Job Discussion Forums

[BJWD]

Hi,
My lady and I are moving to Istanbul in about 5 weeks and will be working in the Esentepe area and know absolutely nothing about it. From what our employer says, it is about 3 stops away from Taksim. Where would you recommend we live? We are looking for a fairly quiet area (understanding that Istanbul is a major city) and one that is safe. Ideally, we would be close to restaurants, pups and scenic areas for evening walking.
If any of you would be able to suggest an area, please do! Also kindly include an approximate amount that we should expect to spend on rent.
Should we expect, for about 600$USD a month A/C and a washing machine/dryer?
Thanks in advance to any who reply.

[Mike_2003]

Hi there,

I don't know anything about that area in particular. Taksim is the "centre" of Istanbul where you can find an array of restaurants and pubs of all types and prices. You can move down the hill towards the water for the more expensive Nisantasi bars. From Taksim you can easily get to the nice Bosphorus locations, such as Ortakoy or Emirgan, which are quite pleasant for walking, although I have to say that Istanbul isn't the greenest city. You could also go to Sultanahmet, the old town, in the evenings and find a nice terrace bar overlooking the historical centre. The islands are wonderful if you want to get away from it all, although try to go there on a weekday to avoid the rest of Istanbul following you with their radios, mangals, noisy kids and rubbish.

Most of Istanbul is "safe" as far as large cities go. You don't get a lot of trouble so I wouldn't worry too much about that.

Depending on your budget, you could choose to live around Etiler, which is popular with foreigners as it's close to the Taksim area where many work or if you wanted something a little more trendy you could try Besiktas, or even move a little up the water to Ortakoy or Bebek (expensive, but depends on your pay package). If you want to get a reasonable idea of the prices of various locations, try http://www.sahibinden.com. You'll need a dictionary handy if your Turkish isn't up to scratch, but if you search for a specific neighbourhood you'll get an idea of the quality and prices of apartments there.

The majority of apartments in Istanbul are unfurnished but large, typically with a huge living room. Most people buy (or are bought) all their furniture and appliances when they get married and move from place to place with them. This includes everything except perhaps the kitchen sink. Some places won't even have light switches! Don't expect to have AC or a washing machine unless you are looking for a fully-furnished apartment (and even then, despite the weather, AC isn't guaranteed). There are furnished apartments available but you do have to pay more (perhaps 25%) for them. However, you mentioned having $600 to play with. If this is the case you should be able to get something reasonable and furnished in a decent area. The Asian side is a little cheaper, but you'll have a long commute to work.

Most places ask for a month up front and a deposit which is normally about 1-2 months' rent. If you go through an agency you'll have to pay 10-12% of a year's rental (so just over a month's rent). Look for places to rent in the newspapers, on websites (like the above), through an agent (lots of those advertised in the papers and websites are from an agent, even if they say they are direct from the owner so look out), or just walk around the streets looking for the "kiralik" sign ("for rent").

In addition to the rent you have to think about the other expenses. In addition to the water, electricity and phone bills you can expect to be asked for "aidat" every month. This can vary in price depending on the building. This covers the cost of the "kapici" who cleans the communal areas, tends the yard, collects the rubbish, makes some minor repairs, etc. His duties (and so price) vary from building to building. The aidat also covers the electricity for the communal areas and most importantly the heating.

If your building has "merkez" (central) heating, then you pay a monthly share of the fuel bill, which is added to the aidat. This can be pricey if you don't like to have the heating on full blast from October-May (as most Turks do) because you are paying to keep everyone else warm. A better system is "kombi" which allows you to pay for the gas used only to heat the rads and water for your own flat. This is another thing you should think about when choosing an apartment.

I hope this has been useful. I'm sure someone else can give you a better idea of that end of Istanbul and what the prices and locations are like.

Take care,
Mike

[dmb]

Esentepe is on the metro so that makes getting to and from work. around Esentepe there are places like Şişli which is a safe and a reasonable neighbourhood. Other places around Esentepe are a bit soulless I feel. Mainly busıness districts.
In the past few days I've seen about 30 flats. I looked mostly in cıhagır and Beyoğlu. Prices and quality vary alot so shop around. We found a duplex with a massive teras and Bosphrous vıew behind Sent antoin church for 850 dollars

[BJWD]

Thanks so much for the detailed replies. We are very excited to begin our search!

Alas, we have but one more question. What is an appropriate salary, hourly, for a teacher in Istanbul? I have a degree, a TESOL course and one-year experience teaching English in Seoul, South Korea. What should we expect?

[ghost]

[dmb]

15 million is low. a turkish English teacher would probably get that. If you are looking at language schools then look for the 25 million rate. However finding privates on your on is more profitable. I was offered a new private today 50 dollars for 1.5 hours.

