Best Job Fair to Land a Tier 1 School

[PsyGuy]

@Heliotrope

We disagree.
We agree, 10 or more years.
We agree, it doesnt mean it doesnt. Its one irrational reason to attend fairs among many motivations.
Yes, you did you wrote it regarding recruiters and leaderships thoughts.

[Heliotrope]

Ok

[Nomads]

Psyguy,

"As I briefly discussed above, you seem to be one of those leadership that thinks your extremely limited HR experience (and recruiters and leadership tend to do HR very badly) allows you so profiler level insight into the quality of an IT."

Wow, you have no idea who I am or my HR background or experience yet you claim to have knowledge about me and how well or not I do the most important thing in my job. It does seem a bit hypocritical don't you think? What training do you have judging people based on their internet comments?

My insights come from twenty years of experience in hiring, additional coursework, and HR workshops. More importantly, my experience comes from seeing how the candidates do as teachers in my school. I have had successful hires from Skype and from face-to-face fairs and I have had unsuccessful hires in both formats, but I have a much higher success rate and the teachers stay longer from face-to-face fairs.

No one forces anyone to attend a fair, either as a candidate or a recruiter. While many have predicted their demise there are more candidates attending fairs than ever before, so it must be working for some of them.

[GrumblesMcGee]

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.

[Walter]

Grum, Grum, Grum, the most important decision a school leader will take is in the hiring of personnel. If I choose to hire face-to-face because I believe that doing so helps me to get the best possible teachers in front of students, then that is my prerogative.

Back in the day, before the advent of SEARCH, there were only three recruitment fairs: ECIS London; ISS in Boston/NYC/ DC or San Fran; UNI Iowa. Airfares back then were proportionally more expensive, international schools were spread out around the world and teachers still traveled. Now there are probably 30 fairs in virtually every region. It is far more affordable than it ever was for teachers to attend – all of which seems to undermine your claim that: “…it's 2019. It's international teaching (i.e. candidates are dispersed throughout the world). Teachers are busy. Teachers aren't millionaires.” Of course all this is teacher-choice and leadership-choice. No one is forced to attend a fair, but the idea that fairs shouldn’t exist because you don’t want to attend them is, I think, a little presumptuous on your part.

It was interesting that you chose to ignore the supportive comments that followed my own:
"As an international teacher for almost 20 years, I agree with Walter. Even with the added expense, it's a great way to get to know an Admin a bit and hear about the school culture to judge if the school is a good fit (and vice versa). I find that face-to-face interviews give me far more information than Skype interviews. I also believe I come across better in person. So while I hate "internet dating" thing, the "speed dating" concept at fairs is well worth it for me."

"Pretty much agree with everything @walter mentioned. A couple of the most extraordinary and exciting moments I can remember have been walking into a fair and knowing that I could be going almost anywhere in the world in the next few days time. I'm sure there are admin out there that see the fairs purely as a boondoggle and are the sinister beings psyguy describes. But in top tier schools, that hasn't been my experience. The admin I've worked for have had the utmost levels of integrity. Even if I didn't agree with their decisions, or even aspects of their vision at times, they were in education for the right reasons and there was a mutual respect that framed our relationship. I've met admin during interviews that don't match that description, and those are schools I've chosen not to work for."

"Agree with many of the points Walter raised, but with increased cost of living, pressure cooker-like work conditions, and reduced potential for savings, the so called dream schools are no longer the favorites of veteran teachers. I'd rather live in Budapest or Prague than in Paris or Bangkok."

Teachers, like administrators, find reassurance in meeting the people they are going to be working with. For many of them, this will be a life-shaping decision, and they want to be as sure as they can be that they are making the right choice. But I presume that you believe that they, too, are dinosaurs.

As for this part, it’s just silly straw man stuff. Frankly, I expect better from you:

"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."

You move from a fear of something happening, to an assertion that something is happening and then having set that up that totem you proceed to knock it down as though that proves your point. So for your information, I check out all teacher candidates. And I understand at least as well as you do the flimsy value of a police clearance certificate.

Meanwhile, you ignore completely the point I made about hiring teachers at fairs who had never thought about working in my region and would, therefore never have sent in an application or made themselves available for Skype interviews. Why would I want to miss out on this talent? And why should teachers miss out on opportunities they hadn't thought of? Because in your opinion fairs are for dinosaurs? Maybe you ought to consider other people's opinions.

[shawanda]

I think finding a match is where it's at. I am not registered for a fair this time around, and I've already had two interviews in two weeks at top international schools, and next week I have my third. Why would I want to go to a fair and interact with the masses?

[shadowjack]

And if those don't pan out and you didn't at least register for a fair? (you can withdraw easily, but latecomers might not be on the waiting list... not totally sure how that part works).

We went the same route as you when we recruited, but also signed up for a fair, just in case. It didn't cost us anything, so nothing was lost - and when we got our positions we simply withdrew ourselves from the fair and cancelled the hotel (we hadn't bought plane tickets as we had been interviewing since early October the year we made our move...)

