Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyororin
In terms of value; a qualified native speaker is better than a qualified non-native speaker is better than a non-qualified native speaker is better than a non-qualified non-native speaker.
There are a lot more non-native teachers who could have their skills improved, but not many truly qualified native speaking teachers...
|
I agree entirely.
In the few times this topic has come up in the forums I feel that there is a biased comparison of trained non-native versus non-trained native (and in that case each has their strengths and weaknesses) when training can be acquired but nativity can not.
I've had lots of applications for positions at my school by both native and non-native, over a hundred at least.
The non-native tend to have awkward sentence structure and spelling mistakes far more than the native... in their resumes!
I'd like to point out that I agree with a point acjama made about the priorities of the native speaker going to Japan. It does tend to happen a lot that they are here to have fun and teach English as a meal-ticket and visa-extender.
I'm not impressed with the insinuation that non-native foreigners are somehow exempt from this same behavior, it's the same shit from a different pile.
Also, Masaegu, "ironical" is correct but so is "ironic" and if you want to sound native and a little less awkward, use the latter.