You know, I'm really not sure you're the smartest person in the room when only you are there.
You contradict yourself time after time in your posts and seem not to notice. Just go back to the beginning and read through the nonsense you write and see how you shift and bend.
As for ISS being the only game in town before SEARCH came along, that's more baloney. UNI was always a 600+ fair as was ECIS.
Meanwhile ISS's whimsical decision to back their fair onto the Christmas break has cost them dear with the numbers attending the fair down each year. You see if recruiters don't attend then the candidates won't either.
As for the decision by ISS to move their US fair forward by a week back in 2003, that had nothing to do with trying to provoke tension between CIS and SEARCH. Their gamble was that SEARCH wouldn't dare go head to head with CIS - a gamble that failed. By this time, incidentally, CIS and ISS were already in a tacit partnership to try to freeze out SEARCH.

All of this may seem arcane and irrelevant to most readers, but the fact is that there is a history here and the facts should be respected. There are enough myths and lies circulating in the field of international education without people like you adding to them through vanity posts.

You've done it again - managed to be wrong on every significant issue.
Why did SEARCH pick the weekends before the ISS and ECIS/CIS fairs? Because the recruitment organizations see a definite advantage in being first. nothing is more frustrating for the organizers or for recruiters than to have last minute candidate "no shows" - and this is a frequent occurrence when there is a fair the weekend before. A significant number of candidates book into the second fair as a back up and then withdraw if they get a job at the first fair.
The fair wars really began in 2003 when out of the blue ISS moved forward its fair by one week hoping to force SEARCH to swap places. Instead, SEARCH simply moved its own fair forward by one week to clash with ECIS/CIS. That problem was only resolved three years ago. Meantime because of the perceived advantage of being first, CIS and SEARCH reached an agreement to alternate the London Fairs. That happened two years ago.
ISS was the biggest fair in the game. I first attended as a recruiter in 1989. There were close to 700 candidates and 200 schools. It was in the mid-90s that SEARCH really began to impinge upon the market.
ISS Bangkok arbitrarily switched their dates two years ago so that they would go first - despite an offer from SEARCH that they would accept the same agreement as was made in LOndon with the fairs alternating. ISS refused and annoyed many recruiters because the ISS fair now backs into the Christmas vacation.
You see Dave, I really know because I am involved in these conversations. Since you don't believe me (or anyone else who points out your many and various errors), why don't you ask a school head who has been in the game for some time? But preferably not the kind of cheapskate head who sends out junior, junior admins to skulk around uninvited at recruitment fairs.

"ISS always parked their Boston fair next to Searchs, because the Search fair was one of their biggest. The rational being that more schools would show up for the Search fair and stay for the ISS fair out of convenience. The SF fair has always been a small fair site.

ISS caters to the higher end schools. Most of ISSs schools are also search schools, but ISS decided some years ago they wanted to focus on being the best not the biggest. ISS has about 150 schools, and Search just under 700. Search has lower standards though then ISS. You dont find the number of third and second tier schools with ISS."

This is such nonsense, it´s frightening. Who told you this, or did you make it up yourself?

ISS, UNI and CIS had the recruitment fair game sewn up for years until SEARCH moved in to the market. After trying the Australia/NZ location, tthey decided to pitch themselves against first ISS in the USA and then CIS in London. Their strategy was the same. SEARCH picked the weekend before the other organizations´fairs working on the premise that for convenience´s sake, recruiters would as soon go to two fairs for the price of one airline ticket. SEARCH did exactly the same in Bangkok after the first successful ISS fair there.

This tactic so annoyed ISS and CIS that they worked together to try to freeze SEARCH out of the market, which led to the "Fair Wars" about 10 years ago. They were unsuccessful and the organizations have since arrived at an uneasy truce. But get this: ISS never parked their fair after SEARCH - it was always the other way round!!!

As for ISS taking a decision to be the smaller fair catering to the high end schools - that is just as ridiculous a statement. ISS would kill to get back the numbers they once had. They have been outsold and outgunned by SEARCH, and that is why they are smaller now. There is NO active choice made by the ISS Board or Executive Secretary.

This is information that you can´t get through GOOGLE. You have to know what happened. Plainly you don´t know, so stop showing off by pretending that you do.

