Date, when you first became qualified to practice Канада


Содержание поста:

Упр.1 Unit 4 Урок reading
ГДЗ English Кузовлев 10-11 класс

1. There is no ‘right’ age to begin dating. Dating may begin as young as 13-14 years old, but becomes common around 16-18.

1) What is similar and what is different in the dating customs of the English-speaking countries and your country? (reading for specific information/extracting cultural information/making comparison)
IN AMERICA, BRITAIN AND CANADA
Young people often start meeting someone of the opposite sex around the age of 14. They do not need an older person to go with them. Teenagers generally date people of their own age, although girls sometimes date boys two or three years older than they are.

IN YOUR COUNTRY
How old are young people when they start dating?

IN AMERICA, BRITAIN AND CANADA
Either a girl or a boy can invite someone on a date. It does not mean that they date regularly only one person. They may go out with one person one week and someone else the next one. Most teenagers go on dates with more than one person. Young people may even date several friends at the same time. Sometimes two couples go together.
IN YOUR COUNTRY
Who do young people usually date?

IN AMERICA, BRITAIN AND CANADA
Parents very rarely choose dates for their children. Young people usually meet and choose their own dates. Sometimes, however, someone arranges a date for two people who do not know each other.
IN YOUR COUNTRY
How do teenagers choose their dates?

IN AMERICA, BRITAIN AND CANADA
Boys and girls go to parties together. They go on dates to the cinema, dances, roller skating, etc. A boy often goes to pick up his date at her home. Girls may invite boys to parties or other social events. Hand holding and light kissing in public are common. Anything more than light kissing is not generally approved of in public.
IN YOUR COUNTRY
Where do young people go on dates?

IN AMERICA, BRITAIN AND CANADA
Dating is often very expensive. Today, even the simplest date can cost over $20.00. A couple on a date may go to the movies and have a snack afterwards. Movies now cost $3.00-$5.00 per person, and a snack can easily cost more than $10.00. The boy and girl often share expenses. Sometimes, however, one person pays for both people.
IN YOUR COUNTRY
How much does it cost to go on a date? Who is supposed to pay for entertainment when dating?

2) What do these expressions about the dating customs mean? Using the information above explain their meaning, (reading for specific information/learning idioms)

3) These teenagers are speaking about their dating experiences.
What dating customs do they mean? (listening/reading for the main idea)
My friend Melanie and her boyfriend Mark have been dating for six months already. They go to school together, share lunches, meet at Pizza Hut after school and attend all school activities together. Melanie and Mark date no other people and are always seen together.
Charlie and I often go on outings together. We both pay for our own movie tickets and hamburgers and soda We don’t always have enough money to cover our expenses. And this is the answer to the limited budget. It’s a pleasant afternoon what matters more for us, not money.
It doesn’t always turn out (оказывается) well. I can only imagine what my date will be like. Will we both enjoy the same kinds of food, music, and films? Will she be pretty? I like this exciting experience.

Recruiting

Social media makes it easy to identify potential candidates for job openings, but that’s led companies to focus too much on “passive” candidates who aren’t looking to move—a strategy that hurts retention because internal candidates feel overlooked. And when businesses do make a hire, they don’t know how effective their approaches are because they don’t track the results.

  • SUMMARY FULL TEXT
  • SAVE
  • SHARE
  • COMMENT
  • PRINT
  • PDF
  • 8,95 BUY COPIES

View more from the

May–June 2020 Issue

Executive Summary

Goldman Sachs is a people-centric business—every day our employees engage with our clients to find solutions to their challenges. As a consequence, hiring extraordinary talent is vital to our success and can never be taken for granted. In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis we faced a challenge that was, frankly, relatively new to our now 150-year-old firm. For decades investment banking had been one of the most sought-after, exciting, and fast-growing industries in the world. That made sense—we were growing by double digits and had high returns, which meant that opportunity and reward were in great supply. However, the crash took some of the sheen off our industry; both growth and returns moderated. And simultaneously, the battle for talent intensified—within and outside our industry. Many of the candidates we were pursuing were heading off to Silicon Valley, private equity, or start-ups. Furthermore, we were no longer principally looking for a specialized cadre of accounting, finance, and economics majors: New skills, especially coding, were in huge demand at Goldman Sachs—and pretty much everywhere else. The wind had shifted from our backs to our faces, and we needed to respond.

Not long ago the firm relied on a narrower set of factors for identifying “the best” students, such as school, GPA, major, leadership roles, and relevant experience—the classic résumé topics. No longer. We decided to replace our hiring playbook with emerging best practices for assessment and recruitment, so we put together a task force of senior business leaders, PhDs in industrial and organizational psychology, data scientists, and experts in recruiting. Some people asked, “Why overhaul a recruiting process that has proved so successful?” and “Don’t you already have many more qualified applicants than available jobs?” These were reasonable questions. But often staying successful is about learning and changing rather than sticking to the tried-and-true.

Each year we hire up to 3,000 summer interns and nearly as many new analysts directly from campuses. In our eyes, these are the firm’s future leaders, so it made sense to focus our initial reforms there. They involved two major additions to our campus recruiting strategy—video interviews and structured interviewing.

Asynchronous video interviews.

Traditionally we had flown recruiters and business professionals to universities for first-round interviews. The schools would give us a set date and number of time slots to meet with students. That is most definitely not a scalable model. It restricted us to a smaller number of campuses and only as many students as we could squeeze into a limited schedule. It also meant that we tended to focus on top-ranked schools. How many qualified candidates were at a school became more important than who were the most talented students regardless of their school. However, we knew that candidates didn’t have to attend Harvard, Princeton, or Oxford to excel at Goldman Sachs—our leadership ranks were already rich with people from other schools. What’s more, as we’ve built offices in new cities and geographic locations, we’ve needed to recruit at more schools located in those areas. Video interviews allow us to do that.

At a time when companies were just beginning to experiment with digital interviewing, we decided to use “asynchronous” video interviews—in which candidates record their answers to interview questions—for all first-round interactions with candidates. Our recruiters record standardized questions and send them to students, who have three days to return videos of their answers. This can be done on a computer or a mobile device. Our recruiters and business professionals review the videos to narrow the pool and then invite the selected applicants to a Goldman Sachs office for final-round, in-person interviews. (To create the video platform, we partnered with a company and built our own digital solution around its product.)

This approach has had a meaningful impact in two ways. First, with limited effort, we can now spend more time getting to know the people who apply for jobs at Goldman Sachs. In 2015, the year before we rolled out this platform, we interviewed fewer than 20% of all our campus applicants; in 2020 almost 40% of the students who applied to the firm participated in a first-round interview. Second, we now encounter talent from places we previously didn’t get to. In 2015 we interviewed students from 798 schools around the world, compared with 1,268 for our most recent incoming class. In the United States, where the majority of our student hires historically came from “target schools,” the opposite is now true. The top of our recruiting funnel is wider, and the output is more diverse.

Being a people-driven business, we have worked hard to ensure that the video interviews don’t feel cold and impersonal. They are only one component of a broader process that makes up the Goldman Sachs recruitment experience. We still regularly send Goldman professionals to campuses to engage directly with students at informational sessions, “coffee chats,” and other recruiting events. But now our goal is much more to share information than to assess candidates, because we want people to understand the firm and what it offers before they tell us why they want an internship or a job.

Our structured interview questions are designed to assess 10 core competencies.

We also want them to be as well prepared as possible for our interview process. Our goal is a level playing field. To help achieve it, we’ve created tip sheets and instructions on preparing for a video interview. Because the platform doesn’t allow videos to be edited once they’ve been recorded, we offer a practice question before the interview begins and a countdown before the questions are asked. We also give students a formal channel for escalating issues should technical problems arise, though that rarely occurs.

We’re confident that this approach has created a better experience for recruits. It uses a medium they’ve grown up with (video), and most important, they can do their interviews when they feel fresh and at a time that works with their schedule. (Our data shows that they prefer Thursday or Sunday night—whereas our previous practice was to interview during working hours.) We suspected that if the process was a turnoff for applicants, we would see a dip in the percentage who accepted our interviews and our offers. That hasn’t happened.

Structured questioning and assessments.

How can you create an assessment process that not only helps select top talent but focuses on specific characteristics associated with success? Define it, structure it, and don’t deviate from it. Research shows that structured interviews are effective at assessing candidates and helping predict job performance. So we ask candidates about specific experiences they’ve had that are similar to situations they may face at Goldman Sachs (“Tell me about a time when you were working on a project with someone who was not completing his or her tasks”) and pose hypothetical scenarios they might encounter in the future (“In an elevator, you overhear confidential information about a coworker who is also a friend. The friend approaches you and asks if you’ve heard anything negative about him recently. What do you do?”).

Essentially, we are focused less on past achievements and more on understanding whether a candidate has qualities that will positively affect our firm and our culture. Our structured interview questions are designed to assess candidates on 10 core competencies, including analytical thinking and integrity, which we know correlate with long-term success at the firm. They are evaluated on six competencies in the first round; if they progress, they’re assessed on the remaining four during in-person interviews.

We have a rotating library of questions for each competency, along with a rubric for interviewers that explains how to rate responses on a five-point scale from “outstanding” to “poor.” We also train our interviewers to conduct structured interviews, provide them with prep materials immediately before they interview a candidate, and run detailed calibration meetings using all the candidate data we’ve gathered throughout the recruiting process to ensure that certain interviewers aren’t introducing grade inflation (or deflation). We’re experimenting with prehire assessment tests to be paired with these interviews; we already offer a technical coding and math exam for applicants to our engineering organization.

We decided not to pilot these changes and instead rolled them out en masse, because we realized that buy-in would come from being able to show results quickly—and because we know that no process is perfect. Indeed, what I love most about our new approach is that we’ve turned our recruiting department into a laboratory for continuous learning and refinement. With more than 50,000 candidate video recordings, we’re now sitting on a treasure trove of data that will help us conduct insightful analyses and answer questions necessary to run our business: Are we measuring the right competencies? Should some be weighted more heavily than others? What about the candidates’ backgrounds? Which interviewers are most effective? Does a top-ranked student at a state school create more value for us than an average student from the Ivy League? We already have indications that students recruited from the new schools in our pool perform just as well as students from our traditional ones—and in some cases are more likely to stay longer at the firm.

