PsyGuy wrote:

> Arent all criteria chosen by individuals, we dont have AI or divine members
> defining and detailing criteria, and no saying they are all subjective
> doesnt make them all subjective, they arent its a mixture of objective and
> subjective criteria.

No. You're the one professing to be a quantitative scholar and proposing models. You should know that building an instrument involves considerations of validity and reliability. You run your tests, you look for correlations.

If we had enough data, no one would be able to say "salary is just an arbitrary criteria," because you'd be able to point to the strong correlation between salary and the end result (happiness or satisfaction). Maybe an individual's valuing of a criteria is "chosen" and arbitrary, but's irrelevant to the person constructing the instrument.

If you want to get infinitely regressive and say that everything is "chosen by individuals," then you have to give up on any quantitative study of the social sciences.

Then again, that all requires adequate and accurate data, which you don't have. But I digress...

> Your just trying to obsessively declare by fiat that the system is complex
> (its not) the factors many (they arent), and that all those complexities
> make tiers meaningful, thus we should dismiss them (we shouldnt).

So sayeth the guy obsessed with labelling the 25th or 26th best ISs in Thailand "poo" simply to fit some arbitrary and laughable breakdown of how ISs get distributed. You're the one committed to dying on that hill. I'm just trying to acknowledge some of the good - you've done while inviting you to rejoin reality.

> I didnt acknowledge these ISs in the third tier as "very" fine Im
> simply using the term YOU used to describe them. The third tier is poo, poo
> makes the cherry tree grow, but yeah, poo. I dont have a problem with that.

You have done so: repeatedly, explicitly, and using different verbiage. And you've done so before I entered this conversation.

> Im treating them as differences of degree because they are differences of
> degree, just small differences of degree and large differences of degree
> that change as ISs move from their respective tier boundaries. They arent
> differences in kind because you say they are, or you feel they are. They
> arent a difference in kind, in both of your examples; they both have
> students, both have leadership and both have ITs, they both have buildings,
> both have curriculum, they both provide compensation, those differences
> differ by degrees. Non-profit and for-profit are differences of degrees
> under which businesses can be organized (and there really isnt a
> difference, its nothing but a tax management strategy).

A lot of ITs would disagree with you that there really isn't a difference. Profit motive is a qualitative difference.

> We have adequate data, we disagree on how much data is adequate. We have
> continuum distinctions (not categories), we just disagree on what those are
> and should be.

You keep telling yourself that. I think the existence = res ipsa loquitur with regard to the scarcity of adequate data. There are countless posts/comments on many sites in which ITs lament the lack of available data regarding compensation (e.g., not finding out until the contract is offered, and then you're on the decision clock), environment (e.g., asking around for perspectives from current/former teachers), and so on. You're grasping for data points, taking whatever you can get (much of it from either cheerleaders or people with an ax to grind), then applying that limited data to a questionable model, and then warping that model beyond recognition to cater to your preconceived notion of the size of each tier.

> Why does caring matter?

> I have the impression your tier system is little more than a desire to be
> nice in terms of making ISs and the ITs at them, in the third tier feel
> better about who they are and where they are at by constructing tiers below
> them, so they arent the bottom tier their the middle tier.

I don't care about nice. Only truth matters. OK, that's not true. Sometimes "niceness" motivates one to find truth. When I see someone spewing questionable ideas, I'm less inclined to let it slide when those ideas are an insult to the majority of ITs (e.g., calling their schools "poo").

I think I'm done with this, unless you have something groundbreaking to add or want to step down from your fortified hill of insanity. Considering that you're insulting the majority of ITs without cause, and doing so at a 6th-grade writing level, I've been more than patient and reasonable with you.

@PsyGuy

How delightfully postmodern of you. :)

> Actually thanks for pointing that out, its actually supposed to read
> "There is no 'definition' of Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3. Its not all
> subjective." I think when I originally penned it, I had written
> "Its not all subjective, but there is no 'definition' of Tier 1, Tier
> 2, or Tier 3", and in the process of editing and moving text around
> some parts got lost in the copy and paste. Ive made the appropriate
> correction and update.
> Tier structure in IE has a some subjective elements but it has objective
> ones as well.

Good clarifications. Still, "objective criteria" for ranking the quality of schools are still chosen by individuals subjectively. They're still largely arbirtary--even if consensus develops. I'm not saying that makes them wrong, or that there's no value. But there is the risk of a sort of reputational feedback loop; we start pontificating about countries/cities/schools that are esteemed because of the lines at job fair interview sign-ups (you've made this argument previously), start talking about compensation level as a rough indicator (but carving out exceptions based on market demand), etc. The complicated interactions between compensation, teacher interest (# of applications), tuition level, "selectiveness" of the school, etc., are all really hard to quantify--even with perfect data, which we'll never get. If I know the exact pay scale of all the schools in Thailand, and have reliable surveys of ITs and parents as to each school's reputation, sure, I can put together a much more *OBJECTIVE* ranking list. Absent that, we're stuck with slivers of information and different people valuing different things. Sure, we can find consensus that Elite International Bangkok is much better than Generic Middling Academy, which is much better than For-Profit Newbie, Inc. But trying to parse what's in between is much more difficult.

> Yes thre are differences within 3rd tier ISs, they arent discreet and
> categorical but the entire tier structure falls on a continuum, with
> delineation points (1, 2, 3) that require greater than interval changes to
> move between tiers.
> There are very fine ISs in the 3rd tier, typically they are classified as
> floater tier 3 ISs. Yes the "very fine run by U.S. Ph.D.s" (whats
> wrong with a UK D.Phil?)

