That's not me being mean for the sake of being mean, that's approximating everything I've read and heard about these mandatory embassy interviews. About the same duration, too; you'd just need to add about eight hours' travel time each way and hundreds of dollars of expenses to replicate the full experience.
What caught my eye in the article was this paragraph:
In the past, many Americans who applied for Korean teaching visas were graduates of community colleges. The consul said, “Until early 2008, graduates of two-year colleges that were unheard of in Korea accounted for the lion’s share of wannabe English teachers.”
That's strange to hear because at least since 2003---as far back as Dave's ESL Cafe threads go---four-year degrees have been required for the E-2 visa. Either the consul is talking out his or her ass, or is suggesting that up until 2008 the majority of appplicants were graduates from community colleges, even though they knew, and their recruiters probably reminded them, they couldn't get teaching visas.
The article finishes:
Few graduates of elite American schools expressed interest in teaching in Korea back then, given the hardly attractive salary of two million won (1,800 U.S. dollars) per month.
The situation has significantly changed since then. The consul, who conducts interviews for teaching visas Tuesdays, said one in four or five applicants is a graduate of an elite school.
The tough job market for college graduates in the U.S. is apparently a major factor for prompting them to seek work in Korea.
It's true that South Korea has the potential to attract and retain experienced teachers because of a tough job market back home, though remember that Korea's reputation for a shady place to work and teach precedes itself. Furthermore, Korea was actually far more lucrative a few years ago when the exchange rate, at least for Americans, was more favorable. I earned 2.1 million won a month at my first hagwon in 2005-2006, but that was about US$400 more a month than it is now, and nearly US$800 a month more than last year during the won's weakest. Salaries have remained stagnant for most of the decade, and if you look at the "salary and benefits" section of the website for English Program in Korea [EPIK]---a program that places teachers in public schools---you'll see that teachers with degrees in education can expect to earn 2.1 million won per month in Busan or Incheon, or up to 2.3 million won in the "provinces," only a slight improvement from 2004. Money isn't everything, true, and teachers don't get into the business to become rich, but as I wrote in the Korea Herald in June, Korea clearly isn't prepared to pay for quality or experience. Two million won, to give the figure in the article, isn't unreasonable for an inexperienced teacher fresh out of college, but it is insulting for people who possess the quote-unquote qualifications Korea professes to be after, and in a country where its teachers are among the highest-paid in the world, isn't nearly enough to get adults to leave their homes to work as "native speaker assistant teachers" and get dicked around by bad recruiters or by schools that don't know what to do with them.
Let's look at another paragraph:
The consul said, “The educational qualifications of college graduates who apply for visas to teach English in Korea have significantly improved.”
Talking about "educational qualifications" is futile in Korea---administrators can't decide what "qualified" means, schools don't know how to recognize quality in English teachers, schools aren't willing to pay for it, and schools continue to simply hire warm bodies with the right skin color---but if you look at the seven names the article included, none of them has a degree in education, none of them mentioned have any training in teaching English as a foreign language, and none---save for perhaps the English major---have anything that might pass for "educational qualifications" beyond a big-name university. The article mentions people with degrees in: human ecology, political science, economics, humanities, ancient literature, and English, and a person with a minor in international relations. Chasing applicants with degrees from name-brand schools---or at least from the schools Koreans have heard of---does nothing to improve the "qualifications" of native speaker English teachers, and is no different than the "image is everything" approach we already have.
To get a fair picture of this trend, if it really exists, you really have to look at the ethnic backgrounds of new teachers, something not mentioned in the article. Korean-Americans, or Koreans who have attended big-name schools, have always made a killing in test-prep hagwons here and from private lessons, but in some cases have a harder time finding work because schools won't hire them and parents don't want their children listening to English from an Asian face. You'll notice that none of the people mentioned by first name in the article will be heading to public schools. Besides, we know that a lot of public schools won't even hire Asian-Americans, and that hagwon, too, discriminate against anybody not young, female, and white.
The article runs with the idea that more elite US graduates are teaching English in Korea, but provides no statistics for the present or the past, thus giving no way to measure "more" other than the observations of an unnamed source at the Korean consul (who probably shouldn't be sharing that information anyway). Likewise, there is no measure of "elite" given, or why somebody from, say, the University of Pennsylvania would be a better hire than somebody like me out of Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Let's not take the word of "a consul in charge of processing entry visas at the Korean Embassy in Washington" when that word isn't backed up with any figures or analysis.
