You'd probably be considered. At the risk of sounding arrogant, if you aren't considered, it doesn't strike me as a place you'd want to work anyway. You're overqualified for IE, but lack a track record of success (at the K-12 level, internationally, and in a specific curriculum). Some schools will understandably cross you off the list for that reason. Most schools that will cross you off will do so for short-sighted reasons.
My reading of the market when it comes to IB schools is that far too many of them are locked into an insistence on a very specific type of experience: IB experience (and often IB experience in the exact course/area they want to fill). On the other end of the spectrum, there are (subjectively terrible) IB schools that seem desperate for decent teachers (or, occasionally, just anyone with paper qualifications) and who don't care and are (ostensibly) willing to help you get the training you need. There seems to me to be far too little in between those two extremes.
I'm still fairly new to the game, but I've met a lot of excellent teachers with IB experience, both in their present roles or in previous jobs. I get that there are some elite schools "have their pick" and feel emboldened to narrow the field of candidates. After all, if you're at Elite International and can get 200 applicants who fit your narrow criteria, why open it up to someone who doesn't? I get that logic, but there are two problems with it.
First, far too many schools hire that way and aren't as great as they think they are. When Middle-of-the-Road International starts acting like Elite International and imposing the same restrictions on who they'll consider, that signals something to dedicated, skilled, and otherwise-qualified teachers: they're better off sticking to a non-IB track. If they want to crack into IB, they'll either have to cobble together IB qualifications on their own (which IB makes really hard, in a puzzling/cultish way), or they'll have to settle for what's left in the IB marketplace: schools that are desperate enough to hire non-IB teachers and coach them up. It's unfortunate that there doesn't seem to be much middle ground. And it's even more unfortunate that schools that consider themselves elite lack the will (or capacity) to bring in excellent teachers whose only "flaw" is that they're not ready to seamlessly take the baton and autopilot IB courses. These are precisely the schools that should be taking a "chance" on a Ph.D. like you, and you're precisely the kind of candidate they should be looking at (someone with higher ed experience in the U.S. who can help their students prepare for success at that level). With hiring--especially elite-school hiring--taking place so far in advance of the employment start date, there's no reason an elite school with IB needs can't hire a good teacher and arrange for them to get up and running with IB training before their contract starts.
The other side of this coin is that an overinsistence on IB experience leads to a market with plenty of mediocre teachers having IB experience simply because they're willing to take the bottom-rung jobs. So while you're not a candidate to cross over from a great non-IB school (or from higher ed), opportunistic teachers with mediocre CVs can take a job at a dodgy start-up or for-profit IB school, pad their CVs with certs and evals from whoever is overseeing them, and climb the ladder.
I admire the IB ethos and curriculum, but I don't give extra value to someone being an IB teacher with 7 years of experience because I know the organization and its schools have (perhaps inadvertently) transformed it into a cultish and exclusive club. Mandy Mediocre can squeak through their B.A. in math at Fourth-Tier Western Central Tech, tack on a teaching certification, and quietly grab IB experience at China. If they don't make waves, they'll get good evaluations and references. Maybe they interview well and have nice facial features. They're the pretty (usually white) face leadership hopes will sell parents on their school. Next thing you know, they're moving up to a mid-level school. They're doing their in-house PD, and maybe their employer pays for them to get an online M.A. I'm not people with this trajectory can't be great teachers, or shouldn't be considered by top schools, but how is that seven years more valuable than your seven years (or more)? You spent that time earning legitimate content-area advanced degrees and picking up teaching experience teaching at advanced levels that mid-level international schools (likely with lots of mid-level local students and not advanced, native-English speaking students) can't even dream of. But to the elite schools, you (often) are not even a viable candidate. Mandy Mediocre is...and some schools will consider them a far better option: more prepared in the short-term without much orientation...and cheaper.
Search found 72 matches
- Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:14 pm
- Forum: Forum 1. From Questions About ISS & Search to Anything and Everything About International Teaching
- Topic: Questions for possible career changer
- Replies: 46
- Views: 85245
- Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:40 am
- Forum: Forum 1. From Questions About ISS & Search to Anything and Everything About International Teaching
- Topic: Best Job Fair to Land a Tier 1 School
- Replies: 101
- Views: 723500
Re: Best Job Fair to Land a Tier 1 School
I don't disagree with the - that one gets a better sense of a candidate in a face-to-face setting vs. an online one. Technology has certainly narrowed the gap, and I'd even suggest there are some things (e.g., a teacher's online presence, their capacity for handling said technology and its inevitable glitches) you can get a BETTER sense of online. But in-person will (probably) always have a slight edge for employers.
That said, it's 2019. It's international teaching (i.e. candidates are dispersed throughout the world). Teachers are busy. Teachers aren't millionaires.
Get over yourselves.
Anyone can be "on" for an interview, whether it lasts 30 minutes over Skype or 30 hours in Singapore. And if you really feel that you learned more due to that closer proximity, I fear many will allow it to substitute for rigorously scrutinizing candidates in other ways (especially considering that many offers are made during the time crunch of a fair).
You're digging for the tiniest of distinctions while leaving mother lodes of data unmined. Do you really check references? Look through portfolios? If it's about collegiality, are you actually calling current/past supervisers? Are you verifying degrees? If it's about protecting your students and upholding the highest standards, what are you REALLY doing with background checks? Even at GREAT schools, I've seen background checks handled in perfunctory ways. Maybe they run one, maybe they don't. Internationally, they're just asking for a police clearance. Do you understand what that means? I can just contact my current state and get a certificate that I have no record. That proves practically nothing.