What’s next for our recruiting efforts? We receive almost 500,000 applications each year. From this pool we hire approximately 3%. We believe that many of the other 97% could be very successful at Goldman Sachs. As a result, picking the right 3% is less about just the individual and increasingly about matching the right person to the right role. That match may be made straight out of college or years later. We’re experimenting with résumé-reading algorithms that will help candidates identify the business departments best suited to their skills and interests. We’re looking at how virtual reality might help us better educate students about working in our offices and in our industry. And we’re evaluating various tools and tests to bring even more data into the hiring decision process. Can I imagine a future in which companies rely exclusively on machines and algorithms to rate résumés and interviews? Maybe, for some. But I don’t see us ever eliminating the human element at Goldman Sachs; it’s too deeply embedded in our culture, in the work we do, and in what we believe drives success.

I’m excited to see where this journey takes us. Our 2020 campus class is shaping up to be the most diverse ever—and it’s composed entirely of people who were selected through rigorous, objective assessments. There’s no way we aren’t better off as a result.


Your Approach to Hiring Is All Wrong

The Problem

Employers continue to hire at a high rate and spend enormous sums to do it. But they don’t know whether their approaches are effective at finding and selecting good candidates.

The Root Causes

Businesses focus on external candidates and don’t track the results of their approaches. They often use outside vendors and high-tech tools that are unproven and have inherent flaws.

The Solution

Return to filling most positions by promoting from within. Measure the results produced by vendors and new tools, and be on the lookout for discrimination and privacy violations.

Businesses have never done as much hiring as they do today. They’ve never spent as much money doing it. And they’ve never done a worse job of it.

For most of the post–World War II era, large corporations went about hiring this way: Human resources experts prepared a detailed job analysis to determine what tasks the job required and what attributes a good cand >The Organization Man, described this process as going on for as long as a week before the winning candidate was offered the job. The vast majority of non-entry-level openings were filled from within.

Today’s approach couldn’t be more different. Census data shows, for example, that the majority of people who took a new job last year weren’t searching for one: Somebody came and got them. Companies seek to fill their recruiting funnel with as many candidates as possible, especially “passive candidates,” who aren’t looking to move. Often employers advertise jobs that don’t exist, hoping to find people who might be useful later on or in a different context.

The recruiting and hiring function has been eviscerated. Many U.S. companies—about 40%, according to research by Korn Ferry—have outsourced much if not all of the hiring process to “recruitment process outsourcers,” which in turn often use subcontractors, typically in India and the Philippines. The subcontractors scour LinkedIn and social media to find potential candidates. They sometimes contact them directly to see whether they can be persuaded to apply for a position and negotiate the salary they’re willing to accept. (The recruiters get incentive pay if they negotiate the amount down.) To hire programmers, for example, these subcontractors can scan websites that programmers might visit, trace their “digital exhaust” from cookies and other user-tracking measures to identify who they are, and then examine their curricula vitae.

At companies that still do their own recruitment and hiring, managers trying to fill open positions are largely left to figure out what the jobs require and what the ads should say. When applications come—always electronically—applicant-tracking software sifts through them for key words that the hiring managers want to see. Then the process moves into the Wild West, where a new industry of vendors offer an astonishing array of smart-sounding tools that claim to predict who will be a good hire. They use voice recognition, body language, clues on social media, and especially machine learning algorithms—everything but tea leaves. Entire publications are devoted to what these vendors are doing.

The big problem with all these new practices is that we don’t know whether they actually produce satisfactory hires. Only about a third of U.S. companies report that they monitor whether their hiring practices lead to good employees; few of them do so carefully, and only a minority even track cost per hire and time to hire. Imagine if the CEO asked how an advertising campaign had gone, and the response was “We have a good idea how long it took to roll out and what it cost, but we haven’t looked to see whether we’re selling more.”

Hiring talent remains the number one concern of CEOs in the most recent Conference Board Annual Survey; it’s also the top concern of the entire executive suite. PwC’s 2020 CEO survey reports that chief executives view the unavailability of talent and skills as the biggest threat to their business. Employers also spend an enormous amount on hiring—an average of $4,129 per job in the United States, according to Society for Human Resource Management estimates , and many times that amount for managerial roles—and the United States fills a staggering 66 million jobs a year. Most of the $20 billion that companies spend on human resources vendors goes to hiring.

Why do employers spend so much on something so important while knowing so little about whether it works?

Where the Problem Starts

Survey after survey finds employers complaining about how difficult hiring is. There may be many explanations, such as their having become very picky about candidates, especially in the slack labor market of the Great Recession. But clearly they are hiring much more than at any other time in modern history, for two reasons.

The first is that openings are now filled more often by hiring from the outside than by promoting from within. In the era of lifetime employment, from the end of World War II through the 1970s, corporations filled roughly 90% of their vacancies through promotions and lateral assignments. Today the figure is a third or less. When they hire from outside, organizations don’t have to pay to train and develop their employees. Since the restructuring waves of the early 1980s, it has been relatively easy to find experienced talent outside. Only 28% of talent acquisition leaders today report that internal candidates are an important source of people to fill vacancies—presumably because of less internal development and fewer clear career ladders.

Less promotion internally means that hiring efforts are no longer concentrated on entry-level jobs and recent graduates. (If you doubt this, go to the “careers” link on any company website and look for a job opening that doesn’t require prior experience.) Now companies must be good at hiring across most levels, because the candidates they want are already doing the job somewhere else. These people don’t need training, so they may be ready to contribute right away, but they are much harder to find.

The second reason hiring is so difficult is that retention has become tough: Companies hire from their competitors and vice versa, so they have to keep replacing people who leave. Census and Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that 95% of hiring is done to fill existing positions. Most of those vacancies are caused by voluntary turnover. LinkedIn data indicates that the most common reason employees consider a position elsewhere is career advancement—which is surely related to employers’ not promoting to fill vacancies.

The root cause of most hiring, therefore, is drastically poor retention. Here are some simple ways to fix that:

Track the percentage of openings filled from within.

An adage of business is that we manage what we measure, but companies don’t seem to be applying that maxim to tracking hires. Most are shocked to learn how few of their openings are filled from within—is it really the case that their people can’t handle different and bigger roles?

Require that all openings be posted internally.

Internal job boards were created during the dot-com boom to reduce turnover by making it easier for people to find new jobs within their existing employer. Managers weren’t even allowed to know if a subordinate was looking to move within the company, for fear that they would try to block that person and he or she would leave. But during the Great Recession employees weren’t quitting, and many companies slid back to the old model whereby managers could prevent their subordinates from moving internally. JR Keller, of Cornell University, has found that when managers could fill a vacancy with someone they already had in mind, they ended up with employees who performed more poorly than those hired when the job had been posted and anyone could apply. The commonsense explanation for this is that few enterprises really know what talent and capabilities they have.

Protecting Against Discrimination

Finding out whether your practices result in good hires is not only basic to good management but the only real defense against claims of adverse impact and discrimination. Other than white males under age 40 with no disabilities or work-related health problems, workers have special protections under federal and state laws against hiring practices that may have an adverse impact on them. As a practical matter, that means if members of a particular group are less likely to be recruited or hired, the employer must show that the hiring process is not discriminatory.

The only defense against evidence of adverse impact is for the employer to show that its hiring practices are valid—that is, they predict who will be a good employee in meaningful and statistically significant ways—and that no alternative would predict as well with less adverse impact. That analysis must be conducted with data on the employer’s own applicants and hires. The fact that the vendor that sold you the test you use has evidence that it was valid in other contexts is not sufficient.

Recognize the costs of outside hiring.

In addition to the time and effort of hiring, my colleague Matthew Bidwell found, outside hires take three years to perform as well as internal hires in the same job, while internal hires take seven years to earn as much as outside hires are paid. Outside hiring also causes current employees to spend time and energy positioning themselves for jobs elsewhere. It disrupts the culture and burdens peers who must help new hires figure out how things work.

Очень важная для вас статья:  10 самых красивых водопадов Канады

None of this is to suggest that outside hiring is necessarily a bad idea. But unless your company is a Silicon Valley gazelle, adding new jobs at a furious pace, you should ask yourself some serious questions if most of your openings are being filled from outside.

Employers are obsessed with new technologies and driving down costs.

A different approach for dealing with retention (which seems creepy to some) is to try to determine who is interested in leaving and then intervene. Vendors like Jobvite comb social media and public sites for clues, such as LinkedIn profile updates. Measuring “flight risk” is one of the most common goals of companies that do their own sophisticated HR analytics. This is reminiscent of the early days of job boards, when employers would try to find out who was posting résumés and either punish them or embrace them, depending on leadership’s mood.

Whether companies should be examining social media content in relation to hiring or any other employment action is a challenging ethical question. On one hand, the information is essentially public and may reveal relevant information. On the other hand, it is invasive, and candidates are rarely asked for permission to scrutinize their information. Hiring a private detective to shadow a candidate would also gather public information that might be relevant, yet most people would view it as an unacceptable invasion of privacy.

The Hiring Process

When we turn to hiring itself, we find that employers are missing the forest for the trees: Obsessed with new technologies and driving down costs, they largely ignore the ultimate goal: making the best possible hires. Here’s how the process should be revamped:

Don’t post “phantom jobs.”

It costs nothing to post job openings on a company website, which are then scooped up by Indeed and other online companies and pushed out to potential job seekers around the world. Thus it may be unsurprising that some of these jobs don’t really exist. Employers may simply be fishing for candidates. (“Let’s see if someone really great is out there, and if so, we’ll create a position for him or her.”) Often job ads stay up even after positions have been filled, to keep collecting candidates for future vacancies or just because it takes more effort to pull the ad down than to leave it up. Sometimes ads are posted by unscrupulous recruiters looking for résumés to pitch to clients elsewhere. Because these phantom jobs make the labor market look tighter than it really is, they are a problem for economic policy makers as well as for frustrated job seekers. Companies should take ads down when jobs are filled.