32 comments:
I remember back in 2002 when the Korean government wanted only 4 year degrees. They wanted to "improve" the quality of English education here and required everyone to have a four year degree. Those that were in country at that time could not renew.
Recently one recruiter wanted a full body shot so that the prospective employers could see the body size. The reason was that employers rather have a rail thin teacher who was less qualified than one who was not thin but more experienced.
It doesn't seem about the credentials of the teacher. Only if he or she looks good and thin.
You've got to take EVERYTHING they say with grain of salt. I choose to believe nothing of what Korean nationals say unless I can see the evidence or proof for myself.
One of my buddies told me one of his students told him that Canadian and American rice farmers were trying to take over the Korean rice market. Yeah, Canadian rice farmers, yeah.
Funny, I've got a B.Ed and I remember the Korean adults I taught telling me I wasn't "a real teacher" for some reason.
I think probably because I didn't go to one of those top ten in the world Korean universities. It might've been because I wasn't Korean too.
You forgot to add 2.1 + your housing paid for, right? You also get back that pension money when you leave and get 50% for medical coverage while losing a lot less in taxes. Don't forget that you pay a lot less in taxes at stores too.
I'm just saying that you can stretch your money quite well here if you are inclined to do so.
Yeah, I'm not saying you can't save money in Korea, or that it isn't a good deal in a lot of ways. Including pension, severance, and airfare, that might work out to US$3,000 a month, depending.
But that just goes to further discredit the idea that years ago Korea wasn't lucrative, as the article suggests. It was far more so, I think, because schools fronted the cost of airfare, whereas today the teachers pay and are reimbursed, meaning it was easier for recent college grads to come here.
Yeah, I think the time comparison is nonsense. I came here in 1995 for a slightly better than average hakwon teaching job at 2.5 mil won a month for 25 hours a week. With overtime, it was more like 2.8 to 3.3 a month. And that was at an exchange rate around 700 won to $1 U.S. Things have definitely not improved over the last decade plus.
I think that this article just shows that getting a job is difficult with some kind of Liberal arts degree, even if it is from a famous university. Besides a B.A. is a B.A. if you have a B.A. in some kind of social science or liberal art, that's just a ticket to help someone get into grad school. If at some point one of these students wants to actually make money or pay back college loans then Korea is an easy thing to do for a few years. And unless one of these people does privates and is constantly working there asses off doing privates, then it isn't likely that they would pay back their student loans soon, especially if they owe Harvard or Berkely hundreds of thousands of dollars.
My interview at the Korean consulate in Chicago consisted of waiting, a quick call-in, a review of my file, perhaps three questions ("Why do you want to go to Korea?"), and then being dismissed.
Define 'elite' for me again? Sure, UNC might put out some decent sports teams at times... Those 'elite' schools aren't much better than the ones here - it's prestige and perception attached to the name. Nothing new or surprising here - and if this 'consul' person isn't new at his job, he's definitely talking out of somewhere other than his mouth.
Brian, you're wasting your time "deconstructing" these kinds of articles, and missing their main point.
The primary function of such articles is to make terminally insecure Koreans feel better about themselves. "High quality" foreigners seeking to work in Korea must mean that Korea itself is becoming a more "highly desired" destination in the minds of Westerners.
Korea, in other words, is moving up in the world, while at the same time the West continues to move down. That's the real message of this article, and no one really cares to geek out on the actual details of ESL education raised in it, however contradictory they may be -- well, except for you, of course!
Jonny wrote:
Things have definitely not improved over the last decade plus.
Wages have indeed stagnated, but fringe benefits like air fare, health insurance, and housing being provided — which in the past were by no means universal — have become standard. If that's considered, it's possible that the entire package has kept pace with wage growth in North America (which, as I understand it, hasn't been that hot).
That's if you consider purchasing power or something that guards against the fluctuations of the exchange rate: the KRW is weaker than thirteen years ago, but far stronger than twelve years ago, and the Canadian dollar is stronger, too, but this isn't reflected much in the pay packages.
Ahh, the interview was painful to watch. But then again, I cringe almost every time someone speaks English in Korean dramas/movies/shows/music.
