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.
Best Job Fair to Land a Tier 1 School
-
GrumblesMcGee
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:53 pm
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Best Job Fair to Land a Tier 1 School
His main point that is contested is that they don't go to fairs (or at least the Singapore one) to hire teachers.
No, of course in a vacuum schools don't need fairs, and neither do teachers. I'd prefer to do Skype interviews myself as well.
The fairs are sort of a tradition, and it might be be that none of the schools wants to be the first to stop doing fairs, fearing that they'll lose out on the better candidates perhaps?
On the other hand, it might be helpful for some to be forced to have a dedicated weekend in which you do most of your hiring, and doing back to back interviews does feel efficient. I do think actual face-to-face interviews give a better sense of the candidate/administrator than Skype interviews do, but maybe not so much more that it justifies the hassle and costs of a fair.
Then again, the costs of attending for schools are less than one months' IT's salary for certain schools, plus maybe their relocation and settle-in package added to that for other schools. Getting multiple good teachers for that amount wouldn't be a bad investment, and it's not a huge chunk out of an IS's budget.
I hoped the virtual job fairs would take off, but it seems they haven't. It seems there's (still) a need for face-to-face fairs felt by ISs (and possibly by ITs but significantly less so I'd say), otherwise they would cease to exist. Especially the top tier 1 schools get so many applications that they could easily skip the fairs without losing out on the best of the best teachers. But perhaps over time they will die a slow death.
No, of course in a vacuum schools don't need fairs, and neither do teachers. I'd prefer to do Skype interviews myself as well.
The fairs are sort of a tradition, and it might be be that none of the schools wants to be the first to stop doing fairs, fearing that they'll lose out on the better candidates perhaps?
On the other hand, it might be helpful for some to be forced to have a dedicated weekend in which you do most of your hiring, and doing back to back interviews does feel efficient. I do think actual face-to-face interviews give a better sense of the candidate/administrator than Skype interviews do, but maybe not so much more that it justifies the hassle and costs of a fair.
Then again, the costs of attending for schools are less than one months' IT's salary for certain schools, plus maybe their relocation and settle-in package added to that for other schools. Getting multiple good teachers for that amount wouldn't be a bad investment, and it's not a huge chunk out of an IS's budget.
I hoped the virtual job fairs would take off, but it seems they haven't. It seems there's (still) a need for face-to-face fairs felt by ISs (and possibly by ITs but significantly less so I'd say), otherwise they would cease to exist. Especially the top tier 1 schools get so many applications that they could easily skip the fairs without losing out on the best of the best teachers. But perhaps over time they will die a slow death.
Discussion
There isnt a need for fairs, leadership and recruiters want the fairs, and not all fairs are a focus on actual recruiting.
There is no smoke, thats the data.
Theres nothing to push back against, the premium agencies have a monopoly, they can do whatever they want regardless of push back. No one has to join a premium agency, and they provide real value. If you dont like it, if your disturbed that they pitch their services more like an executive recruitment firm as opposed to a jobs service board, so what. Dont give them your coin, they will not miss any IT or even sizable number of ITs that leave in protest. The premium agencies have the jobs, there isnt a comparable alternative.
Recruiters and leaders do go to some of the fairs to actually recruit, the SG fair isnt one of them.
Feeling that something is efficient or thinking that something is better doesnt make it so. The data is really clear on this, the SG fair does not have anything more than a trivial amount of actual offers and recruiting.
It might even be a cost effective and beneficial process if the level of offers and contracts supported that conclusion butt hats not hat happens anymore. The peak recruiting season is no approached by recruiters and leadership as a month long recruiting conference involving multiple fairs and multiple costs. Its not we found X IT lets lock them down and make them an offer, its shifting more and more towards opportunities at other fairs and leaders/recruiters want to wait and see.
Virtual job fairs just became less flexible online/Skype job interviews.
There is no smoke, thats the data.
Theres nothing to push back against, the premium agencies have a monopoly, they can do whatever they want regardless of push back. No one has to join a premium agency, and they provide real value. If you dont like it, if your disturbed that they pitch their services more like an executive recruitment firm as opposed to a jobs service board, so what. Dont give them your coin, they will not miss any IT or even sizable number of ITs that leave in protest. The premium agencies have the jobs, there isnt a comparable alternative.
