Why selective school kids need tutors?

[hermand]

You can hide this advertisement by registering.

Originally Posted by annabackwards

Yeah same here, it is a huge waste of money especially if you have crazy private tutors charging you something along the lines of $50+ an hr =="

Most of the subjects you can teach yourself though as you do, I just can't teach myself math extension 2 because the books i try and learn from don't explain well and like to skip many steps =="

yeahh, fair enough. i just don't get english at all and can't deal with my teacher so yeah. it's not something that comes easily and i can't teach myself it.

[Kikkoman]

I think the main problem is that many parents are sending their children to coaching colleges prior to sitting the SSET (and perhaps the OC test too), so they can be sure to get their children the places there. The children may not necessarily be thinking much of it, but just grow up thinking that coaching is a normal thing for kids.
Please excuse me if you think this is 'racism', but Asian parents are reportedly notorious of sending their children to coaching colleges for this purpose. The results are that this year, when the first year 7 class of 30 stood up to be taken on tour by prefects, there were 29 Asians and one Indian. The next class had maybe 3-4 Anglo/European, 1 Indian and the 25-6 Asian. The class I had to take had 2 Anglo/European, 1 Indian, 27 Asian. Similar figures hold for the remaining 3 classes.
So these kids are being coached to get into the schools in the first place. From there, perhaps not all of them will need coaching, but a lot of them still tend to get it. Some need it, others just want it because it's what they are used to. I can't disagree in saying that not every teacher is great at our school, but then again, what ever stops children from going to a teacher at lunch times and asking things, or seeking another (better) teacher?
Another reason some want coaching is 'to be ahead', or to have it because the person next to them has it. Really though, if people didn't need the coaching, then they would be able to handle learning it at a normal pace (in my opinion).
I don't have any problems with coaching for people who actually need help, and when that need is warranted. An example is my cousin, who isn't really too bright at Maths, and who goes to a school out west which ranked below 400th in the 2008 HSC. However, I don't think it should be warranted at selective schools.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Kikkoman

I think the main problem is that many parents are sending their children to coaching colleges prior to sitting the SSET (and perhaps the OC test too), so they can be sure to get their children the places there. The children may not necessarily be thinking much of it, but just grow up thinking that coaching is a normal thing for kids.
Please excuse me if you think this is 'racism', but Asian parents are reportedly notorious of sending their children to coaching colleges for this purpose. The results are that this year, when the first year 7 class of 30 stood up to be taken on tour by prefects, there were 29 Asians and one Indian. The next class had maybe 3-4 Anglo/European, 1 Indian and the 25-6 Asian. The class I had to take had 2 Anglo/European, 1 Indian, 27 Asian. Similar figures hold for the remaining 3 classes.

Sounds like my school. My grad was about half anglo, and each grade down had progressively less

[dp624]

Originally Posted by moll.

Only the rich, mediocre kids who aren't quite smart enough to get into selective on their own actually have tutors. I went to a selective school in the suburbs, and only about half the grade had a tutor, and that was only for certain subjects.

I contest this.

[oasfree]

Originally Posted by Kikkoman

I think the main problem is that many parents are sending their children to coaching colleges prior to sitting the SSET (and perhaps the OC test too), so they can be sure to get their children the places there. The children may not necessarily be thinking much of it, but just grow up thinking that coaching is a normal thing for kids.
Please excuse me if you think this is 'racism', but Asian parents are reportedly notorious of sending their children to coaching colleges for this purpose. The results are that this year, when the first year 7 class of 30 stood up to be taken on tour by prefects, there were 29 Asians and one Indian. The next class had maybe 3-4 Anglo/European, 1 Indian and the 25-6 Asian. The class I had to take had 2 Anglo/European, 1 Indian, 27 Asian. Similar figures hold for the remaining 3 classes.
So these kids are being coached to get into the schools in the first place. From there, perhaps not all of them will need coaching, but a lot of them still tend to get it. Some need it, others just want it because it's what they are used to. I can't disagree in saying that not every teacher is great at our school, but then again, what ever stops children from going to a teacher at lunch times and asking things, or seeking another (better) teacher?
Another reason some want coaching is 'to be ahead', or to have it because the person next to them has it. Really though, if people didn't need the coaching, then they would be able to handle learning it at a normal pace (in my opinion).
I don't have any problems with coaching for people who actually need help, and when that need is warranted. An example is my cousin, who isn't really too bright at Maths, and who goes to a school out west which ranked below 400th in the 2008 HSC. However, I don't think it should be warranted at selective schools.

Yes, it seems like that. But I think to be fair, one has to look at the idea of aspirational parents among the Anglo-Celtic population as well. What I seem to find is

1/ Most Anglo-Celtic kids that come from middle class aspirational parents who send their kids to music lessons and follow all the way to complete their music education also manage to get their kids into public selective schools or elite private schools. They also hire one-on-one private tutors. That's why one-on-one music tutors also tend to offer math and English tutoring too.

2/ Anglo-Celtic aspirational parents tend to be picky when it comes to sending kids to a preschool. They look for structured learning for their babies! They look for childcare/preschool places that provide early learning to get a leg up for their kids.

There is no doubt that Asian parents hope to send their kids to best schools so they often get coaching for their kids to sit for OC and selective school tests. However I think there is so much potential in all Caucasian kids that they have not exploited. If they only learn at normal public schools, it's unlikely to get a good education because the quality of teachers is a real problem at this moment. Educational courses take in the lowest UAIs date back from the 80s when it was actually under 50%! The students at that time often did not learn any subject (at University) that they were going to teach later. For example, they could become a math teacher even though they failed their maths at HS badly ( and therefore allowed to do math in University).

