I think with pay, location and the school, @MartElla, is hitting the three most important things most ITs are looking for.
And with ITs spending at least 8 hours per day at school, I definitely would consider the quality of the school just as carefully as location, or even more so. If you've worked at both a very good school and at a very bad one, you know there can be quite a difference.
Of course you can rank it a lot lower –everyone has different priorities–, but it's an important factor for a lot of ITs and for good reason.
Location, Location, Location!
-
Thames Pirate
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:06 am
Re: Location, Location, Location!
Well, the "who pays best for the region and doesn't suck" has been done to death. We all know that if you are at ISB, WAB, Aramco, etc. you are going to do well. We all know that people love AIS Dhaka, but that Bangladesh makes people hesitate. We all know that if you prefer WE, AS London and Frankfurt IS as well as schools in Switzerland are the money schools. We all know that it's easier to travel from a place like Kuala Lumpur than from Xian or from Nairobi than Gaborone. I think MartElla's phrasing was what caused us to balk.
MartElla wrote:
> Ideal situation = tier 1 package, cheap country.
Yes, if nothing else matters, great--it would be lovely if London could be cheap!
>
> Savings = Gold
Again, phrasing: Savings is not the same as making good money for what you want. Again, you can't save much in London compared to many places, but you can save some. But you can make decent money in London--enough to live the life you want. Sure, it's nice to save, but for many of us that is nowhere near the top priority; we are willing to sacrifice savings for quality of life.
> Quality of school = Gold
I fully agree, but of course the schools generally cited as top tier are often pretty crummy places to work! This is often an underrated category. But of course, places listed as top tier are often based on money, not quality of life, so they stay on the list while other schools that are absolute gems but don't pay as well never even get considered.
> Travel Opportunities = Gold
Again, phrasing: I would say "quality of life" is what is meant here. For MartElla that means travel, and I don't disagree. But I know a teacher in London for whom travel is great, but it is secondary to the fact that she can go to the theatre regularly and has access to art museums, musical events, and the like. You actually have to live in a city--any place with a decent airport can be a base for travel, and local travel is underrated even in "known" places. So quality of life is a broader category than just "travel opportunities."
> There's not many gold ticket appointments in the world. It's where you can
> save money, enjoy your work and enjoy great travel opportunities.
>
> Start the list.
A gold ticket appointment is one that checks all of that person's boxes. For example, Shanghai American is a gold ticket for many and certainly based on this list--but I would probably be miserable there. Meanwhile where I am would check two of these boxes, but not all--and for me it is perfect.
There is nothing with starting such a list, but it's been done. It's also heavily subjective. There are so many quality of life issues. The OP asked about commutes to school and airport, for example. I can guarantee I would research these factors before moving to any city. Air quality and the ability to be outdoors is a big one for me as well. I am (surprise!) very outspoken, so any place where I would have to be careful about expressing social/political commentary is not for us--hubby is more vocal than I am. We will take the ability to express ourselves over savings.
I don't object to MartElla's criteria; I just find that a) it's been done, and b) it's hers, not everyone's. That's all.
MartElla wrote:
> Ideal situation = tier 1 package, cheap country.
Yes, if nothing else matters, great--it would be lovely if London could be cheap!
>
> Savings = Gold
Again, phrasing: Savings is not the same as making good money for what you want. Again, you can't save much in London compared to many places, but you can save some. But you can make decent money in London--enough to live the life you want. Sure, it's nice to save, but for many of us that is nowhere near the top priority; we are willing to sacrifice savings for quality of life.
> Quality of school = Gold
I fully agree, but of course the schools generally cited as top tier are often pretty crummy places to work! This is often an underrated category. But of course, places listed as top tier are often based on money, not quality of life, so they stay on the list while other schools that are absolute gems but don't pay as well never even get considered.
> Travel Opportunities = Gold
Again, phrasing: I would say "quality of life" is what is meant here. For MartElla that means travel, and I don't disagree. But I know a teacher in London for whom travel is great, but it is secondary to the fact that she can go to the theatre regularly and has access to art museums, musical events, and the like. You actually have to live in a city--any place with a decent airport can be a base for travel, and local travel is underrated even in "known" places. So quality of life is a broader category than just "travel opportunities."
> There's not many gold ticket appointments in the world. It's where you can
> save money, enjoy your work and enjoy great travel opportunities.
>
> Start the list.
A gold ticket appointment is one that checks all of that person's boxes. For example, Shanghai American is a gold ticket for many and certainly based on this list--but I would probably be miserable there. Meanwhile where I am would check two of these boxes, but not all--and for me it is perfect.