Recruiters and leaders do go to some of the fairs to actually recruit, the SG fair isnt one of them.
Feeling that something is efficient or thinking that something is better doesnt make it so. The data is really clear on this, the SG fair does not have anything more than a trivial amount of actual offers and recruiting.
It might even be a cost effective and beneficial process if the level of offers and contracts supported that conclusion butt hats not hat happens anymore. The peak recruiting season is no approached by recruiters and leadership as a month long recruiting conference involving multiple fairs and multiple costs. Its not we found X IT lets lock them down and make them an offer, its shifting more and more towards opportunities at other fairs and leaders/recruiters want to wait and see.
Virtual job fairs just became less flexible online/Skype job interviews.
-
GrumblesMcGee
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:53 pm
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.
Reply
@GrumblesMcGee
1) ITs dont have power, even in numbers. 2) Leadership and recruiters want to go too fairs.
The whole fair system and tradition would evaporate over night if thats how recruiters/leaders wanted it. They ant the fairs thats why even the new avenues such as GRC are still hallmarking fairs as indications of strength, progress and success. If there was no preference and desire for fairs than the costs, efficiency and all the other metric indicators, there would be no fairs.
1) ITs dont have power, even in numbers. 2) Leadership and recruiters want to go too fairs.
The whole fair system and tradition would evaporate over night if thats how recruiters/leaders wanted it. They ant the fairs thats why even the new avenues such as GRC are still hallmarking fairs as indications of strength, progress and success. If there was no preference and desire for fairs than the costs, efficiency and all the other metric indicators, there would be no fairs.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Discussion
PsyGuy wrote:
> There isnt a need for fairs, leadership and recruiters want the fairs, and
> not all fairs are a focus on actual recruiting.
There's only an actual need for food, water, sleep, etc. (the bottom of Maslow's pyramid). So no, they don't need the fairs, but there's still a need for them, because recruiters want fairs. They think it's an efficient way to hire teachers.
> There is no smoke, thats the data.
> Recruiters and leaders do go to some of the fairs to actually recruit, the
> SG fair isnt one of them.
Still haven't seen a link to the data. Plus if it's a starting fair, ISs and ITs are merely testing the water, but I still believe they wouldn't attend if they were sure that they would't hire any IT attending. I do see a growing trend of tier 1 schools recruiting earlier and earlier, so the date and location make sense, and that's probably why Search organizes it.
> There isnt a need for fairs, leadership and recruiters want the fairs, and
> not all fairs are a focus on actual recruiting.
There's only an actual need for food, water, sleep, etc. (the bottom of Maslow's pyramid). So no, they don't need the fairs, but there's still a need for them, because recruiters want fairs. They think it's an efficient way to hire teachers.
> There is no smoke, thats the data.
> Recruiters and leaders do go to some of the fairs to actually recruit, the
> SG fair isnt one of them.
Still haven't seen a link to the data. Plus if it's a starting fair, ISs and ITs are merely testing the water, but I still believe they wouldn't attend if they were sure that they would't hire any IT attending. I do see a growing trend of tier 1 schools recruiting earlier and earlier, so the date and location make sense, and that's probably why Search organizes it.
Reply
@Heliotrope
So their want for the fairs constitutes a need, because reasons? No there isnt a "need" for them, its a want, and thats a want in terms of IS recruitment and leadership, not survival needs.
Thinking its efficient doesnt actually mean its efficient. Even if their was some validity to that claim that it was efficient, the data doesnt bare that out, the SG fair has a trivial amount of offers.
Youre just @Heliotrope, do your own research. I have no obligation to provide or show you anything.
Testing the waters, than you agree its a dump fair, thats what the data shows, there isnt significant or even non-negligible hiring occurring.
Recruiting and intent has become earlier and earlier, but the peak period has been relatively stable and hasnt deviated significantly.
Thats not why SA organizes it, its because the number of associates with SA has swollen, and associates make coin off of fairs. Associates have organized fairs in locations for no better reason than they wanted to write the trip off as a business expense.