Design jobs with realistic requirements.

Figuring out what the requirements of a job should be—and the corresponding attributes candidates must have—is a bigger challenge now, because so many companies have reduced the number of internal recruiters whose function, in part, is to push back on hiring managers’ wish lists. (“That job doesn’t require 10 years of experience,” or “No one with all those qualifications will be willing to accept the salary you’re proposing to pay.”) My earlier research found that companies piled on job requirements, baked them into the applicant-tracking software that sorted résumés according to binary decisions (yes, it has the key word; no, it doesn’t), and then found that virtually no applicants met all the criteria. Trimming recruiters, who have expertise in hiring, and handing the process over to hiring managers is a prime example of being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Reconsider your focus on passive candidates.

The recruiting process begins with a search for experienced people who aren’t looking to move. This is based on the notion that something may be wrong with anyone who wants to leave his or her current job. (Of the more than 20,000 talent professionals who responded to a LinkedIn survey in 2015, 86% said their recruiting organizations focused “very much so” or “to some extent” on passive candidates; I suspect that if anything, that number has since grown.) Recruiters know that the vast majority of people are open to moving at the right price: Surveys of employees find that only about 15% are not open to moving. As the economist Harold Demsetz said when asked by a competing university if he was happy working where he was: “Make me unhappy.”


Fascinating evidence from the LinkedIn survey cited above shows that although self-identified “passive” job seekers are different from “active” job seekers, it’s not in the way we might think. The number one factor that would encourage the former to move is more money. For active candidates the top factor is better work and career opportunities. More active than passive job seekers report that they are passionate about their work, engaged in improving their skills, and reasonably satisfied with their current jobs. They seem interested in moving because they are ambitious, not because they want higher pay.

Employers spend a vastly disproportionate amount of their budgets on recruiters who chase passive cand >research by Gerry Crispin and Chris Hoyt, of CareerXroads. I know of no evidence that passive candidates become better employees, let alone that the process is cost-effective. If you focus on passive candidates, think carefully about what that actually gets you. Better yet, check your data to find out.

Understand the limits of referrals.

The most popular channel for finding new hires is through employee referrals; up to 48% come from them, according to LinkedIn research. It seems like a cheap way to go, but does it produce better hires? Many employers think so. It’s hard to know whether that’s true, however, given that they don’t check. And research by Emilio Castilla and colleagues suggests otherwise: They find that when referrals work out better than other hires, it’s because their referrers look after them and essentially onboard them. If a referrer leaves before the new hire begins, the latter’s performance is no better than that of nonreferrals, which is why it makes sense to pay referral bonuses six months or so after the person is hired—if he or she is still there.

A downside to referrals, of course, is that they can lead to a homogeneous workforce, because the people we know tend to be like us. This matters greatly for organizations interested in diversity, since recruiting is the only avenue allowed under U.S. law to increase diversity in a workforce. The Supreme Court has ruled that demographic criteria cannot be used even to break ties among candidates.

Measure the results.

Few employers know which channel produces the best candidates at the lowest cost because they don’t track the outcomes. Tata is an exception: It has long done what I advocate. For college recruiting, for example, it calculates which schools send it employees who perform the best, stay the longest, and are paid the lowest starting wage. Other employers should follow suit and monitor recruiting channels and employees’ performance to identify which sources produce the best results.

Persuade fewer people to apply.

The hiring industry pays a great deal of attention to “the funnel,” whereby readers of a company’s job postings become applicants, are interviewed, and ultimately are offered jobs. Contrary to the popular belief that the U.S. job market is extremely tight right now, most jobs still get lots of applicants. Recruiting and hiring consultants and vendors estimate that about 2% of applicants receive offers. Unfortunately, the main effort to improve hiring—virtually always aimed at making it faster and cheaper—has been to shovel more applicants into the funnel. Employers do that primarily through marketing, trying to get out the word that they are great places to work. Whether doing this is a misguided way of trying to attract better hires or just meant to make the organization feel more desirable isn’t clear.

The Grass Is Always Greener…

Organizations are much more interested in external talent than in their own employees to fill vacancies. Here are the top channels for quality hires.

Much better to go in the other direction: Create a smaller but better-qualified applicant pool to improve the yield. Here’s why: Every applicant costs you money—especially now, in a labor market where applicants have started to “ghost” employers, abandoning their applications midway through the process. Every application also exposes a company to legal risk, because the company has obligations to candidates (not to discriminate, for example) just as it does to employees. And collecting lots of applicants in a wide funnel means that a great many of them won’t fit the job or the company, so employers have to rely on the next step of the hiring process—selection—to weed them out. As we will see, employers aren’t good at that.

Once people are candidates, they may not be completely honest about their skills or interests—because they want to be hired—and employers’ ability to find out the truth is limited. More than a generation ago the psychologist John Wanous proposed giving applicants a realistic preview of what the job is like. That still makes sense as a way to head off those who would end up being unhappy in the job. It’s not surprising that Google has found a way to do this with gamification: Job seekers see what the work would be like by playing a game version of it. Marriott has done the same, even for low-level employees. Its My Marriott Hotel game targets young people in developing countries who may have had little experience in hotels to show them what it’s like and to steer them to the recruiting site if they score well on the game. The key for any company, though, is that the preview should make clear what is difficult and challenging about the work as well as why it’s fun so that candidates who don’t fit won’t apply.

It should be easy for candidates to learn about a company and a job, but making it really easy to apply, just to fill up that funnel, doesn’t make much sense. During the dot-com boom Texas Instruments cleverly introduced a preemployment test that allowed applicants to see their scores before they applied. If their scores weren’t high enough for the company to take their applications seriously, they tended not to proceed, and the company saved the cost of having to process their applications.

If the goal is to get better hires in a cost-effective manner, it’s more important to scare away candidates who don’t fit than to jam more candidates into the recruiting funnel.

Test candidates’ standard skills.

How to determine which candidates to hire—what predicts who will be a good employee—has been rigorously studied at least since World War I. The personnel psychologists who investigated this have learned much about predicting good hires that contemporary organizations have since forgotten, such as that neither college grades nor unstructured sequential interviews (hopping from office to office) are a good predictor, whereas past performance is.

Since it can be difficult (if not impossible) to glean sufficient information about an outside applicant’s past performance, what other predictors are good? There is remarkably little consensus even among experts. That’s mainly because a typical job can have so many tasks and aspects, and different factors predict success at different tasks.

There is general agreement, however, that testing to see whether indiv >found that even when companies conduct such tests, hiring managers often ignore them—and when they do, they get worse hires. The psychologist Nathan Kuncel and colleagues discovered that even when hiring managers use objective criteria and tests, applying their own weights and judgment to those criteria leads them to pick worse candidates than if they had used a standard formula. Only 40% of employers, however, do any tests of skills or general abilities, including IQ. What are they doing instead? Seventy-four percent do drug tests, including for marijuana use; even employers in states where recreational use is now legal still seem to do so.

Be wary of vendors bearing high-tech gifts.

Into the testing void has come a new group of entrepreneurs who either are data scientists or have them in tow. They bring a fresh approach to the hiring process—but often with little understanding of how hiring actually works. John Sumser, of HRExaminer, an online newsletter that focuses on HR technology, estimates that on average, companies get five to seven pitches every day—almost all of them about hiring—from vendors using data science to address HR issues. These vendors have all sorts of cool-sounding assessments, such as computer games that can be scored to predict who will be a good hire. We don’t know whether any of these actually lead to better hires, because few of them are validated against actual job performance. That aside, these assessments have spawned a counterwave of vendors who help candidates learn how to score well on them. Lloyds Bank, for example, developed a virtual-reality-based assessment of candidate potential, and JobTestPrep offers to teach potential candidates how to do well on it. Especially for IT and technical jobs, cheating on skills tests and even video interviews (where colleagues off camera give help) is such a concern that eTeki and other specialized vendors help employers figure out who is cheating in real time.

Revamp your interviewing process.

The amount of time employers spend on interviews has almost doubled since 2009, according to research from Glassdoor. How much of that increase represents delays in setting up those interviews is impossible to tell, but it provides at least a partial explanation for why it takes longer to fill jobs now. Interviews are arguably the most difficult technique to get right, because interviewers should stick to questions that predict good hires—mainly about past behavior or performance that’s relevant to the tasks of the job—and ask them consistently across candidates. Just winging it and asking whatever comes to mind is next to useless.

More important, interviews are where biases most easily show up, because interviewers do usually dec >examination of interviews for elite positions, such as those in professional services firms, indicates that hobbies, particularly those associated with the rich, feature prominently as a selection criterion.

Interviews are most important for assessing “fit with our culture,” which is the number one hiring criterion employers report using, according to research from the Rockefeller Foundation. It’s also one of the squishiest attributes to measure, because few organizations have an accurate and consistent view of their own culture—and even if they do, understanding what attributes represent a good fit is not straightforward. For example, does the fact that an applicant belonged to a fraternity reflect experience working with others or elitism or bad attitudes toward women? Should it be completely irrelevant? Letting someone with no experience or training make such calls is a recipe for bad hires and, of course, discriminatory behavior. Think hard about whether your interviewing protocols make any sense and resist the urge to bring even more managers into the interview process.

Recognize the strengths and weaknesses of machine learning models.

Culture fit is another area into which new vendors are swarming. Typically they collect data from current employees, create a machine learning model to predict the attributes of the best ones, and then use that model to hire candidates with the same attributes.

As with many other things in this new industry, that sounds good until you think about it; then it becomes replete with problems. Given the best performers of the past, the algorithm will almost certainly include white and male as key variables. If it’s restricted from using that category, it will come up with attributes associated with being a white male, such as playing rugby.

Interviews are where biases most easily show up.

Machine learning models do have the potential to find important but previously uncons >found that expected commuting distance for the candidate predicted turnover very well. But that’s not a question the psychological models thought to ask. (And even that question has problems.)

The advice on selection is straightforward: Test for skills. Ask assessments vendors to show evidence that they can actually predict who the good employees will be. Do fewer, more-consistent interviews.