There is nothing with starting such a list, but it's been done. It's also heavily subjective. There are so many quality of life issues. The OP asked about commutes to school and airport, for example. I can guarantee I would research these factors before moving to any city. Air quality and the ability to be outdoors is a big one for me as well. I am (surprise!) very outspoken, so any place where I would have to be careful about expressing social/political commentary is not for us--hubby is more vocal than I am. We will take the ability to express ourselves over savings.
I don't object to MartElla's criteria; I just find that a) it's been done, and b) it's hers, not everyone's. That's all.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Location, Location, Location!
I agree @Thames Pirate, I was merely responding to PsyGuy saying 'Good school lunch + good uniform + good textbook' is the same as 'Good school + good location + good pay', whereas those last three are what most are looking for, as well as his notion that the quality of a school doesn't matter much, while for a lot it's just as important as location, or more so.
Reply
@Heliotrope
8 hours a day in an IS is 16 hours a day NOT in an IS thus hy the location is more important than the IS, and not more so.
Yes, and if youve lived in a hardship location vs. a desirable location you know there can be quit a difference.
@Thames Pirate
Its very difficult to live in london and save anything.
ISs at the top, elite level are not "crummy". Its underrated because its not accurate.
They dont get considered because they arent gems.
8 hours a day in an IS is 16 hours a day NOT in an IS thus hy the location is more important than the IS, and not more so.
Yes, and if youve lived in a hardship location vs. a desirable location you know there can be quit a difference.
@Thames Pirate
Its very difficult to live in london and save anything.
ISs at the top, elite level are not "crummy". Its underrated because its not accurate.
They dont get considered because they arent gems.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Reply
Another 8 hours is sleep (and I can tell you from experience that you can sleep just as well in a hardship location as you can in desirable location), then there's showering, getting (un)dressed, brushing your teeth, having breakfast, commuting to school, commuting from school, cooking dinner, eating dinner, typing replies on ISR, going to the toilet, etc.
During the week, there's very little time to enjoy the city you're in, apart from the occasional dinner out, and even hardship locations have good restaurants.
Still leaves you with the weekend of course, which is why location is not unimportant to me.
I've lived in both hardship locations and desirable locations. I've never been bored in either.
But I have been less than happy in a bad school, and very happy in good schools.
But this is something we really don't have to agree on. Everybody has their own ranking of priorities. For you location is more important, for me the school is just as important, if not more.
During the week, there's very little time to enjoy the city you're in, apart from the occasional dinner out, and even hardship locations have good restaurants.
Still leaves you with the weekend of course, which is why location is not unimportant to me.
I've lived in both hardship locations and desirable locations. I've never been bored in either.
But I have been less than happy in a bad school, and very happy in good schools.
But this is something we really don't have to agree on. Everybody has their own ranking of priorities. For you location is more important, for me the school is just as important, if not more.
-
Thames Pirate
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:06 am
Re: Reply
> Its very difficult to live in london and save anything.
For many ITs, sure. But that's just it--that's why "savings" is a category that is misleading.
> ISs at the top, elite level are not "crummy". Its underrated
> because its not accurate.
ISs listed at Tier 1 are often listed based on reputation rather than quality. The oldest schools in a city have the reputation and the money and the name recognition, but they may be miserable places to work as staff get very set in their ways, opportunities for new ideas are rare, and programs get stale. These facts rarely make it to reviews because staff who have been there forever teaching the same thing have easy gigs that pay well and don't complain.
> They dont get considered because they arent gems.
They absolutely can be from a school perspective--fantastic staff, students, working conditions--but lacking in established reputations, international student body, pay, or location. Usually it's pay when it comes to discussion on these boards. Staff in places like Tegucigalpa or at smaller, less-known schools in frequently mentioned places are often very happy, but as the pay and location are not on par with the magical few schools frequently mentioned, they are not listed as "Tier 1" even for the region. Those are gems in terms of working conditions, though.
For many ITs, sure. But that's just it--that's why "savings" is a category that is misleading.
> ISs at the top, elite level are not "crummy". Its underrated
> because its not accurate.
ISs listed at Tier 1 are often listed based on reputation rather than quality. The oldest schools in a city have the reputation and the money and the name recognition, but they may be miserable places to work as staff get very set in their ways, opportunities for new ideas are rare, and programs get stale. These facts rarely make it to reviews because staff who have been there forever teaching the same thing have easy gigs that pay well and don't complain.
> They dont get considered because they arent gems.