1) ISS have never run consecutive fairs in Boston. Some years ago they established a four year circuit:Boston / New York / DC / San Fran. Costs soared in NY and DC which is why they now rotate between Boston and SF.
2) The idea that ISS caters for the "high tier" schools is laughable. They cater for any who want to attend because that is their business. Meanwhile, take a look at the SEARCH list of attending schools. All the top schools are there. Years ago, when ISS and UNI were the only games in town, they both had fairs of 600+ candidates. ISS in particular has lost out to SEARCH because they have a better recruitment model, and because ISS made significant tactical mistakes in responding to SEARCH when they first came on to the market.
3) A few years ago, when the recruitment fair wars were at a height and organizations were switching dates to try to get one over their rivals, UNI took the decision that they were going to stop playing that game and just settled on the first weekend of February. Their view is that if there is a conflict, so be it; they have their own market of candidates and some very loyal schools who will always go there.
4) It would be no surprise to me if ISS were to quit the teacher recruitment
game. My guess is that they are losing considerable money doing this and their reputation is taking a hit.

"Its useful that he abandons the legal argument in favor of a practical one, since he infers that there really isnt a legal argument"
Some people have a phobia about countries that end in "...stan". I have a phobia about people who don't understand the difference between "infer" and "imply".
Meanwhile if you read what I wrote, I don't abandon the legal argument at all. I make two very clear statements: contract law is trumped by public policy; lying in an application for a job is grounds for dismissal in many countries - including countries in Europe. In the meantime, when you go find a job at a recruitment fair, how many candidates dive into Google to research a particular country's Labor Law before signing the contract?
This has nothing to do with fear-mongering or an admin wanting to own you (more of Dave's sound and fury), and everything to do with a mutual obligation at recruitment fairs and elsewhere for candidates and recruiters to tell each other the truth about matters of importance.

Pay no attention to Dave Psyguy. In matters of law, as in much else, he is as Macbeth describes: "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
"It also has a blurb on the bottom that lying (or omission of information) would be grounds for termination of the contract. It may also void the health insurance coverage."
While it is true that contract law is subservient to public policy (ie local labor law - unless the contract is more generous to the employee than public policy), the fact is that in many parts of the world a significant act of dishonesty or culpable omission of salient facts at the time of hire would always be grounds for dismissal. You may try to appeal the dismissal, but how feasible would that be in, say, Vietnam or Venezuala? Could you afford to pay a lawyer. Would the lawyer have the language skills to understand you? Would the courts? Could you afford to stay in the country while the case was settled?
There is a bigger question though, and that is a moral one - an area where Dave Psyguy also needs Learning Support. You have a right to expect a school administrator to tell you the truth when you are hired; there is a reciprocal obligation on you to tell the truth. My school has a very generous health policy. However, the one pre-condition it does exclude is HIV/AIDS. Don't you think it would be reckless for me to hire someone with HIV/AIDS knowing that there would be no private health insurance in case he fell sick or was injured?
Many schools have insurance providers who disallow any pre-conditions. If they accept their duty of care to their employees, then they really should not hire people who won't be covered unless there is an agreement in black and white that the employee accepts all responsibility for medical bills for this, that or the other. And even then, if I were the school head, I would hesitate. Suppose the guy with the heart transplant has a serious relapse or rejection. He is lying in the intensive care cardio unit, there is no insurance and his money has melted away. Who then will come under pressure to pay the bill? The school of course.
As in all things regarding contracts, do your homework, work out what you can and cannot accept and tell the truth!

"Your personal health is NEVER a job recruitment issue." This is not only wrong, it is stupidly, dangerously wrong. Many school medical insurance policies have a disclaimer that says they will not cover previous conditions. If that is the case then you have an obligation to disclose or be prepared to suffer the consequences. Do you seriously think that if you had a heart transplant and then suffered a further heart problem that the doctor treating you wouldn't notice? Certainly, you would be obliged to pay for any medical care you did receive - unless you happened to be in a country with a state health service - and you may well be deemed in breach of contract because you failed to tell the truth. So you are not only at risk of losing your job, you're risking a situation that could be financially ruinous.
Most of what Dave Psyguy tells you is baloney, but I don't really care when he gets his facts wrong about UK universities or transporting dogs. This latest idiocy is too important to let slide.

Interestingly, the Teachers.Net site is cursed with a similar problem. There is a know-all, answer-all character called Dave. Here is some biodata he provides:
"Re: Cairo, Egypt

Posted by: Dave on 4/21/12

I would say the schools run from horrible to "The only thing bad
about the school is it happens to be in Egypt". I had a very bad
experience at a school in Cairo, as my first teaching position,
and made a runner (broke contract). I would never teach there
again, and cant in good conscious recommend the region to
anyone. I wouldnt disagree CAC or the British school being at or
near the top of the rankings."
Does the spelling, the punctuation, the Middle Eastern phobia remind you of anyone?
Same Dave keeps giving advice about DODDS schools even though he's never worked in one. Look at the responses:
"Posted by: Wrong again, Dave on 2/28/12

Actually, there is a manpower document that determines whether or
not there are excessed teachers. The union has access to this list,
and eventually the teachers do too. I can say with 100% confidence
that there will be NO excessed teachers from my school this year.
For the 4 millionth time Dave, please stop posting about things
which you truly have no knowledge of."