The Way Forward

It’s impossible to get better at hiring if you can’t tell whether the candidates you select become good employees. If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will take you there. You must have a way to measure which employees are the best ones.

Why is that not getting through to companies? Surveyed employers say the main reason they don’t examine whether their practices lead to better hires is that measuring employee performance is difficult. Surely this is a prime example of making the perfect the enemy of the good. Some aspects of performance are not difficult to measure: Do employees quit? Are they absent? Virtually all employers conduct performance appraisals. If you don’t trust them, try something simpler. Ask supervisors, “Do you regret hiring this individual? Would you hire him again?”

Organizations that don’t check to see how well their practices predict the quality of their hires are lacking in one of the most consequential aspects of modern business.

Editor’s Note: A previous version of this article named three recruitment process outsourcing companies, and stated that they utilized subcontractors in India and the Philippines. We have removed the company names after learning that the specifics of their subcontracting practices had not been verified.

Peter Cappelli is the George W. Taylor Professor of Management at the Wharton School and a director of its Center for Human Resources. He is the author of several books, including Will College Pay Off? A Guide to the Most Important Financial Decision You’ll Ever Make (PublicAffairs, 2015).

Data Science Can’t Fix Hiring (Yet)

Recruiting managers desperately need new tools, because the existing ones—unstructured interviews, personality tests, personal referrals—aren’t very effective. The newest development in hiring, which is both promising and worrying, is the rise of data science–driven algorithms to find and assess job candidates. By my count, more than 100 vendors are creating and selling these tools to companies. Unfortunately, data science—which is still in its infancy when it comes to recruiting and hiring—is not yet the panacea employers hope for.

Vendors of these new tools promise they will help reduce the role that social bias plays in hiring. And the algorithms can indeed help identify good job candidates who would previously have been screened out for lack of a certain education or social pedigree. But these tools may also identify and promote the use of predictive variables that are (or should be) troubling.

Because most data scientists seem to know so little about the context of employment, their tools are often worse than nothing. For instance, an astonishing percentage build their models by simply looking at attributes of the “best performers” in workplaces and then identifying which job candidates have the same attributes. They use anything that’s easy to measure: facial expressions, word choice, comments on social media, and so forth. But a failure to check for any real difference between high-performing and low-performing employees on these attributes limits their usefulness. Furthermore, scooping up data from social media or the websites people have visited also raises important questions about privacy. True, the information can be accessed legally; but the individuals who created the postings didn’t intend or authorize them to be used for such purposes. Furthermore, is it fair that something you posted as an undergrad can end up driving your hiring algorithm a generation later?


Another problem with machine learning approaches is that few employers collect the large volumes of data—number of hires, performance appraisals, and so on—that the algorithms require to make accurate predictions. Although vendors can theoretically overcome that hurdle by aggregating data from many employers, they don’t really know whether individual company contexts are so distinct that predictions based on data from the many are inaccurate for the one.

Yet another issue is that all analytic approaches to picking candidates are backward looking, in the sense that they are based on outcomes that have already happened. (Algorithms are especially reliant on past experiences in part because building them requires lots and lots of observations—many years’ worth of job performance data even for a large employer.) As Amazon learned, the past may be very different from the future you seek. It discovered that the hiring algorithm it had been working on since 2014 gave lower scores to women—even to attributes associated with women, such as participating in women’s studies programs—because historically the best performers in the company had disproportionately been men. So the algorithm looked for people just like them. Unable to fix that problem, the company stopped using the algorithm in 2020. Nonetheless, many other companies are pressing ahead.

The underlying challenge for data scientists is that hiring is simply not like trying to predict, say, when a ball bearing will fail—a question for which any predictive measure might do. Hiring is so consequential that it is governed not just by legal frameworks but by fundamental notions of fairness. The fact that some criterion is associated with good job performance is necessary but not sufficient for using it in hiring.

Take a variable that data scientists have found to have predictive value: commuting distance to the job. According to the data, people with longer commutes suffer higher rates of attrition. However, commuting distance is governed by where you live—which is governed by housing prices, relates to income, and also relates to race. Picking whom to hire on the basis of where they live most likely has an adverse impact on protected groups such as racial minorities.

Unless no other criterion predicts at least as well as the one being used—and that is extremely difficult to determine in machine learning algorithms—companies violate the law if they use hiring criteria that have adverse impacts. Even then, to stay on the right side of the law, they must show why the criterion creates good performance. That might be possible in the case of commuting time, but—at least for the moment—it is not for facial expressions, social media postings, or other measures whose significance companies cannot demonstrate.

In the end, the drawback to using algorithms is that we’re trying to use them on the cheap: building them by looking only at best performers rather than all performers, using only measures that are easy to gather, and relying on vendors’ claims that the algorithms work elsewhere rather than observing the results with our own employees. Not only is there no free lunch here, but you might be better off skipping the cheap meal altogether.

Peter Cappelli is the George W. Taylor Professor of Management at the Wharton School and a director of its Center for Human Resources. He is the author of several books, including Will College Pay Off? A Guide to the Most Important Financial Decision You’ll Ever Make (PublicAffairs, 2015).

Expanding the Pool

Goldman Sachs is a people-centric business—every day our employees engage with our clients to find solutions to their challenges. As a consequence, hiring extraordinary talent is vital to our success and can never be taken for granted. In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis we faced a challenge that was, frankly, relatively new to our now 150-year-old firm. For decades investment banking had been one of the most sought-after, exciting, and fast-growing industries in the world. That made sense—we were growing by double digits and had high returns, which meant that opportunity and reward were in great supply. However, the crash took some of the sheen off our industry; both growth and returns moderated. And simultaneously, the battle for talent intensified—within and outside our industry. Many of the candidates we were pursuing were heading off to Silicon Valley, private equity, or start-ups. Furthermore, we were no longer principally looking for a specialized cadre of accounting, finance, and economics majors: New skills, especially coding, were in huge demand at Goldman Sachs—and pretty much everywhere else. The wind had shifted from our backs to our faces, and we needed to respond.

Not long ago the firm relied on a narrower set of factors for identifying “the best” students, such as school, GPA, major, leadership roles, and relevant experience—the classic résumé topics. No longer. We decided to replace our hiring playbook with emerging best practices for assessment and recruitment, so we put together a task force of senior business leaders, PhDs in industrial and organizational psychology, data scientists, and experts in recruiting. Some people asked, “Why overhaul a recruiting process that has proved so successful?” and “Don’t you already have many more qualified applicants than available jobs?” These were reasonable questions. But often staying successful is about learning and changing rather than sticking to the tried-and-true.

Each year we hire up to 3,000 summer interns and nearly as many new analysts directly from campuses. In our eyes, these are the firm’s future leaders, so it made sense to focus our initial reforms there. They involved two major additions to our campus recruiting strategy—video interviews and structured interviewing.

Asynchronous video interviews.

Traditionally we had flown recruiters and business professionals to universities for first-round interviews. The schools would give us a set date and number of time slots to meet with students. That is most definitely not a scalable model. It restricted us to a smaller number of campuses and only as many students as we could squeeze into a limited schedule. It also meant that we tended to focus on top-ranked schools. How many qualified candidates were at a school became more important than who were the most talented students regardless of their school. However, we knew that candidates didn’t have to attend Harvard, Princeton, or Oxford to excel at Goldman Sachs—our leadership ranks were already rich with people from other schools. What’s more, as we’ve built offices in new cities and geographic locations, we’ve needed to recruit at more schools located in those areas. Video interviews allow us to do that.

At a time when companies were just beginning to experiment with digital interviewing, we decided to use “asynchronous” video interviews—in which candidates record their answers to interview questions—for all first-round interactions with candidates. Our recruiters record standardized questions and send them to students, who have three days to return videos of their answers. This can be done on a computer or a mobile device. Our recruiters and business professionals review the videos to narrow the pool and then invite the selected applicants to a Goldman Sachs office for final-round, in-person interviews. (To create the video platform, we partnered with a company and built our own digital solution around its product.)

Очень важная для вас статья:  Агентство Inna Kogan в Москве ул. Дмитрия Ульянова Канада

This approach has had a meaningful impact in two ways. First, with limited effort, we can now spend more time getting to know the people who apply for jobs at Goldman Sachs. In 2015, the year before we rolled out this platform, we interviewed fewer than 20% of all our campus applicants; in 2020 almost 40% of the students who applied to the firm participated in a first-round interview. Second, we now encounter talent from places we previously didn’t get to. In 2015 we interviewed students from 798 schools around the world, compared with 1,268 for our most recent incoming class. In the United States, where the majority of our student hires historically came from “target schools,” the opposite is now true. The top of our recruiting funnel is wider, and the output is more diverse.

Being a people-driven business, we have worked hard to ensure that the video interviews don’t feel cold and impersonal. They are only one component of a broader process that makes up the Goldman Sachs recruitment experience. We still regularly send Goldman professionals to campuses to engage directly with students at informational sessions, “coffee chats,” and other recruiting events. But now our goal is much more to share information than to assess candidates, because we want people to understand the firm and what it offers before they tell us why they want an internship or a job.

Our structured interview questions are designed to assess 10 core competencies.

We also want them to be as well prepared as possible for our interview process. Our goal is a level playing field. To help achieve it, we’ve created tip sheets and instructions on preparing for a video interview. Because the platform doesn’t allow videos to be edited once they’ve been recorded, we offer a practice question before the interview begins and a countdown before the questions are asked. We also give students a formal channel for escalating issues should technical problems arise, though that rarely occurs.

We’re confident that this approach has created a better experience for recruits. It uses a medium they’ve grown up with (video), and most important, they can do their interviews when they feel fresh and at a time that works with their schedule. (Our data shows that they prefer Thursday or Sunday night—whereas our previous practice was to interview during working hours.) We suspected that if the process was a turnoff for applicants, we would see a dip in the percentage who accepted our interviews and our offers. That hasn’t happened.

Structured questioning and assessments.