They absolutely can be from a school perspective--fantastic staff, students, working conditions--but lacking in established reputations, international student body, pay, or location. Usually it's pay when it comes to discussion on these boards. Staff in places like Tegucigalpa or at smaller, less-known schools in frequently mentioned places are often very happy, but as the pay and location are not on par with the magical few schools frequently mentioned, they are not listed as "Tier 1" even for the region. Those are gems in terms of working conditions, though.
Re: Reply
PsyGuy wrote:
> @MartElla
>
> So your position is to label everything as good and then say its good?
> Let's try that: good torture + good abuse + good harassment = pretty good
> combination, if youre into that. Lets try something a little less
> pathological:
> Good school lunch + good uniform + good textbook = pretty good school
> opportunity. You can do this all day.
>
> Well Pilates ITs and museum fan ITs need to pay bills too, though they
> might want more time to practice those things than more coin. Nothing is
> free, ISs that have high salaries generally have high expectations that eat
> into your schedule.
You're becoming a parody of yourself here, PsyGuy. Me saying good salary leads you to "good torture".
Stop digging, dude.
> Water is also wet, comparing a quantity of something desirable always beats
> zero of that something. even the ITs getting nothing would typically not
> say no to getting something for it.
Come on...were you smoking or drinking when you wrote that? Snorting?!?
> @MartElla
>
> So your position is to label everything as good and then say its good?
> Let's try that: good torture + good abuse + good harassment = pretty good
> combination, if youre into that. Lets try something a little less
> pathological:
> Good school lunch + good uniform + good textbook = pretty good school
> opportunity. You can do this all day.
>
> Well Pilates ITs and museum fan ITs need to pay bills too, though they
> might want more time to practice those things than more coin. Nothing is
> free, ISs that have high salaries generally have high expectations that eat
> into your schedule.
You're becoming a parody of yourself here, PsyGuy. Me saying good salary leads you to "good torture".
Stop digging, dude.
> Water is also wet, comparing a quantity of something desirable always beats
> zero of that something. even the ITs getting nothing would typically not
> say no to getting something for it.
Come on...were you smoking or drinking when you wrote that? Snorting?!?
Re: Location, Location, Location!
Thames Pirate wrote:
> Well, the "who pays best for the region and doesn't suck" has been done to
> death. We all know that if you are at ISB, WAB, Aramco, etc. you are going to do
> well. We all know that people love AIS Dhaka, but that Bangladesh makes people
> hesitate. We all know that if you prefer WE, AS London and Frankfurt IS as well as
> schools in Switzerland are the money schools. We all know that it's easier to travel
> from a place like Kuala Lumpur than from Xian or from Nairobi than Gaborone. I think
> MartElla's phrasing was what caused us to balk.
I say that good school + good location + good salary is the way to go...a combination no serious poster would surely disagree with. Of course they are usually (note, USUALLY) the kind of factors that most teachers would consider important. I say that, and so you focus on my "phrasing"?
It's what the majority would agree with. Not everyone, but they are generally the main considerations.
Yes, I know there's always someone different. A moutaineer teacher for example, or apparently the Equestrian teacher demanded by the tier 1 school that PsyGuy once mentioned, but who needs to also be able to teach Aramaic to a class. We all know there are outliers.
There are some international schools that hit all three of the conditions I mention. They're tier 1, they're inundated with applications each year. On the whole, faculty there are happy.
> Well, the "who pays best for the region and doesn't suck" has been done to
> death. We all know that if you are at ISB, WAB, Aramco, etc. you are going to do
> well. We all know that people love AIS Dhaka, but that Bangladesh makes people
> hesitate. We all know that if you prefer WE, AS London and Frankfurt IS as well as
> schools in Switzerland are the money schools. We all know that it's easier to travel
> from a place like Kuala Lumpur than from Xian or from Nairobi than Gaborone. I think
> MartElla's phrasing was what caused us to balk.
I say that good school + good location + good salary is the way to go...a combination no serious poster would surely disagree with. Of course they are usually (note, USUALLY) the kind of factors that most teachers would consider important. I say that, and so you focus on my "phrasing"?
It's what the majority would agree with. Not everyone, but they are generally the main considerations.
Yes, I know there's always someone different. A moutaineer teacher for example, or apparently the Equestrian teacher demanded by the tier 1 school that PsyGuy once mentioned, but who needs to also be able to teach Aramaic to a class. We all know there are outliers.
There are some international schools that hit all three of the conditions I mention. They're tier 1, they're inundated with applications each year. On the whole, faculty there are happy.
-
Thames Pirate
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:06 am
Re: Location, Location, Location!
MartElla wrote:
> I say that good school + good location + good salary is the way to go...a combination
> no serious poster would surely disagree with.