So their want for the fairs constitutes a need, because reasons? No there isnt a "need" for them, its a want, and thats a want in terms of IS recruitment and leadership, not survival needs.
Thinking its efficient doesnt actually mean its efficient. Even if their was some validity to that claim that it was efficient, the data doesnt bare that out, the SG fair has a trivial amount of offers.
Youre just @Heliotrope, do your own research. I have no obligation to provide or show you anything.
Testing the waters, than you agree its a dump fair, thats what the data shows, there isnt significant or even non-negligible hiring occurring.
Recruiting and intent has become earlier and earlier, but the peak period has been relatively stable and hasnt deviated significantly.
Thats not why SA organizes it, its because the number of associates with SA has swollen, and associates make coin off of fairs. Associates have organized fairs in locations for no better reason than they wanted to write the trip off as a business expense.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Reply
PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope
>
> So their want for the fairs constitutes a need, because reasons? No there
> isnt a "need" for them, its a want, and thats a want in terms of
> IS recruitment and leadership, not survival needs.
Read again what I wrote:
"There's only an actual need for food, water, sleep, etc. (the bottom of Maslow's pyramid). So no, they don't need the fairs, but there's still a need for them, because recruiters want fairs."
Maybe you'll understand if I rephrase it: if recruiters want fairs, then they feel a need for them.
> Thinking its efficient doesnt actually mean its efficient. Even if their
> was some validity to that claim that it was efficient,
Again, read what I wrote: "They think it's an efficient way to hire teachers."
So I'm not saying it's efficient. And if it is or isn't is not important. It's about what recruiters believe to be efficient that determines if they want fairs or not.
> the data doesnt bare
> that out, the SG fair has a trivial amount of offers.
Still waiting for that data...
> Testing the waters, than you agree its a dump fair, thats what the data
> shows, there isnt significant or even non-negligible hiring occurring.
No, dump fair is where crap schools and very inexperienced ITs go. This fair has great ISs attending.
They can be testing it by seeing if they can hire good candidates there because it doesn't have a reputation yet like the London or Bangkok fair, but that might make it a great fair for ITs, as it's a lesser-known fair with great schools attending so your odds might be very good. If you're a strong candidate, it might very well be worth it if you're aiming at those tier 1 schools.
> Recruiting and intent has become earlier and earlier, but the peak period
> has been relatively stable and hasnt deviated significantly.
All I'm saying is that I see a growing trend of tier 1 schools recruiting earlier and earlier.
The bulk of the ISs isn't tier 1 of course, so for them the main recruiting season won't change.
> Thats not why SA organizes it, its because the number of associates with SA
> has swollen, and associates make coin off of fairs.
Maybe, maybe not. But it still makes sense to hold it then and there though.
> @Heliotrope
>
> So their want for the fairs constitutes a need, because reasons? No there
> isnt a "need" for them, its a want, and thats a want in terms of
> IS recruitment and leadership, not survival needs.
Read again what I wrote:
"There's only an actual need for food, water, sleep, etc. (the bottom of Maslow's pyramid). So no, they don't need the fairs, but there's still a need for them, because recruiters want fairs."
Maybe you'll understand if I rephrase it: if recruiters want fairs, then they feel a need for them.
> Thinking its efficient doesnt actually mean its efficient. Even if their
> was some validity to that claim that it was efficient,
Again, read what I wrote: "They think it's an efficient way to hire teachers."
So I'm not saying it's efficient. And if it is or isn't is not important. It's about what recruiters believe to be efficient that determines if they want fairs or not.
> the data doesnt bare
> that out, the SG fair has a trivial amount of offers.
Still waiting for that data...
> Testing the waters, than you agree its a dump fair, thats what the data
> shows, there isnt significant or even non-negligible hiring occurring.
No, dump fair is where crap schools and very inexperienced ITs go. This fair has great ISs attending.
They can be testing it by seeing if they can hire good candidates there because it doesn't have a reputation yet like the London or Bangkok fair, but that might make it a great fair for ITs, as it's a lesser-known fair with great schools attending so your odds might be very good. If you're a strong candidate, it might very well be worth it if you're aiming at those tier 1 schools.
