|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ramakentesh
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Posts: 145
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 3:59 am Post subject: Job interviews or humiliation opportunity? |
 |
|
I went to three job interviews yesterday - two of which were situations where I was put in a room with lots of office staff where they tried every method they could think of to try and humiliate me, belittle me, confuse me and then decide that they thought that i was onyl worth half the pay rate they already 'guaranteed' me over the internet before i came.
I was laughing at the time, thinking that they couldnt all be this bad = maybe just keep away from the large chains, but now i think about it im really quite pissed.
I mean these people offered me all these special perks and a pay rate and now they tell me (after i went through a lot to get here) that 'sorry, that is old information, those conditions no longer exist'
THey offered me a job, but i just cant be bothered even ringing them back = can they black list me for that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pop Fly
Joined: 15 Feb 2003
Posts: 429
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
No they can't black list you. They never applied for a work permit did they? Therefore, they don't have an ARC # or a passport #.
But you should think of posting the name of the school and the details of the contract they reneged on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ramakentesh
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Posts: 145
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well they did photo copy the passport but then told us that they could only offer us 10 hours a week instead of the 'guaranteed 15-30 hours' and we are talking two hours in Muzha and then two hours in Banchao and crap like that. I will definately post their names when the times comes and i have other work.
But i took leave from a great job to come to this - I need a beer! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
clark.w.griswald
Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Posts: 2056
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 6:28 am Post subject: Re: Job interviews or humiliation opportunity? |
|
|
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| I went to three job interviews yesterday - two of which were situations where I was put in a room with lots of office staff where they tried every method they could think of to try and humiliate me, belittle me, confuse me and then decide that they thought that i was onyl worth half the pay rate they already 'guaranteed' me over the internet before i came. |
Just for clarification here. Giving demo classes in front of real students is no longer legal. As a result, schools that care about the quality of new teachers will require you to give a demo to some teachers or trainers. This is actually a good sign in my book, that the school actually cares about the teachers.
Sure it is embarassing to have to stand up in front of a group of adults and pretend to teach. It does feel silly, but it can be very beneficial to the school. They are not concerned with the details, but more your personality and presentation. They were looking at how you reacted to the situations that they threw at you. Judging by the way that you describe the experience, I am guessing that you didn't show the patience that they had hoped for, and as such my guess is that they quite honestly didn't prefer you as a teacher for their school.
Most chain schools have a set mimimum wage that everyone is entitled to. If you want to start at a higher rate as you are an experienced teacher or whatever then you need to show them that you are worth that, and that they don't need to spend time, energy, and money training you. I assume from what you have said that you were going for a higher starting rate than the base rate (which would be around NTD530-570), and that you failed to impress upon them that you were worth the money that you were asking for. They therefore offered you the rock bottom deal.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| I mean these people offered me all these special perks and a pay rate and now they tell me (after i went through a lot to get here) that 'sorry, that is old information, those conditions no longer exist' THey offered me a job, but i just cant be bothered even ringing them back = can they black list me for that? |
If the school misled you or promised you something that they later reniged upon then the school is wrong.
If however they were offering a pay range and after the demo you gave they chose to offer you what they thought you were worth then I can't fault them for that. You are of course free to go elsewhere if you are not happy with what they are offering, but I suspect that they weren't being overly unreasonable as I believe that the fact they have the demo situation set up suggests that they interview teachers regularly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ki
Joined: 23 Jul 2004
Posts: 475
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, how much did they offer before and after the demo? I does seem like a ranged salary. When anyone provides a ranged salary you will almost always be given the lowest of the range. Even with loads of experience and qualifications. Another peculiarity of schools is to first ask how much you expect to get paid before they will tell you what the pay rate is. Or how much you were getting at previous jobs. Then, after you do the demo and are about to sign their contract they will tell you that the probationary period has less money and excludes benefits such as sick and holiday pay.
I have done a couple demos in front of the other teaching staff before but nothing anywhere as difficult as what you described. Pretty scary if it was your first demo. It does seem that they were trying to see how you would react to the most difficult of situations. Your ability in the demo probably did very little to change the pay rate and conditions offered though.
Nothing, especially over the internet, is gauranteed. Was it even a school, or a recruiter? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ramakentesh
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Posts: 145
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well i should clarify. I have no problem with doing a demo - and we have been asked by other schools to do a demo with students (which we didnt know was illegal).
What differed here was the fact that I was given written guarantees that I was told in the interview were 'old information' and the demonstration was designed to fail.
Rather than just attempting to create a realistic difficult class, they all just started criticising me, correcting each other before i got a chance and then demanding a game - every game i tried was not good enough - although i had no resources and was standing in front of the entire floor's staff... From the get go, all the people in the room were running amok and every attempt i made to disicpline them in a respectful way was ignored.
As an adult its easy to sit there and ignore a person and continue to do what you like - it wasnt like i could eject them from the class, or make them stand and sing to stop them misbehaving.
It was blatantly obvious that the decision was made before i started. i was told that i was not allowed to use any english other than simple words about the topic and then they started talking to me in english the whole time. I was very patient and did as best i could.
Pretty ordinary in my opinion. I thought i did quite well , but obviously they had already decided that i was not good enough for any pay rate other than the lowest - even though i was never given a chance.
