Why selective school kids need tutors?

[oasfree]

You can hide this advertisement by registering.

This is a question that bugged me for ages. They say that 80% or more of students at selective high schools need tutors. They needed tutors to be able to get in to these selective schools, and need tutors to survive in these schools. My own niece is spending a lot of time at tutoring places for various subjects. This costs a lot of money and time and create a lot of stress on the kid. I know it's a very complex issue and there are many factors involved, but I'd like to understand more by getting feedback from you guys who are in selective schools. The answer my niece gave me was "At coaching places, you learn 6 months in advance, so by the time the topic comes up at school, you already know it. If you don't go to coaching, it's tough when other kids already know it before you start to learn".

Let's not look at the top kids. When I was at school (in my time), I would have read 1/2 of each text book for the year within my first 4 weeks of the year. I would challenge teachers if they made any mistakes because I always knew the topics months in advance by self learning.

Does this mean that coaching places teach better than selective schools? I am not convinced about "learning ahead of schools" is all what coaching places offer. Kids can do this simply by reading textbooks months ahead. What does private coaching colleges provide that schools don't? I also heard that teachers who teach at some selective schools work for private coaching colleges. If this is true, this is conflict of interest. Schools will never teach well as the teachers will save the best for private coaching colleges.

Hope that you guys can help me to understand this issue.

[tommykins]

I received tutoring for 6-7 months with 4unit mathematics.

The only thing private colleges (i had a friend tutor me) provide is 'teaching ahead', which in my opinion if it isn't 4unit math then I would say the student is being lazy.

Subjects like chem and physics are definitely self-teachable, along with 3unit math. I haven't been to a coaching college since high school, but from memory of year 6 - they don't teach any better, they only go ahead.

I did take tutoring to get into a selective school, but I believe it was necessary for me as my primary school did not even teach fractions and General Ability so therefore i would have had no chance if i entered the selective schools test with just my primary school knowledge.

Going ahead in subjects can only do so much.

[spence]

A lot of the guys at my school were tutored for the HSC, and quite a few were tutored to get into the school. I don't understand tutoring to get into a selecive school though, as it undermines the whole point of a selective school.

[tommykins]

Originally Posted by spence

A lot of the guys at my school were tutored for the HSC, and quite a few were tutored to get into the school. I don't understand tutoring to get into a selecive school though, as it undermines the whole point of a selective school.

Refer to my post - my primary school taught nothing within the selective schools exam.

[oasfree]

Originally Posted by tommykins

Refer to my post - my primary school taught nothing within the selective schools exam.

I share this view. Primary schools struggle to cater for kids who are way behind. So smart kids are neglected. The experience that I had to teach my own kids a lot of things confirm this. Smart kids who sit among kids that perform at so low level get nothing much from teachers at a normal primary schools. It's different if teh kids are in a private school that charges 12K/year. But at a free public school in most suburbs, the kids get bored with easy stuff for many years.

Another reason offered to me that I forgot to mention is that they claim even the kids at the bottom of the pile at selective school score about 70%-80% in their tests and essays. They claim that coaching places (or tutors) give them a chance to move to 90+% level. I find this rather suspicious. It seems to say "Coaching places teach much better than selective schools teachers".

Hopefully some kids who are in selective schools right now and spend so much of their time at various coaching places can share their experience and shed light on this problem.

[whatashotbyseve]

I went to a selective high school, and I have never had a tutor in my life. Even if my parents offered me one i would have refused - it defeats the purpose, and frankly i didn't need one.

Throughout school, nearly everyone had tutors to some extent for subjects. I couldn't see the need - a textbook or website is a more than adequate substitute.

[oasfree]

Originally Posted by whatashotbyseve

Throughout school, nearly everyone had tutors to some extent for subjects. I couldn't see the need - a textbook or website is a more than adequate substitute.

But the question why! Why do they need tutors to keep up. Say if they are no good and should not be in selective school, I would expect them to be no good with or without tutors. The fact that they have tutors, pay a lot of money, lose a lot of time, suffer a lot of stress, ... to get the HSC result they want, the tutors must have a positive impact on the final results. And what does that mean about the teaching at schools? Some people just put it simply as kids learn exam tricks at tutoring places to get high score. I don't believe that at all. Others see that students pay for trial tests to get a lot of practice doing tests under pressure and to memorise as much as possible (this is is called "teach the test"). Some parents say that they send the kids to coaching places so that they have to work hard rather than playing at home or going out.

[bored.of.u]

Tutoring gets you ahead on schoolwork...IMO it leaves you time to prepare exam techniques which is equally important to success in major exams especially the HSC. It allows adequate time for thorough revision of any work that any student feels he/she has not understood well enough to recieve full marks. =D

[whatashotbyseve]

To answer your question, they don't need tutoring. In all likelihood, they don't even have a say in the matter.

[ADMIRAL]

I DIDN'T GO TO SCHOOL, BUT I SEE NO PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE TRYING TO GET AHEAD. LEAVE THE REST TO THE SHARKS I SAY! Arrrrr!

[Trebla]

Selective school kids tend to have tutors because of the competitive environment they are in. You are in a classroom full of 'smarter' students and it's important that you keep up with them.
Also, selective schools don't always have the best teachers. You seem to always assume the elite teachers are found in selective schools. This is simply not true. There are some terrible teachers out there who are found in selective schools just like in any school. The only difference between a selective and non-selective school is that there is often additional peer pressure of academic achievement and sometimes this is a reason to have a tutor.

Some coaching places do indeed teach better than many teachers at selective schools. The main reason people have tutors is to get ahead. When you learn something for the second time it becomes much easier than learning it for the first time. So when you learn it first at a tutor you won't have too much difficulty when it is covered at school and it feels as if the school reinforces the ideas.

[oasfree]

Originally Posted by Trebla

Selective school kids tend to have tutors because of the competitive environment they are in. You are in a classroom full of 'smarter' students and it's important that you keep up with them.
Also, selective schools don't always have the best teachers. You seem to always assume the elite teachers are found in selective schools. This is simply not true. There are some terrible teachers out there who are found in selective schools just like in any school. The only difference between a selective and non-selective school is that there is often additional peer pressure of academic achievement and sometimes this is a reason to have a tutor.

Some coaching places do indeed teach better than many teachers at selective schools. The main reason people have tutors is to get ahead. When you learn something for the second time it becomes much easier than learning it for the first time. So when you learn it first at a tutor you won't have too much difficulty when it is covered at school and it feels as if the school reinforces the ideas.

Selective school teachers are only better in the sense that they survive the tough environment. They would have transfered if they are humiliated by smart students. I thought if students have problem understanding they could tell the teachers rather than turning to tutors. Learning ahead is rather odd. If the kids are smart, they can self-learn ahead. It's as simple as reading ahead. Could it be that many kids in selective schools are there simply because they went to coaching since they were young. And that stopped them from acquiring the skill to self-learn? So they are hooked into the vicious circle of slipping behind and going to tutoring to pull ahead?

[spence]

Originally Posted by oasfree

Could it be that many kids in selective schools are there simply because they went to coaching since they were young. And that stopped them from acquiring the skill to self-learn? So they are hooked into the vicious circle of slipping behind and going to tutoring to pull ahead?

I think that's a big part of it

[dp624]

Hm, I don't think i'm failing to self-learn... (or will)
We shall see

[electrolysis]

probably just to reinforce content and get more practice, etc...
but then again you cant assume every selective school kid is a genius...