My point is simple: if you're digging in your heels with your objection to "internet dating," it's not that you don't have a point. But you're a dinosaur, especially if you expect ITs to foot the bill (financially, emotionally, and in terms of time) for you to possibly get a marginal increase in your sense of who an IT is. At some point, you have to accept that hiring will always involve uncertainty. You can't have certainty about who a candidate is, and even if you could, you can't be certain of how things will unfold after they arrive. Accepting that, it's a cost-benefit - of what information you gain vs. what it costs. Thousands of dollars and loads of stress for candidates are not worth your sliver of unreliable impressional information.
That said, it's 2019. It's international teaching (i.e. candidates are dispersed throughout the world). Teachers are busy. Teachers aren't millionaires.
Get over yourselves.
Anyone can be "on" for an interview, whether it lasts 30 minutes over Skype or 30 hours in Singapore. And if you really feel that you learned more due to that closer proximity, I fear many will allow it to substitute for rigorously scrutinizing candidates in other ways (especially considering that many offers are made during the time crunch of a fair).
You're digging for the tiniest of distinctions while leaving mother lodes of data unmined. Do you really check references? Look through portfolios? If it's about collegiality, are you actually calling current/past supervisers? Are you verifying degrees? If it's about protecting your students and upholding the highest standards, what are you REALLY doing with background checks? Even at GREAT schools, I've seen background checks handled in perfunctory ways. Maybe they run one, maybe they don't. Internationally, they're just asking for a police clearance. Do you understand what that means? I can just contact my current state and get a certificate that I have no record. That proves practically nothing.
My point is simple: if you're digging in your heels with your objection to "internet dating," it's not that you don't have a point. But you're a dinosaur, especially if you expect ITs to foot the bill (financially, emotionally, and in terms of time) for you to possibly get a marginal increase in your sense of who an IT is. At some point, you have to accept that hiring will always involve uncertainty. You can't have certainty about who a candidate is, and even if you could, you can't be certain of how things will unfold after they arrive. Accepting that, it's a cost-benefit - of what information you gain vs. what it costs. Thousands of dollars and loads of stress for candidates are not worth your sliver of unreliable impressional information.
- Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:11 am
- Forum: Forum 1. From Questions About ISS & Search to Anything and Everything About International Teaching
- Topic: Doubling up on Recruitment agencies
- Replies: 19
- Views: 38662
Re: Doubling up on Recruitment agencies
schoolofrock wrote:
> I teach an in-demand subject, I wish that I had just gone with
> ISS and GRC for my next round. But I've paid my cash so I'll just have to
> roll with it this time around. Thanks for helping me to see it in a
> different way.
As I wrote earlier in the thread, I'm no fan of Search and wouldn't use them. But many people find them essential because some schools are (or seem) overly reliant on Search and/or the leg work required to stay as competitive as a Search candidate (e.g., looking at the websites of Search schools and applying directly) is too much.
I'm sorry you've had that experience. I have no macro-level data, but reading your take on Search meshes with what some others have told me and with my own personal experience.
One could interpret this behavior from Search as a sign they're desperately trying to hold onto their market share and wary of anything (off-platform communciation, candidates listed with multiple agencies) that could lead to them either losing your commission or incentivizing schools/candidates to leave Search in the near future (i.e. "I used Search, but was perfectly capable of communicating with said school/candidate through other means, so next cycle I won't use Search."). Basically, they're trying to make themselves seem essential in the face of competition. But I'll concede that, while my interpretation intuitive feels right, I lack the data to state it with a high degree of certainty.
A few people in this thread have gone down a troubling path of invoking the "word is your bond" dynamic with regard to signing up with Search (or any other agency). That's absolutely preposterous, especially when it comes to you being pressured to CC someone on your private communications or even promote Search (!?). Really this comes down to the doctrine of unconscionability. Search is the one with the superior bargaining power. They have the database and the existing connections. You're agreeing to pay them not out of the goodness of your heart, but because you feel you need them to have (or improve your chances of) a successful job search. You give them a hefty fee (and the prospect of a huge placement fee from the school), and they give you database access and (probably) fair invitation(s).
They market themselves as a premium placement agency, but thread after thread on here proves that claim to be (at best) dependent on you getting a motivated/professional associate and (at worst) complete hot air. @Sid alludes to working more closely with your associate so that they can get to know you (and schools) better, but that's really beyond what you're obligated to do. An associate being helpful and responsive is in their interest (you're more likely to get hired and earn them a huge fee), but it's also a level of service that's explicitly promised to potential candidates. The first bullet point in their "Why Choose Search Associates" pitch is:
"Personalized service: Direct and easy access to your Senior Associate and their team, who will assist you throughout the entire process of finding a job overseas. Whatever your needs may be, we are here to support you."
I don't interpret any of that as obliging the candidate to seek such assistance. Maybe you decide you know the market well enough to just reach out to schools and only want the database/fair invitation. Maybe you decide not to accept a new position and stay put. Maybe you wind up with a non-Search school. In each of those cases, you shouldn't be hassled. As for accepting a position with a Search school through non-Search means, that's between the school and Search. Personally, I think it's asinine for Search to insist on a placement fee if you bump into a recruiter at an ISS/GRC fair, have an interview, and accept the job. Search played no role in that placement.
In reality, it comes back to conscionability again. Just because something might get thrown into a contract, doesn't make it fair or enforceable. You get no consideration for "promoting" Search, and therefore they can't legally enforce that you do so. Schools get no consideration for paying Search when they hire an ISS/GRC candidate.
