@cloudtrapezer, that is a fair point. Most of the non-idiomatic reviews ring false to me, but I was starting to doubt myself. So I went back and took a closer look.
Comparing the first few pages of KCEL reviews to those for some competing schools (TenWest, Huanyang and Keats), I found the following.
- Competing schools: Plenty of positive reviews written in idiomatic English, just a few non-idiomatic reviews.
- KCEL: Three idiomatic reviews (two very negative, one mixed) and a dozen non-idiomatic reviews (almost all very positive).
That is quite a contrast. One can imagine a legitimate explanation, but it seems like it would require a stretch. Especially since the schools appear to have roughly similar demographics, at least based on my impression of the class photos on the listing pages.
This doesn't seem like a hard call just based on the first few pages of reviews: www.gokunming.com/[...]
The positive reviews generally appear to be transparent fakes: obviously written by non-native English speakers, and often speaking in meaninglessly vague terms ("I feel good", "The teacher's class is very interesting", etc.) or about silliness such as the food at their Mid-Autumn Festival party.
The negative reviews are persuasive: they are written in idiomatic English and are specific and vivid in their particulars.
Plus foreigners will find out about employers' reputations through various channels, including sites such as this one. So employers that fail to treat foreign employees properly thereby undercut their own ability to hire foreign staff in the future.
I found L4dybug's post informative and am bothered by the number of downvotes (-5 before I chipped in my upvote). I can understand that some people object to commercialism on various grounds, and I sympathize to a good degree. At the same time, malls in Kunming are mostly the same stores over and over again, and it's hard to find decent clothes here that fit me, so an outlet center might have different offerings and is something I would want to check out.
There are a lot of people in the world who like to shop and bargain-hunt as a pastime. I don't count myself among them, but I think we should be respectful of varied interests. There are plenty of posts here on subjects that bore or even annoy me, but I understand they may interest others. So I don't downvote them, I just move on to the next one.
@sean1: The thing is that it's a weak field, so I don't really support anyone in particular enough to sing their praises. But Buttigieg (fake), Biden (senile) and Klobuchar (bully) are all just blatantly awful. I suppose I could live with Sanders, Warren or even Bloomberg, although they each have serious flaws.
As far as Pete's donor stats, yeah, a lot of people seem to have been bamboozled, which is disappointing to see. And I don't think the fact that he's the poorest candidate gives any reassurance that he won't cater to the interests that have ravaged the country over the past generation. Maybe the opposite.
Also, while I am not a huge fan of Sanders and therefore am reluctant to carry water for him, I don't think the UK results necessarily translate to the US. Corbyn was abysmally unpopular, due in large part to his humorlessness, links to violent extremists and allowing anti-Semitism to fester within his party. Sanders has none of those faults and polls as the most popular active political figure in the US. Plus Labour's traditional electorate was fractured by the all-important Brexit issue, and there is no comparably powerful wedge issue at stake in the US.
Buttigieg is just so transparently fake, it amazes me how many people are taken in by his faux-sincere schtick. Although I can see how Patrick Bateman might approve: www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gc_bMkbOOs
An oxymoron. MAD is bi-directional, hence the "mutual". Both sides have reduced leverage over each other under MAD, because threats to use conventional force have low credibility in light of the extreme risks involved.
Turn that smile upside down, sezuwupom. Expressing positive sentiments about fast, comfortable, affordable and environmentally-sustainable new rail connections is not allowed by the comments police. Anyone who is not sufficiently glum will be ridiculed.
Grace is staffed by American doctors and, in my experience, provides the same level of expertise and standard of care that you would expect to find in a good clinic in the U.S. I highly recommend them.
Cookie Preferences
Please select which types of cookies you are willing to accept:
How to: Vote in the upcoming U.S. general elections
发布者Binface shall prevail
How to: Vote in the upcoming U.S. general elections
发布者@sean1: The thing is that it's a weak field, so I don't really support anyone in particular enough to sing their praises. But Buttigieg (fake), Biden (senile) and Klobuchar (bully) are all just blatantly awful. I suppose I could live with Sanders, Warren or even Bloomberg, although they each have serious flaws.
As far as Pete's donor stats, yeah, a lot of people seem to have been bamboozled, which is disappointing to see. And I don't think the fact that he's the poorest candidate gives any reassurance that he won't cater to the interests that have ravaged the country over the past generation. Maybe the opposite.
Also, while I am not a huge fan of Sanders and therefore am reluctant to carry water for him, I don't think the UK results necessarily translate to the US. Corbyn was abysmally unpopular, due in large part to his humorlessness, links to violent extremists and allowing anti-Semitism to fester within his party. Sanders has none of those faults and polls as the most popular active political figure in the US. Plus Labour's traditional electorate was fractured by the all-important Brexit issue, and there is no comparably powerful wedge issue at stake in the US.
How to: Vote in the upcoming U.S. general elections
发布者Buttigieg is just so transparently fake, it amazes me how many people are taken in by his faux-sincere schtick. Although I can see how Patrick Bateman might approve: www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gc_bMkbOOs
As 'New China' turns 70, a look back at National Days past in Kunming
发布者@viyida wrote: "MAD (mutual assured destruction) leverage"
An oxymoron. MAD is bi-directional, hence the "mutual". Both sides have reduced leverage over each other under MAD, because threats to use conventional force have low credibility in light of the extreme risks involved.
Work commences on Lijiang-Shangri-la Railroad
发布者cloudtraprezer wrote: "宣传部宣"
Turn that smile upside down, sezuwupom. Expressing positive sentiments about fast, comfortable, affordable and environmentally-sustainable new rail connections is not allowed by the comments police. Anyone who is not sufficiently glum will be ridiculed.