: Winners at War, so it’s not like CBS has never experimented with boosting its payout.

 

And Survivor certainly looks generous compared to American Idol, whose top prize has dramatically decreased. The show awarded its winner $1 million during early seasons on Fox, before declining to $250,000 (plus a recording contract, of course).

 

One competition series that has boosted its prize over the decades is Bravo’s workhorse cooking competition Top Chef. The show has gone from a not-bad-for-basic-cable $100,000 when it debuted in 2006 to almost-exciting $250,000 today.

 

All of these examples, however, look like Taco Bell wages in comparison to the new kids on the reality TV block which are funded by streaming giants. Netflix’s Squid Game: The Challenge debuted in 2023 with a top prize of $4.56 million. This marked the largest cash prize in TV history until Amazon’s Beast Games came along in December and offered a $5 million top prize. Then Beast Games nonchalantly doubled its prize to a jaw-dropping $10 million in the show’s finale. Along the way, Beast Games also had a very Survivor-like stretch of mid-season episodes set on an island where Mr. Beast gave away the literal island (valued at $1.8 million).

 

If this sounds like prizes are being fueled by mine-is-bigger-than-yours boastfulness, well, they probably are. Beast Games co-creator and host Mr. Beast — who frequently stood atop a pyramid constructed of $5 million in cash on the show — said the quiet part out loud in a behind-the-scenes video: “I had to throw a little diss at the normal shows,” he explained. “A $1 million dollar grand prize? [He pretends to spit]. “Beast Games! I gave away $1 million in the first minute and 42 seconds. This is establishing dominance.”

 

It’s certainly establishing something. And is, perhaps, rather appropriate that in an era with a social media culture driven by lifestyle flexing, that even TV shows would eventually succumb to bragging about who has the fattest stack.

 

Yet all this focus on reality TV cash actually ignores the larger benefit of appearing on such shows. Unlike when Survivor and Amazing Race launched, an entire economic ecosystem has been established that allows reality stars to grow their brands after their appearance.

 

“The coveted commodity on most reality shows is not only the prize but the media exposure,” said June Deery, Professor of Communication & Media at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. “Even if participants aren’t catapulted into A-list celebrityhood, the attention capital they accumulate on TV can be monetized online — from pitching sponsors or regular YouTube ads.”

 

Alexandra Devlin, a Brand Endorsement Agent at WME, agreed, while adding some important distinctions. “Social media has given people the ability to monetize their own platform — from brand deals to podcasts to live tours — though the longevity of that is volatile,” she said. “Sometimes a reality show is the best thing that you could do to get your brand out there and sometimes it’s the worst — it’s just really depends on how you’re portrayed.”

 

Devlin noted that many go on shows assuming they have to have the most obnoxious personality in order to cash-in on their screen time, but that’s not usually the case. “If you get airtime by being super outspoken and controversial and argumentative, you’re pushing away opportunities you might have had outside of the show,” the agent said.

 

Those who tend to successfully monetize their newfound TV fame, she said, are those who already have an established business and brand and are able to leverage their screen time to boost their business to a new level — such Bethany Frankel presenting herself as an entrepreneur when she debuted on The Real Housewives of New York City.

 

Talent agents consider Bravo’s Housewives franchise the best possible reality TV platform for gaining lucrative opportunities. Shows which focus on a person’s lifestyle and personality actually have far more revenue-generating potential for the cast member than your typical competition series which offers prize pools yet are considered “mission based.”

 

So do you really want to know what you’re playing for? It’s clout, not cash.

 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/survivor-beast-games-inflation-reality-tv-prizes-1236146504/