Job Discussion Forums

[struelle]

OK, Klamm's post on 'push those salaries' got me going. That is, what's the optimal school a teacher can work at, given: a range of countries in Asia with different salary levels, travel experience and preferences, and the experience of the teaching itself. Put those together, and see what comes up.

So here's my crack at an economic analysis to factor in when choosing a school:

Assume that teaching gives yields three main benefits: money, enjoyment of the teaching experience, and also travel. Assume there are different preferences for each person, and assume a fixed level of satisfaction for each 'function', to make the analysis easier.

Consider first the teaching experience itself. Some teachers are in EFL for a career and expect to improve their skills and develop professionally on the job. A school then should offer solid teacher training, sound administration, regular feedback on performance reviews and more. Career EFLers likely get a lot of satisfaction from the teaching itself and helping students improve. The job is intrinsically rewarding. Other teachers maybe want to spend a year or two overseas, get experience, travel a bit, but not make it a career. The above still applies to give satisfaction, but so do other factors, namely where the school is. Someone looking for a fun year abroad may enjoy Thailand a lot more than Tokyo. Let's not forget the students too. Some students are no fun to teach for those not in EFL for a career. Maybe teenagers. Other students, such as Chinese adults, are exemplary. Rate EQ on a scale of 1-5.

Factor all that in to EQ (experience quotient).

Next up is MQ (money quotient). This one seems easy to measure. Compare all salaries relative to a currency of your choice, say US dollars, and see what school pays more money. But it's a little more complicated. Different countries pay different salary, yes. But, within a country you have regional wealth variation AND schools that pay drastically different salaries for the same type of job within a country. But to make things simple, most of the analysis is on a country level. Finally MQ is net income, not gross. Living costs take away from MQ, in other words.

I assume that MQ and EQ are independent. A school may pay a low salary but offer an enjoyable experience, say, a volunteer school in Cambodia. Others may pay big bucks, but like Wall Street, make teachers sit in offices and do admin work to fill up 40 hours a week. Not so fun, but the money's good. Or a school may pay a good salary, offer consistent professional development for the teacher, and have great students. Yes, these places do exist.

But money and experience is not everything. Teaching offers a fantastic opportunity for world travel. So, let's introduce TQ, travel quotient. I assume that TQ and MQ are *inversely* related. That is, the more money you make, the less opportunities for travel *at the current time*. This is because in countries that pay high salaries, the living costs are also higher. Not only this, but there's usually more city stress and office politics to deal with, and it is harder to get time off for travel, given the employer expects more committment. Many high MQ employers frown on travel, and restrict it. Finally, places that pay well usually are boring for travel. Once you see the sights in Shanghai, Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo etc. that's about it. On the other hand, countries with low salary like Thailand have great travel, interesting places, and low prices.

Now for the analysis. Assume 3 levels of MQ. There are countries like Thailand, Indonesia, and 'rural China' that pay very low, offer little savings. Next is middle income such as 'coastal China'. The higher countries would be Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, HK. Japan and HK may seem higher in gross income, but the high living costs eat into the net income.

Also assume a point value of 1-3 for TQ. But, for MQ>1, square the number, subtract from initial MQ, and put that remainder into the TQ slot because savings give latent travel.

TQ2 = TQ1 + (MQ^2 - MQ)

Say that school A has: MQ=1, TQ=3, EQ=5. In other words, a solid professional organization, great experience, good students and colleagues, and lots of travel throughout the contract. Not much savings, maybe a short vacation after, but a fantastic time, and great teacher development.

Say that school B has MQ=1, TQ=1, EQ=1. Only an idiot would work for a school like this. Need we mention Telford?

School C has MQ=1, TQ=1, EQ=4. Not a good choice, but someone really committed to teaching may do it.

There are 75 possiblities here, so we'd be here all night going through them all, but just a few more:

School D: MQ=2, TQ=1+2, EQ=3. Looking quite good. Notice it's the same as A, as both add up to 9. OK organization for development, money's pretty good, very little travel in the contract, but a fair chunk to look forward to after. This would sum up the school I worked at for the last 2 years. I won't name it because I know their managers read this forum.

Hello! I can see you!

School E: MQ=3, TQ=2+6, EQ=4. This would be that wonderful school in Taipei that pays great cash, offers a rewarding professional experience, and offers substantial savings for travel afterward. It may even offer travel bonuses in the job.

School F: MQ=3, TQ=3+6, EQ=5. The perfect school that doesn't exist.

From this, to maximize satisfaction in a contract, the general idea is to prioritize professional experience first then money, and forego some travel during the contract, say TQ=2. The rationale is that savings add up, then it can be used for extended travel after the contract, notice how TQ jumps.

But not everyone may agree. Some assign higher value to TQ, which is why school A may be a better choice, say a solid school in Thailand.

Hope you enjoyed this. Feel free to poke hole in this analysis, criticize it, improve it, and come up with other ways to measure the functions.

Or feel free to disregard the post if it was a waste of TQ time reading it.

Steve