Dear PsyGuy,

So sorry but your last statements read like gibberish to me. It's as though you're regurgitating a badly digested statistics textbook.
Of course one may argue that, on a site like this, everything comes down to personal opinion. The fact that every other poster disagrees with you doesn't, in and of itself, make your opinion invalid, but it does make it more likely that people will see you for what you are: a blowhard.
Here, for what they are worth, are my opinions about your opinions:
1) I spend a lot of time in Singapore, and the impression I get is that UWCSEA is at least as highly regarded as SAS. Quality of education, examination results, university destinations of graduates, facilities, difficulty in gaining admission or employment - all these are on par or superior.
2) I have also done work with UWCs, and I am absolutely sure that no one connected with the movement would ever say that UWCSEA is the flagship college - least of all the people at UWCSEA.

Dear PsyGuy,

You are certainly a person of strong opinions - a kind of Sarah Palin of international school commentary, though perhaps without Sarah's charm and intellect.
Rather than point out the flaws in your argument, let's try to approach this from a different angle by focusing on two claims that you make with such certainty.
First of these is that UWC Singapore is the flagship of the movement. I know the UWCs well, and I have never heard this notion before. I am very sure that the Singapore school itself would never dare to make such a statement, so tell us what is your evidence for saying this.
Second is your assertion that the UWC schools are some kind of second tier chain. Have you ever worked in a UWC? Have you ever interviewed for a job at a UWC? Have your children been to a UWC? Have you read or heard reviews that encourage you to reach such a conclusion?
My suspicion is that you have no rational, substantive evidence to back up either claim, and that you will respond with more bluster. Prove me wrong.

Dear Psyguy,
I note the points below:
"@Donald

Im amazed that I cant literally smell your an admin or admin cheerleader. Thanks for joining the day of your defense post.

Its not absurd, its how metrics work, admins and admin cheerleaders employ loser metrics then teachers and non admin educators. There is nothing wrong with tier two, stop being an admin in thinking its tier one or bust.

Thank you for the history lesson, Internationalism is part of MANY, MANY ISs, they say so in their mission, vision, and philosophy statements. Water is also wet."

The first point is scarcely literate, but I think you are attacking me because I dared to disagree with what you wrote. Earlier in the thread, you claimed that ad hominem attacks are the hallmark of a defeated argument. You make an assumption about my career and/or sympathies without any reason or evidence. As it happens, I am neither an "admin" nor an "admin cheerleader".
The second point you make is nonsensical (as well as illiterate). "Loser metrics" and "tier one or bust" are ridiculous ways to contest my point that UWC schools are most definitely not Tier 2 schools.
Your third point is just as fatuous. International schools are largely the product of an "international" population in a "foreign" city. They serve a market. In their mission statements, they make a virtue of a necessity by talking about international education. UWCs are completely different. Internationalism is their purpose. That's one of the reasons why they set up in "interesting" locations: South Wales; Vancouver Island; Montezuma; Costa Rica etc etc. That's why they recruit an international student body and an international faculty.

When intelligent people make a mistake, they acknowledge it, apologise and move on. When stupid people make a mistake, they bluster, dissemble and obfuscate. You end your response with four paragraphs of nonsense about the "models of the tier system". All of this is sheer invention and is a feeble attempt to deflect readers' attention from the case in point: that you made a really foolish statement about United World Colleges. Several people have called you on it. Hundreds more would do so they read what you wrote. Accept it and say you're sorry.

A friend just sent me to this site to read what was being written about the UWC movement. To be honest, I'm amazed at the level of ignorance. The idea that these are so-called Tier 2 schools is absurd, as is the idea that UWC Singapore is somehow the flagship. The first UWC was Atlantic College, which began in the 1960s and was inspired by the work of Kurt Hahn. Key principles are "education without borders" so internationalism is at the heart of the movement and "education as a means to help others". Lester Pearson College on Vancouver Island was the second of these and others have followed over the years. The initial idea was the colleges would just take students for the last two years before university and all students would live on site. Most still follow this precept but the schools in Singapore and Swaziland are K-12. To get in to a college is really difficult, and students apply from all over the world. Their IB results are phenomenal - off the charts. It's just as difficult for teachers to get positions there as it is for kids.
Terms like "chain provider" or "essentially private schools for locals" or "mostly lower tier schools" are just plain daft. The person who made these statements really doesn't know about international education.