I jsut thought it was an obvious way for them to justify paying me the lowest rate. They could ahve just been decent and said straight out that the lowest pay rate will apply - i wouldnt have cared, but they chose to go through this whole bullshit process to do it.
ive had other offers and other interviews and they were normal - so im guessing its just this school - and rather than 30 hours im being offered 8 from them - so ill go elsewhere.
So I sat there being told by someone whose english was quite bad that i had no experience (when i do and in all my time no child has ever acted like that) and being laughed at when i mentioned every one of the 20 or so conditions that they guaranteed me in an email - then being told where i will live and that I should accept two hours in Muzha and two in Banchaio I just laughed it off - id sooner go home than work for these people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
clark.w.griswald
Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Posts: 2056
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It seems that the school did a very poor job of explaining the process to you. I can see some method behind the madness, and I can also see what they were after, but the fact that this was not explained to you so that you could understand this is certainly a failing of that school.
I have an idea of which school it may be. Is their office on the 15th floor of a building on Xinyi Road in Taipei?
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| Well i should clarify. I have no problem with doing a demo - and we have been asked by other schools to do a demo with students (which we didnt know was illegal). |
Many schools don't know that it is illegal to give demos in front of students. It has not been publicized as well as it should have been. This can result in teachers being put in an awkward situation as if the school insists upon a demo in front of real students, the teacher knows that if they refuse they are very unlikely to get the job.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| What differed here was the fact that I was given written guarantees that I was told in the interview were 'old information' and the demonstration was designed to fail. |
What exactly did they write that suggested this? I am curious as I can't imagine why they would write this down. What purpose could it serve?
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| Rather than just attempting to create a realistic difficult class, they all just started criticising me, correcting each other before i got a chance and then demanding a game - every game i tried was not good enough - although i had no resources and was standing in front of the entire floor's staff... From the get go, all the people in the room were running amok and every attempt i made to disicpline them in a respectful way was ignored. |
Were they talking to you as teacher to teacher? Or were they acting as students talking to the teacher? The above suggests that it is the former, but I am more familiar with the latter.
It is not about creating a realistic classroom environment as most demos only run for 10 minutes or so. As I mentioned earlier, these type of demos are not set up to see how you teach, but how you present material and deal with situations as they arise. Yes, they can be over the top and somewhat embarrassing as you feel awkward not knowing how to discipline an adult acting as a kid. There are some clear benefits to this process however, particularly in identifying teachers who are not suited to teaching kids.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| As an adult its easy to sit there and ignore a person and continue to do what you like - it wasnt like i could eject them from the class, or make them stand and sing to stop them misbehaving. |
It seems to me that this is where you may have not done so well in the demo. The misbehavior was a sign that something was lacking in your teaching. The teacher trainers identified this and exploited it. You may have been moving too slowly through the material, you may have been concentrating on certain individuals while ignoring others, you may have gone too fast without explaining things clearly. Every new teacher is going to be lacking in some way, and the teacher trainers at chain schools often know the sorts of areas that are a problem for new teachers. Many of these can be fixed with training. The way that you dealt with their misbehavior was what they would have been most interested in. Teachers who lack patience or understanding in such situations often don't do well teaching kids and these are not characteristics that can be changed with training. These are personality issues that suggest that you might be better suited to teaching adults.
I don't know you, and I have no idea whether what I say strikes a chord or not. I am pretty familiar with the whole process and am really speaking in general terms to try to help you understand what actually went on.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| It was blatantly obvious that the decision was made before i started. |
This is possible. I assume that you had a face to face interview before the demo, and it is quite possible that they were concerned about certain aspects of your interview. The demo can be a good way to overcome problems in the interview process, but if you bum out on the demo and the interview then they would of course be less than interested in offering you a position.
Most demos run for about ten minutes, but in most cases it is obvious within about 1 or 2 minutes whether a teacher is suitable for kids or not. The rest of the demo can be a good chance for identifying strong and weak areas of that teachers teaching.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| i was told that i was not allowed to use any english other than simple words about the topic and then they started talking to me in english the whole time. |
in my experience, the biggest single mistake that new teachers make is that they talk too much. They look at the kids in the class and seem to equate those with kids of the same age back home. They then proceed to explain new words by explaining them in English that they know kids of that age back home would understand. The problem is that the kids in Taiwan generally do not have the same language base that kids back home have so most of what is said goes straight over their heads.
One of the most difficult parts of teaching beginners can be communicating something effectively without using too much English. They obviously wanted to see if you could do this, and personally I think that it is a good test.
They were no doubt speaking English above the level of the supposed students to guide you in certain ways. For example, if you were not explaining the word 'car' very well one of the students in the demo might say 'We don't understand what that word means'. This is of course above the level of the class you are meant to be teaching but helps you keep on track.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| I thought i did quite well , but obviously they had already decided that i was not good enough for any pay rate other than the lowest - even though i was never given a chance. |
I don't think that this was a personal decision.
The fact is that schools will of course want to pay the minimum offered. As Ki says, if there is a scale you should expect to get the lowest. If you are able to impress them then you can possibly negotiate more, but you really need to earn that. Bear in mind that big chain schools interview lots of teachers and therefore they have a lots of benchmarks to follow.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| ive had other offers and other interviews and they were normal - so im guessing its just this school - and rather than 30 hours im being offered 8 from them - so ill go elsewhere. |
I have concerns with the above for two reasons.
