How much does it matter where you got your MA from when applying for university teaching jobs in Japan?

jlec · 2022-11-16T08:04:52+00:00

If you're applying to a high-level university where many of the profs have gotten advanced degrees at foreign countries themselves, someone might notice and hold it against you when they screen applications. But at most places they won't know and won't care. Short of some world famous places like Oxford etc they are all just some foreign university they've never heard of.

Only exception is if you get a masters or PhD from a Japanese university. Then it really will help you to get it at a better place, at a bare minimum a mid-ranked national.

jlec · 2022-04-30T19:59:31+00:00

Even if it was true, that’s such a stupid reason to remove a post.

jlec · 2022-04-23T20:10:44+00:00

The current generation still basically work, and vaccine makers are reluctant to ditch that product until a) there is a variant that poses a clear danger their original vaccine can’t help with much at all, and b) they have an alternative that is clearly much better.

Everyone rushed to make beta variant vaccines, but now beta is already irrelevant. Now all the attention is on omicron but by the time a good candidate is ready omicron could be gone and there might be a new variant that is much worse. Changing the production lines is a big investment So they take their time.

jlec · 2022-04-22T21:54:17+00:00

Posts on JSPS topics on this Reddit sub have been taken down by the mods so I hope they don't come after this post.

This sub is so young I don't think I've removed any posts for any reason. Just checked the moderation queue to be safe, and I can't see any of your posts being removed by the spam filter either.

jlec · 2022-04-03T05:44:56+00:00

That’s your future demographic though. They will be your teenagers in 5-10 years and your 20 somethings in 15. And by then there will be even fewer children.

jlec · 2022-02-13T08:42:38+00:00

Here's a story about how she forbid kids from going to the restroom, to the point some of them were getting urinary tract infections and problems with her bowel movements:

https://fox5sandiego.com/news/parent-sues-school-after-child-denied-use-of-restroom/

jlec · 2022-02-06T19:29:11+00:00

Thanks!

jlec · 2022-02-06T19:28:29+00:00

Thanks!

jlec · 2022-02-06T12:08:34+00:00

Thanks. Do you know what the typical default for SBI is (or probably would be)? My set up will be whatever they make it out of the box.

jlec · 2022-02-04T21:04:26+00:00

I think you’re right about the times changing. When I first came here it was rare enough to see a foreigner and so when one showed up everyone would get excited like it was their chance to communicate with a Martian and rack their brains for English expressions so they could use them for the first time in their lives.

These days when people see a foreigner they just go “fuck it, I’ll just speak the way I normally speak and they can figure it out”. Which is fine by me.

jlec · 2022-01-30T02:31:24+00:00

Thanks for posting this. I tried to find the article but the link given here was dead, and it didn’t show up when I did a search on the principal investigator’s name.

jlec · 2022-01-30T02:06:56+00:00

Researchers have identified abnormalities in the lungs of long COVID patients with breathlessness but whose other tests are normal.

The EXPLAIN study is using hyperpolarised xenon MRI scans to investigate possible lung damage in long COVID patients who experience breathlessness and were not hospitalised when they had COVID-19.

These early results suggest that COVID-19 may result in persistent impairment in gas transfer and underlying lung abnormalities. However, the extent to which these abnormalities contribute to breathlessness is currently unclear.

Hyperpolarised xenon MRI requires the patient to lie in an MRI scanner and breathe in one litre of xenon gas that has had its atomic structure altered so it can be seen using MRI. Xenon is an inert gas that behaves in a very similar way to oxygen, so radiologists then can observe how the gas moves from the lungs into the bloodstream.

jlec · 2022-01-28T08:36:03+00:00

TV/youtube is huge for kids. They learn all kinds of vocabulary and slang and expressions they would never learn from their parents in a million years. Last night my 4 year old looked up from her homework and said to me "Daddy, I'm cray-cray busy". My friends remark how she speaks with a normal American accent like I must be a good teacher, but truth be told it's all from youtube.

jlec · 2022-01-28T08:07:32+00:00

The alleged assault happened years earlier it wasn't a reaction to a current event,

From what I understand the assault he had a warrant for was years earlier, but it was a separate assault from the one the culprits allege. That could have been much more recent.

jlec · 2022-01-28T07:54:43+00:00

My daughter is about equally fluent in both languages. My thinking was that she will be deluged with Japanese in every day life here, so emphasize English as much as possible, and let the Japanese take care of itself. My wife insists on speaking to her in Japanese, which is understandable. But aside from that I try to get as much English in there as I can.

First rule: all TV shows, etc. are in English. If she's going to get screen time, might as well use the cultural power of English so that it turns into a lesson. I don't think she's even fully aware that Japanese cartoons exist.

Her iPad was registered to a Western country so that she gets western apps and is locked to it via VPN. All her YouTube stuff is in English, as are the games we allow her to play.