> Recruiting and intent has become earlier and earlier, but the peak period
> has been relatively stable and hasnt deviated significantly.
All I'm saying is that I see a growing trend of tier 1 schools recruiting earlier and earlier.
The bulk of the ISs isn't tier 1 of course, so for them the main recruiting season won't change.
> Thats not why SA organizes it, its because the number of associates with SA
> has swollen, and associates make coin off of fairs.
Maybe, maybe not. But it still makes sense to hold it then and there though.
Re: Best Job Fair to Land a Tier 1 School
As a recruiter, about half of our hires are by Skype or Zoom and about half are done at fairs. I attend fairs so I can meet teachers face to face. I get to know people better meeting them in person, and I hope they get to know me better, than I ever will via Skype. Most experienced teachers who work at good schools and have strong references get hired by Skype and do not need to attend fairs unless they want to do so.
Reply
@Heliotrope
No there isnt a "need" for them, its a want, and thats a want in terms of IS recruitment and leadership, not survival needs. No their feeling something is a need doesnt make it a need, even within the framing of recruiting and not survival, its still a want.
Thinking its efficient doesnt actually mean its efficient. Exactly if they WANT fairs, not need fairs, see your above comment about wants and needs, I think your starting to get the difference.
Recruiting is one aspect of fair desirability its not the only one, and this fair, the SG fair is not one of those recruiting fairs.
Keep waiting, data is like love apparently if youre just patient enough it will fall into your lap.
Attending doesnt mean hiring. It makes this a dump fair.
Im stating that the earlier and earlier trend doesnt mean anything for actual hiring.
It makes sense for the fair organizer.
@Nomads
What about getting to know them, when you know they start working for you, because if they arent going to work for you why does getting to know them matter.
Further, how do you get to know them better? Your spending an hour having a conversation either way. You seem to be one of those leadership that BELIEVE they have some finely honed sixth sense of being able to profile ITs and candidates.
No there isnt a "need" for them, its a want, and thats a want in terms of IS recruitment and leadership, not survival needs. No their feeling something is a need doesnt make it a need, even within the framing of recruiting and not survival, its still a want.
Thinking its efficient doesnt actually mean its efficient. Exactly if they WANT fairs, not need fairs, see your above comment about wants and needs, I think your starting to get the difference.
Recruiting is one aspect of fair desirability its not the only one, and this fair, the SG fair is not one of those recruiting fairs.
Keep waiting, data is like love apparently if youre just patient enough it will fall into your lap.
Attending doesnt mean hiring. It makes this a dump fair.
Im stating that the earlier and earlier trend doesnt mean anything for actual hiring.
It makes sense for the fair organizer.
@Nomads
What about getting to know them, when you know they start working for you, because if they arent going to work for you why does getting to know them matter.
Further, how do you get to know them better? Your spending an hour having a conversation either way. You seem to be one of those leadership that BELIEVE they have some finely honed sixth sense of being able to profile ITs and candidates.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Reply
Merriam Webster's dictionary defines 'Need' as:
- A lack of something requisite, desirable, or useful
"a building adequate for the company's needs"
- A physiological or psychological requirement for the well-being of an organism
"health and education needs"
But semantics aside (if you want to use the term 'want' that's fine too), if recruiters think they need/want it, they will attend fairs and fairs will continue to exist.
If they think it's efficient, they will attend fairs and fairs will continue to exist.
Whether they actually need it or if it's actually efficient is besides the point (as I said before, all we *really* need is food, water, etc.).
> Keep waiting, data is like love apparently if youre just patient enough it
> will fall into your lap.
I assume you're single.
> Attending doesnt mean hiring. It makes this a dump fair.
Hard to know if you won't share the numbers with us.
I still think schools wouldn't attend if they already know they're not going to hire there.
If recruiters at my school keep going to the same fair without ever hiring someone at that fair, the Board will tell them to stop attending. And recruiters know this.
> Im stating that the earlier and earlier trend doesnt mean anything for
> actual hiring.
Well, some of my teacher friends have gotten hired before November last year, and some of the colleagues at current school as well. But this is at tier 1 schools. I agree that the bulk of the schools still hire the bulk of their new hires during the normal recruiting season.
