I guess my argument is this.

If non-profit schools with good packages and high teacher retention rates are tier 1... and for-profit schools are tier 3...

Then about 99% of the schools outside of Europe are tier 1 or 3. What would be the point of having a 3 tier labeling if there are nearly no tier 2 schools.

The package seems Tier 1 to me, it pays way more than KIS, SIS, Dwight, Dulwich, Busan IS, and is competitive with Seoul Foreign School. so my guess is the second best package in Korea(atleast for newer teachers). The location is probably tier 3 at the moment... 40 minutes to the nearest supermarket seems awful, and the package isn't good enough to still be good if you buy a car(unless you are in it for the long haul) but chances are that will be fixed. Sounds tier 2 to me on its way to upper tier 2 to me.

I don't agree with classifying everything that is for profit as tier 3.. Most non-European countries would only have a couple non-tier 3 schools. If the package is tier 1, a school shouldn't be considered worse than tier 2.

Peter Kenny(the director) called Branksome Hall a tier 1 school at his talk to all the people at the job fair. Seems a bit fishy to me considering they didn't have half the jobs they have listed online on schrole and seemed really only interested in finding people to be interns/dorm supervisors. That said, I heard the guy from Seoul Foreign School go, "yeah, we are just interested in finding a Chinese teacher, the other spots are already taken) while the board behind him had 15+ positions listed. Think he was just taking peoples' CV and telling them "I will let you later if I want to do an interview".