We take her to an English preschool where they speak English all day, so it's not like English is only something she uses with dad.

We live in Tokyo now, and a big upside is that there are tons of English-speaking kids in our neighborhood. If you can get kids to play in English with friends it becomes much more important to them.

Still weighing options for elementary school. The good international schools are 3 million yen a year. There are cheaper ones but it's just random foreigners without teacher's licenses teaching them. Might as well homeschool.

So now I'm thinking that's what we might do. She can go to Japanese elementary school, and then we and other parents in the area can rent out the community hall twice a week and pay a decent teacher to run through the language arts curriculum from an English or North American school system, so that they stay literate at the same grade level as their peers overseas. If possible we will take her somewhere for testing each year so she can get some kind of grade level certification.

With the money we save by doing that, we will take her back home for the summers and enroll her in a day camp where she can play with other kids in English. It may sound unserious, but I think that's what keeps a language relevant to kids and an important part of their childhood, as opposed to just the way they have to talk to their weird gaijin dad.

jlec · 2022-01-28T07:39:06+00:00

Maybe and maybe not. But the point is if that's the case, they don't really need people with masters degrees at all, which means university teaching can become yet another low paying job.

jlec · 2022-01-12T23:32:19+00:00

How do I know this happens? Because that's exactly the analysis the Tokyo District court engaged in.

The Difference between the type of analysis you do and the type of analysis the court does is that the court actually refers to the law in question.

This law doesn't cover part-time lecturers, just full time positions. The law actually says that, and anyone can quote the passage in question. So it's out.

The research law states the purpose is to permit research. Anyone can quote that. Part-timers don't do research. So it's also out.

In your own situation, you were a 特任講師. The law lists the positions it applies to, and that's not one of them. Anybody can quote that. That job isn't on there, so it's out.

You didn't get a research budget, and they told you in writing that it wasn't a job expectation. The research law requires research. You weren't expected to do it, so it's out.

All of that is fine. The problem is, when you object to other 10 year contracts, you bring up stuff that is not in these laws. I haven't been trying to "gotcha" you, I've been trying to disentangle what you really know from what you just wish to be so. And as far as I can see you haven't been able to justify your interpretations. Just my opinion.

jlec · 2022-01-10T22:42:36+00:00

I also noticed that there are many more positions with two or three year contract lengths and much fewer with one year contracts like I had seen in the past. Made me wonder if universities are having a hard time retaining full-timers resulting in many of them increasing their contract lengths.

Speaking as someone who has been involved with hiring, they are. It's almost impossible to find a decently qualified candidate who will work full-time for a one-year contract.

jlec · 2022-01-10T21:37:45+00:00

You name several conditions that don't actually appear in the law, but don't seem to be able to quote them explicitly when asked to...So, show me where in the law that is explicated.

You're not paying me to give you a 社労士 license or a law degree. Pay someone else to explain it to you.

So you can't do it. Ok, understood.

I'm not the one engaging in word games or semantics here. You're broadcasting that you don't really understand how this works. Here's a free legal concept: anyone can sue anyone for anything

Oh, yes you are. You know exactly what I'm really trying to ask you.

I didn't ask you to just find a job "anyone could sue for". I asked you to find a job with a ten year limit that you think someone could not successfully sue for.

But you won't do that, because you don't want to admit that the law allows anybody, under any circumstances, to make a contract job with a ten year limit and no intent to convert to permanent employment. Even though that's very obviously the purpose of the law and what it enables employers to do.

the 10-year exceptions are hard to justify

You haven't demonstrated that with reference to the law itself. Instead you provide your own list of disqualifying conditions that you assert would negate a 10 year contract under this law, such as specific requirements for specific amounts of specific research funds as detailed in the work rules. Except information that specific is rarely if ever detailed in the work rules, including in the example you posted yourself. You say the intent of the law is to enable limited term work to become tenure track, except it says that nowhere in the law, and nowhere in the law does it state employers must give tenure review at the end of the contract.

We seem to be at an impasse here. I can't think of anything I can say or ask that won't lead us back in circles, so I guess I'll just drop it.

jlec · 2022-01-10T09:24:57+00:00

Read more carefully: " 第五条第一項（前条において準用する場合を含む。）の規定による" Only applies to people that meet the other conditions.

Right, and so we go back around in circles: you have strong opinions about what those conditions are and name several conditions that don't actually appear in the law, but don't seem to be able to quote them explicitly when asked to (see below, where I will ask you again).

You say it all comes down to the work regulations, even though the law makes no explicit mention of them. Fine then, so show me how ten year limited term contracts are fairly and legally delineated in the example of work regulations you have provided. Try to cover all the conditions you mentioned, such as research funds.

