Talent 100

[bawd]

You can hide this advertisement by registering.

Originally Posted by happyness

Hey do any of you guys on BoS go to talent 100?

I was just wondering if it's any good, and what kind of UAI it has helped achieve.

Edit: Oh and does anyone know what the fees are like?

I emailed them about the fees back when I had an interest:

$900 for the term for class and tutorial (less 10% for upfront payment for the year)
$600 for the class-only option (less 15% for upfront payment for the year)

Equates to $3600 a year if you take the class and tutorial option, and that's only for one subject.

The article on their site about UAI scaling is very literate, and if it's an example of how well the classes and tutorials will be taught I'd consider Talent 100 if I had the money.

[tichondrius]

Originally Posted by rfpchua

Hi Guys,

3. So What is Talent Tuition like?
I personally believe that Talent is very unique in its total commitment to marks maximisation. I am not going to talk about esoteric terms like 'excellence in education', or 'No 1 in tuition' or developing leadership. Purely straight and simple, our vision is just to help students score their absolute maximum marks. ....I think when you look at things in this perspective, ours becomes quite a noble aim.

I can tell you as a former high-achieving student ( I scored a UAI of 100 and I didn't make a selective school in Year 6), that the HSC is a game. After a certain level, it's a test of preparation, and knowing a few tips and tricks as much as it is a test of intelligence.

That's why at Talent 100, the central tent behind our tuition is exam relevance. If it's not in the exam and it isn't important in building some fundamental understanding, it is not taught. That's why I don't think having PHDs actually helps.

I would put any of our No 1 tutors against a PHD in an HSC exam and bet my last dollar that they would come out on top every time


Richard

Slightly off topic but you know I think this is probably the most demeaning part of our high school education system. The HSC becomes a game that people can cheat by knowing tips and tricks and knowing essentially "how to play [the game]" (probably put better as how to cheat it). The fact that a HSC "gamer" (for lack of a better word) can do better than a PhD scholar in his field of expertise is testament to how screwed up it is.

And I believe there is nothing "noble" about exploiting our broken system that rewards students whose smarts are shown only by how they figure out these tips and tricks. I suppose it's fair enough to propose that these students often do show a greater degree of comittment than others who score a lower mark but the disparity between a student who works just as hard and puts in the same amount of hours without tuition, and the guy who has it, is just too great to say that comittment matters THAT much in the higher echleons. But hey I went to tuition myself so even though this message is pretty hypocritical - the word "noble" just made me tick so I thought I'd give my 2 cents.

[H4rdc0r3]

Originally Posted by tichondrius

Slightly off topic but you know I think this is probably the most demeaning part of our high school education system. The HSC becomes a game that people can cheat by knowing tips and tricks and knowing essentially "how to play [the game]" (probably put better as how to cheat it). The fact that a HSC "gamer" (for lack of a better word) can do better than a PhD scholar in his field of expertise is testament to how screwed up it is.

And I believe there is nothing "noble" about exploiting our broken system that rewards students whose smarts are shown only by how they figure out these tips and tricks. I suppose it's fair enough to propose that these students often do show a greater degree of comittment than others who score a lower mark but the disparity between a student who works just as hard and puts in the same amount of hours without tuition, and the guy who has it, is just too great to say that comittment matters THAT much in the higher echleons. But hey I went to tuition myself so even though this message is pretty hypocritical - the word "noble" just made me tick so I thought I'd give my 2 cents.

Just because you failed the HSC!

[tichondrius]

There are many UAIs higher than 99.4 but to consider it a failure - something must be wrong with you.

[rfpchua]

Hey Tichrondius,

I appreciate your comments.

The HSC is a pretty damn good test of how you can put a lot of things together. It's not so much about just being smart, it's about effective.

Look, with all things in life, you can do things the easy way or the hard way. I personally did things the hard way - I didn't do that much tuition myself and I still got UAI of 100.00, but I figured that by how the scaling works, and worked backward from there (You can have a look at www.talent-100.com.au/resources if you are interested). Gamesmanship? Sure!

Alternatively, I would have definately gone to Tutoring, but I didn't think what was being offered could match the quality of what my school offered. However, I was keen to talk to as many 1st in the states as possible when I was in Year 12. I think that's a pretty invaluable advantage and it is hard to find. I honestly believe that Talent 100 offers the easy way for a lot students who don't want to put in the painstaking research to get the top marks (and believe me, it really is a case of the law of diminishing marginal returns for every % you try to score over 95), and would like to have the best in the state do it for them.