My word is my bond, but when it comes to a faceless entity manipulating contract terms when I have no choice, I'll gladly overlook said contract terms. I'm not going to agree to take a dispute against Comcast into binding arbitration simply because those were the take-it-or-leave-it terms Comcast threw into their subscriber agreement. If basic fairness (or the law) says I can have those terms severed, then there's nothing wrong with adhering to the reasonable terms and tossing out the rest. "My word is my bond" is not a suicide pact. It's premised on the "word" you are forced to give being fair and equitable. And I have no sympathy for the grievances of a . in a contract that insists on unfair or inequitable terms.
> I teach an in-demand subject, I wish that I had just gone with
> ISS and GRC for my next round. But I've paid my cash so I'll just have to
> roll with it this time around. Thanks for helping me to see it in a
> different way.
As I wrote earlier in the thread, I'm no fan of Search and wouldn't use them. But many people find them essential because some schools are (or seem) overly reliant on Search and/or the leg work required to stay as competitive as a Search candidate (e.g., looking at the websites of Search schools and applying directly) is too much.
I'm sorry you've had that experience. I have no macro-level data, but reading your take on Search meshes with what some others have told me and with my own personal experience.
One could interpret this behavior from Search as a sign they're desperately trying to hold onto their market share and wary of anything (off-platform communciation, candidates listed with multiple agencies) that could lead to them either losing your commission or incentivizing schools/candidates to leave Search in the near future (i.e. "I used Search, but was perfectly capable of communicating with said school/candidate through other means, so next cycle I won't use Search."). Basically, they're trying to make themselves seem essential in the face of competition. But I'll concede that, while my interpretation intuitive feels right, I lack the data to state it with a high degree of certainty.
A few people in this thread have gone down a troubling path of invoking the "word is your bond" dynamic with regard to signing up with Search (or any other agency). That's absolutely preposterous, especially when it comes to you being pressured to CC someone on your private communications or even promote Search (!?). Really this comes down to the doctrine of unconscionability. Search is the one with the superior bargaining power. They have the database and the existing connections. You're agreeing to pay them not out of the goodness of your heart, but because you feel you need them to have (or improve your chances of) a successful job search. You give them a hefty fee (and the prospect of a huge placement fee from the school), and they give you database access and (probably) fair invitation(s).
They market themselves as a premium placement agency, but thread after thread on here proves that claim to be (at best) dependent on you getting a motivated/professional associate and (at worst) complete hot air. @Sid alludes to working more closely with your associate so that they can get to know you (and schools) better, but that's really beyond what you're obligated to do. An associate being helpful and responsive is in their interest (you're more likely to get hired and earn them a huge fee), but it's also a level of service that's explicitly promised to potential candidates. The first bullet point in their "Why Choose Search Associates" pitch is:
"Personalized service: Direct and easy access to your Senior Associate and their team, who will assist you throughout the entire process of finding a job overseas. Whatever your needs may be, we are here to support you."
I don't interpret any of that as obliging the candidate to seek such assistance. Maybe you decide you know the market well enough to just reach out to schools and only want the database/fair invitation. Maybe you decide not to accept a new position and stay put. Maybe you wind up with a non-Search school. In each of those cases, you shouldn't be hassled. As for accepting a position with a Search school through non-Search means, that's between the school and Search. Personally, I think it's asinine for Search to insist on a placement fee if you bump into a recruiter at an ISS/GRC fair, have an interview, and accept the job. Search played no role in that placement.
In reality, it comes back to conscionability again. Just because something might get thrown into a contract, doesn't make it fair or enforceable. You get no consideration for "promoting" Search, and therefore they can't legally enforce that you do so. Schools get no consideration for paying Search when they hire an ISS/GRC candidate.
My word is my bond, but when it comes to a faceless entity manipulating contract terms when I have no choice, I'll gladly overlook said contract terms. I'm not going to agree to take a dispute against Comcast into binding arbitration simply because those were the take-it-or-leave-it terms Comcast threw into their subscriber agreement. If basic fairness (or the law) says I can have those terms severed, then there's nothing wrong with adhering to the reasonable terms and tossing out the rest. "My word is my bond" is not a suicide pact. It's premised on the "word" you are forced to give being fair and equitable. And I have no sympathy for the grievances of a . in a contract that insists on unfair or inequitable terms.
- Sat Oct 05, 2019 12:15 pm
- Forum: Forum 1. From Questions About ISS & Search to Anything and Everything About International Teaching
- Topic: Has anyone suspected that a boss or colleague lied about cre
- Replies: 67
- Views: 144392
Re: Has anyone suspected that a boss or colleague lied about
I don't position myself as the adult here. And while I may agree with you as to PsyGuy's childish antics, I suggest you take a look in the mirror. Beyond calling me "Grumbler," your antics in the PsyGuy feud are reprehensible. You present yourself as a longtime leader and yet you think threatening and doxxing other educators is acceptable, adult behavior.
And for what? You make a solid case that PsyGuy does inafrustrating things and shouldn't be viewed as a credible expert. Welcome to the public sphere. If I were to threaten figures as you have every time I see them make fallacious arguments or overstate their expertise, I'd find myself dealing with a deep pile of restraining orders...at best.
You condemn him for the "casual rejection of any of the moral pricinpals that ought to govern" education because he, in your opinion, gives bad advice (sometimes), presents his opinion as fact, engages in dishonest argumentation, and exaggerates his expertise. While it's understandable that you'd push back, in what way does threatening to doxx someone if they don't refrain from participating in public dialogue or revealing personal information about them without their consent adhere to the "moral principles" of education?
