@nnoble: This school is going to teach English? What sort of criminals do you think they would prefer? Thieves or perverts?

While a school provides the opportunity and structure, teacher skills are important, the key acquiring language is the student's effort. In short, your effort is the key.

With that bit of pablum out of the way, each school has a different, for the lack of a better word, 'character.'

The best school, in my opinion, is Keats. I was never a student at Keats. However, I saw amazing progress by Keats students. Keats demands students engage and Keats demands its teacher work. If you want good results in a short time, I'd say Keats is your choice.

I studied at KCEL. It suited me. All the teachers I had were okay to good. My progress directly reflected my effort. I also hired one or two tutors on an hourly basis to augment my in class effort. I had no visa problems at KCEL. In the interest of full disclosure, I did not like the owner much but in the end he did treat me well when I had a stroke in March of 2014. He helped with the hospital and assisted my sons when they came to Kunming to bring me home.

Huayang on the other hand would not be my choice. I lived in the same compound where Huayang is located. When Huayang opened there seemed to be only students learning English. I saw very few foreign students. My impression was Huayang was off to a slow start. When Huayang was voted the best language school I was very surprised. It seemed odd a school in operation for less than 90 days, and with only a handful of students, could garner enough votes to win. Clearly a get out the vote effort had succeeded and the award had nothing to do with teaching. I tend to avoid BS situations.

Good luck.

@laotou: My interest is in the buddhadharma. The term buddhadharma is often used in the place of Buddhism when referring simply to what the Buddha taught.

I do not knowingly read or use anything by the Dalai Lama. The Tibetan form of Buddhism does not interest me.

laotou is right. In fact, slavery was legal until 1959. The DL's "government in exile" has a constitution ready to go in the highly unlikely event Tibet is split from China. One of the provisions is that all property will be returned to the former owners. Slaves are property.

My question is: How could China tolerate legal slavery in Tibet from 1949 to 1959?

Buddhism is better described as a philosophy or as a way of living one's life.

The Buddha said:

'Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.'