How can you create an assessment process that not only helps select top talent but focuses on specific characteristics associated with success? Define it, structure it, and don’t deviate from it. Research shows that structured interviews are effective at assessing candidates and helping predict job performance. So we ask candidates about specific experiences they’ve had that are similar to situations they may face at Goldman Sachs (“Tell me about a time when you were working on a project with someone who was not completing his or her tasks”) and pose hypothetical scenarios they might encounter in the future (“In an elevator, you overhear confidential information about a coworker who is also a friend. The friend approaches you and asks if you’ve heard anything negative about him recently. What do you do?”).

Essentially, we are focused less on past achievements and more on understanding whether a candidate has qualities that will positively affect our firm and our culture. Our structured interview questions are designed to assess candidates on 10 core competencies, including analytical thinking and integrity, which we know correlate with long-term success at the firm. They are evaluated on six competencies in the first round; if they progress, they’re assessed on the remaining four during in-person interviews.

We have a rotating library of questions for each competency, along with a rubric for interviewers that explains how to rate responses on a five-point scale from “outstanding” to “poor.” We also train our interviewers to conduct structured interviews, provide them with prep materials immediately before they interview a candidate, and run detailed calibration meetings using all the candidate data we’ve gathered throughout the recruiting process to ensure that certain interviewers aren’t introducing grade inflation (or deflation). We’re experimenting with prehire assessment tests to be paired with these interviews; we already offer a technical coding and math exam for applicants to our engineering organization.

We decided not to pilot these changes and instead rolled them out en masse, because we realized that buy-in would come from being able to show results quickly—and because we know that no process is perfect. Indeed, what I love most about our new approach is that we’ve turned our recruiting department into a laboratory for continuous learning and refinement. With more than 50,000 candidate video recordings, we’re now sitting on a treasure trove of data that will help us conduct insightful analyses and answer questions necessary to run our business: Are we measuring the right competencies? Should some be weighted more heavily than others? What about the candidates’ backgrounds? Which interviewers are most effective? Does a top-ranked student at a state school create more value for us than an average student from the Ivy League? We already have indications that students recruited from the new schools in our pool perform just as well as students from our traditional ones—and in some cases are more likely to stay longer at the firm.

What’s next for our recruiting efforts? We receive almost 500,000 applications each year. From this pool we hire approximately 3%. We believe that many of the other 97% could be very successful at Goldman Sachs. As a result, picking the right 3% is less about just the individual and increasingly about matching the right person to the right role. That match may be made straight out of college or years later. We’re experimenting with résumé-reading algorithms that will help candidates identify the business departments best suited to their skills and interests. We’re looking at how virtual reality might help us better educate students about working in our offices and in our industry. And we’re evaluating various tools and tests to bring even more data into the hiring decision process. Can I imagine a future in which companies rely exclusively on machines and algorithms to rate résumés and interviews? Maybe, for some. But I don’t see us ever eliminating the human element at Goldman Sachs; it’s too deeply embedded in our culture, in the work we do, and in what we believe drives success.

I’m excited to see where this journey takes us. Our 2020 campus class is shaping up to be the most diverse ever—and it’s composed entirely of people who were selected through rigorous, objective assessments. There’s no way we aren’t better off as a result.

Dane E. Holmes is the global head of human capital management at Goldman Sachs.

Date, when you first became qualified to practice Канада

Hi everyone. Its maybe just a dream but i have started to think about living in canada. my husband has travelled round canada when he was younger doing ice skating camps etc. we would love to have an outdoors lifestyle in a nice community with friendly people who have good morals ( not like the uk, think underage drinking and anti-social behaviour.)

anyway, i am basically looking into what sort of occupations would be highly transferable to canada (and other countries perhaps). i am looking into doing a degree in nursing then gain a year or so experience in the uk in order to qualify for permanent residency. im actually open to any ideas with regards to a career path but in a nutshell the training i do in the uk will be geared to moving abroad.

i was doing some research on the net last night and got a call thismorning rom one of the immigration agencies that i was looking at. she said that it takes about 3 years for the visa process and you must have 3 years experience after you qualify in your occupation in order to be allowed in on a permanent skilled worker visa. I was under the impression that the more years experience you have the more points you get but the minimum was only 1years. also does it really take that long to process?

are there any occupations that you can do almost straight away when you get there without having to spend years of more study inorder to do what youve just spent 3years at uni studying to do!

English Listening Lesson on
Qualifications

Listen A Minute.com

THE LESSON ON QUALIFICATIONS

Try the online quiz, reading, listening, and activities on grammar, spelling and vocabulary for this lesson on Qualifications. Click on the links above or see the activities below this article:

Qualifications are so important these days. Many years ago, a university degree was enough. A B.A. or B.Sc. would guarantee you a good job. Not now. Not even a Master’s degree is enough these days. It seems everyone has a Master’s degree. Some of the jobs I want now require a Ph.D. It’s also not enough nowadays to be happy with the qualifications you have. You have to keep your qualifications up to date, re-qualify, get new qualifications. It seems life has become one long certificate chase. Especially so now that many people will have several careers in their life. I know someone who got a degree in physics, then became an accountant, didn’t like it and studied to be a lawyer. He’s now studying for his teaching license!

MY e-BOOK

Mail this lesson to friends and teachers. Click the @ below.

THE ACTIVITIES

LISTENING GAP FILL

Qualifications are __________________ days. Many years ago, a university degree was enough. A B.A. or B.Sc. __________________ a good job. Not now. Not even a Master’s degree is enough these days. It __________________ a Master’s degree. Some of the jobs I want now require a Ph.D. It’s also not enough nowadays __________________ the qualifications you have. You __________________ qualifications up to date, re-qualify, get new qualifications. It seems life has __________________ certificate chase. Especially so now that many people will have several careers in their life. I know someone __________________ in physics, then became an accountant, didn’t like it and studied to be a lawyer. He’s now studying __________________ license!


CORRECT THE SPELLING

Qualifications are so mripattno these days. Many years ago, a university gdeeer was enough. A B.A. or B.Sc. would guarantee you a good job. Not now. Not even a Master’s degree is ngueho these days. It seems everyone has a Master’s degree. Some of the jobs I want now rrueeqi a Ph.D. It’s also not enough awydnaos to be happy with the qualifications you have. You have to keep your qualifications up to date, re-qualify, get new qualifications. It seesm life has become one long certificate hcaes. Especially so now that many people will have several arerces in their life. I know someone who got a degree in syisphc, then became an accountant, didn’t like it and seutdid to be a lawyer. He’s now studying for his teaching license!

UNJUMBLE THE WORDS

Qualifications so days important are these. Many years ago, a university degree was enough. A B.A. or B.Sc. good a you guarantee would job. Not now. Not even a Master’s degree is enough these days. It seems everyone has a Master’s degree. I of want the now jobs Some require a Ph.D. not also It’s to nowadays enough be qualifications the with happy have you. You have to keep your qualifications up to date, re-qualify, get new qualifications. one It life become long seems has certificate chase. Especially so now that many people will in careers several have life their. I know someone who got a degree in physics, then became an accountant, lawyer studied didn’t to like be it a and. He’s now studying for his teaching license!

DISCUSSION (Write your own questions)

STUDENT A’s QUESTIONS (Do not show these to student B)

10 Things You Need to Know About Dating When You Move to Canada

Save to Wishlist

Roots sweatpants and long-term dating go hand-in-hand

Don’t be worried if your beau shows up at a brunch date in a pair of Roots sweatpants. Sweatpants aren’t the end of a relationship in Canada, if anything they indicate a new chapter of your love story. The best way to show your commitment is by investing in some too.

Maple syrup is everything

Is maple syrup the reason why Canadians are so nice? According to their tastebuds, maple syrup goes with most things and it has a special place in their hearts but it has to be the good stuff from a tree. Your romance won’t last long if you can’t appreciate this sentiment.

Pick a local sports team

Hockey is big in Canada but soccer, baseball, basketball and many other sports also have a keen following. Getting to know the local teams is a good idea. Don’t fret if sports aren’t really your thing, they won’t hold it against you but they may try to convert you.

The great outdoors

Canadians try to make the most of good weather by being outside. Your relationship milestones will look like this: the first time you hike together, the first time take a canoe ride on a lake together, the first time you go camping together and so on.

Canada versus everybody

Canadians are proud of their country and with good reason. Where possible they will look for homegrown goods and brands. Trying out craft beers and doing groceries at farmers markets are the norm here. Put an effort into researching local offerings when it comes to unique ideas for dates.

Be brave

The best thing about looking for a date in Canada is being surrounded by great people. Canadians are renowned all over the world for being friendly, polite and laidback. You might be rejected at times but it will be done very kindly, so don’t be afraid of putting yourself out there.

Meeting people

Because there is so much to do in Canada, there are some great ways to meet new people and prospective singles beyond the usual dating apps. You could take a class, join a MeetUp, try a new activity or go to an event. On most nights, in all the major cities there will be something happening and something for you to scope out where friendly locals will take the time out to chat.

Dating in a melting pot

Canadians have their own customs but they are known for their openness and willingness to embrace people with different traditions and values. In major cities and even rural towns you will meet citizens from all over the world. Multiculturalism has flourished in Canada and contributes to the local scene in a big way. You will be spoilt for what to do on date night, so try different things.

Apply for citizenship: Who can apply

Eligibility

To be eligible to become a Canadian citizen, you must:

Check your eligibility

Answer some questions to help you find out if you’re ready to apply for citizenship.

These questions are only for adults (age 18 and over) who want to apply for citizenship.

There are additional or different requirements if you are:

  • applying for a minor (under age 18)
  • a Canadian applying for your adopted child born outside Canada
  • a current or former Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) member applying under the fast-track process
  • a past Canadian citizen who want your Canadian citizenship back (including current and former CAF members)

Spouses of Canadian citizens

You don’t automatically become a citizen when you marry a Canadian.

If you’re the spouse of a Canadian citizen, you must meet the same requirements listed above (no exception).

Children and grandchildren of Canadian citizens

If you have a Canadian parent or grandparent, you may be a Canadian citizen.

Permanent resident status

Regardless of your age, if you’re applying for citizenship, you must have permanent resident (PR) status in Canada.