Firstly, legal jobs offering ARC's are required to offer at least 14 hours a week. Any less than that leaves the teacher vulnerable.
Secondly, teachers can only work at the location specified on their ARC. Even if the English name of the two schools is the same, they each have their own Chinese names. You would need to ensure that each of these names was on your ARC in order to be legally employed.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| So I sat there being told by someone whose english was quite bad |
I think that this sort of comment is out of line. If I were involved in the hiring process and I got any inkling that this was your attitude then I would toss your resume straight in the trash.
If the local staff spoke perfect English then why would they need us anyway?
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| that i had no experience (when i do |
I am curious about this too. Do you have experience teaching in Taiwan? If not, then what makes you feel that you deserve more than the starting wage that was being offered? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ramakentesh
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Posts: 145
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Im not going to mention the name of the school. But I was warned and should have heeded those warnings.
I received emails and was directed to websites where a variety of conditions were suggested - I am not trying to tell you why this is the case, and your assuming that the reasoning behind it might actually conform to logic...
'Were they talking to you as teacher to teacher? Or were they acting as students talking to the teacher? The above suggests that it is the former, but I am more familiar with the latter. '
- The first problem was that they were switching between the two, making it impossible for me to continue to act as a teacher when im constantly being reminded that it is an interview situation.
'It seems to me that this is where you may have not done so well in the demo. The misbehavior was a sign that something was lacking in your teaching. The teacher trainers identified this and exploited it. You may have been moving too slowly through the material, you may have been concentrating on certain individuals while ignoring others, you may have gone too fast without explaining things clearly. Every new teacher is going to be lacking in some way, and the teacher trainers at chain schools often know the sorts of areas that are a problem for new teachers. Many of these can be fixed with training. The way that you dealt with their misbehavior was what they would have been most interested in. Teachers who lack patience or understanding in such situations often don't do well teaching kids and these are not characteristics that can be changed with training. These are personality issues that suggest that you might be better suited to teaching adults.
I don't know you, and I have no idea whether what I say strikes a chord or not. I am pretty familiar with the whole process and am really speaking in general terms to try to help you understand what actually went on'
- They started acting up instantly - not after two minutes of me demonstrating my teaching - it was straight away. And its wasnt acting up in the traditional sense - bad kids etc, it was a mixture of 'we are the interviewers' and 'we are naughty kids' all in one...
The next assumption Im sure you will jump to is that they somehow didnt like me because of the interview process - well again, Im a clean cut, well spoken, confident individual, and ive done many job interviews professional settings and this interview process was so obviously flawed from the outset that it was humourous.
I think i did ok under the circumstances - not great because i wasnt expecting it to go the way that it did - i was expecting it to be similar to a class room situation when it was only sorta of like that. I could have done better in hind-sight, but i really feel that it was sprung on me in a way that made it difficult for me to have done any better.
They offered me the job - but Id rather not work there - ive already found a number of jobs where Im atleast treated with a bit of diginity rather than being told that I will get the job purely because I was white. (And this I was told in no uncertain terms).
'The fact is that schools will of course want to pay the minimum offered. As Ki says, if there is a scale you should expect to get the lowest. If you are able to impress them then you can possibly negotiate more, but you really need to earn that. Bear in mind that big chain schools interview lots of teachers and therefore they have a lots of benchmarks to follow. '
True - I have no problem with this fact - just didnt like the way they went about it.
' have concerns with the above for two reasons.
Firstly, legal jobs offering ARC's are required to offer at least 14 hours a week. Any less than that leaves the teacher vulnerable.
Secondly, teachers can only work at the location specified on their ARC. Even if the English name of the two schools is the same, they each have their own Chinese names. You would need to ensure that each of these names was on your ARC in order to be legally employed. '
- Well that was what was offered to me - 8 hours.
'I think that this sort of comment is out of line. If I were involved in the hiring process and I got any inkling that this was your attitude then I would toss your resume straight in the trash.
If the local staff spoke perfect English then why would they need us anyway? '
Why is it out of line? I think youve mistaken my intention with this comment - but again you werent there so it doesnt matter. I just dont like being patronised. I'm sorry you feel that I am out of line for finding it amusing that someone was correcting my english in a demo when they were changing a gramatically correct sentence with one that was blatantly incorrect, before explaining a curiculum to me that would provide very little benefit to any child trying to actually learn english...Certtainly my friends have all found it quite amusing. Ive already been to many other schools that have explained their curriculum and it far exceeds that being explained to me during the interview at this school.
' am curious about this too. Do you have experience teaching in Taiwan? If not, then what makes you feel that you deserve more than the starting wage that was being offered?'
I dont think i ever suggested that I deserved more than the minimum wage - since i have no experience in Taiwan I would have been quite happy with the minimum wage, even without what the school suggested would be available to me above and beyond that wage, but treat me like a DH when Ive already been to other schools that treated me with basic respect, im honestly surprised they get any self-respecting staff at all.
I do have other experience in education - but thats really irrelevant to my complaints about the process at this school.
It basically ruined my day - I struggled through two other interviews that would have been much better had I been in a normal frame of mind - and I even told these other schools about the experience and both were shocked.
At the end of the day, Im over it now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
clark.w.griswald
Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Posts: 2056
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| I received emails and was directed to websites where a variety of conditions were suggested - I am not trying to tell you why this is the case, and your assuming that the reasoning behind it might actually conform to logic... |
I still don't understand.
