Being overqualified for JET

[noodle]

You guys are right. For a long time, as a kid, I was slightly depressed because I never put in a lot of effort at school! I didn't see the point, I thought that your final exams were the most important. Teachers always tried to convince me that effort was of huge importance in places like England because wherever you go, there will always be a reference required. Unfortunately, references were based upon your effort and rarely on your results as they believed that someones character is shown throughout the year, not simply at the final exam (in a sense, they are right, but it didn't make me happy).

Anyway, luckily for me, I had 3 older brothers who taught me about life better than any teacher I've ever had. They told me to continue in my beliefs because at the end of the day, when it comes to the world of work, Quality is far more important than Quantity. Now at university, it's half true. There are no reports, so to be honest, I don't really know what the teachers think of me, but whenever I get my results at the end of a semester, some of my teachers and secretaries always have a smile on their face. I guess they don't believe in "effort is most important".

With all that said, I hope, that when it comes to me starting a career, I will recieve amoung the highest starting salaries because I am amoung the best in what I do. If however, I don't get what I want at the start, I will not blame it on anything or anyone. Coming from a poor country, and knowing the value of things, I know that you have to work for what you want, sometimes for a lifetime.

To the original poster. I don't know much about the JET programme as I believe teaching requires a lot of enthusiasm, which unfortunately I lack. But, all those people that dismiss being overqualified so easily should check out interviews done by universities on companies. Many companies admit that being "overqualified" is an issue for them. For example (not really related to this), most companies don't like to hire someone with a Phd if they don't have any real work experience. The explanation is usually that people with Phd's and no work experience implies that the person in question was too comfortable with the education system and might not be suitable for a work environment. They can believe that this person was avoiding work for as long as possible (of course this is not always true, but thinking this isn't wrong either). Another reason is; people with Phd's will generally require a higher starting salary, which most companies will not take the risk in giving because having a Phd doesn't imply more suitable for the job.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by samurai007

There is far too much liberal political correctness in schools today. Believe it or not, the school I went to (and that the children of some of my friends now attend) don't keep score in PE games anymore. They say that doing so might make those on the losing team feel bad, so all that counts is "effort". Students who excel at something can no longer be recognized or rewarded for it, because it might hurt the feelings of everyone else. They teach the kids all about "self-esteem" and "equality" and "no one is better or smarter or more intelligent than anyone else". They play to the lowest common denominator rather than encourage kids to find a niche they enjoy and develop those skills in order to succeed. This in turn has led to a generation of kids who believe they deserve things just because of who they are, or because they put in "effort". "Effort" was the only thing recognized in school, never achievement anymore, and with all that self-esteem and self-empowerment and liberal indoctrination, they start thinking the world owes them, and things will be smooth and easy if only they put in a modicum of "effort". And if for some reason "effort" does not equal "success", as the OP's friend discovered, then it MUST be because of racism, bigotry, or unfairness of some kind...

Oh give me a break.

You talk of liberal indoctrination.. your rant sounds like it could be Conservative indoctrination.

Yes let's blame the teaching of equality and the bolstering of self-esteem of young children. Maybe you can question the methods that are used to do it... but it sounds like you'd be in favour of an approach which would be more Spartan in American schools.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by noodle

You guys are right. For a long time, as a kid, I was slightly depressed because I never put in a lot of effort at school! I didn't see the point, I thought that your final exams were the most important. Teachers always tried to convince me that effort was of huge importance in places like England because wherever you go, there will always be a reference required. Unfortunately, references were based upon your effort and rarely on your results as they believed that someones character is shown throughout the year, not simply at the final exam (in a sense, they are right, but it didn't make me happy).

Anyway, luckily for me, I had 3 older brothers who taught me about life better than any teacher I've ever had. They told me to continue in my beliefs because at the end of the day, when it comes to the world of work, Quality is far more important than Quantity. Now at university, it's half true. There are no reports, so to be honest, I don't really know what the teachers think of me, but whenever I get my results at the end of a semester, some of my teachers and secretaries always have a smile on their face. I guess they don't believe in "effort is most important".

So wait... you're trying to tell us that your teachers shouldn't have encouraged you?