> It makes sense for the fair organizer.
A fair without hires will seize to exist.
- A lack of something requisite, desirable, or useful
"a building adequate for the company's needs"
- A physiological or psychological requirement for the well-being of an organism
"health and education needs"
But semantics aside (if you want to use the term 'want' that's fine too), if recruiters think they need/want it, they will attend fairs and fairs will continue to exist.
If they think it's efficient, they will attend fairs and fairs will continue to exist.
Whether they actually need it or if it's actually efficient is besides the point (as I said before, all we *really* need is food, water, etc.).
> Keep waiting, data is like love apparently if youre just patient enough it
> will fall into your lap.
I assume you're single.
> Attending doesnt mean hiring. It makes this a dump fair.
Hard to know if you won't share the numbers with us.
I still think schools wouldn't attend if they already know they're not going to hire there.
If recruiters at my school keep going to the same fair without ever hiring someone at that fair, the Board will tell them to stop attending. And recruiters know this.
> Im stating that the earlier and earlier trend doesnt mean anything for
> actual hiring.
Well, some of my teacher friends have gotten hired before November last year, and some of the colleagues at current school as well. But this is at tier 1 schools. I agree that the bulk of the schools still hire the bulk of their new hires during the normal recruiting season.
> It makes sense for the fair organizer.
A fair without hires will seize to exist.
Reply
@Heliotrope
Now go look up the definition of "want".
Good to hear you agree with me. Fairs exist because leadership want them too. Efficiency is a red herring, it doesnt matter if they are or not (they arent), leadership want them and so will continue to utilize them.
Not hard to know at all, the data of hiring at the SG fair is minuscule, its a dump fair. Attending doesnt mean hiring.
ISs dont attend leadership and recruiters do, and SG is a nice place to visit on an ISs coin.
What makes you think they dont tell their ownership that. You can think what you want that doesnt make it true.
Yes ITs get hired before November and then looking at the whole of the data its a very small amount. Its not absent, its not non-existent. Early recruiting happens. ITs get hired at early fairs, the hiring isnt zero, its just a trivial amount. That doesnt make a fair not a dump fair because hiring wasnt zero.
No it wont.
Now go look up the definition of "want".
Good to hear you agree with me. Fairs exist because leadership want them too. Efficiency is a red herring, it doesnt matter if they are or not (they arent), leadership want them and so will continue to utilize them.
Not hard to know at all, the data of hiring at the SG fair is minuscule, its a dump fair. Attending doesnt mean hiring.
ISs dont attend leadership and recruiters do, and SG is a nice place to visit on an ISs coin.
What makes you think they dont tell their ownership that. You can think what you want that doesnt make it true.
Yes ITs get hired before November and then looking at the whole of the data its a very small amount. Its not absent, its not non-existent. Early recruiting happens. ITs get hired at early fairs, the hiring isnt zero, its just a trivial amount. That doesnt make a fair not a dump fair because hiring wasnt zero.
No it wont.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Reply
PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope
> Now go look up the definition of "want".
1a: DEFICIENCY, LACK
suffers from a want of good sense
b: grave and extreme poverty that deprives one of the necessities of life
2: something wanted : NEED, DESIRE
Your point?
> Good to hear you agree with me.
We agree with each other.
I have said this all along. I was surprised you kept pretending we disagree on this.
> Not hard to know at all, the data of hiring at the SG fair is minuscule,
> its a dump fair. Attending doesnt mean hiring.
> ISs dont attend leadership and recruiters do, and SG is a nice place to
> visit on an ISs coin.
> What makes you think they dont tell their ownership that. You can think
> what you want that doesnt make it true.
Not sure what kind of school you're at. In my school, expenses get checked, and if visiting a certain fair keeps producing zero hires as a direct result of it, the fair gets taken off the schedule. Also, leadership and recruiters are quite serious and hardworking at my school, and they wouldn't just go for the fun of it, plus they have enough international networking events. The ones I know would rather spend time with their families, which they don't get to do as often as they'd like. I'm sure there are a few recruiters that go just to . but they are the exception and not the rule in my experience.