You've got accept something about the HSC. It's a game of sorts and the stakes are pretty high. Just like everything in life, you need to learn to get real about things. Either, you can go and try and do it all yourself, or you can leverage other people's expertise. It's the same reason, you'd pay to see a good lawyer, or a good accountant.

Also, the other way to determine entrance into universitys is also unfair. For instance, in America, SAT scores don't mean much and its all based on personal connection. "One of the questions they ask you is if you are related to someone of important historical significance. I scored pretty much full marks in my SATS and could not make it into the universities I wanted to in the US even against people in my own school with 100 points less. So you are just substituing gamesmenship from arbitrariness, which is even more unfair.

Anyways, just my two cents.

Regards,

Richard

[Rageeb]

Originally Posted by shaon0

OP?

OP = original/opening poster

[shaon0]

If anyone is thinking about going to Talent 100. I would highly recommend it.
It is very good.

[hopethisworks]

Originally Posted by rfpchua

Hey Tichrondius,

I appreciate your comments.

The HSC is a pretty damn good test of how you can put a lot of things together. It's not so much about just being smart, it's about effective.

Look, with all things in life, you can do things the easy way or the hard way. I personally did things the hard way - I didn't do that much tuition myself and I still got UAI of 100.00, but I figured that by how the scaling works, and worked backward from there (You can have a look at www.talent-100.com.au/resources if you are interested). Gamesmanship? Sure!

Alternatively, I would have definately gone to Tutoring, but I didn't think what was being offered could match the quality of what my school offered. However, I was keen to talk to as many 1st in the states as possible when I was in Year 12. I think that's a pretty invaluable advantage and it is hard to find. I honestly believe that Talent 100 offers the easy way for a lot students who don't want to put in the painstaking research to get the top marks (and believe me, it really is a case of the law of diminishing marginal returns for every % you try to score over 95), and would like to have the best in the state do it for them.

You've got accept something about the HSC. It's a game of sorts and the stakes are pretty high. Just like everything in life, you need to learn to get real about things. Either, you can go and try and do it all yourself, or you can leverage other people's expertise. It's the same reason, you'd pay to see a good lawyer, or a good accountant.

Also, the other way to determine entrance into universitys is also unfair. For instance, in America, SAT scores don't mean much and its all based on personal connection. "One of the questions they ask you is if you are related to someone of important historical significance. I scored pretty much full marks in my SATS and could not make it into the universities I wanted to in the US even against people in my own school with 100 points less. So you are just substituing gamesmenship from arbitrariness, which is even more unfair.

Anyways, just my two cents.

Regards,

Richard

Purely out of curiosity, what SAT score did you get?

[baekuai]

i havent been to talent 100 or anything but i think its overrated because just because someone who achieves a 100 UAI does not mean they will be gud at teaching students since they are not qualified

[rfpchua]

In response to both of your enquiries,

SATS.

I got 1560/1600 for SAT I and 800/800 for Writing, Maths IIC and Physics. I think the US system is biased, and subject to arbitrariness.

Top students teaching.

I completely agree with your comments. Just because someone gets 100 doesnt automatically make them a good teacher. However succesful people leave a lot of clues. There are a LOT of tips and techniques you can use to boost your marks. Nothing replaces fundamentally good teachihng, but to get your maximum mark, you need good basics AND you need to fine tune your exam techniques.

At Talent, our teachers are selected not just on their acumen, but their ability to teach and to communicate. I think it is without doubt, that if everything else was equal, someone who got 100 would teach better than someone who got 95.

And the proof is in the pudding. Talent students have been achieving exceptional scores in their school assessments because getting tutoring from the No 1 students levels the playing field. Even if you haven't done all the research yourself, if you look at our notes and pay attention in class, we pretty much tell you what is going to be in the exams. That's why we've got a student in the top 10 for sydney boys, james ruse, sydney grammar, sydney technical, st george high school and baulkum hills high school, for the subjects that they were coached.

What I'd say to you is we've nailed the art of getting high UAIs into a science, and even have our own diagnostics to predict what UAI you will get.

