Post-Interview After interviewing them, I realized that my approach was very biased. There is never just one side to a story. For some reason, which now evades me, I thought, as far as nationalism goes, that a person who intends to teach internationally, should only teach a foreign language. I believed they would be better off teaching core subjects in their home country, and by so, aid in said country’s economic rise.
|
I thought that if they all concentrated on relying their knowledge solely to student’s on their land, their nation would thrive and the US’s failing educational system(U.S. students lag around average on international science, math and reading test -Lyndsey Layton) would be left bare and flat in comparison, ready for a complete makeover. Such was my theory.
But the fact of the matter is, the U.S has some of the best universities and colleges, where lots of funding is available for research and paychecks, perhaps more than they are offered in their homeland. Why would a person refuse an offer to work abroad with higher pay than they would get if they stayed where they are? Certainly not for a theory which can only be tested through them, whether it fails or not. It would be quite the sacrifice. What is their incentive to stay? This is simple math.
Also no one should be whining about jobs being taken away, because they are not, we are essentially Giving them away, and that makes a big difference. Many are not applying to science and math positions at universities or primary education etablishments. Of those that do, little seldom qualify, creating a shortage of adequate labor, which then leave schools with no other choice but to recruit it from somewhere else.
To the international teachers that care to give the U.S a helping hand, welcome to the "Land of Opportunity."
To the international teachers that care to give the U.S a helping hand, welcome to the "Land of Opportunity."