teaching english

[Mantra-Slider]

If you are interested Jerome its pretty easy to get a job as english teacher in China even if you dont have a degree. Just like Bioture said (I think?) I also have a friend who did that and now on my trip I met some australians who did the exact same thing. One of them was advertising in the papers or w/e and gave private lessons to rich kids. He said its great cos you get more money, you get to meet and hang out with the guys and their families (wich is awesome if you wanna learn more about the culture and country) and most importantly you dont need a working visa!

Im thinking of doing something like that myself for one semester after next summer but that might be because I recently got back home and wanna return so bad But yeah even my english is awesome compare to the chinese and it would be great fun!

[Blood]

In reality, nobody is as stupid as Ward makes it seem. Immature and naive, maybe. Stupid, no. Do you, Ward, have any clue as to what English majors actually study? Grammar and pronunciation? When I'm done with my degree, grammar and pronunciation classes will have made up exactly 4,3% of it. That's it, 4,3% mate. We have classes on the history of English, literature from different eras, giving presentations, the cultures of English-speaking countries, translation and academic writing. All of this I find extremely useful. If you are to actually teach a language to others, you are put in an enormous position of authority and most of all, responsibility, so you better know what the hell it is you are talking about.

I can only attribute your opinions on pure ignorance. This sort of debate can be had on any university degree, that is, whether or not it is 100% useful. I have a close friend in a Finnish university-level school of economics (should be good enough for anyone's standards) and I can tell you that he comments frequently on how useless he finds some courses in relation to whatever he is going to work with in the future. It's the same with all university degrees, mate.

And before you continue on commenting how much you excel at the English language with so little education, let me tell you I've seen you economics-types write reports and other quasi-academic texts. There are some good writers amongst you but most of the stuff you produce is the most unintelligible over-complicated look-at-me-I-can-fit-seven-colons-three-semicolons-and-a-colon-in-a-single-sentence sort of crap.

So spare us your ignorance and listen to what we're telling you.

[Troll King]

I want to be in the magazine industry. I'm currently finishing my internship at Hub, a consumer electronics publication. I helped with the relaunch of the website, www.hubcanada.com, which opened last week.

My ultimate goal would be to start up my own publication.

[Cops]

Heh... I like how Ward is trying write like Epi.

So I'm fielding a question, what are you planning to do with your diploma in Journalism?

[Salubrious]

Like I said, I definitely want to wind up being a teacher.. but I'd also love to not live in America. I specified europe earlier, but I'm open to suggestions, especially Canada.

Your assistance is required in Canada. Please head there and help Ward with his education ASAP.

[Troll King]

Heh... I like how Ward is trying write like Epi.

[Bioture]

ever consider working overseas? I had a friend who got a teaching job in China after he graduated for a year, and apparently he had a blast.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

dont do it

he's not worth it

I agree, yet I want this thread to be able to be quotable as a "look and see exactly how foolish this kid is" thread. May Jeebus have mercy on my soul.

Yes, you can absorb the history of English in matter of minutes, to a pervasive degree of importance. That doesn't include every single detail of it, the knowledge of which wouldn't matter anyway. And what is your opinion of me having a "tenuous grasp" on the language based on? For someone who's impertinent to this argument to begin with, let alone avoiding my main point, you should just leave this thread for good.

As of this moment, my girlfriend (who just so happens to have an English degree from one of the premier writing schools in the country) is reading your post and is laughing her ass off at your grasp of the language. Nice attempt at using $10 words, but your usage is fucked. (Girlfriend's note: "And what is your opinion of me having a 'tenuous grasp' on the language based on?" is a dangling participle, amongst other obvious errors.) So, that takes care of my assessment of your language skills. It'd be different if this was actually your first error-riddled prose.

Secondly, as many have pointed out many times before, this is a public message board. By posting here, you're automatically including me (as well as Pandagirl, CoL, Kool & the Gang, RuPaul, and all the rest of your Diso squaddies who are currently shaking their collective heads in shame). I can weigh in whenever I want, thank you very much. You said something that was totally arrogant and factually incorrect, and I'm letting you know that you're wrong.

Since when does knowledge of the history of subject make you better at the subject itself?

Are you fucking kidding me? Since when is that NOT the case? Let me give you a real-world example, since theoreticals don't seem to be your cup of tea.

I have a degree in Computer Science. Knowing how computing has evolved gives me a leg up on knowing what works (and just as important--what doesn't). If I plan on writing software in the future, it's important to know what's already been done, so I can build on the successes and failures of those before me.