You mention that you were given guarantees in writing that were later revoked. Are you referring to what is written on their website, or are you talking about an offer that was given to you in particular?
In either of those cases did they promise you an actual wage and then offer you less when you met them, or did they provide you with a wage range and then offer you a wage on the lower end of the scale after interviewing you and seeing your demo?
I think that answers to the above would certainly help clarify whether the actions of the school were as deliberate as you have suggested, or whether it was a misunderstanding.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| - The first problem was that they were switching between the two, making it impossible for me to continue to act as a teacher when im constantly being reminded that it is an interview situation. |
I have had quite a deal of experience in interviewing and hiring foreign teachers in Taiwan, and I have also had some level of involvement with the type of demos that you refer to. I am no longer involved with these so there is no way that I was involved in your particular case.
Having said that, any school that has the ability and willingness to require teachers to give a demo in front of staff (often four to six staff members) is obviously taking the process seriously. I don't see why they would go to all of this trouble and then purposely undermine the process by behaving in the way that you portray them as having behaved.
I can understand your annoyance if the process was not explained to you clearly, but that does not warrant the suggestions that you have made about the school.
What you describe above is very odd. The only reason that any of the staff participants would behave in a manner other than being students in your demo class would be if you stopped and asked them a question about something, or if you did something that was way off track and needed correction.
As I have mentioned before, the participants are not looking so much at what you do, but how you do it, with a particular emphasis on how you present the material given, and how you respond to situations that occur. It all appears pretty silly (and I can honestly say that I was never one of the adults acting like a kid) but there is some method to the madness for someone who knows what to look for. One of the big things they are looking for is patience.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| - They started acting up instantly - not after two minutes of me demonstrating my teaching - it was straight away. And its wasnt acting up in the traditional sense - bad kids etc, it was a mixture of 'we are the interviewers' and 'we are naughty kids' all in one... |
It is normal for them to start throwing situations at you from the very start. They go overboard. That is their job. No one is expected to be able to handle the situation perfectly. That is not what it is about. It is about responding appropriately to the situations that are thrown at you. If you don't deal with the situations properly then you will find that it all snowballs - and this is how things go in real classes with real kids.
How was it that you feel they were sometimes interviewers sometimes kids? I haven't seen that situation before, and as I mentioned before it would seem that this would undermine the whole reason for being there. Often the people involved in the process do it more than once a week, and have done for years. I can't believe that they were all wrong and you were right, but I am interested in hearing what it was that they did that led you to believe that they were interviewers sometimes and kids other times.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| The next assumption Im sure you will jump to is that they somehow didnt like me because of the interview process |
No actually not. If they didn't like you from the interview or if they felt that you were totally unsuitable then you wouldn't have got the opportunity for the demo. Quite honestly, they wouldn't have wasted the time having their staff sit through your demo if you were never going to get the job.
In asking you to do the demo they were quite obviously willing to employ you, but either wanted you to do the demo as it is standard practice (most likely), or they wanted to confirm that you were worth what you were asking for (less likely). The demo is not generally about deciding whether or not the person should get the job, but more about identifying where their strengths and weaknesses are. Often the people in the room are the people who will be training you and therefore they get a chance to know upfront what direction they need to take the training.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| - well again, Im a clean cut, well spoken, confident individual, and ive done many job interviews professional settings and this interview process was so obviously flawed from the outset that it was humourous. |
This is not a normal interview process in the strict sense of the word so I don't think that you can really compare it to interviews for non-teaching related positions.
Different schools have different processes. Some schools care more than others about the ability of their teachers. Some schools will accept a warm body with a pulse. The fact is that the demo process is a cost to the school and is generally only undertaken by schools that can see the value in determining a teachers strengths and weaknesses for training purposes.
I am not sure who you are that you feel that you can consider the process flawed when you don't seem to have a very good understanding of what the process is about. I have a considerable amount of experience in this field and while I first thought that a demo conducted in front of teacher trainers was a useless process so far removed from the actual classroom that it was just silly, is in fact a valuable and worthwhile tool. It doesn't show everything nor is it meant to. It does however give the trainers a taste of your teaching and that's what it is all about.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| I think i did ok under the circumstances - not great because i wasnt expecting it to go the way that it did - i was expecting it to be similar to a class room situation when it was only sorta of like that. I could have done better in hind-sight, but i really feel that it was sprung on me in a way that made it difficult for me to have done any better. |
As I conceeded earlier it was wrong of the school to have not explained the process to you in a way that you understood exactly what you were doing. Other than that though I am unclear as to where the problem lies?
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| They offered me the job - but Id rather not work there - ive already found a number of jobs where Im atleast treated with a bit of diginity rather than being told that I will get the job purely because I was white. (And this I was told in no uncertain terms). |
I am curious about what you mean by the above.
Do you mean that you were offered a job without the need to do a demo, or do you mean that you were required to do a demo but you feel that the staff were more professional?
Out of curiosity, what was the employment process at the jobs that you mention you found outside of the one that you are complaining about.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| Why is it out of line? I think youve mistaken my intention with this comment - but again you werent there so it doesnt matter. |
In my opinion it is offensive to disparage local staff for their lack of English ability. Simple as that. This is why it is out of line.
