Job sites for NQT's
Job sites for NQT's
I'm looking for sites that have job listing for NQT's. Tes.com is a good one and I've sent in a decent amount of application over the past couple weeks through it. TIE doesn't seem to have many for NQT's. A lot of search agencies such as search associates won't even let you apply without the 2 year of experience. Anyone know of sites similar to tes.com? Thanks.
-
shadowjack
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:49 am
Re: Job sites for NQT's
If you are getting things ready for NEXT year recruiting season, I would recommend signing up for TIEonline in November during their red star special - $29.00 for the year.
Re: Job sites for NQT's
It's not true that Search Associates won't let you sign up with them with less than two years. You just have to make a strong argument as to why you feel that you would be qualified. It's what I did, and I managed to sign up.
-
SparkleMotion
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:58 am
Re: Job sites for NQT's
@Zebra750
Just out of curiousity, what kind of compelling argument did you make?
Just out of curiousity, what kind of compelling argument did you make?
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Job sites for NQT's
SparkleMotion wrote:
> Just out of curiousity, what kind of compelling argument did you make?
"Pleeeeeeeeaaaaaaase?!"
> Just out of curiousity, what kind of compelling argument did you make?
"Pleeeeeeeeaaaaaaase?!"
-
GrumblesMcGee
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:53 pm
Re: Job sites for NQT's
Zebra750 wrote:
> It's not true that Search Associates won't let you sign up with them with
> less than two years. You just have to make a strong argument as to why you
> feel that you would be qualified. It's what I did, and I managed to sign
> up.
While I'm glad things worked out for you (presumably), this made me LOL.
Search Associates currently uses an online questionnaire system that filters out "unqualified" candidates (translation: those who do not meet the criteria to pay them $225.00 for database access and the potential for a lucrative placement fee). The questions probe whether you: have a bachelor's degree; have two years of "recent full time" [sic] primary or secondary experience at a "recognized school," have a teaching certification, are "open to working anywhere in the world," and have a non-teaching spouse or dependents.
As of this past winter, if you have a provide a less-than-ideal answer to these questions, you get a tiered response. If it's a minor issue or two (dependents, not open to the entire world), you'll get a red flag indicating that "you might find your job search to be challenging. You can discuss your ability to be a competitive candidate with your Associate at any time." [editorial note: HAHAHAHA! As if the Associate will talk to you.] If you fall shorter of their standards (e.g., no certification, you answer "no" to the two-years experience question), you'll hit a brick wall: "it does not appear that you would be a competitive teaching...candidate." You're then invited to direct your questions to a "Senior Associate" or Search's "Executive Administrative Assistant, Melinda Williams" (for whom two different email addresses are provided on different pages).
SparkleMotion wrote:
> Just out of curiousity, what kind of compelling argument did you make?
Heliotrope
> "Pleeeeeeeeaaaaaaase?!"
It seems like it. I've read a lot of great commentary on Search on these boards (and elsewhere). Even many of the complimentary takes on Search are balanced by "you're a commodity to them." So that's the rosy view: you're begging and pleading to allow someone to make you a commodity--and to pay them $225.00 for it, regardless of whether you are successful in your search.
I've read so many horror stories of people who are mistreated by their schools--often in blatantly illegal, contract-terminating ways (e.g., not being paid)--that end in a similar way: Search blacklists them and sides with the school. Even if they stick it out through hostile circumstances, Search will side with a vindictive administrator who wants to kneecap their careers. Is there another side to the story? Search doesn't want to hear it. You saved evidence? Doesn't matter. It really clashes with Search's bizarre claim about the "quality" of their schools: "Since 1990, we've been assisting thousands of teachers, administrators, counselors, librarians, and interns to find jobs in our over 700 carefully vetted, quality international schools located in 120 countries around the world." You have to accept that Search isn't a neutral intermediary between teachers and schools. That would be great. But alas, you're just the product, not the consumer.
The more neutral perspectives on Search are telling, too. They involve indifferent "associates" who don't lift a finger to help. Search markets itself as an executive search agency that provides hands-on assistance with your job search. As even Search advocate PsyGuy admits, they're anything but. You're paying for access to their database and possibly an invitation to a fair, nothing more. In return, they get a STEEP fee from you and thousands more should you sign a contract with a school through them.