Me too, and it's totally unnecessary. I know they think it makes them sound cool and sophisticated, but to actual English speakers it has the opposite effect. Yeah, yeah, we're not the target audience, but still, if you're going to misuse the language expect a reaction. But that's a whole other direction, and that tangent has been done on a bunch of other posts, so I'll just stick to this topic here.
@ Kushibo:
"Wages have indeed stagnated, but fringe benefits like air fare, health insurance, and housing being provided — which in the past were by no means universal — have become standard."
Those things have been standard since before the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. One of us has been living in a parallel universe South Korea.
I have to disagree with Kushibo, at least to the extent he's talking about changes *within* the last decade. Further back than that, I can't say.
Back in 2000, I searched a LOT of jobs before I finally settled on one--and while they varied somewhat in salary and scheduling, they all had the roundtrip airfare, housing, 50% insurance, and one month's bonus at the end of the year. Those aren't new phenomena anymore.
And to my recollection, a 4 year degree was also necessary then for an E2 visa. I recall sending my degree via fedex to Korea as art of my employer's applying for my "invitation letter" or whatever.
Yes, because Korea is a bastion of quality when it comes to English teaching.
Recently found in a Korean textbook:
http://i.imgur.com/Lsa9o.jpg\
via:
http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/azxdi/i_found_this_in_a_korean_esl_textbook/
Brian,
As to the community college thing, Korean version of the article makes it pretty clear that the applicants for E-2 visa were majority community college grads. So the second interpretation you provided is the correct one.
And I will have to disagree with one thing. I don't see why it is not obvious that a U Penn graduate would be, generally and as a whole, more "elite" than Indiana U. of Pennsylvania.
Holterharbour wrote:
I have to disagree with Kushibo, at least to the extent he's talking about changes *within* the last decade. Further back than that, I can't say.
I never said anything about "within the last decade." I am comparing their current stagnation with before that stagnation, which as I understand it goes back before the economic crisis of 1997-98 (I've lived in Seoul off and on since I was a teenager). I am not an English teacher, so I am going by what I know of others' contracts and conditions (through friends, classmates, and viewing ads).
Back in 2000, I searched a LOT of jobs before I finally settled on one--and while they varied somewhat in salary and scheduling, they all had the roundtrip airfare, housing, 50% insurance, and one month's bonus at the end of the year. Those aren't new phenomena anymore.
Before the stagnation, most people I know did not have most of these things. Higher quality jobs (like universities) offered housing or partial housing subsidy. Roundtrip air fare was something added later, and the month's bonus came only after the courts ruled that foreign employees must be included in those rules, so it didn't exist before that.
Moreover, foreign nationals weren't even allowed to sign up for the national health insurance scheme until after the economic crisis (I want to say around 2000), and few employers offered insurance to their young foreign employees if it meant paying for an internationally based plan.
Before the economic crisis hit, the real wage versus Korean nationals was pretty high (whereas now it's average, maybe even slightly lower) in a place with a pretty low cost-of-living, and that was enough to attract the relatively few (compared to now) people they wanted and needed.
But the currency rate collapsed and ate into the calculated-in-dollars salary at a time when (a) the government required the end-of-year bonus, (b) the public, private, and extracurricular schools started having to offer expensive housing in order to compete for workers, and (c) the government began requiring that foreign workers be put in the health insurance scheme, and all that probably contributed considerably toward the wage stagnation.
But, as was my point, these same things offset the real-dollar sinking of the salaries being paid.
extrakorea wrote:
Those things have been standard since before the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. One of us has been living in a parallel universe South Korea.
That might be you, then, since foreign nationals weren't allowed to be part of the health insurance system until a few years after the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. ;)
In fact, Korea nationals who were unemployed or worked for companies that employed fewer than a certain number of people were also generally ineligible until after the 2008 Global Financial Meltdown Prequel™.
Yes, because Korea is a bastion of quality when it comes to English teaching.
Recently found in a Korean textbook:
I'm not sure who that reflects worse on, the naïve book illustrator who simply did a Google image search for a Western version of an eye chart (Korean ones, as most of us at Brian's would know, look quite different), or the jaded person who would think "STFU" is an appropriate thing to put on a t-shirt to wear in front of other people, possibly little kids.