This means you must not:

  • be under review for immigration or fraud reasons
  • be asked by Canadian officials to leave Canada (removal order)
  • have unfulfilled conditions related to your PR status, for example: medical screening


Before applying for citizenship, you should review the documents you received when you became a permanent resident to make sure you’re eligible.

You don’t need a valid PR card to apply for citizenship. You can apply with an expired PR card.

Time you’ve lived in Canada

Adults and some minors must have been physically present in Canada for at least 1095 days during the five years right before the date you sign your application.

We encourage you to apply with more than 1095 days of physical presence to have extra days in case there is a problem with the calculation.

Use a travel journal to record your trips outside Canada. It will help you calculate your physical presence in Canada.

You may be able to use some of your time spent in Canada as a temporary resident or protected person towards your physical presence calculation. Crown servants and family members of Crown servants may be able to use time spent outside Canada.

Using time as a temporary resident or protected person

Each day spent in Canada as a temporary resident or protected person within the last 5 years counts as one half day when you calculate your physical presence. You can use a maximum of 365 days as a temporary resident or protected person toward your time spent in Canada.

A temporary resident is someone who is authorized to enter or stay in Canada as a:

  • visitor
  • student
  • worker or
  • temporary resident permit holder

A protected person is someone who:

  • was found to be in need of protection or a convention refugee by the Immigration and Refugee Board or
  • received a positive decision on a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

If you made a refugee claim, or were included on a family member’s refugee claim, you won’t be credited time in Canada from the date of the refugee claim until you receive a positive decision confirming you are a protected person.

Filing income tax

You need to have filed taxes in Canada for at least 3 years during the 5 years right before the date you apply, if you needed to.

Language skills

Canada has two official languages: English and French. If you’re 18 to 54 years of age on the day you sign your application, you must show that you can speak and listen at a specific level in one of these languages.

The ways we measure your language skills in English or French include:

  • reviewing the proof you send with your application
  • noting how well you communicate when you talk to a citizenship official anytime during the process
  • assessing your language level during a hearing with a citizenship official, if necessary

To become a citizen, you need to meet the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) Level 4 or higher. This means you can:

  • take part in short, everyday conversations about common topics
  • understand simple instructions, questions and directions
  • use basic grammar, including simple structures and tenses
  • show you know enough common words and phrases to answer questions and express yourself

We accept various certificates, diplomas and tests as proof of your language skills.

Pass a test on your rights, responsibilities and knowledge of Canada

If you’re 18 to 54 years of age on the day you sign your application, you need to take the citizenship test. You’ll need to answer questions about the rights and responsibilities of Canadians and Canada’s:

  • in English or French
  • 30 minutes long
  • 20 questions (pass mark: 15 correct answers)
  • multiple-choice and true or false questions
  • based on the official citizenship study guide: Discover Canada
  • usually written, but may be oral

Learn more about the citizenship test.

Prohibitions

If you committed a crime in or outside Canada, you may not be eligible to become a Canadian citizen for a period of time.

Time spent serving a term of imprisonment, on parole, or on probation doesn’t count as time you have lived in Canada.

Упр.1 Unit 4 Урок reading
ГДЗ English Кузовлев 10-11 класс

1. There is no ‘right’ age to begin dating. Dating may begin as young as 13-14 years old, but becomes common around 16-18.

1) What is similar and what is different in the dating customs of the English-speaking countries and your country? (reading for specific information/extracting cultural information/making comparison)
IN AMERICA, BRITAIN AND CANADA
Young people often start meeting someone of the opposite sex around the age of 14. They do not need an older person to go with them. Teenagers generally date people of their own age, although girls sometimes date boys two or three years older than they are.

IN YOUR COUNTRY
How old are young people when they start dating?

IN AMERICA, BRITAIN AND CANADA
Either a girl or a boy can invite someone on a date. It does not mean that they date regularly only one person. They may go out with one person one week and someone else the next one. Most teenagers go on dates with more than one person. Young people may even date several friends at the same time. Sometimes two couples go together.
IN YOUR COUNTRY
Who do young people usually date?


IN AMERICA, BRITAIN AND CANADA
Parents very rarely choose dates for their children. Young people usually meet and choose their own dates. Sometimes, however, someone arranges a date for two people who do not know each other.
IN YOUR COUNTRY
How do teenagers choose their dates?

IN AMERICA, BRITAIN AND CANADA
Boys and girls go to parties together. They go on dates to the cinema, dances, roller skating, etc. A boy often goes to pick up his date at her home. Girls may invite boys to parties or other social events. Hand holding and light kissing in public are common. Anything more than light kissing is not generally approved of in public.
IN YOUR COUNTRY
Where do young people go on dates?

IN AMERICA, BRITAIN AND CANADA
Dating is often very expensive. Today, even the simplest date can cost over $20.00. A couple on a date may go to the movies and have a snack afterwards. Movies now cost $3.00-$5.00 per person, and a snack can easily cost more than $10.00. The boy and girl often share expenses. Sometimes, however, one person pays for both people.
IN YOUR COUNTRY
How much does it cost to go on a date? Who is supposed to pay for entertainment when dating?

2) What do these expressions about the dating customs mean? Using the information above explain their meaning, (reading for specific information/learning idioms)

3) These teenagers are speaking about their dating experiences.
What dating customs do they mean? (listening/reading for the main idea)
My friend Melanie and her boyfriend Mark have been dating for six months already. They go to school together, share lunches, meet at Pizza Hut after school and attend all school activities together. Melanie and Mark date no other people and are always seen together.
Charlie and I often go on outings together. We both pay for our own movie tickets and hamburgers and soda We don’t always have enough money to cover our expenses. And this is the answer to the limited budget. It’s a pleasant afternoon what matters more for us, not money.
It doesn’t always turn out (оказывается) well. I can only imagine what my date will be like. Will we both enjoy the same kinds of food, music, and films? Will she be pretty? I like this exciting experience.

Immigrate to Canada as a Nurse

First published in 2020, then in 2020 this in depth guide has been updated for 2020 going into 2020.

Can I immigrate to Canada as a Nurse?

Yes, Nurses are in Huge Demand in Canada and are on the Canadian NOC List code 3012. Qualified Nurses are eligible for full Permanent Residency in under the Federal Skilled Worker Immigration Program on both a Federal and Provincial Nomination basis.

NOC List Code 3012 Nurses and Psychiatric Nurses
The Canadian National Occupation Classification Codes are a selection of occupations representing the occupations currently in demand in Canada from an Immigration perspective. It’s sent in consultation with the Department of Labor Relations and is designed to set the roadmap for Canadian Immigration policy over the next few years whereby the Canadian Government have declared their intention to import at least 1,000,000 skilled migrants by 2021.

Whilst the NOC is broad, there are several codes (we find) that seem to be in more ‘demand’ than others, all nursing codes seem to be currently in this demand category.

The NOC Code to Immigrate to Canada as a Nurse covers registered nurses, registered psychiatric nurses providing direct nursing care to patients, those involved delivering health education programs and providing consultative services regarding issues relevant to the practice of nursing.

Nurses under these codes are employed across a variety of professional environments including but not limited to hospitals, care facilities, rehabilitation centres, doctors’ clinics, community centres, private medical facilities and may be self-employed.

Immigrate to Canada as a Nurse with Emigrate Canada

We love to chat all things Canadian Immigration and our friendly expert Canadian Medical Immigration specialists are uniquely positioned to assist with your emigration to Canada. Let us design your bespoke Migration, Recruitment & Resettlement pathway today, with no obligation.

Emigrate Canada don’t use any fancy one size fits all computer programs when it comes to assessing your eligibility to immigrate to Canada as a Nurse. Every assessment is hand reviewed by an industry specialist with significant experience in medical migration.

Immigrate to Canada as a Nurse: Different Nursing Specializations and their overall demand in Canada

Immigrate to Canada as an intensive care nurse

If you’re looking to immigrate to Canada as an Intensive Care Nurse you’re in the right place. Nurses with an Intensive care specialization are in high demand commanding salaries well above average right across Canada. As an intensive care nurse, we’ll be looking at you having experience in an Intensive care unit (ICU) providing care for patients with life-threatening medical conditions. These nurses work in the critical care unit of a hospital or healthcare facility and look after patients who have experienced invasive surgery, accidents, trauma or organ failure.

Those immigrating to Canada as an Intensive Care Nurse can expect a salary of around $75,000 to $106,000 per year

Очень важная для вас статья:  МИД Канады в Оттаве Канада

Immigrate to Canada as a nursing consultant

Nursing consultants immigrating to Canada bring with them a specialist skill set not often found outside of the major metropolis areas of Toronto and Vancouver and, as such, are highly sought after. Canada will be seeking skills such as acting as a liaison between physicians, clients, and attorneys. Nursing Consultants in Canada perform assessments on nursing and hospital facilities and provide expert testimony concerning the activities and duties associated with nursing and healthcare. Some are self-employed, while others work for consulting firms, hospital risk management departments, HMOs, and law firms.

After you successfully immigrate to Canada as a Nursing Consultant you should expect to earn between $78,000 and $109,000 per year.

Immigrate to Canada as a Mental Health Nurse registered psychiatric nurse (R.P.N.)

Of particular interest to Canadian Immigration at both a Federal and Provincial (State / Territory) Level are those looking to immigrate to Canada as a Mental Health or Psychiatric Nurse. Psychiatric unit nurses care for patients with illness or disease that has led them to temporary or long-term hospitalization. They are responsible for direct care of a set of patients, facilitating their recovery through social interaction and traditional therapies. Psychiatric unit nurses are required to complete state nursing licensure requirements, and due to the complexity of this specialization, many employers prefer that these nurses hold a Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN).

The average Mental Health Nurse salary in Canada is $72,717 per year or $37 per hour. This is around 2.2 times more than the national average with more experienced Mental Health Nurses commanding up to workers make up to $112,000.

Immigrate to Canada Occupational Health Nurse

Occupational health nurses in Canada work to prevent, investigate, and treat workplace related illnesses and injuries. We see current demand in terms of Express Entry demand for those looking to immigrate to Canada as an occupational health nurse to be consistently strong right across the county with emphasis on the west coast.