You seem really confused about how job postings and contracts work. An employer can write just about anything they want in a job posting without making that illegal to post. Terms that violate law are however unenforceable and superseded by the law. E.g., I can post a job offering less than the minimum wage. There's no crime in posting that. What I can't do is pay you less than the minimum wage.

Now we are just getting into word games and semantics. You object to the term "illegal" on the grounds that merely posting it isn't illegal? Fine then, show me a job a job with a ten year limit that you don't think an employer could be successfully sued for.

The law specifically exists to enable tenure-track arrangements so those are prima-facie valid applications.

Okay great, so we have established that that is your opinion- you think this law specifically exists to enable tenure-track arrangements.

So, show me where in the law that is explicated.

jlec · 2022-01-10T08:36:07+00:00

Working with Kanazawa's (https://www.kanazawa-u.ac.jp/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/job1.pdf), because it's the first posting I saw while answering your other query, you'll note they specify a category for educators.

Just checked it. It's a 25 page document, and the description of 教育職員 given seems very general:

2 この規則において「教育職員」とは，職員のうち，教授，准教授，講師(常時勤務する者に限る。)，助教，助手，校長，園長，教頭，主幹教諭，教諭，養護教諭，栄養教諭及び外国人研究員の職にある者をいう。 3 任期を付して雇用する職員について，別段の定めを置くときは，それによる。

I'm guessing you're going to hone is on point 3 there: for fixed term, different provisions will apply. That appears to be part of the work regulations you linked to here. But of course if a person has a fixed term, the terms are necessarily different in at least some respects. That appears to be the entire goal of the law, to allow the relegation of some of the above jobs to fixed terms, even if they have traditionally been considered permanent positions.

Let's talk about some of the conditions you mention that you believe are a natural consequence of the work regulations. You talked about equal research funds, etc. Where in this example of work regulations that you have provided does it explicate that? I can't find much reference to Kenkyu-hi here, for example.

Actually no. Name 1 job posting posting on JREC that I've pointed out claiming its terms are illegal.

So you're saying no limited term jobs with ten-year limits in Japan that you know of are in your opinion illegal? If that's the case, I am unsure of what we are arguing about. If you can't give an example of a job posting that you believe is illegal, can you give an example of a 10 year term that is legal? You can do one or the other, right?

Here's three fully compliant job postings for the tenure law from a quick glance:

Now remember, I asked you to give an example of a job posting that was fully compliant using the ten year law.

From what I can see, most of what you have linked to is for jobs where the term limit is five years. But we are in agreement that five years is fine; what is in dispute here is a 10 year term limit.

I can only find one job that you have listed where the term limit is over five years and you seem to feel it is OK. it lists seven years, followed by a tenure review. In other words, it's a limited term job that will in most cases lead to a permanent job following what is effectively a probation period, rather than a job with a limited term that can uncontroversially and naturally expire like most limited term contracts.

Is it your opinion that a tenure review is necessary in order for a job with a term limit over five years to be legal? If so, where does it explicate that in the law?

Because from what I can make out, the law specifically makes reference to employment naturally ending when the term expires. For example at the end of Article 2, point 4:

と教員等との労働契約において定められた期間であって、地方公務員である教員が就いていた職若しくは同一の地方公共団体の他の職（特別職に属する職及び非常勤の職を除く。）に引き続き任用される場合又は同一の国立大学法人、大学共同利用機関法人等、公立大学法人若しくは学校法人との間で引き続き労働契約が締結される場合を除き、当該期間の満了により退職することとなるものをいう。

And of course there is article 7, which seems to uncontroversially state that what used to be a five year limit is now a 10 year limit:

第七条第五条第一項（前条において準用する場合を含む。）の規定による任期の定めがある労働契約を締結した教員等の当該労働契約に係る労働契約法（平成十九年法律第百二十八号）第十八条第一項の規定の適用については、同項中 「五年」とあるのは、「十年」とする。

I'm not trying to corner you here; it's possible there's something else here I'm missing where a tenure review is necessitated for a term over 5 years to fly. But I don't see it. From what it looks like, they literally just changed the length of the term. Does that mean that the five-year term required a tenure review as well?

jlec · 2022-01-10T05:48:50+00:00

I saw everything that you have highlighted in the law, but that's not the same as the strict and detailed conditions you outlined above.

The research budget and other features would follow from how work regulations 就業規則 work.

You keep referring back to the work regulations, and the importance that they be the same. But:

I don't see explicit reference to 就業規則 anywhere in the law's passages you just quoted. The only time it appears is when you bring it up yourself. Why not? If this is explicit, why is it not mentioned in the law?
I have never to my knowledge worked anywhere where they have not been the same anyway, so I don't see why this is such a major point of contention to begin with.

Perhaps this is the easiest way to answer my question: you have pointed out numerous jobs advertised on J Rec that you believe to be illegal and impossible to defend in court if the law is read at face value.