FYI, just to get figures in order, in 1995 the exchange rate was about 768 won per dollar. Also, in 1995, the starting salary was 1,200,000 won--NOT 2,500,000! If you exchanged your whole salary, you'd have gotten about $1,562.
The exchange rate this year is about 1159. Let's assume most contracts offer about 2,200,000 won. Exchanging your whole salary gives you about $1,898. Give or take, we're slightly ahead by a couple hundred. Then again, with inflation, we're about even.
Holy schlitz, I don't even know where to begin with this.
a) The fawning adoration of Americans and their educational system in Korea has to end. There are other people out there with good educational systems. Maybe they just won't put up with the Koreans. Kudos to the Americans for having the patience to do so.
b) UNC? The Tarheels? I guess Michael Jordan goes a long way. In academia? Oh well, he berry pamous.
c) Jonny: "an exchange rate of around 700 won to $1 U.S."
-This kind of article is essentially trying to remind Korea of the good old days. I didn't buy it either.
d) "Those things have been standard since before the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis."
-Sort of. I knew lots of hagwon and public school teachers who had been deprived of healthcare and lots of uni teachers who didn't get housing.
e) As to the community college thing, Korean version of the article makes it pretty clear that the applicants for E-2 visa were majority community college grads.
- Er. As the eye chart says, WTF? People are applying even though they know they won't get in? And they constitute the majority of applicants at the Korean embassy in Washington? I call BS. This seems like more nonsense to make Koreans think the Americans are bowing down to them. Even if every English teacher in Korea had a Ph.D. in Education from Harvard, the Koreans would still find a way to discredit them.
f) Yes, because Korea is a bastion of quality when it comes to English teaching.
-And I was the one who thought that it reflected worse on the teacher who started to teach English vocabulary without teaching his students basic phonics. As a teacher (ex-teacher?), my eye was not drawn to the eye-chart, it was to the hangul scribbled in the margins by kids who can't even read in English.
In 1995, most people I know where getting starting jobs around 1.8 million won, not 1.2 million. But that may be a YMMV kind of thing.
Anyway, I thought I saw mostly 2.0 to 2.2 million won starting out when I was last dealing with people who were dealing with this (around 2006 and 2007). And with those numbers (1.8 million rising to 2.2 million over a decade later), I'd call that wage stagnation.
BUT... there's a more consistent set of benefits that didn't exist for all the jobs back then, as far as I'm aware.
People are applying even though they know they won't get in? And they constitute the majority of applicants at the Korean embassy in Washington? I call BS.
Given the types of questions I get for having just two posts about immigrating to Korea, I don't think that's BS at all.
I also have a hard time believing the majority of applicants to the consul in Washington are 2-year degree holders. I don't have any stats or figures to back it up, but it's just my hunch. I mean, for teachers to even get to the consul, that means recruiters/schools offered these teachers contracts and took the matter to the consul.
Or maybe it's talking about the majority of applicants for jobs being two-year degree holders. I have no doubt there are some---how on earth does somebody from CC hear about Korea anyway?---and on Dave's every now and then there are questions about teaching here without a degree, but the majority?
Regarding IUP vs. UPenn, sure, an Ivy League school is considered better than a small state school, and UPenn looks better on a resume the world over. But if schools are actually conducting interviews and actually screening candidates, they may find that somebody from a big name school isn't necessarily better suited to teaching in Korea. Some are, sure, but a big name doesn't guarantee success.
And that's where the "qualifications" debate comes in: what does it mean for a teacher to be qualified to teach here? Talking just about paper qualifications doesn't cut it, because the Korean/Asian EFL context is different. Likewise we've all met teachers with MAs or education degrees who were just as bad as your average ancient literature major straight out of college.
There hasn't yet been an agreed upon standard for qualifications, a set of goals or a measure of success, and the enthusiasm over "elite" applicants is another example of this.
Or maybe it's talking about the majority of applicants for jobs being two-year degree holders.
That's exactly right. Here is the relevant sentence from Korean version of the article:
2008년 초까지만 해도 한국에선 이름도 들어볼 수 없던 2년제 커뮤니티칼리지 출신들이 영어강사 자리를 원하는 주류였다.
So he is talking about applicants for an "ESL teacher position" (which is the emphasized language), not applicants for E-2. And I don't really have a hard time believing the consul. But your hunch is yours.