The average Occupational Health Nurse salary in Canada is $67,481 per year or $35 per hour. This is around 2.1 times more than the Canadian average salary. Entry level positions start at $46,000 while most experienced Occupational Health Nurses in Canada earn over $102,000.

Immigrate to Canada as a nurse researcher

A Nurse Researcher in Canada is a scientist who conducts research that improves the field of nursing overall. Although this specialty can be very detailed and specialized, it can also be one of the most rewarding, since these nurses make discoveries that directly impact the lives of patients and medical staff. Those looking to immigrate to Canada as a nurse researcher are in a very strong position, we’ve seen very strong historic demand from the express entry pool for those with the right number of CRS points. Additionally, salaries in Canada for Nurse researchers are among the best in the World, even outside of the major cities.

Immigrate to Canada as a clinical nurse

Candidates looking at Immigrating to Canada as a clinical nurse are in a very strong position over the next few years with demand predicated to remain strong. Clinical Nurse Specialists in Canada provide direct care to patients in one of a range of specialties, such as pediatrics, geriatrics, emergency care and oncology. Clinical Nurses in Canada command earnings well above average in terms of nursing and career progression is rapid.

The average Clinical Nurse salary in Canada is $81,335 per year with those at the top end of the scale earning over $138,000.

Immigrate to Canada as an A&E nurse

Immigrating to Canada as an A&E Nurse you’ll be expected to have several years direct experience on an Accident and Emergency ward in your home country in an equivalent role. In Canada emergency nurses provide rapid assessment and treatment to patients in the initial phase of illness or trauma and often in life-threatening situations in emergency rooms and trauma centers.

Toronto and Vancouver have some of the Worlds leading Trauma Centers and whilst these jobs can be competitive they are always looking for highly skilled candidates from other countries who can broaden their overall scope and depth of knowledge.

If you’re immigrating to Canada as and A&E Nurse rest assured, Canada Wants Your Skills and we’d love to hear from you.

Immigrate to Canada as a Community Nurse or public health nurse

Immigrating to Canada as a Community Nurse (also known as Immigrating to Canada as a Public Health Nurse) requires a very specific skills set at Masters or Post Graduate Second-Degree level. Opportunities are varied and challenging especially outside the main urban areas although deeply rewarding. The average Community Nurse salary in Canada is $75,093 per year or $39 per hour. Entry positions start at $53k rising to $110k.

Immigrate to Canada as a Registered nurse

If you’re seriously considering immigrating to Canada as a Registered Nurse, then you’re in the right place. Medical Migration to Canada is one of our areas of expertise and we specialize in helping qualified Nurses immigrate to Canada. Those in the general Registered Nurse category tend to be among the strongest in term of moving swiftly through the process of Express Entry through to receiving an Invitation to apply for Permanent Residency via the Federal Skilled Worker Program either through having enough points overall, securing a job offer or Provincial Nomination.


When looking to Immigrate to Canada as a Registered Nurse we’ll be looking at you having carried out generally the same role, duties and responsibilities as a registered Nurse in Canada.

The average Registered Nurse salary in Canada is $68,542 per year or $35 per hour. This is around 2.0x the average Canadian salary. Entry positions start at $49, 500 and more experienced workers make up to $99,000.

Immigrate to Canada as a critical care nurse

The average Critical Care Nurse salary in Canada is $77,756 per year or $41 per hour. This is around 2.4 times more than the average wage of the country. Entry level positions start at $54,000 while most experienced workers make up to $109,000.

If you’re looking to Immigrate to Canada as a Critical care nurse we’ve got you covered. Your skills are very much in demand in Canada. It’s a highly specialized and technical role although Canada is always looking to broaden the depth of its knowledge base and strengthen its position as one of the top medical care providing countries in the World.

Immigrate to Canada as a Nurse practitioner (NOC Code 3124 Allied Primary Health Practitioners)

The average Nurse Practitioner salary in Canada is $92,679 per year or $48 per hour. This is around 2.8 times the national average salary. Entry positions start at $68,000 rising to more than $140,000.

Minimum qualifications required to immigrate to Canada as a Nurse
To immigrate to Canada as a Nurse you’ll already need to be a licensed nurse in your home country. Additionally, to immigrate to Canada as a Nurse you’ll need to demonstrate that you’re qualified to the same level as someone qualified and working as a Nurse in Canada.

To accurately assess your equivalency its important to first take a deep dive into the specifics of how Canada assesses internationally qualified nurses against their internal benchmarks in a Country of distinct provinces.

The title of “nurse” may only be officially designated to medical professionals duly licensed or registered by the nursing regulatory body in one of the Canadian provinces. Each province has its own regulatory body and assessment process and there is no national registration body for nurses in Canada.

There are three different types of nurses in Canada

RN Nurses: Registered Nurses Canada
RNs usually complete a four-year post-secondary university nursing program to become a generalist registered nurse.

RPN Nurses: Registered Psychiatric Nurses Canada
RPNs will have been expected to have completed a psychiatric nursing bachelor’s degree or a degree in general nursing and a further degree or period of study specializing in psychiatric nursing. RPNs are regulated to practice in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

LPN Nurses: Licensed Practical Nurse Canada or Registered Practical Nurse in Ontario
LPNs complete a post-secondary nursing program at college level that is usually two years in length.

How to Immigrate to Canada as a Nurse Stage One

As an internationally qualified Nurse looking to immigrate to Canada your first task is going to be securing a positive outcome from having your education credentials verified. This is a mandatory step in the Canadian Immigration process. Educational credentials need to be assessed by World Education Services, an Organization duly authorized and licensed by the Canadian Government to carry out education checks and versification.

During this time we also recommend starting the first major step in getting your Nursing Qualifications recognized in Canada. This process is managed by the the Canadian National Nursing Assessment Service, NNAS.

An NNAS assessment costs $650 CAD and is the first mandatory stage in securing both your Canadian Visa and your Nursing Registration in Canada.

How to Immigrate to Canada as a Nurse Stage Two

With your NNAS assessment underway its time to start building out your Express Entry profile. To successfully immigrate to Canada as a Nurse we’re going to create the strongest possible profile, although creating an express entry profile alone is of no use.

Express Entry is where the work really begins in earnest, it’s the start of your immigration journey and not the end.

We’ll have you sit your internationally recognized English or French test (or both if you’re lucky enough to be bi lingual in these languages!) at this point and we also recommend you commence your job search in earnest although given that you’ll be shortly securing your nursing registration there are many options to successfully immigrate to Canada as a nurse without a job offer.

How to Immigrate to Canada as a Nurse Stage Three

After your positive NNAS assessment its time to submit the second stage of your Nursing Canada registration by applying directly to the Nursing medical board in your chosen Province or Territory. Every territory will use the NNAS result as the basis for bench-marking an applicants international nursing skills, experience and qualifications against those laid down by their respective Nursing Boards.

Usually, one of two outcomes occurs at this point. Either, an application will progress with an applicant being invited to sit a Provinces final nursing exam leading to full licensing and registration, or a candidate will be invited to undertake a bridging course of study.

When it comes to matching the skills, qualifications and experience of Internationally qualified Nurses Immigrating to Canada with the specific requirements of Canadian Provinces and Territories we recommend a Free Consultation with one of our Canadian Nursing Immigration Experts.

How to Immigrate to Canada as a Nurse Stage Four

At this point your Canadian Immigration project will be starting to come together. With your Nursing registration and licensing secured we should be seeing traction in terms of your Express Entry Federal Skilled Worker Visa and we’ll be looking at securing further traction via Provincial Nomination or a Job Offer as a fall back option should an Invitation to Apply still not have materialized.

You will not need a formal job offer to immigrate to Canada as a nurse once your Canadian Nursing Registration has been secured.

Immigrate to Canada as a Nurse Stage Five: Invitation to Apply

The penultimate stage of your Immigration to Canada is receiving your Invitation to Apply via the Express Entry program. You’ll be receiving this Invitation based on your Express Entry Case which will either have been strong enough to have been selected directly on a federal basis, via Provincial Nomination or selected based on you securing a formal Job Offer in Canada (although by following the steps outlined above this formal job offer may not be required).

Immigrate to Canada as a Nurse Stage Six: Congratulations, you are about to Immigrate to Canada as a Nurse

Welcome to your new life in Canada. You have up to one year to formally activate your visas.

Can my family join me when I immigrate to Canada as a Nurse?

Yes, the rights and privileges afforded to the main visa holder are passed onto partners and children automatically. In fact, your partners skills, education and qualifications may even make your overall application even stronger.

When I Immigrate to Canada as a Nurse on Permanent Residency what does it mean for my family and I?

Canadian Permanent Residents can:
Live and work in Canada
Enter and leave without restriction
Study in Canada
Access Canadian Healthcare
Access social benefits
Apply for Citizenship and Dual Nationality after four years
Enjoy protection under Canadian law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Best of all, Canadian Permanent Residency for those immigrating to Canada as a Nurse converts into Citizenship and Canadian Nationality after four years.

How will I be selected to Immigrate to Canada as a Nurse

The CIC draws the top candidates from the Express Entry pool and issues them an Invitation to Apply based on how many Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) points they have obtained.

A perfect Comprehensive Ranking Score is 1200. An offer of arranged employment in Canada is worth 200 points and a provincial nomination certificate is worth an amazing 600 points.

To date all draws to immigrate to Canada as a Nurse have been above 449 CRS Points. Therefore, after securing your Nursing Registration in a particular Province you will be deemed to be qualified in that same province. This will lead to a huge additional points boost for Nursing registration alone, and then of course Provincial Nomination will award a further 600 points.


This means our Nursing Immigration experts at Emigrate Canada and your designated ICCRC Consultants need to work closely with you to maximize your overall CRS score.

Should you score 449 or over on your Express Entry CRS then there is a very good chance you’ll be able to Immigrate to Canada as a Nurse without a Job Offer or Provincial Nomination.

