Things to Consider When Getting Your First PTA Job Writing a Resume As an NFT

Things to Consider When Getting Your First PTA Job Writing a Resume As an NFTWhen it comes to writing a resume, there are a lot of things to consider when getting your first PTA job. A resume is a great way to go about landing a job, but it isn't the only way. You will need to put together a solid and organized resume, and this article will tell you some things to consider when getting your first PTA job writing a resume as an NFT.One of the first things to consider when writing a resume as an NFT is your background. The NFT profession is one that requires an education, experience, and work history, and any resume that isn't specifically tailored to these factors is more than likely going to fall short of the requirements. It is best to include an accurate educational history and a detailed list of work experience.Next, when looking at a resume, the focus should be on what an employer is looking for. Don't make the mistake of choosing the resume because it looks good or is the first thing they see.If you want to get a job, you are going to have to target the employer to make the connection. The employer is going to know your qualifications, your work history, and your skills, and your resume should do just that.The next thing to consider when writing a resume as an NFT is your skills. When writing a resume, it is crucial to target the skills that you bring to the job, and not necessarily the job itself. Even if you are filling in a position that doesn't really require a skill or talent, it is a great way to highlight them.The last thing to consider when writing a resume as an NFT is how well you can translate your resume to a Human format. You should include the following in your resume: occupation, educational attainment, and professional achievements, and work history.The key to getting your first PTA job is to ensure that you focus on what your strengths are, and not what your weaknesses are. One thing that employers love is a strong, hardworking, and respon sible employee who also has a positive attitude. As long as you don't stray too far from your original resume, you are guaranteed to land your first PTA job.

Heres How Much World Series Winners Make

Here's How Much World Series Winners Make Winning the World Series is the goal of every baseball player each season, but the corresponding cash rewards are no longer as significant as they once were. Still, the New York Mets are thrilled to be taking part this year. In the initial World Series of 1903 between the Boston Americans and the Pittsburgh Pirates, the winner’s pool was $50,000 â€" impressive money for the day and the equivalent of just over $1.3 million in 2015 dollars. Each player from the winning Boston Americans received just under $1,000 dollars. However, the appreciative Pittsburgh Pirates owner gave his players his entire net proceeds from the Series along with the players’ share, giving the losers $341 more than the winners. Fast forward to the 2014 Series, where each player of the winning San Francisco Giants who earned a full share received a record $388,605.94. The total share allotted to the Giants’ team was $22,329,526.27. Each full share for the losing Kansas City Royals totaled $230,699.73. For most of today’s players, these huge shares do not mean as much as they used to. Here’s why: World Series bonus shares are much larger than the average worker’s salary, as they were in 1903, but compared to the average baseball salary, they are far less significant. Most baseball players in the early days had second jobs in the off-season to make ends meet. Consider that the average worker’s annual salary in 1903 was $489. The median weekly earnings for American workers in 2015 are around $800. The average baseball player’s salary in 1903 was estimated to be around $2,500, thus World Series bonuses were close to half of the average player’s salary. The average baseball players’ salary in 2014 was $3.82 million, making a World Series share around 10% of the average salary. To put this into perspective, we turn to former Dodgers pitching star turned broadcaster the late Don Drysdale, who played in five World Series from 1956-1966. Drysdale quipped, “When we played, World Series checks meant something. Now all they do is screw up your taxes.” Postseason shares for World Series winners have always been set as a fixed 36% of the postseason gate, but the postseason gate calculation has become a bit more complicated as the postseason expanded. The 2014 players’ pool was a bit over $62 million based on this calculation: 50% of the gate from the Wild Card round, and 60% of the gate for the minimum number of games it takes to win each round (three games for the Division Series and four games each for the Championship Series and the World Series). Here are how the other 2014 postseason participants fared: The Orioles and Cardinals, the Championship Series losers, each got a bit over $7.4 million of the player’s pool. The Division Series losers, the Tigers, Angels, Dodgers, and Nationals, each received just over $2 million of the pool. Wild Card round losers the Pirates and A’s each received around $930,000 of the pool. You can see the winners’ shares for all World Series from 1903 to 2013 at the Baseball Almanac site. All players who are with the team for the entire season are automatically awarded a full share. Those players vote on all the others associated with the team throughout the year individually as to whether they receive a full share, a partial share, or a simple cash award. The players have significant latitude on this award â€" for example, in 2007, the Colorado Rockies awarded a full share to Amanda Coolbaugh, the widow of Mike Coolbaugh. Coolbaugh was killed on the field by a line drive as he was coaching first base for the Rockies’ AA affiliate. These figures do not count any performance bonuses that are written into individual contracts. Postseason clauses are generally based on some element of postseason player performance. For example, Tigers slugger Miguel Cabrera would have earned an extra $100,000 for being voted a Championship Series MVP and $150,000 for being a World Series MVP. Unfortunately for Cabrera, his Tigers were nowhere near the postseason this year. Ironically, for those players who are making big money, even a World Series winner’s share spread out over the number of postseason games played constitutes a pay cut. Of course, that is a pay cut they would gladly take in order to earn a World Series ring. Bling! Read next: What Happens to Tickets for Unplayed Playoff Games? More From MoneyTips: Highest-Priced Baseball Memorabilia Highest Paid College Coaches Sports Stars Who Turned Down Millions and Quit

Survey Says Men Bigger !@#$-Kissers To Bosses Than Women - Work It Daily

Survey Says Men Bigger !@#$-Kissers To Bosses Than Women - Work It Daily By J.T. O'Donnell Okay, did that title get your attention? I hope so. Here’s why… My friends over at Randstad sent me a peek at the results of their Work Watch survey they just completed. It’s focused on how employees perceive their bosses andcompares employers’ management styles to presidential personality types. Lots of interesting stats are included, but honestly, there was one that really caught my eye. When asked the question, “Have you changed your work style/habits based on your manager’s personality?” 61% of males asked said 'yes,' while only 49% of females said 'yes.' Hmmm. I immediately wondered: Why are men more likely to change then women? I posed the question to a good friend of mine and she responded with the following, “That’s easy. Because most of them have male bosses and the ‘old boy’s club’ mentality still exists. Have you seen the show Mad Men? Even though it’s set 50 years ago, a lot of it still rings true.” I think she might be right. Women might not be as inclined to change their habits because they don’t feel the need to. We could even argue that the male boss/female employee work relationship is different than the male boss/male employee relationship. Perhaps, men feel the need to be accepted by a male boss even after they were hired, whereas women feel if they were hired by a male boss, then they are accepted. Or, maybe there is still pressure to 'be one of the guys' in a lot of workplaces for men, while women in the same environment are excluded from this practice. What do you think? Why is there such a difference in this statistic? Would it be different if there were more female bosses? I’d be interested to know of the people surveyed, how many of them had male bosses. Now tell us. Have you changed your work habits because of your manager’s personality? If so, are you glad you did? Have you joined our career growth club?Join Us Today!