No, I just wrote "Work" under work/education field and the name of company I work for in the employer field.zoya_99 said:
Two jobs at a time
- Thread starter zoya_99
- Start date
Column for "Work/Education" in 6.F.
It never occurred to me and I have seen no one previously suggest, relative to work, entering anything other than a job description or job title in the column for "Work/Education."
I have been following citizenship cases for more than a half dozen years now, and indeed, I must confess, it truly never occurred to me, and I truly cannot recall previously seeing anyone so much as hint, let alone suggest, that for item 6.F. in the application, the work and education history, it would be appropriate to populate the "Work/Education" column with just "work" or "education."
I must also admit, however, that sure, that constitutes a literal response to what is specifically asked.
That noted, I think it risks appearing to be too cute for school.
I smile a bit. Reminds me of the time, back when it was actually unusual for border officers to even ask for identification from those crossing between the U.S. and Canada (this was long before 2001), the PIL officer (U.S. side) asked "do you have identification?" And I answered "yes we do," and smiled, not at all moving to show any ID. And that was followed by a long pause, a long awkward pause, until she finally specifically asked to see our identification (and I presented a drivers' license and my daughter's student ID -- those were the days eh). My then teenage daughter thought it was appropriate. I was almost immediately embarrassed, however, for having been a jerk. But I had indeed accurately and completely responded to the officer's literal question. The officer's facial expression, however, made it clear she was not the least bit amused.
In any event, again, it never, ever occurred to me, and I have seen no one previously suggest, relative to work, entering anything other than a job description or job title in the column for "Work/Education," even if the description was very general or vague.
Be that "plumber," "carpenter," "software engineer," "cashier," "librarian," "truck driver," "salesperson," "welder," "vice-president of operations," "accounts payable manager," "assembly technician," "consultant," or whatever description best describes what the individual did or what the individual's job title was.
Is it wrong to just enter "work?" I cannot say it is. Will it raise questions? I do not know. As I already noted, it may come across as being a bit cute (like I was being with the border officer), but whether that results in elevated scrutiny, questions, or even RQ, I suspect that other aspects of the application and the applicant's circumstances will determine that. After all, the identification of the employer may suffice, and when the time comes, an interviewer can easily ask for more detail.
Personally, though, I would not recommend it. I am very confident that a brief job description or job title would be better.
It never occurred to me and I have seen no one previously suggest, relative to work, entering anything other than a job description or job title in the column for "Work/Education."
I have been following citizenship cases for more than a half dozen years now, and indeed, I must confess, it truly never occurred to me, and I truly cannot recall previously seeing anyone so much as hint, let alone suggest, that for item 6.F. in the application, the work and education history, it would be appropriate to populate the "Work/Education" column with just "work" or "education."
I must also admit, however, that sure, that constitutes a literal response to what is specifically asked.
That noted, I think it risks appearing to be too cute for school.
I smile a bit. Reminds me of the time, back when it was actually unusual for border officers to even ask for identification from those crossing between the U.S. and Canada (this was long before 2001), the PIL officer (U.S. side) asked "do you have identification?" And I answered "yes we do," and smiled, not at all moving to show any ID. And that was followed by a long pause, a long awkward pause, until she finally specifically asked to see our identification (and I presented a drivers' license and my daughter's student ID -- those were the days eh). My then teenage daughter thought it was appropriate. I was almost immediately embarrassed, however, for having been a jerk. But I had indeed accurately and completely responded to the officer's literal question. The officer's facial expression, however, made it clear she was not the least bit amused.
In any event, again, it never, ever occurred to me, and I have seen no one previously suggest, relative to work, entering anything other than a job description or job title in the column for "Work/Education," even if the description was very general or vague.
Be that "plumber," "carpenter," "software engineer," "cashier," "librarian," "truck driver," "salesperson," "welder," "vice-president of operations," "accounts payable manager," "assembly technician," "consultant," or whatever description best describes what the individual did or what the individual's job title was.
Is it wrong to just enter "work?" I cannot say it is. Will it raise questions? I do not know. As I already noted, it may come across as being a bit cute (like I was being with the border officer), but whether that results in elevated scrutiny, questions, or even RQ, I suspect that other aspects of the application and the applicant's circumstances will determine that. After all, the identification of the employer may suffice, and when the time comes, an interviewer can easily ask for more detail.
Personally, though, I would not recommend it. I am very confident that a brief job description or job title would be better.
Thank you for the detailed explanation.dpenabill said:
In my case i never studied in past four years but just worked.
Thus, I used, "Work" in the work/education column because the title stated "WORK/EDUCATION". It literally means write either work or education. If you look at the next column which states "school or employer attended" is more confusing.
As i compared both the columns and it makes me confused because first one has a "/" and other one has "or" which means that first column is asking either to write work or education but in other column it asks to write name of school if you have done education or name of employer if you were employed.
They should have made both the columns like the follows so as to avoid confusion:
1. WORK/EDUCATION SCHOOL/EMPLOYER ATTENDED
2. WORK or Education SCHOOL OR EMPLOYER ATTENDED
What you have to suggest now?