I'm sure you know I wasn't bashing D.Phils. Revise my "run by U.S. Ph.D.s" to "run by educators with western doctorates vs. local businessmen or 'Mr. Jones with no listed qualifications.'" I suspect there are some quality schools with principals like Mr. Jones (and some less desirable ones loaded with western doctorates), but there is undoubtedly a correlation. The more you start piling on the characteristics: non-profit, high-paying, high-tuition, loaded with western doctorates, excellent facilities...the harder it is to justify lumping such a school in with the "poo" in a bottom tier, the more your three-tiered system shows its limitations, and the more your percentage breakdown looks completely indefensible.

> I have zero desire to be nice, only data matters. Im just not interested in
> differentiation between shite, compost, fertilizer and "plant
> food", all various extractions of poo and thats the third tier. Above
> that there are cherry trees for the second tier, and cherries in the first
> tier and cherries from Food Show at the elite tier distinction. Nice and
> feelings arent a factor.

This is where you confuse "being nice" with "not being both insulting and foolish." At the point where you acknowledge "very fine" schools exist in the bottom tier, that you have "no problem putting excellent ISs" in that tier, and then pivot back to calling them all different versions of poo, it's the same as your condemnation of "dump fairs" and other hyperbole. I can't stress this enough: it's not about "nice" vs. "honest." You can be blunt without being a prick. You can be Sheldon Cooperesque and still, at minimum, be right. You're often none of the above.

> I dont have any problem whatsoever maintaining the 5-25-75 designation

Beyond that adding up to 105%, yes, you do. It means you wind up taking schools that meet your "objective" characteristics of T1 and T2 schools and lumping them in with all the "poo" you deride. It means your bottom tier serves no function other than to indicate a school isn't in your top two tiers. You then falsely conclude:

> Yes thre are differences within 3rd tier ISs, they arent discreet and categorical

They absolutely are categorical. You're lumping in scam-factories, for-profit sweatboxes, uncertain start-ups...with private, non-profit schools with solid reputations that simply don't make the reputational cut-off or perhaps pay 3% less than schools that make it into your T2. That's idiocy. The difference between T2s and T3s under your rigid quota system not only defies the objective characteristics you use to define the tiers, it means that there are categorical differences of KIND at play, and you're mistreating them as differences of DEGREE.

If you want to make it all about the data, EVERY school is (at least slightly) worse than the school ranked one slot higher. That's true regardless of tiers. The folly in your approach is both assuming that you can have adequate data to make those rankings, and THEN assigning arbitrary cutoff points that ignore the real categorical distinctions.

> I dont feel foolish, I have a position which I am making significant
> assumptions and presumptions about based on incomplete data, that while
> exists though I do not have access too, but I consider my position
> sufficiently strong to withstand debate.

I'm glad you finally acknowledge the limitations. But you're not really embracing those limitations when making your conclusions.

> I dont have any problem whatsoever maintaining the 5-25-75 designation,
> there are some amplitude issues at the tails, we really dont know how many
> ISs there are, new IE EC (kinder/nursery) popping up all the time and
> primary ISs arent far behind that. Theres also disagreement what
> constitutes an IS and gets into the grey area between EAP programs and
> academic programs. I have no problem putting excellent ISs in the third
> tier, because again the tier 2 ISs are more excellent, and the tier 1 ISs
> are the most excellent. I dont have a problem or issue with that, because I
> know how rank ordering works. Its the same system that used to be used in O
> and A levels with norm referencing, a certain portion of the students (10%)
> got A, 15% B, 10%C and so on down to O which was the lowest passing mark.
> No nightmare at assessment and determination at all. Look at any individual
> timed Olympic event, hats the difference between the gold and silver metal,
> some fraction of a hundredth of a second. Why dont we just give all the
> Olympic athletes a gold medal all are "excellent" and
> "fine" performers in their sport, because the faster athlete is
> faster, and we recognize that faster is better.
> So its going to be 75% of the ISs in Thailand are tier 3, the models valid,
> because thats how rank ordering and range grouping works.

Great. You're just doing it blindfolded, without a stopwatch, with the different athletes on different tracks (and some of them swimming in pools), without any codified agreement on the exact parameters of the event. Other than that, it's a flawless -.

> Whats the difference between your tier 4 and tier 5? Variations and degrees
> of pain and suffering, your trying to shine poo, and say its better.

Every job involves some pain and suffering, if you care.

The difference, as a category, is that T4s might include elements of QUESTIONABLE stability or quality, and likely do not pay
what their higher-level counterparts pay (unless they're boosting their compensation in recognition that they can't get quality candidates otherwise, either because they're in an undesirable location ("hazard pay") or they're routed by higher-quality schools in their location which are a better landing spot). "Questionable" can mean many things. Maybe it's a start-up school that looks like it might have potential. Maybe it has chronic turnover problems because it's not in a desirable location or doesn't pay enough to compensate. Maybe it has polarizing leadership. Maybe it's a legitimate school, but extremely stingy and run in a greedy, for-profit manner that's "penny wise pound foolish" (to borrow from you). Maybe they're awful at standing up for teachers against parents or disciplining privileged students. Maybe there have been some credible accusations of misconduct in the reviews (not honoring contracts). Maybe it's been around 20 years, but it's in a location where there are plenty of quality ISs around, and it hasn't managed to dramatically bolster its reputation, leaving it a lower-cost option for primarily domestic students.

With the T5s, it's not about the stability or quality being QUESTIONABLE. They're just bad, either because they combine most of those T4 red flags into a messy stew, or one or two of those red flags are flat-out confirmed and flagrant. With a T5, you really question how/if the school is licensed to operate legally. With a T5, the IT community is (or should be) in an uproar if ISS/Search agrees to continue to do business with them, as there is documented evidence of them engaging in egregious conduct with regard to teacher contracts, not paying, making teachers work illegally, etc.

