The International Schools Review Forum

I'm new to SA and i wondered how accurate these estimations happen to be , if at all reliable.
Example - read a review here about HKIS (I know housing is expensive in HK) where the reviewers gave high marks for salary and housing satisfaction but on SA their annual savings expectations are N/A, which I take to mean as good luck saving anything...anyone have any insight about SA info vs review info for savings potential?

Thanks!

They’re accurate for someone, I suppose.
I’ve always found that savings is more about individuals and lifestyle than salary. I have typically saved in excess of double or even triple what schools put down in Search or ISS, while working alongside colleagues who complained bitterly that they couldn’t save a penny.
You should do a self assessment as you consider what’s possible. Will you be traveling every holiday, going to champagne brunch every weekend, buying all imported food and joining the golf club, or???

They arent worth anything, except as aggregates for a region to give you an idea of the range you might expect for the regions cost of living.

First, all those IS profiles are self report, they arent researched, its just someone on leadership or even staff who is inputting the values. A lot of that is thus very subjective to the person inputting that data.

Second, its hard for whoever in leadership/staff is filling the profile out. What do they do? A first year IT might not save anything their first year or for much of their second year, since expats in a new region and culture dont have the best access to savings opportunities. In addition they have startup costs that may take them months too their full contract before they have recouped. Compared that to someone who is a local and knows where to shop, where to live (maybe has a family home) and doesnt pay the "expat tax" when they are shopping. They can probably save a lot more. Compare that to someone in leadership who has been on the ground for a while, they make higher coin to start with (just as more senior ITs on the salary scale would) they can save more because they make more and they have already gotten passed the initial costs associated with a new arrival. How does the leadership/staff who needs to reduce all the variable factors into one number do so with any accuracy that has utility. An average isnt going to describe any actual scenario.

Third, most of what is savings potential is based on the IT and their fiscal responsibility and quality of life they want. One IT might be a homebody, and single and save a significant amount of their salary. Another IT might have two kids and a spouse who needs to be entertained and might not be able to save anything at all. The average global IT salary is USD$30K. If an IS provides relocation, housing and utilities and gives you lunch every work day. Why cant you save USD$25K?. You work and go home. USD$100/wk for groceries. USD$20/mth for a basic mobile plan. Soap/Shampoo/TP/Laundry and everything else USD$80/mth. Thats USD$500/mth or USD$6K/yr that leaves USD$24K/yr. What would be wrong about an IS using a formula like that to report saving potential? Simply, one number cant account for individual differences.

Fourth, there is a marketing aspect, numbers are persuasive. Putting too low a number in that space will effect recruiting. Recruiters will lose candidates based on savings potential, and its really easy and cheap to inflate the reported savings potential. If Acme AS reports a savings potential of USD$5K and IS Genovia reports a savings potential of USD$0K, all else being equal Acme AS looks like the better IS, even if the reality is that the savings potential is somewhere around USD$1K for both of them. There is no penalty, or recourse for an IT to pursue if an IS inflates or fabricates savings potential (or anything else).

Fifth, the agencies request the ISs to update their profile yearly, but very few of them do so, unless its to present a better picture of their IS. A significant amount of the data is very outdated.