You can remain skeptical, but watch our results at the end of the year.

Good luck,

REgards,

Richard

[-tal-]

Originally Posted by rfpchua

Hi Guys,

My name is Richard Chua and I am the Head Education Co-ordinator for Talent 100. I've seen a lot of questions about our company, and not a lot of informed feedback so I thought it's probably responsible for me to answer some of your questions.

Anyone interested, we are offering free trials because we back ourselves and our products. Try it and find out for yourself. Anyhow, here goes:


1. Good students don't neccesarily make good tutors?
I can't agree more. Just because you are a great student doesn't make you a great teacher. But the key word is "nececsarily". However, I think its indisputable that if you are passionate and good at communicating, and you know your stuff really well, then it's more likely you're going to be able to explain things better. That is, all else equal, top-of-the state is certainly better than being 'above average'.

So the real question is are Talent tutors actually good at teaching? The first thing to note is that talent members are selectively chosen on a variety of factors such as personality, communication skills, dedication, ability to motivate and ability to teach. Outstanding Academic Ability is a pre-requisite but not a sufficient condition. In fact, there have been numerous applicants with UAIs as high as 99.95 and state rankings who have been rejected as they do not fit he mould.

The tutors we have provide an outstanding wealth on how to do well in the HSC in a subject specific way. Ask anyone who has gone to Alex Borowsky's English Course, or has seen Alex Stoyanov's Physics or Dwyer's Chemistry course and you'll see exactly what I mean. Our tutors are good, they know their stuff and they can definately help you if its HSC your talking about.

2. Another Prior or Matrix?
I don't know if this is meant to be a compliment or an insult. However, I personally don't think either of the tuition centres provide much of a value-add, i.e. I think you could get 95% of the same thing through a text book by yourself. If you're paying 5,000 for that, that's probably a waste of money. And I'm saying that with experience, I actually worked at one of them before quittingto work at my old school -Sydney Grammar School.

Basically, I felt bad for the amount of money these places were charging. True, students were improving, but basically if you force someone to study four hours of a particular subject a week, they should improve anyway. The real question is what extra value did Prior or Matrix add.

When designing the courses, I had this in mind. Our courses had to be :exceptional and results-oriented, being able students exactly how to score top marks, as well as accessible, so that students of any level are going to benefit, rather than just top students, or just weak students.

It's a continuous proccess - so we're always trying to find ways to make our courses even better.

3. So What is Talent Tuition like?
I personally believe that Talent is very unique in its total commitment to marks maximisation. I am not going to talk about esoteric terms like 'excellence in education', or 'No 1 in tuition' or developing leadership. Purely straight and simple, our vision is just to help students score their absolute maximum marks. The reason for this is fairly obvious. The course you can choose for University is entirely dependent on your UAI for non-health related fields. So getting people the highest marks is the best advantage you can give them to choose a profession of their calling. I think when you look at things in this perspective, ours becomes quite a noble aim.

I can tell you as a former high-achieving student ( I scored a UAI of 100 and I didn't make a selective school in Year 6), that the HSC is a game. After a certain level, it's a test of preparation, and knowing a few tips and tricks as much as it is a test of intelligence.

That's why at Talent 100, the central tent behind our tuition is exam relevance. If it's not in the exam and it isn't important in building some fundamental understanding, it is not taught. That's why I don't think having PHDs actually helps. But having people who came No 1 in the state in Physics, Chemistry, Maths and English really does because they can tell you specifically how to score top marks. Alex Stoyanov, who came 1st in Physics can tell you exactly how to score 8 marks out of 8 for "assess the impact on society of..." questions in HSC Physics. Since this has no sciecne, what advantage does a qualified teacher have in answering this question?

I would put any of our No 1 tutors against a PHD in an HSC exam and bet my last dollar that they would come out on top every time. In some ways, the HSC is not about knowing more, its about knowing less, or rather knowing what to know and knowing it well.

4. Results and Reputation
Whatever you may think of the approach (that its 'gamesmenlike', or minimalist), you can't argue with our results. For subjects that they were coached in, we have a student in the top 10 of sydney best schoolsin Sydney Grammar, James Ruse, Sydney Boys (2), Sydney Technical High School (2), Baulkam Hills High, Peakhurst, and St George Girls. When you consider we have about 50 students, that's pretty good.