Even within 5 tiers, you see slippage, sure. There can be debate over whether a school dips from T4 to T5. There can be schools that are at the "top" of T4 for some reason (e.g., start-up) that are clearly better options than schools further down in that tier.

Unlike you, I'm not hunkering down on percentages in these tiers. I'm OK throwing out a wild guess like 5, 15, 40, 25, 15. But it's wild. It's based on an acknowledgement of all the missing data (what even counts as an IS? is there even a definitive list in a region?) and could vary dramatically across locations.

shadowjack wrote:

> In the end, you have to make up your own mind. My present school is
> definitely not a tier 1 internationally, but it certainly is for the
> country and it is moving to improve even more, which is why I like it and
> why I plan on sticking around. Pay isn't great, but it's not bad and I can
> still save for retirement. In the end, those things are what's important to
> me.

I appreciate what you wrote. There's really nothing I disagree with there.

I'm certainly not rejecting the notion that most people are looking to climb the ladder (my friend talked me into IE and she did it, and is now in her fifth country leading a department and making bank). Even I am not immune to it.

While I have an unusual background (atypically overqualified and yet underexperienced), I knew I'd probably have to climb the ladder to some extent, too. The China-heavy recruitment agency I dealt with briefly (probably the one the OP is dealing with) even used the "foot in the door" trope to try to massage me into a crap-paying position I'm overqualified for. More than anything, I knew I was a candidate who needed the right "fit." Was it going to be at my dream job, or a consensus "T1" school? Probably not (although if you glanced at my CV, you might tell me stranger things have happened). And I wasn't interested in a "fit" that was based on the fact that the school had low standards. I'm not some 20-something with a few years of public school under my belt. So starting at the bottom wasn't something my family and I were willing to say yes to.

As I wrote many times, there's some intuitive sense in PsyGuy's tiers. I just laugh at the # breakdown, and I really think there are 4 or 5 tiers:

T1: The top handful of schools. Dream work environments and top-notch compensation.
T2: Excellent schools. Great work environments, but generally a bit lower in terms of reputation and compensation.
T3: Good schools. Not as prestigious, probably issues re: environment and/or pay (unless a "hazard pay" situation applies)
T4: Questionable schools. Weak, unstable, profit-obsessed, and/or dangerous. Probably not paying well (although some might pay above their tier, i.e. "hazard pay" or difficulty filling positions).
T5: Dreck. Glorified language academies, questionable start-ups, or fly-by-night for-profit vanity operations.

And I'm not even going to bother putting %s on it. That's a fool's errand.

I didn't even apply for anything I'd classify as T4 or T5, or respond to their cold inquiries with more than a polite brush off. T3s would have had to be really appealing fits (both school and location), or blow me away in terms of compensation. I'd work for a presidential campaign or think tank before taking a milquetoast T3 job or any T4/T5.

We'll see how the first year goes. I'm not automatically committed to IE for the long term. But if I stay in the game, my plan was ready really in sync with what you wrote. The only difference is I'm aiming to cut it down to 2 contracts. Within a few years, the experience issue will be gone, I'll have fulfilled a contract, I'll have more certs, etc. If I'm happy in my first contract, there's no reason for a stepping stone for me (unless there is a strong family pull try another locale). If an opportunity to jump to a clear T1 emerges, that's great (the $$$ is hard to turn down). On the other hand, if I had been forced to settle for a lesser position, and was looking to "work my way" up, I'd probably give myself 2-3 years. If I couldn't make a big leap by then, I'd realize it's not for me.

Anyway, sorry for the rant. My big objection to PsyGuy's framing is both his cynical lumping of so many different calibers of schools together, and his aggressive (and quite frankly, rude) assessments of people's landing spots. Sure, there's blurring between tiers, as wrote, and the tiers are personalized and subjective. But the market is not so simple as 1, 2, 3.

I challenge anyone to look at that list of ISs in Bangkok (let alone checking out a full Thai list). There are almost 100 ISs in Bangkok, and I'd argue there is a pretty thick clump in the middle/upper range. I'd be hard-pressed to put many of them in my T4 (although I haven't researched them all, nor have I looked deeply into too many that I wasn't considering). I certainly wouldn't many of them assign them to PsyGuy's T3, as they don't meet the general characteristics he outlines--nor do I think a massive T3 does much of a service to teachers, parents, or anyone.

There's too much to get to here, so I'll bracket off the Search stuff from @PsyGuy and @shadowjack for another time and just touch on one thing.

PsyGuy wrote:

> Theres a lot of quantitative data, but more importantly there are a lot of
> conclusions and determinations that are limited in scope and interest to
> practitioners in that field. IE tiers need not be a global phenomenon for
> the rankings to be both meaningful to the audience (ITs) and valid because
> its based on the conclusions and an1yitics of professionals in the field.
> There is a well respected list of the globally best labs to work at for
> basic research, its not published by News and World Reports, its shared by
> practitioners and professionals in that field, its not less valid or real
> because there isnt an international association or a mass publication of
> it.
> Not that a survey would be any more valid or mean anything, but there have
> been surveys.
>
> Its probably a tier 3 IS, maybe a floater thats carved itself a niche and
> been able to be relatively obscure. The first and second tiers are very
> very small, the second tier is only big in comparison to the first tier,
> the third tier is in contrast very very large. There are lots of very fine
> ISs in the third tier, but the second tier ISs are well known, there arent
> really any second tier ISs that are under the radar.

Three things just jump out as absurd here.