There hasn't yet been an agreed upon standard for qualifications, a set of goals or a measure of success, and the enthusiasm over "elite" applicants is another example of this.
Definitely agree with the "no standard" point. I made a similar point on my blog the other day. But I think with all other things being equal, Penn grad is superior to IUP grad. Like you noted, Korea's system does not even have the capability to properly evaluate NSETs even after they arrived. Given that, there is no way for Korea's system to evaluate potential NSETs before they even arrive. (Although obviously this is not a good thing.) In such a case, I think the school from which one graduated is a good enough proxy, and certainly something to be legitimately enthusiastic about.
Unless your talking Harvard Med or M.I.T. the school you graduated from doesn't bear much resemblance to the actual capacity for accomplishing your job. It only demonstrates to what extend you could score on standardized tests and how much money you were willing to sink / borrow for said degree. I've met entirely too many Ivy League grads who were lost in the woods when it came time to actually perform work.
Especially when they think their better then those around them because of their degree, regardless of their ability to perform.
But yes Korea doesn't offer the kind of money required to attract the upper end "qualified" teachers. The salary + benefits is enough for some first time grads. Let them get some experience having to deal with archaic institutes (this actually exists in many places outside Korea) and retarded superiors. Hell they couldn't pay me enough to teach English over here.
I might not have believed this could be a bunch of bs 5 or 6 years ago, but after all the lies and/or misinformation the Korean media likes to tell about English teachers, the "blood thirsty" GI's who purposely ran over innocent school girls, foreign businesses daring to turn a profit in Korea, the Crazy Cow stuff, foreigners in general etc... I wouldn't be surprised if they were "stroking their egos" so to speak.
Sorry, but SBS, Pandora's Box, and the Korean government and media in general have caused me to question everything they say. And why shouldn't one question what they say? They have a history of just pulling info out of their asses. Especially when they a history of doing so. Just look at Pandora's Box and the downer cow shit. Koreans shouldn't blame us for questioning what they have to say.
They have a history of...
And of course, I forgot to put in MBC before downer cow
I came here in 1995 for a slightly better than average hakwon teaching job at 2.5 mil won a month for 25 hours a week. With overtime, it was more like 2.8 to 3.3 a month. And that was at an exchange rate around 700 won to $1 U.S.
Those wages you received were far far FAR from typical of the time. Pre-IMF, the going rate was 1.2million for working 30 hours per week. At the then-current exchange rate (as you said, around 700), I would like to know who was paying you THAT much money for an "average hakwon teaching job". The pay alone tells me it was NOT average at all.
I remember back in 2002 when the Korean government wanted only 4 year degrees. They wanted to "improve" the quality of English education here and required everyone to have a four year degree. Those that were in country at that time could not renew.
I also remember the push to make 4-year degrees the be all-end all standard for E2 visas... until they found out how many British and Canadian universities offered 3-year BAs, and the number of teachers they would lose if the standard became 4-years.
As I recall, they changed the wording to read "bachelor's degree" rather than "4-year degree", thereby solving the problem of teachers with three-year BAs
- As to the community college thing, Korean version of the article makes it pretty clear that the applicants for E-2 visa were majority community college grads.
- So he is talking about applicants for an "ESL teacher position" (which is the emphasized language), not applicants for E-2. And I don't really have a hard time believing the consul.
So which one is it? And how would the consul now the numbers of people applying for ESL teacher positions rather than those applying for E2 visas? Is he a recruiter in his spare time?
-
I also remember the push to make 4-year degrees the be all-end all standard for E2 visas... until they found out how many British and Canadian universities offered 3-year BAs, and the number of teachers they would lose if the standard became 4-years.
I recall that period, too, but I think you might be overstating the number of 3 year Canadian Bachelors degrees out there. I know there are some in the Maritimes, but in BC, Alberta and Ontario the universities are all (most?) 4-year. In the UK (and NZ and AUS, I think) the first degree is always a 3 year. In Canada, I think the norm is 4.
A hagwon I worked at asked me to suggest another teacher for them, and I suggested an African-American friend of mine. The director later told me that they had never hired a black teacher before because they were worried about what parents would think.
They hired her, it took some time for the students to get used to her, but she is now well-liked by students, families, and the director.
It's silly how they like white people so much in Korea.
Post a Comment