I write this as someone who agrees with many of your critiques of PsyGuy, and yet I can say this with more confidence than I have in those underlying critiques: your behavior is far more disturbing than his, and you are far more of a threat to the integrity of IE than someone giving dubious advice. Why don't you unmask yourself and provide your full name and position, since you seem to think doxxing someone as a means to frame their "rightful" ethos is defensible behavior? I, for one, am far more interested in knowing who you are (and avoiding working for or with you) than I am in PsyGuy's name, credentials, or CV.
Oh, and by the way, it's not a crime (or even a tort) to assert (even if you're lying) in an online forum that you hold X degree, held a certain position, or attended a certain hiring fair. The same cannot be said for making specific comments about another person, disclosing private facts, threatening them with disclosure of private facts unless they comply with your wishes, claiming they are lying about their education, etc. Many of those actionable regardless of whether or not your information is accurate.
Brandeis said it best. The remedy for bad speech is more speech. Go ahead and shout him down whenever he says something you disagree with. It's kind of a traditional around here. But if you're getting so worked up about the thin chance that someone's going to base a major decision on one of his (debatable) lies or (possible) inflated claims of expertise, you're underestimating people. And if you think his possible violations of ethical standards justify your responses, you've already lost your way and should get out. Maybe finance or politics would suit you.
And for what? You make a solid case that PsyGuy does inafrustrating things and shouldn't be viewed as a credible expert. Welcome to the public sphere. If I were to threaten figures as you have every time I see them make fallacious arguments or overstate their expertise, I'd find myself dealing with a deep pile of restraining orders...at best.
You condemn him for the "casual rejection of any of the moral pricinpals that ought to govern" education because he, in your opinion, gives bad advice (sometimes), presents his opinion as fact, engages in dishonest argumentation, and exaggerates his expertise. While it's understandable that you'd push back, in what way does threatening to doxx someone if they don't refrain from participating in public dialogue or revealing personal information about them without their consent adhere to the "moral principles" of education?
I write this as someone who agrees with many of your critiques of PsyGuy, and yet I can say this with more confidence than I have in those underlying critiques: your behavior is far more disturbing than his, and you are far more of a threat to the integrity of IE than someone giving dubious advice. Why don't you unmask yourself and provide your full name and position, since you seem to think doxxing someone as a means to frame their "rightful" ethos is defensible behavior? I, for one, am far more interested in knowing who you are (and avoiding working for or with you) than I am in PsyGuy's name, credentials, or CV.
Oh, and by the way, it's not a crime (or even a tort) to assert (even if you're lying) in an online forum that you hold X degree, held a certain position, or attended a certain hiring fair. The same cannot be said for making specific comments about another person, disclosing private facts, threatening them with disclosure of private facts unless they comply with your wishes, claiming they are lying about their education, etc. Many of those actionable regardless of whether or not your information is accurate.
Brandeis said it best. The remedy for bad speech is more speech. Go ahead and shout him down whenever he says something you disagree with. It's kind of a traditional around here. But if you're getting so worked up about the thin chance that someone's going to base a major decision on one of his (debatable) lies or (possible) inflated claims of expertise, you're underestimating people. And if you think his possible violations of ethical standards justify your responses, you've already lost your way and should get out. Maybe finance or politics would suit you.
- Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:08 am
- Forum: Forum 1. From Questions About ISS & Search to Anything and Everything About International Teaching
- Topic: Best Job Fair to Land a Tier 1 School
- Replies: 101
- Views: 723500
Re: Best Job Fair to Land a Tier 1 School
Nomads wrote:
> The point is I want to get to know them better before I hire them. I want
> to know if they are the teachers I want working with our students and be a
> part of our community. At a fair, I can see them in a variety of settings
> including interviews, conversations during the day, the reception at night,
> and spend far more time than one hour. I can get to know them much better
> than a couple of Skype conversations.
Plenty of people can fake their way through a fair (or conference, etc.) and project a professional, congenial image. Some of the weirdest people I know can come off smelling like roses if they just have to be on for a day or so. And many of the most stable, reliable, talented people I know don't shine when dealing with the concentrated high-stakes performance right after hopping off a plane. That speaks very little to their skills in the workplace.
I'm not saying there's no value to those fair interactions, but I think you're overvaluing it. A person's accomplishments (CV), training, and reputation over the long haul (evaluations from your admin peers who spent months/years working with the candidate, not a few hours posturing in a hotel) are far more germane.
Plus the value you're assigning comes at a high cost--mostly assessed to the teacher in terms of fees, travel expenses, lost time, and seeing a slice of their future income transferred to those facilitating the match.
> The point is I want to get to know them better before I hire them. I want
> to know if they are the teachers I want working with our students and be a
> part of our community. At a fair, I can see them in a variety of settings
> including interviews, conversations during the day, the reception at night,
> and spend far more time than one hour. I can get to know them much better
> than a couple of Skype conversations.
Plenty of people can fake their way through a fair (or conference, etc.) and project a professional, congenial image. Some of the weirdest people I know can come off smelling like roses if they just have to be on for a day or so. And many of the most stable, reliable, talented people I know don't shine when dealing with the concentrated high-stakes performance right after hopping off a plane. That speaks very little to their skills in the workplace.
I'm not saying there's no value to those fair interactions, but I think you're overvaluing it. A person's accomplishments (CV), training, and reputation over the long haul (evaluations from your admin peers who spent months/years working with the candidate, not a few hours posturing in a hotel) are far more germane.
Plus the value you're assigning comes at a high cost--mostly assessed to the teacher in terms of fees, travel expenses, lost time, and seeing a slice of their future income transferred to those facilitating the match.
- Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:22 pm
- Forum: Forum 1. From Questions About ISS & Search to Anything and Everything About International Teaching
- Topic: Best Job Fair to Land a Tier 1 School
- Replies: 101
- Views: 723500
Re: Best Job Fair to Land a Tier 1 School
Still waiting on that data. Is it that hard to find? I mean, you obviously just reviewed it in order to arrive at your reasoned position, and then told us that the data supported said position.
- Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:19 pm
- Forum: Forum 1. From Questions About ISS & Search to Anything and Everything About International Teaching
- Topic: Planning ahead. How can I become an IT in Germany?
- Replies: 55
- Views: 65511
Re: Planning ahead. How can I become an IT in Germany?
As the sole and exclusive authority on what constitutes an FTW declaration, I irrevocably declare Illiane_Blues the victor. Rest assured that I have weighed all perspectives, - all data, and consider my position sufficiently strong to withstand all debate.
- Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:54 am
- Forum: Forum 1. From Questions About ISS & Search to Anything and Everything About International Teaching
- Topic: Best Job Fair to Land a Tier 1 School
- Replies: 101
- Views: 723500
Re: Best Job Fair to Land a Tier 1 School
How about you present your data on the number of hires from the fair? Seems pretty straightforward.
- Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:49 am
- Forum: Forum 1. From Questions About ISS & Search to Anything and Everything About International Teaching
- Topic: Has anyone suspected that a boss or colleague lied about cre
- Replies: 67
- Views: 144392
Re: Reply
PsyGuy wrote:
> They arent presented as facts, I dont declare such claims and statements as
> facts. You interpret and perceive them as facts because. Im not responsible
> for yours or anyone elses perceptions and interpretations.
It's cute how you try to wed "presented as" and "declare [them]...as." Those aren't quite the same thing, friend.
Fine, let's concede, arguendo, that you generally don't "declare" your perceptions as "facts." You also don't declare them as perceptions or opinions. And you make a habit of couching those positions in positivistic language (e.g., "only data matters") as if your positions are empirically accurate while the positions of others are mere speculation or wishful thinking.
So do you "declare" yourself the purveyor of facts? Maybe not. But your positions are annoyingly "presented" as such. Your intentions here (or your claimed intentions, more accurately) are largely irrelevant to the process. The ideas you wish to convey are only one small factor in the communication process. In this thread, you've shown your disdain for the complications receivers have decoding your messages. You shouldn't. No thoughtful conversant should. If you're not mindful of how others may interpret (or even misinterpret, if you must be so arrogant to view yourself as perfect and others as deficient), you're content with being a terrible communicator. And that's only part of your problem. Your encoding is far from ideal. You (knowingly) use jargon (much of it of your own making) that isn't widely understood. You wrap your prose in a bizarre coating of claimed authority and certainty. Even when you hedge on that, you perpetuate it further (e.g., claiming that you're sometimes wrong, but that you can count the number of times on one hand). And then you spew unsupported notions that you have data/sources but refuse to show it.
Overall, you *present* your positions with a bizarre glaze of logos (that you won't share) and ethos (implying that you should be trusted as an authority).
This is precisely what invites others to challenge your ethos. Some people do so responsibly. Others resort to claiming/threatening/trying to strip you of you pseudonymity. I've made my contempt for the latter known, but I completely understand the impulse.
This is a forum in which issues affecting international teachers are discussed and guidance is solicited. When you *present* your positions (and yourself) the way you do, you're inviting people to challenge your refusal to back up your claims. And when you double down, they're going to call for you to be ignored or deemed a troll (or worse).
Then again, you *could* start caring about how your words are interpreted/perceived, or you could present your supporting data when challenged (or refrain from playing the "I have data" card). Just sayin'.
> They arent presented as facts, I dont declare such claims and statements as
> facts. You interpret and perceive them as facts because. Im not responsible
> for yours or anyone elses perceptions and interpretations.
It's cute how you try to wed "presented as" and "declare [them]...as." Those aren't quite the same thing, friend.
Fine, let's concede, arguendo, that you generally don't "declare" your perceptions as "facts." You also don't declare them as perceptions or opinions. And you make a habit of couching those positions in positivistic language (e.g., "only data matters") as if your positions are empirically accurate while the positions of others are mere speculation or wishful thinking.
So do you "declare" yourself the purveyor of facts? Maybe not. But your positions are annoyingly "presented" as such. Your intentions here (or your claimed intentions, more accurately) are largely irrelevant to the process. The ideas you wish to convey are only one small factor in the communication process. In this thread, you've shown your disdain for the complications receivers have decoding your messages. You shouldn't. No thoughtful conversant should. If you're not mindful of how others may interpret (or even misinterpret, if you must be so arrogant to view yourself as perfect and others as deficient), you're content with being a terrible communicator. And that's only part of your problem. Your encoding is far from ideal. You (knowingly) use jargon (much of it of your own making) that isn't widely understood. You wrap your prose in a bizarre coating of claimed authority and certainty. Even when you hedge on that, you perpetuate it further (e.g., claiming that you're sometimes wrong, but that you can count the number of times on one hand). And then you spew unsupported notions that you have data/sources but refuse to show it.
Overall, you *present* your positions with a bizarre glaze of logos (that you won't share) and ethos (implying that you should be trusted as an authority).
This is precisely what invites others to challenge your ethos. Some people do so responsibly. Others resort to claiming/threatening/trying to strip you of you pseudonymity. I've made my contempt for the latter known, but I completely understand the impulse.
This is a forum in which issues affecting international teachers are discussed and guidance is solicited. When you *present* your positions (and yourself) the way you do, you're inviting people to challenge your refusal to back up your claims. And when you double down, they're going to call for you to be ignored or deemed a troll (or worse).
Then again, you *could* start caring about how your words are interpreted/perceived, or you could present your supporting data when challenged (or refrain from playing the "I have data" card). Just sayin'.
- Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:43 am
- Forum: Forum 1. From Questions About ISS & Search to Anything and Everything About International Teaching
- Topic: Best Job Fair to Land a Tier 1 School
- Replies: 101
- Views: 723500
Re: Best Job Fair to Land a Tier 1 School
Heliotrope wrote:
> His main point that is contested is that they don't go to fairs (or at
> least the Singapore one) to hire teachers.
And on that point, I tend to disagree (but defer to others with more experience...just not him). I pulled his - out of the trash heap because embedded in it was his explicit argument that they don't *need* the fairs to hire. If they don't (and I completely agree that they don't), then ITs need to be more vocal in pushing for the "slow death" of the fair system that you envision.
I agree with most of what you wrote. At this point, it feels like inertia. It's done because it's the way it is. Why spend the extra time (or money) processing applications if the opportunity (e.g., a fair) is still there? Why risk not getting the best candidate because they didn't stumble on you since there are so many opportunities...at the fairs? Since so many candidates are going, and we're going, can't we just implicitly/explicitly expect all candidates who might be interested in working here to jump through those same hoops? I don't think these are necessarily GOOD reasons for schools to use fairs as a crutch, but the fact that they ARE reasons keeps them in the system. And then it becomes understandable (though still disappointing) that, since they're paying for and going to the fairs, that they don't want the added burden of separately processing a substantial number of independent candidates.
Whether it's a good investment is a bit of a red herring, as the reasonable alternatives would be even cheaper--even for the school, but certainly for the ITs (and given that job search costs are part of our cost-benefit -, the teachers' burdens are inexorably the employers' as well). I mainly just laugh at the notion that schools couldn't realistically sort through their applications sans an in-person event mediated by third . that siphons significant revenue on both ends. iFairs and GRC are good transitional steps away from that model, and there will always be some role for agents. But ultimately, most schools would be perfectly capable of managing that aspect of their HR workload. If you freed up the time and money (mostly the time) spent, it could be done.
And the biggest force for change would have to be teachers pressuring admins, either directly or indirectly through supporting the alternatives.
> His main point that is contested is that they don't go to fairs (or at
> least the Singapore one) to hire teachers.
And on that point, I tend to disagree (but defer to others with more experience...just not him). I pulled his - out of the trash heap because embedded in it was his explicit argument that they don't *need* the fairs to hire. If they don't (and I completely agree that they don't), then ITs need to be more vocal in pushing for the "slow death" of the fair system that you envision.
I agree with most of what you wrote. At this point, it feels like inertia. It's done because it's the way it is. Why spend the extra time (or money) processing applications if the opportunity (e.g., a fair) is still there? Why risk not getting the best candidate because they didn't stumble on you since there are so many opportunities...at the fairs? Since so many candidates are going, and we're going, can't we just implicitly/explicitly expect all candidates who might be interested in working here to jump through those same hoops? I don't think these are necessarily GOOD reasons for schools to use fairs as a crutch, but the fact that they ARE reasons keeps them in the system. And then it becomes understandable (though still disappointing) that, since they're paying for and going to the fairs, that they don't want the added burden of separately processing a substantial number of independent candidates.
Whether it's a good investment is a bit of a red herring, as the reasonable alternatives would be even cheaper--even for the school, but certainly for the ITs (and given that job search costs are part of our cost-benefit -, the teachers' burdens are inexorably the employers' as well). I mainly just laugh at the notion that schools couldn't realistically sort through their applications sans an in-person event mediated by third . that siphons significant revenue on both ends. iFairs and GRC are good transitional steps away from that model, and there will always be some role for agents. But ultimately, most schools would be perfectly capable of managing that aspect of their HR workload. If you freed up the time and money (mostly the time) spent, it could be done.
And the biggest force for change would have to be teachers pressuring admins, either directly or indirectly through supporting the alternatives.
- Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:27 am
- Forum: Forum 1. From Questions About ISS & Search to Anything and Everything About International Teaching
- Topic: Has anyone suspected that a boss or colleague lied about cre
- Replies: 67
- Views: 144392
Re: Has anyone suspected that a boss or colleague lied about
Heliotrope wrote:
> I agree that doxxing is absolutely not done.
> I do however see where Walter is coming from: PsyGuy has repeatedly been
> misrepresenting himself, and often posts his opinions as facts. Also, he's
> a bit of a bully, albeit in a clumsy way.
> Many of the forum's readership are not forum regulars who know this about
> him, and might base big life decisions on his contributions, that lack any
> foundation in credible and verifiable sources.
> It's the main reason for a lot of my posts: I know that what he's saying in
> certain threads is obvious baloney or merely an opinion disguised as fact,
> and I fear that someone who is not aware of his reputation might take it
> for an actual fact, and will make an unwise decision based on it.
> So I'm not condoning the threat of revealing his identity, nor would I have
> done the same, but I do understand why he thought that it might be the only
> way to get PsyGuy to admit that he was lying (which he obviously was).
I don't disagree with your take here. This is hardly a 90s-era message board for casual discussions; people come here for meaningful conversations that (can) have life-changing implications. It's not low stakes. So I get why people get heated and (questionable) appeals to authority get challenged.
I also can see the reasoning behind throwing a flag and saying, "No, you don't have experience in that and you're lying, because I know who you are." That's really right pushing the envelope, but I wouldn't get hot and bothered if that's what had happened, particularly if someone is (possibly) outright fabricating, as may well be the case with @PsyGuy. On several occasions I'd have bet every peso--even at bad odds--that he's resorting to citing data that either does not exist, or--at minimum--he has no access to.