1. One is your obsessive quantification of these tiers, as if there's anything authoritative floating around. I'm not talking about published in U.S. News and World Whatnot, or the product of some credible researcher. I'm talking about...anywhere. The tiers exist as an abstraction. I actually find your description of them fairly useful, and wouldn't disagree that they're (more or less) consistent with what a lot of the IE community thinks in some respects. But even then, they're still merely social constructions (and not a particularly cohesive ones, given some of the disagreements) and very problematic to apply in any meaningful way. The end result is that you can pontificate all you want about how School X has the characteristics of your Tier Y, but that requires agreement both on the assessment of X and the parameters of Y. And no one has really done EITHER of those things in meaningful way--at least not that I've seen.

So yes, it's all subjective. Or to put it another way, I'll cite a renowned expert on the subject: "There is no 'definition' of Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3. Its all subjective." (@PsyGuy, March 22, 2019)

2. Another goofy thing about your arguments, and probably the biggest issue making me part ways with your otherwise reasonable tier system, is this idea of a massive third tier that dwarfs everything else. By your logic*, T1 and T2 are "very very small," and then everyone else is in T3. On those rare occasions when you're not being a grump (e.g., "turds," "poo," "dump fairs," "bottom"), you start arguing that there are MASSIVE differences in the quality among T3 schools. Hey, look, you said something nice: "There are lots of very fine ISs in the third tier." So, a for-profit hellhole that masquerades as an IS and has illegal teachers, crap pay, no PD, and no A/C is in the same tier with a "very fine" run by U.S. Ph.D.s simply because the latter, for any number of reasons, doesn't make your list of the top 25% of ISs in a given area? By your logic*, there are T3 schools that are FAR closer in quality to T1 schools than they are to OTHER T3 schools.

*I have to put the asterisk up because your lengthy description of the tiers is almost postmodern in its self-contradiction and speculation. Yeah, you throw out ideas for other tiers, suggest an "elite" tier, a T4 (which I guess is T5 if there's an "elite" tier), etc. I'm just sticking with your basic 3-tier system. Feel free to respond that you wrote something else, contradicting yourself, as explication.

The hilarious thing is that you do this out of a shocking desire to be...nice: "is there a lower level, some people throw tier 4, and lower levels around, but i have to think that is really just an individual adding insult to injury when they call a particular school a 'tier 4' school."

OK. I get it. You're being nice, for once. In doing so, you're also be insulting by telling people, given the market in their area, that they're working at a BOTTOM tier school simply because Your Exaltedness hath decreed that they're only in the top 30% of schools in that area.

3. You can hypothesize all you want about the quality of my school. It just makes you look foolish. When that hypothesizing also results in insults, it makes you look like a foolish jackass. I'll tell you what: go ahead and come up with a comprehensive list of ISs in Thailand. Then rank them. If mine doesn't land in the top 25%, I'd be slightly surprised. If somehow slips out of it because there, to be fair, a lot of quality schools in Thailand, then you'd have to concede the whole "floater" thing, although not for the reasons you mentioned (carving a niche and being "relatively obscure").

By your own categorization, there are some slam-dunk T1 schools in Thailand. At a few of these schools, I'd be earning near or above $100,000/year. At others, I'd be earning close to what I'll be making. And there are a few schools that really make it hard to find the T1/T2 cutoff (or to keep it at 5% of schools). Beyond that, you'd have a REALLY hard time drawing the line between T2/T3 without either: blowing your whole 75%-of-schools-belong-in-T3 model, warping the data by lumping in every language school, private school, and public school with an English-language track, or laughably shoehorning some excellent schools into T3.

If you take that last route, your entire system breaks down. Just Bangkok alone is going to give you a classification nightmare (https://www.thethailandlife.com/interna ... ls-bangkok). You're going to have scores of schools in your T3 that violate all your characteristics, by shoving in rightful T2s due to their being:

- private nonprofits
- advertised via selective agencies (like ISS)
- westernized (actually one of your T1 traits)
- college preparatory (actually one of your T1 traits)
- similar to western private schools (actually one of your T1 traits)
- with compensation/infrastructure/curriculum/administration comparable to the T2s

At the same time, you'd then misplace these schools into a tier defined by traits they don't have:

- for-profit
- either paying well "because the only reason someone would work there is the money" or not paying well
- unsafe
- likely in Africa or the ME (strange, because earlier you write that: "Tier status is only comparable to other schools within a region. Local economies, costs of living, cultural differences make global comparisons unhelpful.")

So what's it going to be? 75% of schools in Thailand are "bottom tier," or your model doesn't really work that well?

Feel free to go through that list (https://www.thethailandlife.com/interna ... ls-bangkok) and tell me which schools there are T3. Or, go through all of Thailand and rank (Wikipedia lists 166 ISs in Thailand as of 2016). I think you'll see your tiering system is a bit of a joke if you're trying to structure it in some "top 5%/top 25%/bottom 75%" fashion.

PsyGuy wrote:

> 50 free meals is costing the IS about USD$5, you know Ill be generous
> USD$10, USD$10 thats USD$.50/meal or about RMB¥3-4 per meal, thats the
> counter cost and value, what its actually costing the IS in actual food and
> labor costs, its pennies. IS USD$10 worth USD$10 sure, its a convenience.
> Chinese breakfast is usually congee which is a rice based cream of wheat.
> Me Id rather stop at my local bakery for a pastry and a bottle of iced
> coffee. I will absolutely spend more, and Im happy with that, but Im
> calling a trivial convenience benefit what it is, a trivial benefit thats
> a minor convenience.

Still not buying the math, but fair enough. If I'm offered a free breakfast and lunch, I know I'd otherwise have to spend at least $3/day on that, in addition to the time (shopping, making a sandwich, etc.). To me, that matters. Even if I know I'll probably stop at that local bakery or coffee shop some days (if I have time, and if there's one nearby), it's a nice benefit...for me. It's low on the list of things to look at, but it's not "trivial." The convenience factor is real for my day-to-day quality of life, and small amounts add up--they're a major driver influencing whether I saved that extra $1,000-$2,000/year.