Unless you're going to Doctor Juan's Upstairs School of Business, I'm guessing that YOU TOO have to learn at least some sort of business history as part of your cirriculum. Why? Because sane people understand that there's no reason to repeat mistakes. Knowledge, at it's base level, is a cumulative thing--the history of a subject is just as important (if not more important) than the application of that subject. It's true for ANY area.

Knowledge of English is measured by an extent to which you're able to express yourself, your grammar (reading and writing), and your speech; not the history of it. Perhaps you do need brief knowledge of it if you're to become a teacher, but you don't need to take courses to learn something that primitive.

No one's saying that you have to know the etymology of the entire language, but labelling the study of it as "primitive" is just plain wrong. By misusing (some might say "horribly abusing") words as you have above, you're showing the flaws in your own argument--without understanding of the history of words and their use, you're more prone to be misunderstood than someone who actually has even a rudimentary knowledge.

[gran guerrero]

dont do it

he's not worth it

:english:

[Cops]

To teach up here you do need to speak French. Troll King can probably answer the rest on qualifications as I'd just be guessing or using wiki mostly. Teachers make pretty good money, at least 60-70k if not more from what I hear. 45-50k is considered middle class. You'll probably have a harder time fitting in with respects to your nationality in Quebec more so than Ontario, BC, Alberta... Most people wouldn't care anyways but for example 70% of the Canadian population opposed the Iraq War in 2003 so I wouldn't say people are more Anti-American so much as they're just not interested in the kind of politics coming out of DC at the moment or for the past 6 years.

I don't know about speaking French, I'm quite sure that one of my teachers went to University received two degrees and finally mastered in Anthropology. She told me that she barely passed French when she was in high school. Teachers in Canada have to attend teachers college which is a bitch and a half to get into, I was thinking of applying to University for a BeD-Eng (Bachelor of Education in English) program that takes four years to get a degree and also makes it so you don't have to spend the extra year in Teachers College.

I haven't talked to Troll King in awhile but I was going to talk to him about Journalism, since he is taking the same course as me, except that he is attending Humber College and I will be attending Sheridan College. I think that Teachers College looks at your Degrees and Diplomas and decides on what courses you are qualified to teach. If I was to go back to University after I finish my initial Diploma and get a degree I think that I would most likely be qualified to teach Writer's Craft at a public High School, the problem is that is very unlikely that you will be hired to teach just one course. Most high school teachers in Canada have at the very least two types of courses that they can teach. If Jerome really wanted to he could teach at an alternative school in Canada, its a lot easier to start your career as a part time teacher. I needed alternative schooling when I was 16-17 to really help me get through, I don't believe that the teachers that helped me made a lot of money but the influence they have on youth is outstanding, I think that it would be a highly rewarding job working with teens.

[Liquid Blue]

dont do it

he's not worth it

[Ward]

No, you were arrogant and said you could absorb "everything" about the history of the English language in a "matter of minutes." For someone who has a tenuous grasp on the language itself (at best), it's retarded of you to say anything of the sorts.

Yes, you can absorb the history of English in matter of minutes, to a pervasive degree of importance. That doesn't include every single detail of it, the knowledge of which wouldn't matter anyway. And what is your opinion of me having a "tenuous grasp" on the language based on? For someone who's impertinent to this argument to begin with, let alone avoiding my main point, you should just leave this thread for good.

And for the record, knowledge of the history of language has a LOT to do with lingual skills. But then again, you've probably Googled it and figured that out already, right? Because Googling things is the keystone of research.

Again, bravo!

Since when does knowledge of the history of subject make you better at the subject itself? Knowledge of English is measured by an extent to which you're able to express yourself, your grammar (reading and writing), and your speech; not the history of it. Perhaps you do need brief knowledge of it if you're to become a teacher, but you don't need to take courses to learn something that primitive.

[Squeezer]

i no english better then ward b/c i red some wikipida information

im smater than u irl

[genocidal]

i no english better then ward b/c i red some wikipida information

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Not at all, since the knowledge of English background has nothing to do with lingual skills

No, you were arrogant and said you could absorb "everything" about the history of the English language in a "matter of minutes." For someone who has a tenuous grasp on the language itself (at best), it's retarded of you to say anything of the sorts.

And for the record, knowledge of the history of language has a LOT to do with lingual skills. But then again, you've probably Googled it and figured that out already, right? Because Googling things is the keystone of research.

Again, bravo!