[SSJup81]

Originally Posted by samurai007

There is far too much liberal political correctness in schools today. Believe it or not, the school I went to (and that the children of some of my friends now attend) don't keep score in PE games anymore. They say that doing so might make those on the losing team feel bad, so all that counts is "effort". Students who excel at something can no longer be recognized or rewarded for it, because it might hurt the feelings of everyone else. They teach the kids all about "self-esteem" and "equality" and "no one is better or smarter or more intelligent than anyone else". They play to the lowest common denominator rather than encourage kids to find a niche they enjoy and develop those skills in order to succeed. This in turn has led to a generation of kids who believe they deserve things just because of who they are, or because they put in "effort". "Effort" was the only thing recognized in school, never achievement anymore, and with all that self-esteem and self-empowerment and liberal indoctrination, they start thinking the world owes them, and things will be smooth and easy if only they put in a modicum of "effort". And if for some reason "effort" does not equal "success", as the OP's friend discovered, then it MUST be because of racism, bigotry, or unfairness of some kind...

Wow! This reminds me of this article I came across a few months back. Some schools are getting rid of the "F" on the grading scale for a BS reason..."It hurts the students' self-esteem." I ranted on about that for a good while. Forgot where I saw it or where I ranted about it, but that's just downright stupid! They're trying to make the kids pansies and weak. I heard about the "no keeping score" thing for PE, but that's bad too. Nothing wrong with competition. It's nice to win, but kids also have to learn that they can't win at everything or win all of the time and that you have to work hard to obtain it and reach that goal. If you didn't do good playing a game, you go out and train and work harder to improve it. If you get a poor score, you study harder, so that next time you do better.

That aside, I don't feel it's "liberal", just illogical and pointless. I don't even see what that has to do with the statement. IMO, a lot of stuff is going wrong where kids are involved. It's good to encourage kids, get their esteem up, but I don't feel that mollycoddling them is the way to do it.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

So wait... you're trying to tell us that your teachers shouldn't have encouraged you?

Encouragement is fine, but punishment for not putting effort in doesn't encourage a child. If a kid can get 20/20 in his math exams without putting his hand up in class, or asking questions in class or going to after school revision classes, why should he be punished?
Maybe you didn't understand what I meant, but my situation was that I GOT good grades, yet I was told off for not putting any effort in. Heck, I was even accused of cheating several times...

I would have prefered to be given homework more advanced than the class rather than staying there bored! Now, that would have been encouragement.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by noodle

Encouragement is fine, but punishment for not putting effort in doesn't encourage a child. If a kid can get 20/20 in his math exams without putting his hand up in class, or asking questions in class or going to after school revision classes, why should he be punished?
Maybe you didn't understand what I meant, but my situation was that I GOT good grades, yet I was told off for not putting any effort in. Heck, I was even accused of cheating several times...

I would have prefered to be given homework more advanced than the class rather than staying there bored! Now, that would have been encouragement.

Yeah fair enough... punishment for not participating is wrong.

But the emphasis on effort is not a wasted one.

[samurai007]

Originally Posted by SSJup81

Wow! This reminds me of this article I came across a few months back. Some schools are getting rid of the "F" on the grading scale for a BS reason..."It hurts the students' self-esteem." I ranted on about that for a good while. Forgot where I saw it or where I ranted about it, but that's just downright stupid! They're trying to make the kids pansies and weak. I heard about the "no keeping score" thing for PE, but that's bad too. Nothing wrong with competition. It's nice to win, but kids also have to learn that they can't win at everything or win all of the time and that you have to work hard to obtain it and reach that goal. If you didn't do good playing a game, you go out and train and work harder to improve it. If you get a poor score, you study harder, so that next time you do better.

That aside, I don't feel it's "liberal", just illogical and pointless. I don't even see what that has to do with the statement. IMO, a lot of stuff is going wrong where kids are involved. It's good to encourage kids, get their esteem up, but I don't feel that mollycoddling them is the way to do it.

Yeah, I heard about the "no more F's" too. Ridiculous. And the scoring in PE is there to teach them that even when you work very hard, do your best, and put in a lot of effort, many times you will still lose. And THAT is not something these teachers want to teach.