But to each their own. Let's just agree that it's not HIGH on the list of benefits.

> Well the so what is when they sell minor convenience benefits theyre propping up their benefits because the other
> benefits arent very good or very strong. [...] Penny wise and pound foolish, I guess if an IS makes enough conveniences for > you youll overlook the other benefits and comp that matters.

This is an eye-roller. On the extreme end of the spectrum, maybe this makes sense. Maybe you're offered a job at Elite International Bangkok and they tell you "we'll pay you $110,000, any other questions?" They assume that all the little $2 breakfasts are irrelevant compared to the competition. But real decisions aren't usually $110,000 vs. $30,000. They're $42,000 + apples vs. $39,500 + oranges. And if you're a real person (I like to think I am), you try to envision how the job, the housing, and your day-to-day life will unfold. That includes the big ticket items (salary, taxes, housing, travel/moving), the nature of the position (as best as you can envision it), and what you call the "minor convenience" benefits.

And I don't fault any school for "propping up" their benefits. They're recruiting. You don't recruit successfully by not mentioning benefits. Even if they're small, maybe they'll make the difference if the teacher is comparing similar offers. Or maybe the teacher will be turned off if you're Elite International and just mention a big salary and housing allowance, and then expect that the teacher isn't going to care about anything else.

Maybe I'm just not a robot, and my data set is more expansive than yours. If I'm going to live and work somewhere for 2+, I want to know how my life is going to be: from when/where I wake up, to how I'm getting to school (and how long it takes), to what I'm doing about meals, to when I go home. That can make a difference for me when comparing SIMILAR offers. It's not penny wise pound foolish. In fact, I'd argue that taking a slightly higher offer without accounting for these things can be more than a lifestyle mistake--it can be a financial mistake, too.

> So your IS wont pick you up unless its convenient for someone or you pay
> out of your relocation, and this IS is a tier 2 IS? Okay.

Umm...

For starters, I didn't accept that offer.

Second, that's a really harsh spin on the airport pickup. Them saying "we ask that you schedule your arrival between 8 a.m. and midnight if you'd like the pickup. But if you find a better deal, you can always book it and then just take a taxi," is reasonable. Considering they offered a FLAT relocation allowance ($1,000 for me to use however I want), I'm not viewing the OPTION of an airport pickup in a negative light. If I found a $200 cheaper flight that got me in at 3 a.m., I could pocket the difference and pay for a taxi out of that.

Third, yes, it's a T2. Confirmed. I mean, the tiers aren't subjective, right? :)

--
I agree with you on just about everything else you wrote. Good points.

PsyGuy wrote:

> Well the public forum used to be like that, then the ISs self trashed their
> own names and their lawyers came knocking and the deal worked out is the
> trash talk would go behind a paywall as then its not a public forum but a
> members only forum.

That makes me feel a little better about the folks running this site, but it's still disconcerting. Why not put up a $0 paywall/registration system? At minimum, I'd like to know the schools who called in the lawyers. Name and shame can sometimes be a good thing.

I largely agree with the rest of what you wrote. Sad to see that the "communicative and helpful" routine might be less about genuine placement and more of a larger bait and switch scheme. I did get the sense that some of the other vacancies were really just bait, and the opaque postings were always a red flag. But I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt about the one they contacted me about given the time frame. I told them I had two offers on the table, didn't see any way they'd be able to "process" everything / interview me / make me an offer by the time I had to decide between the other two offers, and they still went ahead and spent an hour interviewing me. Maybe it was a slow week.

@PsyGuy:

Surprisingly, I agree with most of what you wrote.

You're still obstinately myopic about the "tiers." Sure, they exist...in people's minds. There is scant quantitative data on which schools are more elite. You can opine all you want about the length of lines at fairs, or come up with indirect metrics like university placement, tuition, etc. It's all just the collectivization of individual opinions in the end. And there isn't even really a survey to aggregate those opinions, anyway.

> You can
> think your IS is a tier 2 IS, even a high tier 2 IS, (it probably isnt)
> but ITs with a given IS tend to stroke their own egos by over praising and
> evaluating there own IS.

OK, whatever. The only reasons I'm not labeling it a "tier 1" are that it isn't as old as some of the big names and has a higher percentage of domestic (highly affluent) students than some of the downtown T1s. It's an outlier, just like me. If we were discussing it privately, you'd probably admit that you don't know much about it, then you'd take a moment to research it, and you'd either agree it's a hard-to-classify T2 or you'd be your typical, feces-throwing grump. Then I'd just laugh at you.

> Because SA is valuable, thats why we value them, they are the general
> market of premium agencies.

Fair enough. I guess I follow a bit of a moral imperative when it comes to these things. There's a limit to how much I'm willing to be treated like a commodity, how (un)certain the value of my purchase is (read: length of service), and how little redress I'll accept.

Honestly, ITs need a come-to-Socrates moment when it comes to Search. You acknowledge that: Search mistreats ITs, makes bank, and hypocritically continues to serve schools even when it's apparent they're not (i.e. ITs get blacklisted for running, schools face no consequences for violating contracts). Tellingly, you acknowledge that they aren't "executive recruiters" and "don't help much," which goes directly against what they're selling ITs. You're getting access to this "senior associate" who's there to guide you through blah blah blah. We all know it's nonsense.

> Yes thats their logic, and the USD$225
> that ITs pay is really just a gate keeper to keep their applications system
> from being flooded with low quality applicants, it barely covers the
> associates costs of maintaining and servicing the ITs file.

