Even now, at my Federal government job when someone is overpaid we issue them a "debt letter" and then reduce their pay until the account is balanced. I assume it's because of the same reg/statute that fixes the clawback to 16.7%.

Really, this isn't about targeting a specific level of education, it's about targeting a specific class.

While you're right that these folks aren't undercover in the sense that their identities are known, that those identities are linked to an intelligence gathering agency is not known. A lot does happen out in the open and it always has. Being a member of the diplomatic service gives them protection when they're operating in a foreign country. You operate out of an embassy and if you're arrested they usually trade you back to your home country, because diplomatic immunity.

The Financial Times article is, of course, intended to promote the service to women and it really doesn't hide that fact. You can bet that MI6 reviewed the article before it went to publication and everything in there was vetted a thousand times. It wouldn't shock me if small, fake biographical details were added into the article to obscure who these people really are. We don't know. The fact is, though, that since this piece is probably meant to advertise the service and-- given where it was printed-- it's probably directed at Oxbridge women. That is, women who have more job mobility than most. MI6 wants women to know that they won't be viewed as honey pots and that they can have a family. So the article is probably going to be an accurate representation at some level: since these particular women can leave if they want to, you don't want to misrepresent what they're getting into if you intend to keep them.

> It's just proof that not all the people are up for this job.

It's understood that family members will know to some extent. If nothing else, this is so that they know to be wary of security threats many people would otherwise ignore. She's almost certainly not sharing details of operations, she's instead sharing with her daughters why things are the way they are in their household.

I've said in other comments, this is another world and the concerns here are different. It's not like it is in the movies.

Again, that family members will know to some extent is understood, which is why she felt comfortable admitting it in the interview, otherwise she would have lost her job and the article would have been kiboshed by the security services.

This is all to say, it's highly doubtful that this had the impact to their relationship that you're imagining here.

This is a different world and I didn't realize how different until I went away to college.

> [W]hat I think many people outside our profession don’t understand is how unfortunately unequal all aspects of secondary education are in this country. And unlike some other inequalities — like access to fancy internships or expensive extracurriculars — our empirical research shows the SAT/ACT actually do help us figure out if someone will do well at MIT.

> It turns out the shortest path for many students to demonstrate sufficient preparation — particularly for students with less access to educational capital — is through the SAT/ACT, because most students can study for these exams using free tools at Khan Academy, but they (usually) can’t force their high school to offer advanced calculus courses, for example. So, the SAT/ACT can actually open the door to MIT for these students, too.

Sounds like she's been skiving off in general. She's lucky she's still employed at all.