Whether you're OK with that sort of exploitation is up to you. For me, I'm initially skeptical of any company that's going to profit to the tune of thousands of dollars based on my success. If I'm also directly putting up half a month's rent, I'm expecting to be treated well. So, before signing with Search, I decided to do some research.
Over the course of the winter, I spoke with four people who either had issues connecting with Search or opened with "Search rejected me." As I was deciding whether or not to use them, I took an interest and reached out. Silence. So I tried to register...silence. So I contacted Melinda Williams and Sally Gordon, the Senior Associate for one of my regions (I divide my time between two places)...silence. I tried phone numbers and got only voicemail prompts. I sent emails. Silence.
Search has another path for "intern" teachers. The path seems geared toward younger teachers who are paid more by schools with dedicated "intern" positions. It's not really a path for someone like me, with 15 years in education and a lot of letters after my name, but I figured I'd explore it. I contacted the Senior Associate for interns, Diana Kerry...silence.
At this point, I already had a full schedule of interviews and knew I wouldn't need Search, so I decided to poke the bear a little bit. I wrote to Diana Kerry, Sally Gordon, Melinda Williams, and Search's "President/CEO," Jessica Magagna. Guess what I heard in response? Silence.
One day, after I already had job offers, I decided to try the phone again. Melinda Williams (perhaps by mistake!) actually picked up the phone. We spoke for a few minutes, and she deflected a bit, suggesting that she thought the President was going to answer my email. She explained that their screening system is really effective and important because, "the schools we work with require two years experience" [not true in many cases] and "most of those countries they won't be able to get someone a visa without it" [not true in most cases]. But far be it from me, a lowly career educator, university-press-published author, and someone who had an active interest in reviewing the hiring policies of international schools and the laws they are bound by, to contradict the long-time administrative assistant to Search's big wigs.
On its website, Search claims: "Whether you're new to international teaching and looking for an adventure or a seasoned international educator looking for your next position, Search Associates wants to earn your trust." Meh...it sure doesn't seem like it. I'm skeptical that any company that systemically can't be bothered to return calls or emails is suddenly going to flip a switch once they cash a $225 check.
> It's not true that Search Associates won't let you sign up with them with
> less than two years. You just have to make a strong argument as to why you
> feel that you would be qualified. It's what I did, and I managed to sign
> up.
While I'm glad things worked out for you (presumably), this made me LOL.
Search Associates currently uses an online questionnaire system that filters out "unqualified" candidates (translation: those who do not meet the criteria to pay them $225.00 for database access and the potential for a lucrative placement fee). The questions probe whether you: have a bachelor's degree; have two years of "recent full time" [sic] primary or secondary experience at a "recognized school," have a teaching certification, are "open to working anywhere in the world," and have a non-teaching spouse or dependents.
As of this past winter, if you have a provide a less-than-ideal answer to these questions, you get a tiered response. If it's a minor issue or two (dependents, not open to the entire world), you'll get a red flag indicating that "you might find your job search to be challenging. You can discuss your ability to be a competitive candidate with your Associate at any time." [editorial note: HAHAHAHA! As if the Associate will talk to you.] If you fall shorter of their standards (e.g., no certification, you answer "no" to the two-years experience question), you'll hit a brick wall: "it does not appear that you would be a competitive teaching...candidate." You're then invited to direct your questions to a "Senior Associate" or Search's "Executive Administrative Assistant, Melinda Williams" (for whom two different email addresses are provided on different pages).
SparkleMotion wrote:
> Just out of curiousity, what kind of compelling argument did you make?
Heliotrope
> "Pleeeeeeeeaaaaaaase?!"
It seems like it. I've read a lot of great commentary on Search on these boards (and elsewhere). Even many of the complimentary takes on Search are balanced by "you're a commodity to them." So that's the rosy view: you're begging and pleading to allow someone to make you a commodity--and to pay them $225.00 for it, regardless of whether you are successful in your search.
I've read so many horror stories of people who are mistreated by their schools--often in blatantly illegal, contract-terminating ways (e.g., not being paid)--that end in a similar way: Search blacklists them and sides with the school. Even if they stick it out through hostile circumstances, Search will side with a vindictive administrator who wants to kneecap their careers. Is there another side to the story? Search doesn't want to hear it. You saved evidence? Doesn't matter. It really clashes with Search's bizarre claim about the "quality" of their schools: "Since 1990, we've been assisting thousands of teachers, administrators, counselors, librarians, and interns to find jobs in our over 700 carefully vetted, quality international schools located in 120 countries around the world." You have to accept that Search isn't a neutral intermediary between teachers and schools. That would be great. But alas, you're just the product, not the consumer.