That's nonsense and you know it. $225 for what? Taking 5 minutes to process a candidate's file? How many Search candidates are there in a given year? 500? 1,000? 2,000? Do you really want to argue that they need a quarter million bucks a year to "maintain and service" the files? You can just as effective gatekeep at $75. Search gets away with this 1) because they window-dress as an "executive search" agency; 2) recruiters enable them by associating with Search to the detriment of ITs.

> The placement
> costs or placement invoicing thats where the the real coin is for the
> recruiter (there isnt a percentage commission fee structure, thats ISS
> Managed consulting and services), but yeah thats how business works,

Agreed. Hence the major objection to the $225 fee.

> you know if you hate it so much and its such a terrible model you can always
> start up your own shop, theres a number of collaboratives going on that are
> doing just that. If you dont like the service vote with your bank account,
> dont buy the service.

That's a great idea. Want to join me in the crusade?

Seriously, though. I signed a two-year contract. We'll see how I like it. If, ~14 months from now, my family and I decide we're in it for the longer term, I'll target T1 schools and really get involved in this fight. I'll be at the tip of the spear of the collaboratives, etc. I'll make it my mission to erode Search's image and help promote something else to take its place. It's not about whether Search is a "ministry" or a "charity," it's about whether or not it's gained an unhealthy market share in the industry and whether or not its practices are good for ITs.

It's easy enough to say "don't buy the service," but as you've rightly pointed out, there are other factors forcing ITs' hands...

> The job fairs would go away in the beating of a hummingbirds wing, IF the
> leadership and recruiters for ISs wanted that to happen, but they like
> those tripe and the experience and they benefit more from the fast paced
> time restricted experience than ITs do.

Agreed.

So, the pressure needs to build until it reaches the recruiters. That means pressure from ITs, exposure or Search, and promotion of healthier alternatives. The collaboratives seem like a good transitional solution. Technology will help, too: more open-source job databases and recruiters willing to rely on Skype instead of deferring to whatever warm bodies fly to a fair to meet them. And I'm sure (at least one of) Search and ISS will survive in some form, but hopefully they'll be forced to adapt.

PsyGuy wrote:
> Not interested in stroking members egos.

Well, that much was obvious within five minutes of discovering these forums. But it's more than that. There's a bizarre blend of helpfulness and malice in you. Just because *you* think there's something better out there in the world doesn't mean you have to be so nasty, totalizing, and hyperbolic. Does it bring you joy? Do you think it gets your message across?

> Fit isnt the biggest issue, because you have no idea what the fit is going
> to be and youre not going too until three months maybe less maybe more into
> the contract. Youre entire bases of determining your organizational
> relationship is based on speculation and leaderships ability to fake being
> human during an interview.

*to
*your

Aside from that, point taken. I still maintain that it's the biggest issue, but I'll grant that it's difficult to get an accurate idea from thousands of miles away. Again with the hyperbole here: "you have no idea what the fit is going to be." C'mon, guy. You can get *some* idea. You can identify some red flags (i.e. if there's a policy that's not going to make you happy or if they don't "fake being human" well enough). You can speak with other ITs there and gain some limited perspective. You can get a picture as to your expected course load and duties. And you can follow up on all that by external research into the school/director and their reputations (i.e. find more red flags if they've deceived ITs in the past).

So if you want to knock "fit" down the list simply because you can't get *enough* clarity, fine. That's a contingent or probabilistic call, not an absolute one.

> Again, the free tuition/place waivers are the smallest ask at an IS thats a
> local academy thats not at capacity.

It's still an ask. You know darn well that a huge percentage of schools offer either a % discount on tuition and/or cap the free tuition at one per teacher.

> The free meals are a convenience, and they arent going to amount more than
> a handful of change a month, its nice, but when an IS has to highlight
> little conveniences of almost zero value, they are doing nothing more than
> trying to sell you.

I guess we have different interpretations of "almost zero value." For me, 10 free meals a week--including breakfast for this notorious bad morning person--have tremendous $ and convenience value. And I don't have 4 other people in my family. I can't, with a straight face, define 50 free meals a week as "almost no value."

Yeah, everything positive a school highlights is something they're using as a selling point. So what? The Chinese school that made me an offer spent more than a minute explaining the airport pickup system, the hours they prefer I arrive, etc. Sure, I could pay for a taxi (out of my flat relocation allowance). Sure, maybe it's only $20-$30 to me, and very little expense to them. But it's money, and it's a major convenience for someone arriving after a 20-hour flight with no understanding of the language.

> I assumed the relocation allowance as the visa support and the settling in
> allowance and that had there been a shipping allowance you would have
> mentioned it. The settling in allowance is some modest pocket change. Its
> not going to go very far for a family of 5.

Again, we disagree. But unlike your (re)definition of "almost zero value," this is an easy one to address. If you get a settling-in allowance, whether it's $500 or $1,000 or $2,000, that's money in the bank. You're going to use much of it anyway. You might want to ship some things, and going to need linens, household items, etc. If someone offers me $500 to help with my move, I don't get metaphysical and ponder how "far" $500 goes. $500 is $500.

Another element of this, however, is (especially if there is no settling-in allowance) pushing them on the flights. Will they pay for excess baggage? Is there a cap? I'm fortunate enough to be getting a ~$1,000 settling-in allowance, but I'm *still* asking about baggage. If they say no, so be it.

> The visa support will be whatever it is, the IS believes they can get you
> visas and thats all that really matters from their perspective. Youll pay
> for the visas when you get them and hopefully they pay you back hen you
> land or shortly after.

Meh...ok. Whatever. I'd prefer more clarity on how it'll work with them, what they're going on their end, what the 5000rmb can be used for, etc. But OK.

>The main issue is if they ask you to come on a
> tourist visa for some reason they give.

Agreed. But I'm not smelling that issue here, given the numbers.

