Wednesday, February 28, 2007

9 Things You Always Wanted to Know About the TEFL Racket

*but were afraid to ask*

What's with all the damn acronyms? TEFL, CELTA, ESL, FCE, DELTA... all these have something to do with teaching English. TEFL, incidentally, stands for Teaching English as a Foreign Language.

Learning English is Big. Big like Whoa! It should be no surprise, then, that teaching English is big business. I've heard Language Link --my employer -- referred to more than once as 'The McDonald's of language schools.'

In fact -- and this is where it begins to get Russia-specific-- demand is growing furiously, leaving the supply of teachers soundly in the dust.

As with other big industries, chain schools naturally move towards product uniformity. In this situation, that means that one or two certification processes have become the gold standard, and sine qua non of teaching English. CELTA is the chief of them all. It stands for Certificate for English.... something something something...

So what do you do when you run out of certified English teachers? Any company worth it's salt will find creative ways to meet the demand. Language Link solved this by soliciting people who lacked Certification, seemed to have some faint whiff of competence and hiring them as 'interns' for less pay. (I don't mean this bitterly... It's a better deal for me to do this then drop $5000 on a damn CELTA course).

But... you might think this would make a difference in one's responsibilities. You would be wrong. Here, the only distinguishing thing about interns is their paycheck. (That and they have quarterly 'projects' whose satisfactory--ie. >60th percentile -- completion is a prerequisite for pay increases.

'But Peter,' you ask, 'Don't the students care whether they are being taught by an experienced teacher rather than an inexperienced schmuck like yourself?' They may, but on this, where possible, they are kept safely in the dark. Teachers are tacitly encouraged to keep the lights off, as well.

But what if it isn't possible to keep the client in the dark? In my area of employment -- 'In Company' teachers who go to corporate clients -- most of the corporate clients demand resumes of their prospective teachers. On this I have nothing to say... Only that, I might have heard of some occasions where a teacher found out from independent sources that unbeknownst to him, he had become 5 years older and earned a Master's degree in Linguistics, according to his CV. Or, I might not have heard that...

I can't complain, though. The new Russia is a hard place to work, and they make this whole process damn easy. If you can't stand the grime (and Language Link is most certainly that... quite possibly the grimiest in Russia, which would place it high in the running for grimiest worldwide) find someone else to clean. If not...
Forget it Jake, it's Russiatown.

Kittens!

I grinned at her. The little blonde at the PBX cocked a shell-like ear and smiled a small fluffy smile. She looked playful and eager, but not quite sure of herself, like a new kitten in a house where they don't care much about kittens.

Raymond Chandler, The Lady in the Lake

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Sympathies

What determines where our historical sympathies lie? I'm talking about that purely arational affinity that you feel when reading about a conflict. I've certainly picked a side in nearly every history I've read. Sometimes your rational and arational sympathies coincide: you want your civilization to win because you like it more than the other. This doesn't mean you necessarily condone the conflict or your side's actions, just that you like them better.
Other times your rational position and arational affinities are opposed. You know, intellectually, that one side is better than the other, but there is something just irresistible about that other side.

Most of the time it is predictable: You root for the side which has a greater civilizational similarity to your own. For me, a partial list of these cases are:

Protestants over Catholics in 30 yrs war
Catholics over Umayyads in Spain
Crusaders over Arabs in Palestine
England over France pretty much always, even though
America over England in the Revolution
(remember, these are arational sympathies -- they don't have to make sense)

What about civilizations whose connection to your own is more tenuous? For me:

Byzantines over the Turks --indeed, over those Crusader dogs as well!
Arabs over the Turks in WWI
Chinese over Japanese, pretty much always (although if a conflict developed today it might be different)
Greeks over Persians
Persians over Arabs
Britons over Normans

For conflicts like these, the causes of our sympathies are not immediately obvious. A lot of the time, it can be something as simple as this: you sympathize with the side whose part was taken by the first book you read on the subject. Other times, you might see one side as more blatantly aggressive than the other, and throw your sympathizes toward the victim. Still other times, its simply a mistaken instinctual feeling of civilizational continuity. For example, its likely that I would have found much more in common with the Normans in 1066 than with the Britons. But, because of the names, it FEELS like I am siding with those damn frogs! As for my sympathies for the Arabs over the Turks, I can narrow it down to two causes: THAT movie; and the fact that I am still bitter over that 1453 business.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Post Facto

I know I'm about two months late on this, but I was just thinking...

So, a man gets hanged. His killers are a bloodthirsty mob, who, while doing the deed, shout out the name of the county's biggest terrorist. They called it justice, and after the hanging they went back to their day jobs --- exterminating people from the other clan.

The man gave them nothing - he died with stoic equanimity, muttering a single 'Go to Hell,' before his neck is snapped.

So who am I supposed to sympathize with: the snakes, or the man who locked them in their respective bags?