[ghost]

[dmb]

That is not so much. That's 9 pounds at today's rates. Bear in mind this also covers prep time and travel time. EFL teachers are the worst paıd expats. What other professionals living abroad need to take a second job?(privates) The language schools I'm talking about aren't stupid. Think how much money the school owners are making out of you. I guess we are the stupid ones.

[ghost]

[gelin]

Unfortunately, what Ghost says is pretty much on the mark. I, being a fully-trained and certified English teacher, and one who recruited foreign English teachers had many so-called backpacker teachers at my doorstep looking for employment. I was at a K-12 school (11 then) and the Ministry scrutinized teacher paperwork and several teachers who had master's degrees in ESL were rejected. Why? Because their undergraduate degrees weren't in English or English Education. At any rate, the language schools who hire these history majors who only come for a holiday are at fault. They've allowed the profession to be tainted and it's a real shame. If students were more discerning of the qualifications of their teachers, then things would naturally even out, though prices would most definitely be raised, etc. Difficult dilemma.

[ghost]

The situation will not change anytime soon, because the backpackers going overseas are people who have not had the chance to construct a professional career on their home fronts. Teaching EFL overseas is a good option, because these mostly `unskilled` individuals would rarely get anything better in their home countries, taking into account their lack of basic skills.

Yes - a B.A. in History or Philosophy or Psychology is excellent general education, but those degrees are not really useful skills which can be transferred to the job market. The same can even be said for those subjects at the higher level....we all know dozens of Ph.D`s in Montreal and Ottawa who are driving taxis and waiting tables - sad reality. Ghost has a Master`s Degree in Communication Studies which did not help him get work either....

There are more vacancies world wide for EFL teachers than people available (especially in places like China, Korea, Taiwan) and that is why it is so easy for unqualified individuals to fill those posts.

The continuing obsession with the foreign schools to recruit `native language specialists` is a mistake though, because the fact that someone is a `native language speaker` does not make him/her a better teacher.

These foreign schools argue that students should use these teachers as `models` with regard to pronunciation - but then again....when you listen to a guy with a thick Glaswegian accent, or an Irish accent....are those models valid in the International Arena? Many EFL teachers have `regional accents` depending on where they come from, and this actually adds to the confusion of many English learners.

Case in point - in Eskisehir, at a certain language school, the EFL teachers were from South Africa, Scotland and Canada. Because of a school policy dictating `shared classes` - the Turkish students often had difficulty because the 3 foreign teachers had such different accents. From one day to the next, the students never knew what to expect, because the Scottish pronunciation was radically different from the South African one, for example. Even students at the advanced TOEFL level ran to the school administrator because they could not understand the speech of the Scottish `teacher` (who also happened to be a raging alcoholic).

It is hard to get professionalism in a profession as long as the foreign schools are willing to turn a blind eye to the fact that most teachers are not professionals in the true sense of the word. Professionalism equates long training and commitment, and those are things which are in rather short supply in this field.

[OzBurn]

All of the above points about the lack of professional skills among "English speakers" are valid, but neglect one very important point: in many schools, the native speaker teachers are the only ones who consistently speak English in class and consistently expect students to communicate in English. For example, at the school where I taught yesterday, the lights went out for about fifteen minutes and I and the teacher next door, a native Vietnamese, taught our classes in the hall. Her class was basically a stream of Vietnamese followed by a word or phrase in English, then more Vietnamese, then another word or phrase of English, and so on for fifteen minutes. My entire class was taught in English.

The same problem existed at my previous school, in Hungary. The North American teachers actually used English. I believe that I was the only one who had any professional training or understood English grammar, and it's true that the Hungarian natives definitely had a better grasp of English grammar than the other North Americans -- but we North Americans were the only ones who consistently demanded that students use English, and we were the only ones who stuck to English in our own communications. And that's important. With a fellow Hungarian, it was just way too easy for students to fall back on their mother tongue.

I've asked students, and I've read a few articles on this subject, and most students appear to agree that for purposes of learning functional oral English, a native speaker does a better job. Considering the much greater expense of hiring a native speaker, it would indeed be unlikely if this were not so; some people are fools, but most aren't, and if they really could get equally effective teaching from their countrymen, they would not pay more for the native speaker.

Of course, it is possible for someone who isn't a native speaker to insist upon English in the classroom, but really, how often does this happen?

Countries also vary in the fluency of the local English teachers. At the schools I have visited in Vietnam, the students are typically taught by a combination of Vietnamese teachers and native speakers. I have only met one of these Vietnamese teachers who spoke what I would characterize as relaxed, reasonably fluent English. It was obvious, when speaking to the others, that the requirement to speak English caused considerable strain. Few people can bear up under such strain for many hours a day, especially with children asking them questions and making cute little comments in their mother tongue.

I talked to a Vietnamese man here who studied French in his youth--with almost two years under a native Frenchwoman, and another seven years under Vietnamese teachers. He said he had learned more from the French native-speaker than he did from all the Vietnamese combined.

[yaramaz]

At my last school, students had both Turkish and native speakers teaching them English since kindergarten or grade one. Depending on the year and age, they had between five and 24 hours of English a week.