IntHopeful wrote:
> (copied from members forum editing out school names/identifying info)

This whole dance about censoring the names of schools here is just laughable. I get that the site wants to earn some coin, and I'd gladly contribute via Patreon if I thought it was worthwhile, but the fig leaf is really showing. If the site truly is committed to improving the IS community and making sure prospective teachers don't get blindsided by bad schools/directors, then the information needs to there, not hidden behind a paywall.

> Hello,
>
> I am looking at offers from the following schools. I am more concerned
> about which position will open more future doors, than I am which one gives
> a 10% (or whatever) better standard of living at the moment. Both provide
> health insurance, I believe only the second provides free lunch. Both
> provide a legal work visa, it's not clear to me if "cover" means
> assist with or actually pay for the costs (I will be following up on this).
>...
>
> Thoughts?

Congratulations on the offers!

As usual, PsyGuy takes your joy and pulls a Debbie Downer, so you can ignore his overall assessment (although some of his internal - is still worth considering). He (and others) are right that these are fairly low-paying, and that you might want to consider holding out. But it's all about your risk tolerance. If you think these are good schools that can open doors, then turning them down might be difficult. I think you're getting these lower offers in part because you opened that door yourself (see #2 below), and it might be a challenge to dig out from that.

Also, bear in mind that you're probably a really tough sell for most established ISs due to your lack of experience. This is a point some of the criticisms of the offer seem to gloss over. You'll see this in job postings and from major agencies: schools strongly prefer teachers with 2+ years experience. On another level, you'll see schools expressly indicating that they want x# years INTERNATIONAL experience. Plus your non-related degree (and presumably just a bachelor's?) are making you less marketable (and keeping you at the bottom of the scale).

A few thoughts:

1. It's impossible to get at the root of your question ("which position will open more future doors") with school names (and therefore reputations) withheld. If you get diverse enough feedback in the Executive Washroom (members area), trust it.

2. I'm struck by something you wrote in a response: "I didn't know how much difficulty I would have finding a job, so with the recruiting agency I signed up with I listed my min. acceptable salary as $2500/mo. Maybe I should have gone higher? (agency is only for China)." I have a suspicion who the agency is, and you need to be careful. Some of these agencies are really good at going out and find you *A* job, but they're going to prey on your desperation. They're incentivized to place you at the lower-paying schools, because those jobs are harder to fill with qualified candidates. So they're going to press you on that minimum acceptable salary. You'll see higher-paying jobs listed on their databases (and maybe they actually exist), but you're going to have a hard time getting them to forward your application for those jobs if you've indicated a willingness to work for $2,500/mo.

In my experience this year, as an unusual candidate with lots of credentials but no IS experience, I dealt with one of these agencies during a "lull" in my search process. They were very good at communicating, which I appreciated, but I could feel that downward tug. I'd get, "Are you willing to take a [insert low salary] job to get your foot in the door?" I knew I was going to have a hard time getting my previous salary, and like you I worried that I would have difficulty finding a job, so I tried to walk the line. I told them I'm willing to consider lower-paying jobs, that I get I'm starting fresh, but I'd be unlikely to accept a bottom-of-the-scale job at a low-paying school. I tried to keep the conversation productive, pointing out the types of jobs on their site that I would be interested in. And I kept thanking them for doing all this work on the front-end, even though it was becoming obvious they were just trying to butter me up for a worse job. Ultimately, they shut me down. They told me, given my background, there wasn't anything for me right now unless I'm willing to take less, but that they wanted to know if they could touch base with me later in the search. I said sure, even though I again knew what that meant: they were probably trying to get rid of me in the short term, but if things didn't work out for me and they could get me on the cheap, we'd touch base again. Sounds like some relationships in my past. :) I also framed my "sure" by indicating that I'd be happy to hear from them if jobs like [I listed examples from their site] came up that they thought I might be a good fit for.

Shockingly, they wrote back a few days later. A job had just been posted that would pay well, was with a good school, and it was unusual (just like me). It involved a very specialized part-time administrative need (something I have as much experience with as anyone in IE), with other duties assigned based on skills (presumably I'd teach a few classes in my area, or they'd find something else to make me "full time." I ultimately never got to pursue that position, because I had two other offers on the table (which I got through ISS, not the other agency) and had to make a decision.

My point is that you have to crafty with some of these other agencies. Don't get pinned down by worst-case scenarios, or they'll prey on that.

3. Other posters have pointed out a lot of the ambiguity in these offers. You need to get answers about them before making a decision: what will you be teaching at School 1, what are your tax liabilities (both schools), the length of the contract (make sure that "completion bonus" isn't really just your summer pay), etc. Also, get clarity on things you didn't mention: shipping/settling in allowances, medical, professional development funds.

4. One thing that jumps out at me is the brutal schedule of School 2, even though you (perhaps fairly) note that it's "friendlier" (fewer contact hours). 7:50-4:30 is a pretty long work day for a teacher. I'm unclear if the "leave at 3:30" provision applies to 2 days each week, each semester, or each year. I had an offer from a good Chinese school and their policy was that I could take "leave" "to handle your personal matters" (come in late or leave early) twice per semester, with advance permission, as long as it didn't conflict with a scheduled class. I sort of laughed at that (not out loud), given that I come from a background in higher education where people usually don't hang out on campus all day (they're there for classes, scheduled office hours, meetings, etc., and that's it). Still, it was nice to know they officially recognized a right to come in late or leave early on occasion.

Anyway, I've ranted enough. It's good that you have offers to consider. Just make sure you aren't being exploited. Yeah, you're going to have to start low, given your background. But you still need to protect yourself.