I wouldn't say "no serious poster," but I would say most people. I agree that these are what a lot of ITs want, though of course even these are relative. I am saying that these lists are overdone and predictable (again, assuming by travel what you actually mean is quality of life). WAB, Aramco, AS London, AIS Dhaka . . . .
> It's what the majority would agree with. Not everyone, but they are generally the
> main considerations.
For most people, yes. But even these are relative.
>
> Yes, I know there's always someone different. A moutaineer teacher for example, or
> apparently the Equestrian teacher demanded by the tier 1 school that PsyGuy once
> mentioned, but who needs to also be able to teach Aramaic to a class. We all know
> there are outliers.
>
> There are some international schools that hit all three of the conditions I mention.
> They're tier 1, they're inundated with applications each year. On the whole, faculty
> there are happy.
The list that hits all three is predictable and, again, relative. It's not an outlier to say that clean air outweighs savings or that the quality of the work environment outweighs access to local travel. So even the "gold ticket" schools are relative because those three factors weigh differently with different people. So what we are really talking about is a list of schools that have high savings for the region and an excellent work environment. Then it's a matter of preferring Singapore over Frankfurt or London over Tokyo based on interests and values (access to theatres, mountains, quality public transport, ability to integrate with society, food, having a house with a yard--whatever it is that works for you and yours). How many of the schools in less-appealing locations have good savings and work environments? Lots, but they never make the lists. How many of those "top schools" have huge staff inequities, issues with admin, etc.? Also several.
The list of standard "top schools" is already out there--again and again.
But once you recognise that all three of those elements are relative, you recognise there are a LOT of "gold ticket" appointments out there. One man's gold ticket might not be another's, though, which actually means there are even more--my ticket and yours.
> I say that good school + good location + good salary is the way to go...a combination
> no serious poster would surely disagree with.
I wouldn't say "no serious poster," but I would say most people. I agree that these are what a lot of ITs want, though of course even these are relative. I am saying that these lists are overdone and predictable (again, assuming by travel what you actually mean is quality of life). WAB, Aramco, AS London, AIS Dhaka . . . .
> It's what the majority would agree with. Not everyone, but they are generally the
> main considerations.
For most people, yes. But even these are relative.
>
> Yes, I know there's always someone different. A moutaineer teacher for example, or
> apparently the Equestrian teacher demanded by the tier 1 school that PsyGuy once
> mentioned, but who needs to also be able to teach Aramaic to a class. We all know
> there are outliers.
>
> There are some international schools that hit all three of the conditions I mention.
> They're tier 1, they're inundated with applications each year. On the whole, faculty
> there are happy.
The list that hits all three is predictable and, again, relative. It's not an outlier to say that clean air outweighs savings or that the quality of the work environment outweighs access to local travel. So even the "gold ticket" schools are relative because those three factors weigh differently with different people. So what we are really talking about is a list of schools that have high savings for the region and an excellent work environment. Then it's a matter of preferring Singapore over Frankfurt or London over Tokyo based on interests and values (access to theatres, mountains, quality public transport, ability to integrate with society, food, having a house with a yard--whatever it is that works for you and yours). How many of the schools in less-appealing locations have good savings and work environments? Lots, but they never make the lists. How many of those "top schools" have huge staff inequities, issues with admin, etc.? Also several.
The list of standard "top schools" is already out there--again and again.
But once you recognise that all three of those elements are relative, you recognise there are a LOT of "gold ticket" appointments out there. One man's gold ticket might not be another's, though, which actually means there are even more--my ticket and yours.
Reply
@Heliotrope
During the week theres very little time to enjoy work, because its work. Thats why those precious hours outside of the work in the location youre in are so important, because most everything else is either maintenance or work. Being in a location that doesnt mean joy means your life is all drudgery. This is where we disagree though, you believe there is joy to be found in an IS, and ISs are just work places.
@Thames Pirate
The oldest most establish IS in the location got to be the oldest and the most established reputation by earning it, by being a great work place. Thats what allowed them to build their endowment and have the coin to pay so well. Thats how it works.
Staff get set in their ways, because once youve figured out the answer, youre done, and its time to move on to other problems and concerns. Once youve taught is ell, the idea is to continue to teach it well.
By new ideas you mean potentially bad ideas, because there is VERY, VERY little in IE or DE that hasnt already been done, and anything new is most likely going to be someones polishing of an old idea.
They absolutely are not gems. Every region has a tier 1. Your position continues the fallacy that every IS is tier 1 based on preference. Again, you can be happy and productive a tier 3 IS but its still a tier 3 IS. Its not entirely subjective, its mostly objective. Golden tickets is not a matter of preference or personal subjectivity. Whether you work well with an IS thats a golden ticket IS or not doesnt change that its a golden ticket IS, if youre not a good fit.