Should you score less than 449 our Nursing Immigration experts at Emigrate Canada will be looking to secure Provincial Nomination for you in the first instance as well as working closely with you to secure a Job Offer in Canada as a Nurse.

Do I need a job offer to Immigrate to Canada as a Nurse?

It is possible to Immigrate to Canada as a Nurse in three ways. 1. Directly through Express Entry 2. With a Job Offer 3. With Provincial Nomination as a result of mandatory Nursing Registration.

Canada Wants You: Apply to Immigrate to Canada as a Nurse

At Emigrate Canada we have a dedicated Nursing Canada team on hand to assist you throughout the entire process. We are here to assume responsibility for every stage of your Immigration to Canada as a Nurse, from ensuring your education history and credentials are approved, to handling the application to both the NNAS and the Provincial Nursing Registration Board of your choice. We will ensure your Express Entry application is as strong as possible and of course our contracted Canadian Immigration Lawyers will ensure your eventual Permanent Residency application is approved first time.

The whole process to immigrate to Canada as a Nurse should take around one year from start to finish.

We look forward to welcoming you as a client and successfully helping you to immigrate to Canada as a Nurse.

Title: Immigrate to Canada as a Nurse
Author: Monty @ Emigrate Canada, the Canadian Immigration Expert
Contact: TalktoMonty

Вариант 7

Раздел 1. Аудирование

Вы услышите 6 высказываний. Установите соответствие между высказываниями каждого говорящего 1—6 и утверждениями, данными в списке A—G. Используйте каждую букву, обозначающую утверждение, только один раз. В задании есть одно лишнее утверждение. Вы услышите запись дважды. Занесите свои ответы в поле справа.

Нажмите , чтобы прослушать запись

A. Good books can transport you to other worlds.

B. It’s nice practice to give away books that you have already read.

C. In some cases it is not bad to watch a screen version of the book.

D. The difficult language of some writers can hide a good story.

E. A good mixture of mental stimulation is good.

F. Old novels are not worth reading.

G. Traditional reading will never stop.

Определите, какие из приведенных утверждений A— G соответствуют содержанию текста (1 — True), какие не соответствуют (2 — False) и о чем в тексте не сказано, то есть на основании текста нельзя дать ни положительного, ни отрицательного ответа (3 — Not stated). Занесите номер выбранного Вами варианта ответа в таблицу. Вы услышите запись дважды.

Нажмите , чтобы прослушать запись

1. Ivy previously believed she could never learn to use computers.

2. Ivy’s husband Fred is impressed by Paul.

3. Fred has been on a computer course before.

4. Paul refused to take Fred as his trainee.

5. James and Katie will do two evenings a week in September.

6. CLAIT is easier than the Office Skills course.

7. Ivy plans to finish both CLAIT and Office Skills courses by the end of winter.

В заданиях 3—9 обведите цифру 1, 2 или 3, соответствующую выбранному вами варианту ответа. Вы услышите запись дважды.

Нажмите , чтобы прослушать запись

The narrator was

1. a naturally talented cook.

2. just able to follow recipes.

3. a qualified chef.

The narrator worked in the kitchen with a man, who was from

1. Panama City, Florida.

2. French Louisiana.

When the narrator was asked in the dining room he worried because he thought

1. the problem might have been his fault.

2. the woman would make a complaint.


3. that Suzie would call the police.

The lady was unhappy because she

1. expected better service.

2. didn’t like the taste of the food.

3. was afraid of the shrimp ‘staring’ at her.

In the end the unhappy customer

1. ate the same dish.

2. ordered another dish.

3. refused to eat anything at the restaurant.

The narrator was asked to return to the dining room again because

1. Suzie wanted to see him.

2. other customers insisted on it.

3. the unhappy customer came back.

The narrator was generously rewarded for

1. being inventive as a cook.

2. his ability to compromise.

3. being calm and kind to a difficult client.

Раздел 2. Чтение

1. Naturally different

2. Big age difference

3. Different opinions

4. Different ambitions

5. Small differences

6. No difference at all

7. Different rules

8. Learning to be different

A. John and James are identical twins but they don’t go to the same school. Their parents felt this would help them develop individual tastes, interests and styles-but the boys at first hated the idea. Now they are really happy at their schools but occasionally they swap places just for fun! The brothers are best friends but they now agree that their parents were probably correct.

B. Anna and Beth are twin sisters but they are most unlike each other. Technically they are «non-identical» twins. Anna is blonde and Beth is a brunette. Anna is noisy, energetic and always crashing around to hip hop and rap. Beth is much quieter and likes listening to classical music and reading. Anna eats anything and Beth is a vegetarian. But they are, absolutely, the closest and best of friends.

C. The Perkins children, Sally and John, both study hard every evening after college and most weekends. Sally studies French, history and Art. She plans to go to university in Paris and wants to either work in a museum or an art sale room. John studies the Russian language, business studies and maths. He wants to study in St. Petersburg and to set up his own import business. I am sure both will succeed.

D. Greg’s dad believes that there is no original, exciting new music being written and performed today. Greg strongly disagrees and can name several new bands and singers that are both completely original and really popular. But his Dad is a professional musician and was quite successful when he was young. He argues that nearly every successful song now is simply a reworked version of an older one.

E. In the UK you can legally do different things depending on your age. You can vote for a new government at 18 but at 17 you cannot drink a beer. At 16 you can marry and become a parent but you cannot drive to your wedding or make a traditional toast! Meanwhile lots of bars and clubs are open only to people above 21 which means, married, voting, car driving parents could still be too young to enter.

F. Serious stamp collectors are men and women who appreciate details. To the casual observer, the oldest postage stamps in the world — the Victorian «Penny Blacks» — all look identical. Millions were made but only a few of them are truly valuable. A serious collector knows this and the ability to find tiny variations in the paper, ink or code used helps them to find the «Penny Black’s» that are rare and valuable.

G. Dina Ruiz has Japanese and black ancestry on her father’s side of the family and English, Welsh and German on her mother’s. She was born in California and married her husband, actor Clint Eastwood, in Las Vegas. When she first met Eastwood, she was 28 and he was 63. She is most famous as a TV news «anchor» and is Chair of The California Museum for History, Women and the Arts.

Установите соответствие тем 1 — 7 текстам A — F. Занесите свои ответы в соответствующее поле справа. Используйте каждую цифру только один раз. В задании одна тема лишняя.

1.who suggested in his letter to Count Shuvalov the idea

2. to mechanics, chemistry and mineralogy

3. a person of formidable willpower and keen scientific mind

4. favourite of Empress Elizaveta Petrovna, the patron of arts and science

5. the contemporary European powers in

6. are marked by special events and festivities at

7. famous among all educated people

Mikhail Lomonosov was one of the intellectual titans of XVIII century. His interests ranged from history, rhetoric, art and poetry A ___ . Alexander Pushkin described him as В ___ , whose lifelong passion was learning. Lomonosov’s activity is a manifestation of the enormous potential of the Russian scientific community. Peter I reformed Russia, which allowed the country to reach the standard of С ___ many spheres. Great importance was placed on education. St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, founded by Peter I, established a university and a grammar school to educate intellectuals and researchers the country needed; however, these educational establishments could not fulfill the task they took on. It was Michail Lomonosov D ___ of establishing a university in Moscow. An influential courtier and the E ___ Count Shuvalov supported Lomonosov’s plans for a new university and presented them to the Empress. In 1755, on 25 January-St. Tatiana’s Day according to the Russian Orthodox Church calendar — Elizaveta signed the decree that a university should be founded in Moscow. The opening ceremony took place on 26 April, when Elizaveta’s coronation day was celebrated. Since 1755 25 January arid 26 April F ___ Moscow University; the annual conference where students present the results of their research work is traditionally held in April.

Прочитайте текст и выполните задания 12—18, обводя цифру 1, 2, 3 или 4, соответствующую номеру выбранного вами варианта ответа.

The family meal time is one of the most valuable routines to establish in the life of a family. Research has proved that children who eat at least one meal a week with their families benefit greatly in terms of social skills and acceptance of shared responsibilities. They learn simply and directly through their own experience, the importance of family interaction find the value of close friendship, support and loyalty

In theory and with practice, a shared meal can be the setting for peaceful conversation and allow each family member the opportunity to talk about his/her day, and possibly to discuss any problems or issues. Successful family meal times are primarily about talking and communication. In the modern age of 24 hour TV, computer games and computer social networking sites — the fact is that it is often easier to eat alone rather than together. Furthermore, if parents fail to establish these routines whilst their children are young it is very hard to implement them when the kids become teenagers. But it is not impossible. There are various strategies available for promoting shared family meals.

It is of first importance that every family member should be made to understand the possible benefits; namely that our lives really can be better in general if we make the effort to communicate more effectively. Next step — a weekly meal together can be set as a realistic first goal. The meal should be quite a tasty and popular one as an inducement to keep the kids away from computers and TV sets!

It is important that shared meals should not be the setting for trying to deal with family disputes. There will always be arguments from time to time — even in the happiest and closest families. But these should be kept away from the dinner table if possible. Parents are encouraged to set the tone by example. Light hearted banter, stories about the day and a joke or two can help set the tone. They can also help by being attentive listeners and appropriate responders. Successes should be marked by congratulation and bad news supported with commiseration. Quieter family members should be encouraged by asking what their opinion is on something, rather than about what they did or failed to do. It makes them feel more important and valued. Sometimes a good start can help a simple family meal go on to be a really enjoyable or even memorable experience.

The next stage in building this routine can be to introduce more days. In our experience the best place to start is Sunday lunch. The second might be to establish Wednesday nights as family meal time. Of course the most important thing is flexibility. This and a bit of effort are required to set up helpful routines but the pay back can be immense for a family.

Dinnertime family routines, especially if established early on, have all kinds of other potential benefits. For example children can be encouraged to prepare one course (possibly on an agreed rota): they might even be encouraged to compete to produce maybe an exceptional soup or a truly sensational desert! This can be good fun.

Once established, family meal routines are also great for developing good table manners and «work» habits. Children can learn to set the table, help with clearing up and generally build good patterns of co-operation with their parents, friends and the people they meet with in daily life.

Добавить комментарий