Also what do you mean by 'you werent there so it doesnt matter'? Are you suggesting that as none of us were in the room that our opinions on the matter have no relevance? If so then why come to this forum in the first place. Were you perhaps expecting that we would all jump up and say 'Oh, poor guy. That's terrible!' What good would that do?
It seems clear to me that you have little understanding of the process and the intentions of that process. I don't know whether this is because it wasn't explained to you clearly, or whether you chose not to listen, but I am getting the impression that it was the latter.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| I just dont like being patronised. I'm sorry you feel that I am out of line for finding it amusing that someone was correcting my english in a demo when they were changing a gramatically correct sentence with one that was blatantly incorrect, before explaining a curiculum to me that would provide very little benefit to any child trying to actually learn english... |
Do you think that your behavior and suggestions are not patronizing of them?
Please share with us the example of grammar correction that you refer to. As I have mentioned earlier the role of the staff as students in the class is as students. I have rarely seen any cases where this was not the case, nor does it make sense that it wouldn't be the case. This is their jb and they know what is required of them. They do it all the time and they do it for a reason.
It is being suggested that they didn't do their jobs but it hasn't been made clear how you feel that they failed to do their jobs.
I am also interested in your comments about their curriculum. I am just wondering how you feel qualified to criticize a curriculum that you haven't taught, and it's application to a group of students that you have never taught?
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| Certtainly my friends have all found it quite amusing. Ive already been to many other schools that have explained their curriculum and it far exceeds that being explained to me during the interview at this school. |
And what exactly does that prove? Of course your friends are going to laughg along with you. That's what friends do. It takes people who are not involved to really question what you are saying and that is what I am doing.
It would be interesting to here how you feel that the curriculum of other schools was better than the curriculum at this school. The reason that I ask this is that it is my opinion that schools that require demos are generally concerned about the quality of their teachers. It goes that these same schools would likely also be concerned with the quality of their curriculum. The reverse could also be true.
What were the problems with the first curriculum? What were the points of the other curriculums that you feel were better than the school you are complaining about?
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| I dont think i ever suggested that I deserved more than the minimum wage - since i have no experience in Taiwan I would have been quite happy with the minimum wage, even without what the school suggested would be available to me above and beyond that wage, but treat me like a DH when Ive already been to other schools that treated me with basic respect, im honestly surprised they get any self-respecting staff at all. |
See I think that you did imply this. You indicated that you were offered a lower wage than what you were lead to believe you were offered and hence deserved. Did the position offer a pay range, and you were given the lower range of that? Or did the school actually suggest to you that you were going to be paid 'x' amount, but after the employment process they actually offered you 'y' amount? How was this conveyed to you, and do you believe that it was intentional, implied, or due to a misunderstanding?
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| I do have other experience in education - but thats really irrelevant to my complaints about the process at this school. |
Maybe, maybe not. Did you make mention of this education experience when questioned about whether or not you had taught before? I find that when asked a question about whether an applicant has teaching experience, they will sometimes refer to matters which have a very tenuous link at best to teaching a class of kids in Taiwan.
While in some cases this is clearly an effort to answer a question in a manner deemed appropriate, it is clear in other cases that the applicant genuinely feels that these unrelated experiences are somehow justification for a higher wage attributed to 'experienced teachers'. What I mean by all of this is that when schools here ask if you have teaching experience they are most likely wanting to know whether you have classroom teaching experience with the age level of the students for the job you are applying for. Does this ring a bell?
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| and I even told these other schools about the experience and both were shocked. |
You mean you complained about this school during the interview process at other schools? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ramakentesh
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Posts: 145
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Really, this is going nowhere - We dont agree and apparently I dont listen - even though you question blatantly obvious statements as being 'unclear' or 'confusing'. I really dont appreciate being judged and frankly since all you know about me comes from around 12 posts on this forum I find it offensive and strange that you feel the need to.
So this will be my last reply regarding this post.
I received emails back home from the school that stated that I could examine a website to see if the 'working conditions' would be suitable for me.
When i arrived I was told that these conditions - the sole reason I went for the interview - were no longer available.
I really cant explain this any clearer to you.
If you think this a normal and an acceptable practise for your prospective employer that's fine, but I dont. And I doubt any normal person would.
Secondly, if you take the time to examine my previous responses to you - it states quite clearerly that I would have been satisfied with the minimum pay rate - so where your confusion is coming from I cannot explain.
I really can only say to you once again that I was unhappy with the demonstration for two reasons - firstly Im quite sure that no matter how I had gone in the demonstration I would have been offered the low pay rate. Ive spoken to one or two other teachers who responded to it differently and that the minimum pay rate and felt that they did quite well and were still offered the loewst pay rate.
Since I was able to look at just how detailed their study of my teaching techniques were (they had about seven boxes that they could tick for 'personality' or 'technique' or something like that. Now - with your apparent knowledge of the this type of demonstration at this particular school - you have suggested that this demonstration is used to find a variety of facets of the teacher's technique for training purposes. If this were the case I would have expected extensive notes, not ticks and crosses.
Mate I dont need to prove to you whether or not I am qualified to an extent that in your opinion allows me to criticise a schools curriculum. Again your opinion of me is irrelevant and I just dont understand why you feel that I need you to approve of my statements. I posted to vent and to see if other people had had similar experiences, not to have an argument with you about the whether or not my opinion is valid or not to you.
Yes I went to an informal interview at another school where we discussed curriculum and I did mention how the demonstration at the other school was undertaken. The interviewer there agreed that it sounded ridiculous in his own words. Im not sure how this is relevant.