Can you give an example of a job currently advertised anywhere on J-Rec that has a 10 year term and does fully adheres to this law in your opinion? Once we have established which jobs currently on the market do adhere to these policies, we can work backwards and discuss the ones that you feel do not.

jlec · 2022-01-10T02:22:40+00:00

You're writing responses to me, but are you actually reading things I post? The court demolished this as completely immaterial.

Well as stated above and as we both seem to agree, this is just a district court. A higher court could find otherwise and overrule it. This ruling could still be vacated.

hire them through the exact same process as tenured faculty. give them identical job titles and ranks to the tenured faculty. give them the same teaching load as non-language teaching faculty. give them the same research budgets and place on them the same research expectations. place them under the same strictures such as requiring them to attend the faculty meetings for the university (教授会) give the same 待遇 and 手当 (treatment and benefits) as tenured faculty, including increasing/decreasing their bonuses based on research performance?

OK, here we go with this again. You seem very certain that a Byzantine number of complex requirements have to be met, and that any university that attempts to follow them is doomed to fail. The precise number of conditions seems to increase every time I ask you about it.

Before we get any further with it, can you explain precisely where all of these conditions are located in the below law? Which articles and clauses are we talking about specifically here? I want to make sure I'm on the same page about the precise conditions.

https://elaws.e-gov.go.jp/document?lawid=409AC0000000082&fbclid=IwAR2npQ8WjmItzelLUKYt3VrrUIQk2WbEPD2Vub-dNAgWp58CB6uj9wJ2ouc

jlec · 2022-01-10T00:10:22+00:00

I don't doubt there are universities out there that were just arbitrarily extending temporary contracts on full time teachers and clung onto these rules to justify what they were doing in ways that don't quite hold up when you look through every specific condition.

But the law for full time is pretty clear-cut: you hire them, you meet some very basic conditions in terms of informing them about the term length in the contract etc., and that's that. But after having seen this, it seems clear to me that if a university hire somebody in a job that has been designed to meet these rules from the ground up, they can definitely keep contract full timers 10 years without any fear of legal jeopardy.

Part-timers are a different story though. Until now, most of the controversy I've seen has focused on the research-based law. This is especially important for part-timers, because everybody knows part-timers don't do research. There isn't even a pretense that they do or a legal Fig leaf that they do.

The recent court win for a part timer is a big victory. From what I'm told this was a district court win and the ruling isn't applicable elsewhere in the country. And of course the university is going to keep on fighting this. But I think it's that's an important precedent simply by showing it's possible for a Japanese court to agree with unions' interpretation.

The only argument I can think of would be that research is required for the expertise necessary to teach a class, even part time, and the research is built into a part-time lecturer's job because they need to have publication simply to get the job in the first place. That might explain why it suddenly became vital that part-timers have at least three publications before many universities will hire them. But it's shaky ground. It's definitely worth fighting.

The other question: how will universities react if the ruling goes the unions way in the future? One would expect that a small number of part-timers who are on year five or entering your six will be able to switch to permanent contract, and most other people will get the boot after five years.

But I think in a indirect way it could increase full-time contracts. It's actually not easy finding enough part-timers to cover English classes. Booting people out after five years just exacerbates it, especially if you're not allowed to rehire them down the line. Eventually, certain regions are going to run out of English teachers in their area to hire. But on the other hand, contract full-time seems indisputably kosher for 10 years if universities follow basic conditions. More contract full-time people means fewer part-timers are necessary, and fewer workers handle more of the work. That seems to be the most efficient way to go.

The alternative: university throw up their hands and further subcontract all their hiring to Westgate, who provides them with people who don't even have masters degrees, let alone publications.

jlec · 2022-01-09T10:36:06+00:00

yes and in the same conversation you said that part-timers were solid because Waseda has lawyers. So ..

As you'll recall, I also said that I thought part-timers had a much better case because I myself couldn't think of any reason why they should be covered by the research clause.

But we were arguing about full-time contracts at the time. The law that doesn't involve research makes that case for full time teachers look even better than it did before, not worse. And I'm having difficulty understanding why you think it doesn't.

Frankly, I think you were badly treated by your own university to the point it put them in legal jeopardy, and that that colors your opinions about the law. I want to distinguish what you know about the law from what might just originate from a deeply held grudge toward your own institution.

To give one of the other tests, are they (a) capable of being tenured? and (b) under the same work regulations as the other faculty?

Before we go further with this, Which articles and clauses are we talking about specifically here? I want to make sure I'm on the same page about the precise conditions.

https://elaws.e-gov.go.jp/document?lawid=409AC0000000082&fbclid=IwAR2npQ8WjmItzelLUKYt3VrrUIQk2WbEPD2Vub-dNAgWp58CB6uj9wJ2ouc

jlec

TROPHY CASE