Quote:
Originally Posted by MMM
6 months is better than 3. 12 is better than 6. We don't have WHV in the US, so I am not so familiar. If Nyororin says it is true, I'd believe her.
And it's not complicated, it is just 90% of foreigners wanting to teach English in Japan only consider Tokyo.
|
I agree with you, it's weird that everyone (including myself) wants to start in Tokyo for what ever reason it might be.. but for me actually this is really not important at all. Osaka for example would be just as good if not much better like you mentioned!
It's a decision I have to make based on people like you, who have the experience and knowledge for what is better. Because then I would book my Plainticket directly to Osaka.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyororin
MMM pretty much answered this... But I`ll add so that I can sort of give more flesh to what I originally said.
Schools aren`t quite like fast food joints. They don`t want just ANYONE to work there for ANY period of time.
When choosing a teacher for a position, they will often happily choose the working-holiday visa holder over someone who requires a work visa when they are competing for the same position.
This is because of what I wrote earlier - the school doesn`t have to go through the pain of getting them a visa, they don`t have to be responsible for them, etc.... Not to mention that having the working holiday visa means that they are already in Japan and on site.
But note that I said when competing for the same position.
A work visa is something that starts at a year. If a school needs someone for a year, 10 or 11 months on a working holiday visa is an alright compromise. The advantages outweigh the month or two earlier that they`d need to find a replacement. No school is going to consider hiring someone on a work visa for a year if they only need them for 3 months.
If they are looking for someone for that short of a period, a working holiday visa holder will NOT be competing with the pain of getting a work visa. They`ll be competing with other people who already have some valid means of being in Japan - in other words, everyone will be on the same footing in terms of company responsibility. In this scenario, the working holiday visa can actually be at a disadvantage. Long term residents (whether PR visa or spouse) may be available for a longer term if needed. Those who already have a work visa but who are looking for something short term for extra cash already have experience under their belts... If you take the "we don`t need to get them a visa, they`re already in Japan, and we won`t need to be responsible for them!" out of the equation - where is the advantage?
I know of several schools that do their best to only hire working holiday visa holders. But it is for long term positions. 9 to 12 months sort of thing. Finding ANY school in need of an "up to 3 months" teacher itself is going to be pretty close to impossible - working holiday visa or not isn`t going to make a bit of difference.
|
Oh ok, I now understand what you meant by that! However, do you always need to sign a contract? But even in a contract situation, you could always leave right?
Because that would mean that I could always tell them that I am available for the entire year.. not only 3-6 months. Nobody could force me to stay there any longer and nobody would even know that I lied in the first place.
Does this make the WHV superior again??
Also if you could give me your opinion as well, would you also recommend me to ignore Tokyo right away for a teaching job? And look out in a different city like Osaka for example?