Job Discussion Forums

[Elegantstatue]

@ Choudoufou. Please re-read what I said:

'I will not go in to full details of the interview disaster, but I was told one thing by the recruiter when the website explicitly stated another thing'.

I did say I was not about to present a prolix of the interview. I said she sabotaged it. Need I add the whole bloody transcript of the foching interview? She stated one thing when the website stated another!

And stop writing like an adolescent fifth grader. Whether it is laziness or not in your writing style they are two different things. Reading your text though is very annoying. It lacks in correct syntax.

[muffintop]

[muffintop]

[Elegantstatue]

@Muffintop. You sound more rational than choudoufou. I will elaborate on the desultory interview with English first. The site states this clearly but the recruiter said otherwise:

•One copy each of two written work related references and/or details of two contactable work referees. http://www.efbluecard.com/

A blue card according to their rules that is adopted from the Queensland education system is a working with children clearance. It means in elementary terms, are you a paedophile or not. Frankly she adopted her state law and imposed it on me at caprice, bearing no relevance to the organisation. With the exception of the fact I am eligible for a working with children clearance. She also speculated without foundation I chose to teach young learners. I never decided that at the outset, she decided that!

I am eligible for a working with children clearance in my state. The recruiter said I needed two written referees that elaborated at least two years teaching experience. She interrupted me when she made that statement. Not all the employers over the past five years of my working life as a teacher will provide a written testament. Two of the schools in my state closed down, or the staff has turned over and new staff do not recognise my teacher status. That was one complication.

The blue card site states two contactable referees, it does not imply I must have solid evidence of teaching experience documented on paper, for a two year period.

The recruiter implied then that all white entities employed with English First are certified teachers that possessed two years teaching experience prior to joining English First. I have read many reports of EF in Hangzhou and other cities. All the reports inveighed against English First, an inauspicious sign. However, this idiot recruiter says I must have two years, documented and verifiable in words, teaching experience. That was when I was both perplexed and infuriated.

I think the recruiter was on her flush cycle or is sexually deprived and took her frustrations out on me.

[choudoufu]

delicious english.

but.....step away from the thesaurus.

[muffintop]

[GreatApe]

muffintop wrote:

[Elegantstatue]

@choudoufu. So I have been told I am very smart. Or I could be an idiot savant. Nonetheless, I am highly evolved, I don't need a thesaurus, sometimes I refer to an on line dictionary to confirm the words I use are appropriate to a text. That is seldom though, to reduce redundant words, but no I did not refer to a thesaurus or dictionary this time either.

It would be good to hear opinions on peoples' experiences with English First though. I referred to another site and all I have heard is bad press. I did a search on Dave's but nothing materialised.

What I said before about the interview felt like a sabotage. I knew where I stood in the interview. However the recruiter did not give me a chance to explain myself point blank. Some new doors had better open soon.