PsyGuy wrote:
> I'll start with the easy question: the premium agencies are 1)
> International School Services (ISS) and 2) Search Associates (Search or
> SA). ISS is smaller and only handles ISS schools (even if all they are
> providing a school is Recruiting Services) ISS has the "better"
> schools, as they have a higher bar/standard on what schools they will
> represent. Search has a much larger database (almost a 1,000 schools
> compared to ISS's 150), as they accept pretty much all of the tier 1 and
> tier 2 schools (and some of the tier 3 schools), so they have more
> opportunities available (although you have to tolerate all the job
> vacancies coming out of schools in the middle east, which never seem to
> end). ISS also has higher standards for what teachers they will accept,
> generally ISS doesnt accept teachers who arent currently employed. ISS
> works a little more personally to help you find a job, where Search
> recruiters may or may not do anything for you. Cost is also an issue.
> Search is $200 for three years of database access, and one free fair
> (additional fairs are $50 each). ISS is $185 for two years (2 seasons, it
> use to be one year), and the conference fee is $290 (which covers all
> conferences, but most people cant afford to go to more then 1 a year
> anyway). I'm a member of Search, and use to be a member of ISS. The really
> elite schools list with both companies, and the big fairs for each agency
> kind of run back to back of one another (the Big fairs for Each are the
> Cambridge/Boston fair, and the Bangkok fair).

I've been following these boards a long time, and I think this is a typical example of PsyGuy being extremely helpful with 75% of his contributions, opinionated (and often highly questionable) with 20%, and factually wrong with 5%.

I agree with a lot of your contributions (and those of Thames) in this thread, particularly about the subjectivity of "tiers" and how there are plenty of outliers in terms of teacher hiring. As someone with zero international experience, an in-progress online certification, and (if you're going with a very narrow interpretation) zero K-12 teaching experience, I landed a sweet position at what you'd probably label a high Tier 2. Just like candidates, schools are unique. I've got a CV that makes most Tier 1s view me as an unnecessary (and unnecessarily expensive) risk. But then a school comes along with a university connection and a lot of cross-over faculty and find a good fit. In the past you've been rather hyperbolic about "trash" fairs and the types of jobs that are available at certain times of the year, which I think also should be subjected to the "there are plenty of outliers" logic.

Where I really disagree with is how a lot of folks (you included) value Search Associates.

For starters, ISS is $75 for one year (not sure where you're getting your figures, or maybe if they have different pricing for non-U.S. members), and the fairs are free with membership. In fact, ISS also has partnerships with other organizations (e.g., AASSA) and will let you attend fairs for free even if you're not a member in some cases.

Search isn't just $200. It's $200 for a membership that apparently terminates as soon as you're hired, whether through their help or not. That's just laughable. The idea of TEACHERS paying $200 (and shouldering thousands in fair-related costs) to a company that ignores them, then takes a lucrative placement free from schools, is bad enough to begin with. To then cut off the paid-for service simply because someone takes a job is insulting. By Search's logic, it's fine that a teacher who doesn't get placed and then takes a last-minute language academy job in Asia for $12,000/year should pay them 2% of their gross income for three years of service, which is then cancelled...and they should then pay again for the following year?

I also disagree with your description that ISS handles only "ISS schools" (though that's largely semantics), and would quibble with your - that ISS has "higher standards for what teachers" they'll accept. I spoke with plenty of people at the ISS fair who had no problem signing up, but were "rejected" (or just ignored) by Search. Search has told folks that the schools they represent "require 2 years of international experience" (which simply isn't true). As you rightly point out, Search will work with a lot of lower-tier schools. And they have shown a disturbing trend (see some of the threads on this site) of blackballing teachers based on highly questionable claims from administrators, then providing no explanation/transparency/redress.

Anyway, /rant. I'm hopeful that the recruiting process is beginning major change, that things like the recruitment collaborative will squeeze out the old players (or force them to reform), that online platforms will make costly job fairs less important, etc.

Congratulations! And thanks for sharing the experience.

I can't imagine how grueling it must be with the extra variable of a teaching spouse. I'm glad things worked out for you. That said, it seems like a massive expense and very little assistance from the folks at Search Associates. Not shocking.

I'm with wrldtrvlr123. It seems like a very good offer. PsyGuy, as usual, makes some excellent points and then still manages to Debbie Downer it.

The biggest thing here is fit. Are you going to be happy there: with the school, departments, teaching load, city, culture? You managed to land 2 well-paying jobs, a larger-than-the-average-teacher housing deal, and 3 free tuitions. Even if I'm not looking at the numbers at all, that's a very good foundation.

Here's a few things that jump out at me:
1. You didn't mention healthcare / insurance. That's huge, especially with 3 kids.
2. The salaries seem strong. I agree with PsyGuy's assessment here: your husband's offer is particularly good, although from a purely numbers perspective I'm sure you could earn more elsewhere. But that's far less important than the overall offer for the whole family.
3. I disagree with PsyGuy on the free meals. He's entitled to his perspective, but it's not mere "pennies" to the person getting the free meals (maybe it is to the cafeteria). I recently turned down a job with free meals (it was a very close call, overall), and I just kept coming back to those convenience points. Just knowing that every weekday I can get a (hopefully) healthy breakfast and lunch makes a significant financial and convenience difference in my life. But to each their own.
4. The settling-in allowance is really weak. Is there a shipping allowance you didn't mention?
5. The "visa assistance" figure you provided raises some questions. How helpful are they going to be in facilitating the process? The Chinese school I turned down seemed on-the-ball from an HR perspective, which meant a lot. Yes, it was nice to know that I could pay to have someone handle the paper-shuffling stateside, but school-based support is a big deal (especially if you don't have a lot of experience in the country).
6. Yes, look into the taxes.

Most importantly, congrats on your offer!