Anyway this is getting kind of old... and I have better things to do than argue over the internet...
Thanks for your help with information in the past, but no thanks for your personal judgements... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
clark.w.griswald
Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Posts: 2056
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2005 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
I find it amusing when people come to a public forum such as this, state their disgust at a situation in no uncertain terms, and then avoid discussion of the topic. As we all know, there are two sides to every story, and in some cases such as this one, I think that I have an idea of what the other sides story is even though they are not here to present this.
As anyone who reads this forum would know, I am very critical of misinformation. If you are going to post then at least post honestly and be willing to answer questions raised. Surely that is a reasonable thing to ask, as a failure to do so invalidates the value of this board.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| even though you question blatantly obvious statements as being 'unclear' or 'confusing'. |
You have been intentionally unclear.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| What differed here was the fact that I was given written guarantees that I was told in the interview were 'old information' and the demonstration was designed to fail. |
This is a statement that I have asked you about but you have failed to explain. It suggests that someone at that company wrote you a guarantee of a wage, but upon arrival you were not offered that wage. In your latest post you seem to dispute this yourself as you now suggest that the written guarantee was the general information on their website. Having some experience with the processes involved I know that these types of schools do not give written guarantee of wages until after the demo as quite honestly they don't know how much you are worth until they have seen you in action. This is one of the things that raised my suspicions that you weren't being totally clear about what actually transpired in your posts.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| I really dont appreciate being judged and frankly since all you know about me comes from around 12 posts on this forum I find it offensive and strange that you feel the need to. |
You would know if I was judging you mate as I would be a lot more direct. I am not judging you, I am just trying to find the sense in what you have posted here. You had a clear intention in coming here of suggesting that the system you encountered is invalid and suggesting dishonesty on the schools behalf. I don't see this at all. It is clear that you don't have a good understanding of the process and I believe that the school is at fault for not properly explaining it to you, but judging by the fact that you are not willing to accept my explanation here, I am beginning to believe that maybe they may have tried explaining it but you just chose not to listen.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| I received emails back home from the school that stated that I could examine a website to see if the 'working conditions' would be suitable for me. |
In regards to wages, most schools will mention a wage range on their websites as they are often not clear as to how much an applicant is worth until they have had the chance to see you in action. I assume that the website you refer to showed a wage range. It is not clear, as you have not answered this question, if you were offered the lower end of the wage range, or if you were offered a figure below the wage range advertised on their website.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
When i arrived I was told that these conditions - the sole reason I went for the interview - were no longer available.
I really cant explain this any clearer to you. |
Well you could actually. A good start would be listing the conditions that you were 'promised' on that website, and then explaining which ones were not offered. This would certainly help to support the unfairness of the situation that you indicate.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| If you think this a normal and an acceptable practise for your prospective employer that's fine, but I dont. And I doubt any normal person would. |
It depends upon which parts you are referring to.
Is it acceptable for an employer to promise one thing and give you something else - of course not, but you haven't clearly outlined what it was that they promised and didn't deliver upon.
Is it acceptable for an employer to require a demo, offer a currciulum, and offer you a wage that they believe that you deserve - yes. They have that right. Just as you have the right to refuse that offer just as you did.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| Secondly, if you take the time to examine my previous responses to you - it states quite clearerly that I would have been satisfied with the minimum pay rate - so where your confusion is coming from I cannot explain. |
Yes you did state that, after you had indicated that you felt you had been promised a higher rate, and that you feel that you were worth the higher rate.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| and then decide that they thought that i was onyl worth half the pay rate they already 'guaranteed' me over the internet before i came. |
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| I thought i did quite well , but obviously they had already decided that i was not good enough for any pay rate other than the lowest - even though i was never given a chance. |
I am interested in the first of the above two quotes as it mentions that they offered you half teh pay rate they had guaranteed you. In most cases the lowest pay rate is not even close to half the highest pay rate (in the case of chain schools). So either they were offering you a rate below their lowest pay rate, or you were exaggerating! Why not just be clear in your posting and then there will be no room for confusion.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| I really can only say to you once again that I was unhappy with the demonstration for two reasons - firstly Im quite sure that no matter how I had gone in the demonstration I would have been offered the low pay rate. |
I have no problem with the fact that you were unhappy with the demonstration process. As I have already conceeded it seems clear that the process was not explained clearly to you. That does not however make the process flawed, nor does it warrant your derogatory comments directed toward the staff involved in the process.
The second part of what you say is pure speculation. You don't know that you wouldn't have been offered a higher wage if the demo had been conducted differently. You have indicated that you don't have much applicable experience and I think it unlikely that anyone without experience would be able to conduct a demo that resulted in him or her being offered more than the minimum. In my experience people who clearly have experience do generally get more than the minimum. I know this for a fact as I mentioned before I have been involved with this process on many occasions.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| Ive spoken to one or two other teachers who responded to it differently and that the minimum pay rate and felt that they did quite well and were still offered the loewst pay rate. |
Strange that you didn't mention this before! Anyway, just because they don't agree doesn't mean that it was not fair. If indeed you do know people that went through the process at the same school that you did and feel the same way that you feel then that would suggest to me that the school definitely needs to spend more time explaining the process to teachers.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| Since I was able to look at just how detailed their study of my teaching techniques were (they had about seven boxes that they could tick for 'personality' or 'technique' or something like that. Now - with your apparent knowledge of the this type of demonstration at this particular school - you have suggested that this demonstration is used to find a variety of facets of the teacher's technique for training purposes. If this were the case I would have expected extensive notes, not ticks and crosses. |
I assuming from your comment above that we are indeed talking about the same school chain. If so then you can consider my comments in this thread to be really very accurate.