The problem (and beauty) of the anonymity (or pseudonymity) of the internet it that enables those bold claims and we're forced to sort the wheat from the chaff. I have no qualms with the regulars ganging up on @PsyGuy and outright flooding his nonsensical posts with fact-checking or intertextual references to show how he's a bit of a troll. I have no problem with a chorus of voices demanding that he provide some evidence to back up his experiential claims, when relevant. The "I know who you are" trope raises my eyebrows, as I've already noted...
...But overt threats to doxx? Disclosing information without consent unless someone acquiesces to your demands? Repeatedly calling a pseudonymous online contributor by (ostensibly) their real name? That's the worst type of 4chan stuff, and not behavior befitting any mature person in IE, let alone an administrator.
> I agree that doxxing is absolutely not done.
> I do however see where Walter is coming from: PsyGuy has repeatedly been
> misrepresenting himself, and often posts his opinions as facts. Also, he's
> a bit of a bully, albeit in a clumsy way.
> Many of the forum's readership are not forum regulars who know this about
> him, and might base big life decisions on his contributions, that lack any
> foundation in credible and verifiable sources.
> It's the main reason for a lot of my posts: I know that what he's saying in
> certain threads is obvious baloney or merely an opinion disguised as fact,
> and I fear that someone who is not aware of his reputation might take it
> for an actual fact, and will make an unwise decision based on it.
> So I'm not condoning the threat of revealing his identity, nor would I have
> done the same, but I do understand why he thought that it might be the only
> way to get PsyGuy to admit that he was lying (which he obviously was).
I don't disagree with your take here. This is hardly a 90s-era message board for casual discussions; people come here for meaningful conversations that (can) have life-changing implications. It's not low stakes. So I get why people get heated and (questionable) appeals to authority get challenged.
I also can see the reasoning behind throwing a flag and saying, "No, you don't have experience in that and you're lying, because I know who you are." That's really right pushing the envelope, but I wouldn't get hot and bothered if that's what had happened, particularly if someone is (possibly) outright fabricating, as may well be the case with @PsyGuy. On several occasions I'd have bet every peso--even at bad odds--that he's resorting to citing data that either does not exist, or--at minimum--he has no access to.
The problem (and beauty) of the anonymity (or pseudonymity) of the internet it that enables those bold claims and we're forced to sort the wheat from the chaff. I have no qualms with the regulars ganging up on @PsyGuy and outright flooding his nonsensical posts with fact-checking or intertextual references to show how he's a bit of a troll. I have no problem with a chorus of voices demanding that he provide some evidence to back up his experiential claims, when relevant. The "I know who you are" trope raises my eyebrows, as I've already noted...
...But overt threats to doxx? Disclosing information without consent unless someone acquiesces to your demands? Repeatedly calling a pseudonymous online contributor by (ostensibly) their real name? That's the worst type of 4chan stuff, and not behavior befitting any mature person in IE, let alone an administrator.
- Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:49 am
- Forum: Forum 1. From Questions About ISS & Search to Anything and Everything About International Teaching
- Topic: Has anyone suspected that a boss or colleague lied about cre
- Replies: 67
- Views: 144392
Re: Has anyone suspected that a boss or colleague lied about
Illiane_Blues wrote:
> Your opinion about Walter is not everyone's opinion about him. I know you
> don't like it when he corrects you when you're wrong but others don't mind
> it.
Preface: Most of my posts on this forum express some sort of disgreement with and/or mockery of @PsyGuy.
That said, I'll again put it out there that the comments of @Walter (and occasionally a few others) cross a scary line. Anyone who would resort to threatening to, and then claiming to (partially) "doxx" someone on a forum like this should really reevaluate their choices. And the suggestion that such a person is "IRL" a respected administrator is horrifying.
I don't care what @PsyGuy's real name is, if @Walter really knows it, etc. If it's the kind of thing ITs want to laugh about over drinks at an expat event or conference, so be it. But putting out here, or even just threatening to do so or suggesting that you possess the knowledge and willingness to do so, is disgraceful.
Stick to the arguments. If you want to pull up contradictions in someone's posted statements, fine. If you want to challenge them to back up assertions, fine. But no más.
> Your opinion about Walter is not everyone's opinion about him. I know you
> don't like it when he corrects you when you're wrong but others don't mind
> it.
Preface: Most of my posts on this forum express some sort of disgreement with and/or mockery of @PsyGuy.
That said, I'll again put it out there that the comments of @Walter (and occasionally a few others) cross a scary line. Anyone who would resort to threatening to, and then claiming to (partially) "doxx" someone on a forum like this should really reevaluate their choices. And the suggestion that such a person is "IRL" a respected administrator is horrifying.
I don't care what @PsyGuy's real name is, if @Walter really knows it, etc. If it's the kind of thing ITs want to laugh about over drinks at an expat event or conference, so be it. But putting out here, or even just threatening to do so or suggesting that you possess the knowledge and willingness to do so, is disgraceful.
Stick to the arguments. If you want to pull up contradictions in someone's posted statements, fine. If you want to challenge them to back up assertions, fine. But no más.
- Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:39 am
- Forum: Forum 1. From Questions About ISS & Search to Anything and Everything About International Teaching
- Topic: How do you research your potential next school and city?
- Replies: 7
- Views: 12311
Re: How do you research your potential next school and city?
Thames Pirate wrote:
> To go back to the original question:
>
> Expat forums are your friend. This might include forums, blogs, and social
> media groups. You can use these to get the expat community's feel of a
> school (parents, community), which may or may not differ from what you see
> on ISR or similar sites.
>
> These can also be used for getting a feel of living in a place. People
> frequently discuss things like taxes or finding a doctor or local customs
> or things like appropriate behaviour in a supermarket. It's amazing how
> much information is out there nowadays.