Maybe "liberal" isn't the best word, perhaps "leftist" would be better. See, one of the things about conservatism is that it calls for self-sufficiency, being allowed to either succeed or fail, and reaping the benefits of success and the cost or punishment of failure or bad or stupid choices (like choosing to start using drugs, or choosing to have 14 kids with no means of support). The left is more about collectivism, everyone succeeding or failing together, group identities, taking from those who succeed to give to those who fail (which provides a disincentive to succeed because you'll simply have more taken away, and at the same time removes the sting of failure. Together, it destroys personal motivation and drive to succeed, instead creating dependency and apathy as people find it easier to take the handouts than work to succeed and have all their rewards taken away to give to others who either failed or didn't even try). Leftist teachers are indoctrinating students with this sense of entitlement for political reasons, it's not a random thing. There have been quite a few books written about this.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by samurai007

Maybe "liberal" isn't the best word, perhaps "leftist" would be better. See, one of the things about conservatism is that it calls for self-sufficiency, being allowed to either succeed or fail, and reaping the benefits of success and the cost or punishment of failure or bad or stupid choices (like choosing to start using drugs, or choosing to have 14 kids with no means of support). The left is more about collectivism, everyone succeeding or failing together, group identities, taking from those who succeed to give to those who fail (which provides a disincentive to succeed because you'll simply have more taken away, and at the same time removes the sting of failure. Together, it destroys personal motivation and drive to succeed, instead creating dependency and apathy as people find it easier to take the handouts than work to succeed and have all their rewards taken away to give to others who either failed or didn't even try). Leftist teachers are indoctrinating students with this sense of entitlement for political reasons, it's not a random thing. There have been quite a few books written about this.

Seriously... go to school or something.

Conservatism is about preserving tradition and establishing harmony, law and order via cultural norms.

Classical Liberalism emphasises freedom from. Namely freedom from government to pursue happiness and a Lassaiz fare approach to society.

Modern liberalism emphasises freedom to. Namely freedom to be able to pursue happiness.

Both types of liberalism are concerned with individual freedom.

Socialism is completely different and emphasises collectivism.

The American Republican party ideology is a mixture of Conservative ideology (Why they're obsessed with with God) and a type of liberalism which has a lot in common with classical liberalism which is named neo-liberalism. (Hence the term Neo-Conservative)

The American Democrat party ideology is modern liberalism.

What sets modern liberals apart from socialists is that modern liberals aren't out to make you dependent on the collective. Rather the aim is to provide the environment in which citizens can thrive according to liberal thought. This includes government intervention... but only so far as providing the bare necessities. i.e. health, education etc. (So you have the freedom TO get ahead if indeed you are willing to work hard for it)

I'll tell you one thing though... it's a typical Neo-Conservative tactic to paint things as so black and white like you've done.

[Koir]

How did a discussion about JET turn into a wheel-spinning exercise in political sabre-rattling?

Can we get back to the point, please?

[jasonbvr]

Originally Posted by SSJup81

I thought some cities were opting out of using JET and going the eikaiwa route, as it's cheaper.

First, I will take responsibility for making the word eikaiwa stand for a company that hires English teachers and pimps them out to BoEs. The term actually means English conversation, and it is this theory that people will learn English primarily through speaking. (Dumb idea by the way.) Said theory spawned the likes of Nova, Geos and so on. Said schools then became known to many of the teachers as eikaiwas. These companies saw the opportunity to diversify, began hiring teachers and bidding for ALT contracts. Now you have some that are still doing their normal after school and weekend programs along with raking in money skimmed from ALTs. Then there are companies like Interac which focus solely on ALTs and staffing special training events.

Now secondly, I don't have numbers on whether or not JET's ranks are declining. But I do know that the number of ALTs needed is growing with the rise in English programs in the elementary schools. By 2011 all elementary schools will be expected to have 35 hours of English instruction each year for 5th and 6th grades. The idea is that Japanese teachers are going to teach using the new mandated textbook along with CDs, but I am willing to wager that just like English in the elementary school now that the Japanese teachers will look to the ALTs.

And by look to the ALTs I mean sit in the back checking homework. Then you'll have some who want to involve themselves and tell you things like, "Ah, writing is very hard for fifth grade. Maybe good for 6th grade though." Then in your head you will be all like, "So what, you want me to just make 25 lessons a year of them repeating simple phrases and words over and over again? Then you expect them to actually retain and hold onto any of this information? No, no. I will go crazy."