"Posted by: School Psyc on 3/01/12

Please, let's go back to ignoring Dave's come-backs. He always wants
the last word, so if you respond to each statement, he will too. That
is why we have this long line of back and forth posts that don't help
anyone.
It is best for all if we stop since we cannot make him stop.
I understand pointing out the erroneous statements that Dave (or
anyone) makes and letting others know that Dave does not work for
DoDDS, but let's please just leave it at that."

Isn't coincidence amazing?

"I care about the data, and about bringing that data to other teachers who would be mislead. Ive been doing this for 8+ years and its something im both good at and connected enough to do."
So tell us where does this data come from? We have a poster here who claims to be a teacher at the school and tells us that just four teachers are leaving and that the reason for the school being in the market for more than that is because the school is expanding. You say the poster is an administrator at the school and not a teacher and you know better. Meanwhile you've never been in the country, let alone the school. How do you know all this stuff?

"I care about the data, and about bringing that data to other teachers who would be mislead. Ive been doing this for 8+ years and its something im both good at and connected enough to do."
So tell us where does this data come from? We have a poster here who claims to be a teacher at the school and tells us that just four teachers are leaving and that the reason for the school being in the market for more than that is because the school is expanding. You say the poster is an administrator at the school and not a teacher and you know better. Meanwhile you've never been in the country, let alone the school. How do you know all this stuff?

Quite amazing....
Your first incorrect post: Sat May 05 2:55 am
My explanation of what recruiters really think: Sat May 05 12:40 pm
Your revisionist comment: Sun May 06 3:35 am
Read this thread again.
You can't even get something as simple as reading posts in the right order. It's no wonder that the complexities of recruitment and accreditation are so far beyond you.
Seriously, what job do you do in your present school? I really hope for the kids' sake that it doesn't involve anything important.

This is what you said:
"I'm surprised the school took you two as a couple, despite not being married. Usually, heads/admins do not consider bf/gf as a "a couple"."

This is what I said:

"Fact is that in most parts of the world, most (non-religious?) schools have no problem with unmarried teaching couples. Where they have problems is when there is an unmarried couple and one of the two is not a teacher. That's when visa issues kick in. Not a problem, of course, if both are EU citizens and the school is in Europe, but elsewhere is difficult."

I know reading isn't your strong suit, but try this again.

Meantime, you have never hired anyone at any recruitment fair anywhere in the world - and are never likely to be in a position to do so. I do it every year and have done for 25 years. And yet you claim some special insider knowledge...Just like you claim special insider knowledge on the other thread about Doha. How many times do you have to be humiliated?

Postal Script:

Ive been called worse.

Post postal script:

Why is this not a surprise?

"Except Walter doesnt know what hes talking about, its just more admin cheerleading and disinformation"
No cheerleading, no disinformation. Simple facts. When you sign up for a fair, you will be asked if you are single, single with dependent(s), teaching couple, teaching couple with dependent(s). No one will give a stuff if you are a teaching couple whether you are married or not. Most schools will not be able to offer you a contract (unless you are EU citizens taking up jobs in the EU) if you have a non-teaching partner, because they won't be able to get a visa for the partner.
You can always choose to believe PsyGuy and his claim of eight years as a teacher in international schools. (Not true, by the way, and none of those schools he's ben at would ever rank higher than what he would class as Tier 3, and he's never kept a job longer than two years - and that was one job.) Or you can take a look at the stuff he's writing on the Doha thread (where he claims to know more about what happens in a school than a teacher who is actually there at the moment) and dismiss him as a compulsive obsessive poster who has this overwhelming need to have the last word on every subject.

"I'm surprised the school took you two as a couple, despite not being married. Usually, heads/admins do not consider bf/gf as a "a couple"."

Please remember this advice comes from a self-proclaimed junior admin who has only attended one fair as a recruiter and that as a stealth participant whose school was too cheap to pay the SEARCH fee - or so he himself claims. He really shouldn't be allowed to say such silly things, but it seems he has a protected status on this site.

Fact is that in most parts of the world, most (non-religious?) schools have no problem with unmarried teaching couples. Where they have problems is when there is an unmarried couple and one of the two is not a teacher. That's when visa issues kick in. Not a problem, of course, if both are EU citizens and the school is in Europe, but elsewhere is difficult.