>
> I am also blown away by how few people take the time to do things like look
> at a map. People are shocked by the location of a school in relation to
> the city centre, for example, or by housing prices or quality near the
> school or at the city centre. It's not hard to find local real estate
> prices or look at a few apartments/houses to get a feel for housing. I
> also like to look at things like public transportation maps and prices,
> cars (if that's something I think I might need) etc. I have also looked
> into availability of hobbies, for example. If possible I might even do
> things like look at grocery stores online (assuming that's an option).
>
> Google Images, Street view/maps, and Google Earth, including embedded
> photos, might also help give me a good idea of where I am going (or
> considering).
All of this.
While it may seem weird/presumptuous (or you might think you're "jinxing" yourself) to do all this, I do it before I even have an offer. Heck, in most cases I do at least some cursory research before applying--then again, I tend to cast a narrow net and understand that not everyone can find that time.
But if you're getting interviews that go well, it's crazy that you're not looking at what daily life actually *looks like* in a potential new locale. Google street view is your friend. Where are you going to live? What does that drive/ride/walk actually look like? Is your preferred method of daily transit even a viable option (e.g., are there sidewalks, does the bus run that early)? Is that really green space or a rice paddy?
It's one (important) think to realize you'll always have unknown unknowns, but you can really learn a lot of you just try.
The second interview (or its equivalent) is great for filling in the gaps, but if you haven't done the ground work you're going to learn a lot less.
> To go back to the original question:
>
> Expat forums are your friend. This might include forums, blogs, and social
> media groups. You can use these to get the expat community's feel of a
> school (parents, community), which may or may not differ from what you see
> on ISR or similar sites.
>
> These can also be used for getting a feel of living in a place. People
> frequently discuss things like taxes or finding a doctor or local customs
> or things like appropriate behaviour in a supermarket. It's amazing how
> much information is out there nowadays.
>
> I am also blown away by how few people take the time to do things like look
> at a map. People are shocked by the location of a school in relation to
> the city centre, for example, or by housing prices or quality near the
> school or at the city centre. It's not hard to find local real estate
> prices or look at a few apartments/houses to get a feel for housing. I
> also like to look at things like public transportation maps and prices,
> cars (if that's something I think I might need) etc. I have also looked
> into availability of hobbies, for example. If possible I might even do
> things like look at grocery stores online (assuming that's an option).
>
> Google Images, Street view/maps, and Google Earth, including embedded
> photos, might also help give me a good idea of where I am going (or
> considering).
All of this.
While it may seem weird/presumptuous (or you might think you're "jinxing" yourself) to do all this, I do it before I even have an offer. Heck, in most cases I do at least some cursory research before applying--then again, I tend to cast a narrow net and understand that not everyone can find that time.
But if you're getting interviews that go well, it's crazy that you're not looking at what daily life actually *looks like* in a potential new locale. Google street view is your friend. Where are you going to live? What does that drive/ride/walk actually look like? Is your preferred method of daily transit even a viable option (e.g., are there sidewalks, does the bus run that early)? Is that really green space or a rice paddy?
It's one (important) think to realize you'll always have unknown unknowns, but you can really learn a lot of you just try.
The second interview (or its equivalent) is great for filling in the gaps, but if you haven't done the ground work you're going to learn a lot less.
- Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:30 am
- Forum: Forum 1. From Questions About ISS & Search to Anything and Everything About International Teaching
- Topic: Best Job Fair to Land a Tier 1 School
- Replies: 101
- Views: 723500
Re: Best Job Fair to Land a Tier 1 School
This is one of those bizarre conundrums that makes my head spin. @PsyGuy is totally blowing smoke (he has no significant data), but is right with regard to the core of his argument: they don't need the fairs. Sure, some admins like being able to meet candidates face to face, but it's 2019. There's Skype. And the cost in time and candidates' money doesn't justify the dog and pony show. Even if one makes the whole "admins have too many applications to sift through" argument, it's flimsy at best and doesn't justify spending whopping sums on travel and commissions. Schools could (and should) spend a fraction of that on HR staff and/or reorienting the hiring admins' roles so that they can recruit and evaluate candidates without circling the globe.
ITs could, and should, continue to press against the fair system and the big for-profits behind them. Ironically, just as @PsyGuy (awkwardly) hits the right note in pointing out the illusory need for fairs, he (in classic @PsyGuy contortionist argumentation mode) poo-poos the notion of ITs pushing back. Right now, ITs writ large have the mindset of an exploited group duped into leveraging some small, perceived advantage (knowing how to navigate Search or ISS or whatever) they have over others in the market instead of realizing how much better they'd have it if they didn't need to spend several months' salary (directly and indirectly) and burn their personal days on the meat market's overseers.
ITs could, and should, continue to press against the fair system and the big for-profits behind them. Ironically, just as @PsyGuy (awkwardly) hits the right note in pointing out the illusory need for fairs, he (in classic @PsyGuy contortionist argumentation mode) poo-poos the notion of ITs pushing back. Right now, ITs writ large have the mindset of an exploited group duped into leveraging some small, perceived advantage (knowing how to navigate Search or ISS or whatever) they have over others in the market instead of realizing how much better they'd have it if they didn't need to spend several months' salary (directly and indirectly) and burn their personal days on the meat market's overseers.
- Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:19 am
- Forum: Forum 1. From Questions About ISS & Search to Anything and Everything About International Teaching
- Topic: Rio and EARJ
- Replies: 13
- Views: 23392
Re: Rio and EARJ
Ben: Thanks for the clarification. Honestly, the forum has become a bit stagnant.