It is my experience that it is disconcerting when giving a demo to have the 'students' writing exstensive notes about your abilities during the demo. Generally, after the demo is complete, the staff have a meeting where they put all the information down on paper as a group, discussing your strengths and weaknesses. This is recorded and is used during the training process to ensure that you improve on areas that have been identified as your weaknesses. Just because you didn't see them making the notes does not mean that those notes were not taken, and in fact the staff involved need to justify the time spent in the room.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| Mate I dont need to prove to you whether or not I am qualified to an extent that in your opinion allows me to criticise a schools curriculum. |
Fair enough. But let's just acknowledge the fact that you don't have any experience teaching in Taiwan. Your experiences overseas are your own business, but have only a limited application to the EFL/ESL industry in Taiwan. I just find it interesting that you seem to feel that you know better than a company that has hundreds of schools around the island of Taiwan as well as hundreds more in China.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| Yes I went to an informal interview at another school where we discussed curriculum and I did mention how the demonstration at the other school was undertaken. The interviewer there agreed that it sounded ridiculous in his own words. Im not sure how this is relevant. |
It seems relevant to me as it does not say much about you nor the school that made disparraging remarks about it's competition. We are all entitled to our opinions, but it just doesn't seem appropriate to me to complain about one school during an interview at another! Nor is it appropriate in my opinion for the interviewer to have suggested that the situation is ridiculous based upon your apparently one sided opinion of that other school. I just don't believe that this is professional behavior, but it does seem as if you have found a school which enables you to be like two peas in a pod. Let's hope that the school never has cause to interview a replacement teacher for you in the future as I can only imagine what sorts of comments they could be drawn upon to make about you to the new applicant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ramakentesh
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Posts: 145
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Man this is really not going anywhere - and why would it - i can see that you have decided from the start that I am being some how dishonest and 'unclear' yet, I am the one who isnt listening...
You see your just making assumptions. Let me explain it to you : 'working conditions' does not mean 'higher pay rate' - why you have assumed that I cannot fathom. By working conditions I would assume people would understand the definition as meaning the variety of benefits offered to you by your employer - there is more to working conditions than your pay rate alone.
I receive an email - i review the link on that email which sends me to another website where I am told that employees are guaranteed a certain amount of hours per week, and a variety of other benefits that I cant be bothered going out of my way to find for you so you can argue the toss with me. When i asked about each of these NON-PAY-RELATED conditions I was told that they were 'no longer available' and 'old information'.
And i promise that this will be my last message on this one. You can sift through this post looking for inaccuracies that you might feel validate what ever your trying to do (demonstrate that the school was great, i was treated fairly and its all in my head, yet other schools ive had no trouble with) and that's fine - its the alpha-male way - but ive got better things to do  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
clark.w.griswald
Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Posts: 2056
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2005 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| Man this is really not going anywhere - and why would it - |
It would if you would be forthcoming with the appropriate information. As I have said, I have a pretty good understanding of the process that you refer to, but I wasn't there. I have asked some questions to clarify some points of what you have stated, and you have avoided answering these questions. I would think that answering these questions would help prove your point so am surprised that you don't take the opportunity to do this!
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| i can see that you have decided from the start that I am being some how dishonest and 'unclear' yet, I am the one who isnt listening... |
Although I am getting that impression now, I didn't actually start out with that impression. My first impression was that the school was wrong for failing to explain the process to you adequately. I stated as much in my first post in this thread. Now I have come to realize that they may have tried but you knew better as this is the indication that you have given me in this thread as you put the local staff down for their English abilities, you suggest that their employment process and curriculum are flawed even though you admit that you have never taught in Taiwan yourself, and that you discuss these matters at a subsequent job interview at another school. I mean what is that about?
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| You see your just making assumptions. |
Yes I am. Based upon the facts that I know about the process, and the lack of facts that you are offering here to dispute what I know.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| Let me explain it to you : 'working conditions' does not mean 'higher pay rate' - why you have assumed that I cannot fathom. By working conditions I would assume people would understand the definition as meaning the variety of benefits offered to you by your employer - there is more to working conditions than your pay rate alone. |
Which is exactly what I stated in the post that you just replied to? Don't indicate that I am the stupid one when it appears that you are the one that didn't even read what I wrote.
I asked you quite clearly in my other post:
| me in my earlier post wrote: |
| A good start would be listing the conditions that you were 'promised' on that website, and then explaining which ones were not offered. This would certainly help to support the unfairness of the situation that you indicate. |
So there you go. Why not outline the other conditions, aside from pay, that you were 'guaranteed' but the school failed to deliver on? Also, did they actually guarantee these to you and then revoke them, or did they refer you to a website where these were listed? Finally, if they referred you to the website where they list these things does that website state that these conditions are available to every applicant?