However, I still had far too many students who couldn't even put a simple sentence together after five or nine or even eleven years of regular, fairly intensive study. Several of my grade 9s (who had to pass an English exam just to be allowed to study in the lise after grade weren't even sure how to answer simple questions like "What does your father do?'' or even "How old are you?"

One of the problems is that the Turkish teachers teach their classes entirely in Turkish. The instructions are in Turkish, the definitions and explanations are in Turkish, the discussions and Q&As are in Turkish. Grammar is taught like a mathematical formula. One girl in my prep class last year could only speak to me in Turkish with a few English words thrown in--- but give her a sentence to deconstruct or a verb to conjugate and she was right in there, labelling verb 1,2,3, etc.

These kids do see native speakers regularly (though not nearly as often as they see their Turkish teachers) and some do thrive off them-- the ones who see the value in them. Because for many of us, our classes dont count for grades, or if they do then for a smaller percentage than the Turkish teachers, so the students see our classes as a time to chill out, slack off, maybe do homework. They don't test oral competancy on exams. Most exams are multiple choice with no essay questions. Why should they even try speaking or writing if it isn't deemed important by the all-important university or lise entrance exams?

A lot of kids (and teachers) get too caught up in the exams and ignore the fact that learning a language is about more than memorising linguistic formulae. The kids who thrived in my classes were the ones who realised that talking to me between classes in the halls might help them to improve, or who listened intently to my instructions in English instead of automatically tuning me out because I'm not speaking Turkish then declaring they dont understand what is required off them (the instructions are on the board, on the paper and I just repeated them 10 times...). I sometimes wonder if the kids are ever told why native speakers can be of use to them and their developing language skills. So much emphasis is placed on grammar and multiple choice exams that they must think that is the be-all and end-all of successful learning.

I wish I had an answer to wrap this up succinctly...

[Theresa]

İ recently saw an ex student of mine - pre int level - who was over the moon about her new dersane because she had spent 6 hrs a week copying English grammar from the blackboard and felt that shed got her moneys worth at last. i tried having a conversation with her using present perfects and surprise surprise she was completely lost. For her that is 'learning' ie she was 100% comfortble with that method. Unfortunately she needs to be able to speak for her job......
İ suppose the answer is to accept that we are all bound by the constrictıons of the local educational system and we have to learn to adapt to that context as frustrating as that may be . Plus what are the students objectives anyway? İf its to put English grammar into their short term memory then so be it. They are paying after all. İf they want to learn to speak well ok thats different and its up to us to teach them how to learn to speak.Ok thats time and energy consuming adapting to other peoples educational systems.
OK maybe its not ıdeal but is this a job or are we cultural imperialists? Personally İ take it as a job never having had any missionary tendancies.


PS Ghost İ disagree with you about Antalya re reluctance to take on native speakers. İ know of three dersanes where they have unqualified teachers both native speakers and Turkish. İ think that its the opposite in fact- we qualified teachers are too expensive for them.
Plus dont knock the TEFL courses : some are very good.

[OzBurn]

I had a similar experience in Hungary. There were students at the school who had had seven years of English, 7-11 hours per week, c. 38 weeks per year, and had working vocabularies of around 100 words, maybe even less (I met them and tested them, but they weren't my students).

Part of the problem, in fact I believe the biggest problem, is the teaching methods, or method, if you can call CLT a method. CLT simply doesn't work for at least half of the students. These students need drill and practice -- drills to build mastery, and practice to build fluency and *automatic* recollection. Cute colored textbooks and demands to talk about soccer or film stars don't work with them. In the first two years, they fail to acquire the necessary foundation in English vocabulary and grammar that is needed to master new content. The schools push them along anyway, but they are lost; and they give up in despair. English is a painful drag, and they hate it, and it is all spoiled for them. They have no faith in their ability to learn English, and no apparent reason to have any (in fact, "faith" is the perfect word, what Saul of Tarsus called "the evidence of things not seen." Indeed.) Maybe they become behavior problems, or maybe they just sink down in their seats and watch an internal video game. In any case they become unteachable.

The truth is that contemporary English teaching completely ignores almost all research about human memory and the relationship between automaticity and practical recall. It is enslaved by a theory that isn't even testable, for the most part, and to the extent it has been tested, has been invalidated.

It is very hard to learn a language. Scientific research, such as that employed as the foundation of the Pimsleur audio-tape programs, has shown ways to make it easier. The fact that probably less than one teacher in a thousand pays any attention to such research shows what is wrong with the field. What is needed is a systematic textbook series with thoroughly outlined or even scripted lessons that combine drill and practice, use what we know about memory in their presentation and review, employ a consistent approach to teaching of the most useful vocabulary (not arbitrarily selected readings), and provide communicative practice that gives students chances to APPLY the skills they have learned rather than demanding that they create skills by communicating (which isn't going to happen).