Since its our first year, I can't give you concrete UAIs, but I'm telling all skeptics out there, to watch our results and compare them to Matrix and Prior. Be prepared for something prety big.

I'm pretty shrewd and can tell you for instance, that Matrix advertises people with state rankings that didn't even do that particular course there, e.g Sophie Liang who ranked 7th in Chemistry, didn't do Chemistry at Matrix but they advertise it nonetheless. Prior also advertises students who have very minimal contact. the real statistics are not 'how many % of our students got over 95, but how many got over 95 that would have got under 95.

I am actually going to invite some Talent students to post so you can see an insiders view.


Whose Talent for? Free Trial offer?
Basically, I'd say Talent 100 is for any student who wants a time-efficient way to make sure they score their absolute maximum marks. We can definately show you how to do it, and to 'cut the fat' out of the HSC, so you can have more time to do other things.

Our prices are quite reasonable and I think we're much better value than anything out there. I'm actually so confident in our course, I am willing to let people try it for free. Perhaps to my own disadvantage, I am not a great or pushy salesman. I just put the value on the table, and let students sample it. Basically, my advice to any prospective student is if you can't see the value, or Talent's uniqueness, you should probably not join. What I thnk is that someone who is confident is willing to back themselves, rather than lock people into commitments.

If any of you are interested, or would like to talk about anything I've said in this post, please feel free to call me on 1300-UAI-100 or on rfpchua@gmail.com. If you don't think what we offer is good, I am also really keen to see how we can improve our courses.

Regards,

Richard

oh jesus christ. and you say you're a poor salesperson? you almost had me hooked right there!

hmm just out of curiosity, how long is one class?

[shaon0]

Originally Posted by -tal-

oh jesus christ. and you say you're a poor salesperson? you almost had me hooked right there!

hmm just out of curiosity, how long is one class?

classes are between 2-2.5hours and tutorials are 1.5 hours...
I think

[gavvsy]

talent 100 is just for the students who are freaks of nature. They just go to these places to reinforce their learning. No average student you goes their will get a high UAI.

Tuition centres are pretty much designed for students who have a very good grasp of the subject and the ones that don't are usually left behind with the work.

so wat if the tutors got UAI of a 100, does that make them any better teacher than someone who gets 95, 96.

tution places that are arranged by top tutors, usually only expect the very best students to attend

... but that's my opinion

[shaon0]

Originally Posted by gavvsy

talent 100 is just for the students who are freaks of nature. They just go to these places to reinforce their learning. No average student you goes their will get a high UAI.

Tuition centres are pretty much designed for students who have a very good grasp of the subject and the ones that don't are usually left behind with the work.

so wat if the tutors got UAI of a 100, does that make them any better teacher than someone who gets 95, 96.

tution places that are arranged by top tutors, usually only expect the very best students to attend

... but that's my opinion

lol...i go to Talent 100 (and i wouldn't say i am smart), i wouldn't say most people there are of the highest calibre although some are really smart. You don't really need to have a good grasp of the knowledge since they teach ahead of the school's syllabus so not a lot of people know the content that they will learn at Talent 100 prior to being taught it there.
And the teachers and tutors are quite good, they know all the content and really know how to teach.
So in conclusion, I would say that Talent 100 caters for all students, whether they be the top of their grade or not. And i recommend Talent 100 as it will help you later on in your subjects.

[HisNameIsChris]

Originally Posted by rfpchua

Hi Guys,

My name is Richard Chua and I am the Head Education Co-ordinator for Talent 100. I thought it's probably responsible for me to answer some of your questions.

1. Good students don't neccesarily make good tutors?
I can't agree more. Just because you are a great student doesn't make you a great teacher. But the key word is "nececsarily". However, I think its indisputable that if you are passionate and good at communicating, and you know your stuff really well, then it's more likely you're going to be able to explain things better. That is, all else equal, top-of-the state is certainly better than being 'above average'.

Sorry Richard, but I couldn't help laughing a little here:
It looks a bit bad your your centre when you spell necessarily wrong twice, however I'm sure they're just typos from typing too quickly, and I'll let you go there :P

I still haven't gone for a trial lesson at this place but I am certainly looking into it - however, at the moment I am doing pretty well at school so I'm holding off till Year 12 or the end of this term before finding a tutoring centre.