The more neutral perspectives on Search are telling, too. They involve indifferent "associates" who don't lift a finger to help. Search markets itself as an executive search agency that provides hands-on assistance with your job search. As even Search advocate PsyGuy admits, they're anything but. You're paying for access to their database and possibly an invitation to a fair, nothing more. In return, they get a STEEP fee from you and thousands more should you sign a contract with a school through them.
Whether you're OK with that sort of exploitation is up to you. For me, I'm initially skeptical of any company that's going to profit to the tune of thousands of dollars based on my success. If I'm also directly putting up half a month's rent, I'm expecting to be treated well. So, before signing with Search, I decided to do some research.
Over the course of the winter, I spoke with four people who either had issues connecting with Search or opened with "Search rejected me." As I was deciding whether or not to use them, I took an interest and reached out. Silence. So I tried to register...silence. So I contacted Melinda Williams and Sally Gordon, the Senior Associate for one of my regions (I divide my time between two places)...silence. I tried phone numbers and got only voicemail prompts. I sent emails. Silence.
Search has another path for "intern" teachers. The path seems geared toward younger teachers who are paid more by schools with dedicated "intern" positions. It's not really a path for someone like me, with 15 years in education and a lot of letters after my name, but I figured I'd explore it. I contacted the Senior Associate for interns, Diana Kerry...silence.
At this point, I already had a full schedule of interviews and knew I wouldn't need Search, so I decided to poke the bear a little bit. I wrote to Diana Kerry, Sally Gordon, Melinda Williams, and Search's "President/CEO," Jessica Magagna. Guess what I heard in response? Silence.
One day, after I already had job offers, I decided to try the phone again. Melinda Williams (perhaps by mistake!) actually picked up the phone. We spoke for a few minutes, and she deflected a bit, suggesting that she thought the President was going to answer my email. She explained that their screening system is really effective and important because, "the schools we work with require two years experience" [not true in many cases] and "most of those countries they won't be able to get someone a visa without it" [not true in most cases]. But far be it from me, a lowly career educator, university-press-published author, and someone who had an active interest in reviewing the hiring policies of international schools and the laws they are bound by, to contradict the long-time administrative assistant to Search's big wigs.
On its website, Search claims: "Whether you're new to international teaching and looking for an adventure or a seasoned international educator looking for your next position, Search Associates wants to earn your trust." Meh...it sure doesn't seem like it. I'm skeptical that any company that systemically can't be bothered to return calls or emails is suddenly going to flip a switch once they cash a $225 check.
Discussion
You dont even need to give SA a strong argument, you can register as an intern class IT with less than two years experience, which provides you the same jobs database as everyone else.
-
GrumblesMcGee
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:53 pm
Re: Discussion
PsyGuy wrote:
> You dont even need to give SA a strong argument, you can register as an
> intern class IT with less than two years experience, which provides you the
> same jobs database as everyone else.
Right there you've provided more information about their "intern class" status than Search itself does on its website, after direct contact to their "intern class" Senior Associate, their administrative assistant, their president/CEO...
That ought to tell you something.
> You dont even need to give SA a strong argument, you can register as an
> intern class IT with less than two years experience, which provides you the
> same jobs database as everyone else.
Right there you've provided more information about their "intern class" status than Search itself does on its website, after direct contact to their "intern class" Senior Associate, their administrative assistant, their president/CEO...
That ought to tell you something.
Re: Job sites for NQT's
I've known plenty of unqualified / uncertified teachers get jobs in good schools. Even ones that claim that they only hire teachers with certification.
Being a 'good fit' is what counts. By that they mean you get on well with colleagues, admin, students, and the parents don't complain about you.
If you're charming enough and can sell yourself, then Search will take you on and plenty of even 'top tier' schools will hire you.
Being a 'good fit' is what counts. By that they mean you get on well with colleagues, admin, students, and the parents don't complain about you.
If you're charming enough and can sell yourself, then Search will take you on and plenty of even 'top tier' schools will hire you.