But maybe an actual recruiter can weigh in?
> @Heliotrope
> Now go look up the definition of "want".
1a: DEFICIENCY, LACK
suffers from a want of good sense
b: grave and extreme poverty that deprives one of the necessities of life
2: something wanted : NEED, DESIRE
Your point?
> Good to hear you agree with me.
We agree with each other.
I have said this all along. I was surprised you kept pretending we disagree on this.
> Not hard to know at all, the data of hiring at the SG fair is minuscule,
> its a dump fair. Attending doesnt mean hiring.
> ISs dont attend leadership and recruiters do, and SG is a nice place to
> visit on an ISs coin.
> What makes you think they dont tell their ownership that. You can think
> what you want that doesnt make it true.
Not sure what kind of school you're at. In my school, expenses get checked, and if visiting a certain fair keeps producing zero hires as a direct result of it, the fair gets taken off the schedule. Also, leadership and recruiters are quite serious and hardworking at my school, and they wouldn't just go for the fun of it, plus they have enough international networking events. The ones I know would rather spend time with their families, which they don't get to do as often as they'd like. I'm sure there are a few recruiters that go just to . but they are the exception and not the rule in my experience.
But maybe an actual recruiter can weigh in?
Reply
@Heliotrope
Read the whole definition.
I dont know why you consistently maintained that leadership and recruiters attend fairs for any other reason than they want to. Glad you came to your senses.
No it doesnt. Ownership never knows which fair will be productive, leadership just claim they hired X ITs as a result of fair attendance. This assumes theres actually an ownership that cares about such things.
Your ISs isnt all ISs.
Read the whole definition.
I dont know why you consistently maintained that leadership and recruiters attend fairs for any other reason than they want to. Glad you came to your senses.
No it doesnt. Ownership never knows which fair will be productive, leadership just claim they hired X ITs as a result of fair attendance. This assumes theres actually an ownership that cares about such things.
Your ISs isnt all ISs.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Reply
PsyGuy wrote:
> Read the whole definition.
I did. And I already said you're welcome to use 'want' instead of 'need', as it doesn't really matter.
> I dont know why you consistently maintained that leadership and recruiters
> attend fairs for any other reason than they want to. Glad you came to your
> senses.
I was already at my senses, my position hasn't changed.
I've always said that they go because they want to, because they want to hire teachers, and they think the fair is the best way to do so. They see a benefit, so they go. It fills a need/want they think they have. They think the face-to-face gives them a better sense of the candidates than Skype interviews (as said by @Nomads), and if that works for them, fine. They might think it's efficient, so they want to go.
Glad you came to your senses and finally realised that we sort of agree on this.
> No it doesnt. Ownership never knows which fair will be productive,
> leadership just claim they hired X ITs as a result of fair attendance. This
> assumes theres actually an ownership that cares about such things.
Maybe not your schools then, but at my current schools, and at least my two previous schools the Board would care about these things. If a fair keeps yielding no or very few hires, it will not be visited again.
And very few recruiters I know look forward to attending fairs, except possibly because they know that attending will fill vacancies.
> Read the whole definition.
I did. And I already said you're welcome to use 'want' instead of 'need', as it doesn't really matter.
> I dont know why you consistently maintained that leadership and recruiters
> attend fairs for any other reason than they want to. Glad you came to your
> senses.
I was already at my senses, my position hasn't changed.
I've always said that they go because they want to, because they want to hire teachers, and they think the fair is the best way to do so. They see a benefit, so they go. It fills a need/want they think they have. They think the face-to-face gives them a better sense of the candidates than Skype interviews (as said by @Nomads), and if that works for them, fine. They might think it's efficient, so they want to go.
Glad you came to your senses and finally realised that we sort of agree on this.
> No it doesnt. Ownership never knows which fair will be productive,
> leadership just claim they hired X ITs as a result of fair attendance. This
> assumes theres actually an ownership that cares about such things.
Maybe not your schools then, but at my current schools, and at least my two previous schools the Board would care about these things. If a fair keeps yielding no or very few hires, it will not be visited again.
And very few recruiters I know look forward to attending fairs, except possibly because they know that attending will fill vacancies.