[fine dude]

Some folks are so naive that they believe interviews = job offers as if they are the best in their field and they have no competitors. To succeed in this race, you need an open mind. Your family size, personality, and willingness to walk an extra mile are more important than your subject expertise. There are equally talented or even better teachers who are single or teacher couples.

[shadowjack]

As PG and I have gone around and disagreed, you have to get interviews to get an offer, so interviews are good. Assuming that interviews = offer, though, as FD says, is ludicrous. Schools interview a range of candidates for positions, even golden candidates. In the end, it is often the intangibles, including whether you are a single, a couple, a single with trailing spouse, a couple with 1 or 2 kids, or a couple with 3 or more kids, that determine hiring.

That's why even though we wanted to be done before the fair, we booked a fair, just in case. Always have a fallback plan.

[fine dude]

@sj
Sounds like you need to sharpen your literacy skills. Read what I said above, again.

[PsyGuy]

@SJ

You actually dont need interviews to get an offer. There are ITs that are offered contracts without an interview, or the interview isnt recognizable as an interview.
I concur (as well as with @fine dude) thought that fit and logistics are more the driving factors than anything else.

@Nomads

Yes I do. I know your a leaders who is a generalist who maybe hires a handful of ITs every year. You are not a hiring manager, you do not recruit day in and day out every working day with new hires every day or week. You are a leader who benefits highly from the pareto principle with a candidate pool of per-screened candidates, you then believe your successes, which were mostly attributed to just showing up are the result of your skills, talent or abilities, they arent, thats ego.

@GrumblesMcGee

"Get over themselves", leadership and recruiters dont have to get over themselves, seriously they would be more accurate and a more viable statement if they said that to you. Recruiters and leadership can do whatever they want. We actually agree on many points (anyone recruiter and candidate can be on for 30 minutes, etc.) but when you make ego saturated remarks that the . with the power should acquiesce to your criticisms, you sound like a millennial who believes the twitter-verse matters, it doesnt your just a peasant chastising the gentry. Seriously, you think they care about you calling them a dinosaur?

[shadowjack]

@FD and I agree with you. Job interviews do not equal offers and there are lots of intangibles.

[Heliotrope]

PsyGuy wrote:
> @Nomads
>
> Yes I do. I know your a leaders who is a generalist who maybe hires a
> handful of ITs every year. You are not a hiring manager, you do not recruit
> day in and day out every working day with new hires every day or week. You
> are a leader who benefits highly from the pareto principle with a candidate
> pool of per-screened candidates, you then believe your successes, which
> were mostly attributed to just showing up are the result of your skills,
> talent or abilities, they arent, thats ego.

@PsyGuy, can you share what information you've used for your characterisation of @Nomads?
Your description seems to indicate a level of familiarity that goes beyond what has been shared by @Nomads on this forum, or is it all just a wild guess?
For example, how do you know @Nomads isn't already also using Pareto to minimise wasted time and increase recruiting efficiency? The application of Pareto to hiring goes beyond just the pre-screened pool of candidates.

On that topic, both the Skype and Skype-hires likely come from the same candidate pool of per-screened candidates, but that doesn't say there can't be a considerable difference in quality, as illustrated by @Nomads saying that some from each group have been bad hires.
If @Nomads has noticed a difference over the years between the two groups favouring the face-to-face hires, than apparently face-to-face seems to be a more effective way for him/her to hire high-performing teachers.

In IE there is a hiring season, so nobody hires day-in day-out, but given enough experience, you will on average still have a better insight into the hiring process than those who do not hire. There's no basis to say any conclusions @Nomads has reached are due to ego.

[PsyGuy]

Absolutely, interviews do not equal offers. Some ITs think that getting interviews indicates some level of success, when it doesnt it indicates interest and interest and success are not the same thing.

@Heliotrope

I could, but why should I? I only post from experience, research and reliable and trusted sources. Do your own research.

Sounds like your agreeing with me. He is using the Pareto principal, at least in so much as benefiting from it.

They very likely do originate from the same pool of candidates. Im claiming there isnt a significant difference in quality, thats what I posted previously.

No, there lack of notice doesnt indicate a lack of difference. Believing something is better doesnt mean its actually better. Believing that beating the drum causes the rain, doesnt mean it does. Believing it does is ego.

[Heliotrope]

@PsyGuy
Everybody who uses Search or ISS 'uses' the Pareto principal, but there's still a lot of variation, as the Search hurdle isn't too difficult to clear. And since both the Skype and non-Skype hires come from this same candidate pool and @Nomads saying that (s)he noticed a difference over the years between the two groups favouring the face-to-face hires, than apparently face-to-face seems to be a more effective way for him/her to hire high-performing teachers. Not sure how ego would play into that observation, as @Nomads hired both groups.