Job Discussion Forums

[JZer]

[Sashadroogie]

Dear JZer

Happy that I provide so much entertainment for you, but unfortunately there is no contradiction in what I wrote. Read the posts again, there's a good chap.

S

[JZer]

[RollingStone]

JZer, I think you are closer to understanding the difference between the letter and the spirit when you acknowledge, for example, that teacher y's 5 years experience may not equal teacher z's 5 years, or that teacher z could not develop the necessary quals and skills in 2 years as teacher y in 5.

If I, as HR, simply go by an ambiguous 5 year experience criteria, I am making certain problematic assumptions of what those 5 years represent, or what a specific job title represents. I suggest that HRs that seek specific external credentials are more interested in A. thinning out the number of resumes they feel obliged to address and B. covering their own butts in case whomever they hire strikes out. In other words, experience and credentials do not always equal talent or fit. That is one reason why, at least in this part of the world, there is emphasis on transferable skills and knowledge. I realize that, in for example Japan, employers want people to fit rigidly into a predefined pattern.

[Sashadroogie]

Ah, I see you have never conducted an EFL job interview. Sorry JZer, but interviews are judgements - on candidates and their abilities etc.

An interviewer can make a reasonable call on whether one candidate will be better for the job than another. This does not require any deep knowledge of the candidate, nor a priori knowledge of him, save what quals and experience he claims to have. The interviewer knows exactly what the job entails, the interviewee usually will not. The interviewer can find out, approximately but no less effectively for that, what the candidate's strengths etc. are. Teaching skills can be approximately assessed during the interview stage ( "Tell me about a recent lesson you gave that you were happy with? What went/didn't go well? How would you adapt it in future?") In any case, a demo lesson can be called on sometimes to settle any doubts.

Personal characteristics can be gauged also, though again only approximately. For example, if the candidate insists on arguing with the interviewer or criticises previous employers, then this is a sign that things would not work out too well. A poor command of written English on the CV itself speaks volumes about all a potential employer needs to know about the candidate's level of respect and attention to detail.

It is no guarantee, of course. Interviewers can and do get it wrong. It is very much an imprecise process. But this is a world away from lying during the interview or on a CV because the job-seeker 'knows' they can do the job. They don't know. They merely think they can do it, as I'm sure the OP's feckless example also thought.

Sorry again but if there's a contradiction there, I still don't see it.

[RollingStone]

[RollingStone]

[JZer]

[Sashadroogie]

OK boys, believe what you will. Just don't try any embellishments if you are applying for a job at the schools where I have worked, because you'll get short shrift and then a cancelled visa, no matter what philosophical rationalisations you proffer.

[johnslat]

Dear RollingStone,

Na, na, na, na - my "ethical/moral" argument can beat up your "philosophical" argument (not that it would, being so "ethical/moral.")

"Teaching skills can be approximately assessed during the interview stage ( "Tell me about a recent lesson you gave that you were happy with? What went/didn't go well? How would you adapt it in future?")"

Unless, of course, the candidate "embellishes" a lesson, one that he's made up beforehand.

"However, you are assuming, perhaps correctly, that 5 years means something."

Well, it means something to me. I didn't start off being the fantastic teacher (ahem) that I am today. It was experience (gained in daily increments, and five years is a lot of days) that made me the extraordinarily proficient teacher I am.

"As a matter of fact, embellishment or "lying" goes on all the time in the application and hiring world."

And there are some other unsavory practices that "go on all the time in the hiring world": nepotism, discrimination based on various factors (age, gender, color, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) and, closely aligned, hiring someone based more on appearance than ability. The fact that they "go on all the time" does not, according to my thinking, make them right or
even defensible.

You must have loved the movie "Catch Me If You Can."

"As a fellow applicant, I can only say thank you for removing yourself from the talent pool."

You're quite welcome. But I've never been not hired for any job that I applied and interviewed for. And that's been over a span of thirty-three years. So, I doubt that my "removing" myself from your "talent pool" is going to affect me too adversely.
Beyond your pool, there is an ocean of opportunity, and I've been happily swimming in it, lo, these many decades.

Regards,
John

[starkweather]

No Frank Abignale then

[johnslat]

Dear starkweather,

Or maybe no Joe Shaye - the FBI agent on whom the movie character of Carl Hanratty was based - has managed to catch me yet.

Regards,
John (this week, anyway)