I used to work at EF, and had coworkers there that had worked at Wall Street before. I thought EF's educational standards were a little on the low side, but my coworkers who had worked at Wall Street actually said Wall Street's were worse and they like EF better. All I know for sure is that EF's main focus is building its image through chic-looking centers and slick advertising campaigns. Little thought goes into academics, maybe because the people running the company are businessmen, not teachers. Just my two-cents worth.

Can you elaborate on worse? Using one comparative adjective hardly paints much of a picture. Worse in what way? And for who, the students? Teachers? Both? At which point in time were you given this information? Before Pearson took over and revamped the entire curriculum or before?

I know nothing about EF but Wall street's curriculum works well for students. Provided they stick to the study rhythm they progress and I can safely say that this is the first time I have seen such energy and drive from students. The standard Chinese factory production line of education where students are simply told everything and just memorise with no real understanding on how or why things work a certain way is not practised at WSE. Students do the work, FT's facilitate. It can become a little repetitive the FT after a while but that is where some flair and diversity helps. If you are always going to run your classes at WSE exactly by the book then you will eventually find you are living Groundhog day. If you add your own distinction to them it is a different story all together.