@MartElla
Yes, because labeling something as good doesnt make it good.
No I wrote it because its true.
During the week theres very little time to enjoy work, because its work. Thats why those precious hours outside of the work in the location youre in are so important, because most everything else is either maintenance or work. Being in a location that doesnt mean joy means your life is all drudgery. This is where we disagree though, you believe there is joy to be found in an IS, and ISs are just work places.
@Thames Pirate
The oldest most establish IS in the location got to be the oldest and the most established reputation by earning it, by being a great work place. Thats what allowed them to build their endowment and have the coin to pay so well. Thats how it works.
Staff get set in their ways, because once youve figured out the answer, youre done, and its time to move on to other problems and concerns. Once youve taught is ell, the idea is to continue to teach it well.
By new ideas you mean potentially bad ideas, because there is VERY, VERY little in IE or DE that hasnt already been done, and anything new is most likely going to be someones polishing of an old idea.
They absolutely are not gems. Every region has a tier 1. Your position continues the fallacy that every IS is tier 1 based on preference. Again, you can be happy and productive a tier 3 IS but its still a tier 3 IS. Its not entirely subjective, its mostly objective. Golden tickets is not a matter of preference or personal subjectivity. Whether you work well with an IS thats a golden ticket IS or not doesnt change that its a golden ticket IS, if youre not a good fit.
@MartElla
Yes, because labeling something as good doesnt make it good.
No I wrote it because its true.
-
Thames Pirate
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:06 am
Re: Location, Location, Location!
What worked in 1973 or 1991 or even 2001 is not what qualifies as good teaching now. Being a good place to work in 1973 does not mean somewhere is a good place to work now. Just because something is labeled good doesn't mean it is good. ;)
And no, that is not my position, but I know you like to make claims, attribute them to others, and then argue with them.
And no, that is not my position, but I know you like to make claims, attribute them to others, and then argue with them.
Reply
@Thames Pirate
Why doesnt it qualify as good teaching, because @Thames Pirate deems it so? Just more TPF.
I havent claimed that some IS in 1973 was good to work at, I was current tier 1 ISs, now in 2019.
@Thames Pirate labeling tier 1 ISs as not good doesnt make them not good.
Why doesnt it qualify as good teaching, because @Thames Pirate deems it so? Just more TPF.
I havent claimed that some IS in 1973 was good to work at, I was current tier 1 ISs, now in 2019.
@Thames Pirate labeling tier 1 ISs as not good doesnt make them not good.
-
Thames Pirate
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:06 am
Re: Location, Location, Location!
Admin, would you hire someone who did it the way they did in 1973?
Oldest, most established schools did not get their reputation for being good; they got them for being first. They have the name recognition. They also may or may not have been good at some point, but let's assume they are; they may not be now.
Oldest, most established schools did not get their reputation for being good; they got them for being first. They have the name recognition. They also may or may not have been good at some point, but let's assume they are; they may not be now.
Reply
@Thames Pirate
Yes, some of the best DTs in DODEA have and were teaching in 1973 and earlier and are exemplary DTs, the same is true for other IS, at least the ones that are still in practice.
Yes they did, they got their reputation for being good first. Bad ISs dont survive long enough to be old ISs. Everything may or may not have been good at sometime, water is also wet.
Yes, some of the best DTs in DODEA have and were teaching in 1973 and earlier and are exemplary DTs, the same is true for other IS, at least the ones that are still in practice.
Yes they did, they got their reputation for being good first. Bad ISs dont survive long enough to be old ISs. Everything may or may not have been good at sometime, water is also wet.
-
Thames Pirate
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:06 am
Re: Location, Location, Location!
Good ISs don't stay good.
Teaching with 1973 or even 2001 methods will not prepare kids for 2020 and beyond. My point is that a good IS would have teachers who adapted, are continually interested in learning, etc. Those that dialled it in awhile back and never changed are outdated. That means the school is outdated and likely full of inflexible relics who are threatened by new ideas and work to prevent their implementation--often aggressively. That is not a good work environment.
Established does not mean good by any stretch.
Teaching with 1973 or even 2001 methods will not prepare kids for 2020 and beyond. My point is that a good IS would have teachers who adapted, are continually interested in learning, etc. Those that dialled it in awhile back and never changed are outdated. That means the school is outdated and likely full of inflexible relics who are threatened by new ideas and work to prevent their implementation--often aggressively. That is not a good work environment.
Established does not mean good by any stretch.