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| I receive an email - i review the link on that email which sends me to another website where I am told that employees are guaranteed a certain amount of hours per week, and a variety of other benefits that I cant be bothered going out of my way to find for you so you can argue the toss with me. |
So am I correct now in understanding that the 'written guarantee' you referred to earlier was not a specific offer to you in this case, but more a reference to the information contained on their company website? I am not saying that they shouldn't offer you what is stated on their website if it applies to you, but what is the wording on their website in this regard. Do they state that those conditions are available to every applicant?
Which raises another question that I asked but has gone unanswered, did the website refer to a pay range and you were offered the lower end of that pay range, or did the website stipulate a fixed amount of money and you were offered under the fixed amount offered on their website?
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| You can sift through this post looking for inaccuracies that you might feel validate what ever your trying to do (demonstrate that the school was great, i was treated fairly and its all in my head, yet other schools ive had no trouble with) and that's fine - its the alpha-male way - but ive got better things to do |
So you have the time to come here and make the original post, but you somehow mysteriously don't have the time to clarify certain points of what you have stated!
I think that it really doesn't matter if you don't reply. I think that there are some inconsistencies in what you are saying that could easily be clarified by you with one final post, but if you choose not to then the questions will remain open. Despite how my posts may appear, I am not trying to discredit you nor trivialize the concerns that you raise, I am just trying to work out what exactly went on and the story that you are telling just doesn't make sense. Feel free to clarify the situation by answering the specific questions that I have asked in this and other posts in this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
teacha
Joined: 25 Aug 2005
Posts: 186
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2005 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ramakentesh wrote: |
Well i should clarify. I have no problem with doing a demo - and we have been asked by other schools to do a demo with students (which we didnt know was illegal).
What differed here was the fact that I was given written guarantees that I was told in the interview were 'old information' and the demonstration was designed to fail.
Rather than just attempting to create a realistic difficult class, they all just started criticising me, correcting each other before i got a chance and then demanding a game - every game i tried was not good enough - although i had no resources and was standing in front of the entire floor's staff... From the get go, all the people in the room were running amok and every attempt i made to disicpline them in a respectful way was ignored.
As an adult its easy to sit there and ignore a person and continue to do what you like - it wasnt like i could eject them from the class, or make them stand and sing to stop them misbehaving.
It was blatantly obvious that the decision was made before i started. i was told that i was not allowed to use any english other than simple words about the topic and then they started talking to me in english the whole time. I was very patient and did as best i could.
Pretty ordinary in my opinion. I thought i did quite well , but obviously they had already decided that i was not good enough for any pay rate other than the lowest - even though i was never given a chance.
I jsut thought it was an obvious way for them to justify paying me the lowest rate. They could ahve just been decent and said straight out that the lowest pay rate will apply - i wouldnt have cared, but they chose to go through this whole *beep* process to do it.
ive had other offers and other interviews and they were normal - so im guessing its just this school - and rather than 30 hours im being offered 8 from them - so ill go elsewhere.
So I sat there being told by someone whose english was quite bad that i had no experience (when i do and in all my time no child has ever acted like that) and being laughed at when i mentioned every one of the 20 or so conditions that they guaranteed me in an email - then being told where i will live and that I should accept two hours in Muzha and two in Banchaio I just laughed it off - id sooner go home than work for these people. |
Frequently it is a business experience, and novlety of western interaction, a free course on western culture and a free chance to abuse a white person, not a legit interview. What job did you leave for this lifestyle? And despite what some happy go lucky types that DO NOT GO ON INTERVIEWS will write to you here, your experience was completely NORMAL and in fact standard BS that comes part and parcel for working for taiwanese schools. Not all interviews are the same but most expose a degree of lying and disrespect right off the bat with more to come. The actual interview structure is different all over. You will find they can get away with anything because the laws are set up to let them win. The ARC is THEIRS, not yours 1st of all. Second, you can't pay $1,000 for a lawyer and deal with Taipei court nonsense over their contract lies and eventually they would sooner pay off a judge or call a mob politician or friend and you would miraculously wake up to a new problem much worse. They know you are a toy, and you don't. This is the problem with the internet and taiwan. The truth only comes from people like you and many sites delete such entries and many people are paid by the gov't to go online to dispell the truth about the raw deal foreigners get entering into the industry. Even certain people on this very board are unusually motivated to speak only good things and often in regard to infamously bad schools, recruiters, etc. One thing you can do as a long term resident is get a job writing such info to newpapers, bulletinboards, etc. it's propaganda and very communist/very normal. So disregard those who tell you that you are not getting the true feel for interviews. I have been on countless interviews and most were DESIGNED TO FAIL, as you so eloquently put it. Also, they may tell you they are getting you an ARC while they are still interviewing for your job and you are nothing more than a SUB, in a month or two, they fire you somehow before the ARC ever shows up....Watch out for that one it's an old trick. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
teacha
Joined: 25 Aug 2005
Posts: 186
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2005 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hey Griswald, he doesn't want to lay out the details that the school claims to offer teachers because it's a moot point, just trust him that he read their hiring policy/offer on a chain site and it came from an ad that also said the same stuff. I am sure he is right, give him the benefit of the doubt, it happens often enough that I beleive his rendition over some other explanation like it's his fault or something. It's not unusal to be treated like a whipping boy and told that the source of the "confusions is you". It's the chinses way of business, it's how they even treat locals. He was simply dedicated to this thread to the extent that he could determine is that normal or not? Naturally, I say it is, you say it ain't, Aristotle says nothing..haha! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