It's a perception that Asian kids compete with Caucasian for places in selective school classes but the truth is that they try to compete with the top Caucasian kids in elite private schools for high UAI to enter Universities.

So the Caucasian kids that hope to enter selective schools are victims of the clash between elite private schools and selective schools.

I also observe that the English comprehension level of Anglo-celtic kids is very high among the smart ones. I also have reasons to beleive that they could have high GA ability if they want to work on it. So the only real issue is mathematics where if they don't have a tutor, they are stuffed. Public primary schools don't teach any difficult mathematics.

In the USA, a lot of American kids "hate" mathematics. Some ofthem claim "I am born mathematically crippled". Of course this is ridiculous. They like other subjects like social sciences because they are a lot more fun. So it's teh liking that is the problem.

Alsi I think there is a bit of issue with the level of mathematics of parents who come from the 50s and 60s. As they were lazy and did not study math, they could not help their kids right now. Therefore not spending money on coaching means the kids have no chance at mathematics.

In a real life case, I know that Caucasian kids at a public schools scored between 15%-30% when a teacher gave them a real math test. The best of the Caucasian kids scored about 63% versus over 80% by the top Asian kids. When the teacher ask the caucasian kids to work harder in math, some of them called him "crap" and told him "why don't you stop picking on me?". So he gave them detention! The school continutes to try to lift math level for the kids (very few Asian kids go to this school) but it's a tough business especially trying to help the boys.

[oasfree]

Originally Posted by moll.

Only the rich, mediocre kids who aren't quite smart enough to get into selective on their own actually have tutors. I went to a selective school in the suburbs, and only about half the grade had a tutor, and that was only for certain subjects.

I think there is a sentiment in the wider community that it's unfair for kids to learn from anywhere else except public schools. This means kids whose parents have money will do better because they could buy tutoring service. However the same is not applied to music, arts and sport.

Learning is a pain. And buying tutoring service is a pain. I think if kids are not taught properly at schools, then buying educational services is normal. Kids can be smart but won't perform if they are not taught. Many parents spend money on education. Others spent money on beer and smoke or holidays. It's about choices.

Selective school tests are quite hard. So I don't think mediocre kids get in. Still those who are not smart enough will eventually fail to perform well before reaching year 10 and would be told to move back to their normal schools.

[moll.]

What the hell? No-one gets told to leave when you're in a selective school, unless they're expelled for violent, anti-social behaviour.
Did you even go to a selective school? Cos we had some dumbarse kids in our grade who failed everything and they were just accepted as just part of the cohort.

[moll.]

Originally Posted by dp624

I contest this.

That's what the ladies say when they see my dick.
They're afraid it'll hurt.

[Kikkoman]

Originally Posted by moll.

That's what the ladies say when they see my dick.
They're afraid it'll hurt.

Well said

[oasfree]

Originally Posted by moll.

What the hell? No-one gets told to leave when you're in a selective school, unless they're expelled for violent, anti-social behaviour.
Did you even go to a selective school? Cos we had some dumbarse kids in our grade who failed everything and they were just accepted as just part of the cohort.

Some selective schools are at the bottom of the league and could not even compare with good non-selective schools. So it depends. My nieces are in Sydney Girls where they say the low marks are about 70% and the average is about 80% for tests and essays. The top 5 selective schools in Sydney are very good. And you don't have to be extremely smart to enter a 5th ranked selective school.

So I do believe that some kids in selective schools outside the top 5 are dumb arses.

[moll.]

Originally Posted by oasfree

Some selective schools are at the bottom of the league and could not even compare with good non-selective schools. So it depends. My nieces are in Sydney Girls where they say the low marks are about 70% and the average is about 80% for tests and essays. The top 5 selective schools in Sydney are very good. And you don't have to be extremely smart to enter a 5th ranked selective school.

So I do believe that some kids in selective schools outside the top 5 are dumb arses.

What? What was the point to this post?
And comparing schools by their internal marking is about as useful as comparing economies by using their own currency.

[oasfree]

Originally Posted by moll.

What? What was the point to this post?
And comparing schools by their internal marking is about as useful as comparing economies by using their own currency.

True for most schools, but when it comes to top 5 schools in Sydney, it's pretty reliable as they have very strong standards. Their HSC trials match very closely with the real HSC.

[PrettyVacant]

Originally Posted by oasfree

True for most schools, but when it comes to top 5 schools in Sydney, it's pretty reliable as they have very strong standards. Their HSC trials match very closely with the real HSC.

No, some of our HSC trials do not match that closely with the real HSC. Sometimes they can be harder, sometimes they omit certain dotpoints of the syllabus...etc. There are many schools not in the top 5 that have trial exams that are more like the real HSC.

And no, it's not pretty relible in terms of "average being 80%"...etc. Pfft, honestly that stuff doesn't matter and has far too many variables (e.g. test difficulty, teacher's marking...etc) that affect it to be a truly good measure of student abilities. Sure, the cohorts of the top 5 schools are (OVERALL) academically more gifted, but that is not to say that there are no "dumb arses" (hmm, very politically correct there) in the top 5 schools and that is also not to say that schools beyond the top 5 schools don't have incredibly intelligent people.

[oasfree]

Originally Posted by PrettyVacant

No, some of our HSC trials do not match that closely with the real HSC. Sometimes they can be harder, sometimes they omit certain dotpoints of the syllabus...etc. There are many schools not in the top 5 that have trial exams that are more like the real HSC.

And no, it's not pretty relible in terms of "average being 80%"...etc. Pfft, honestly that stuff doesn't matter and has far too many variables (e.g. test difficulty, teacher's marking...etc) that affect it to be a truly good measure of student abilities. Sure, the cohorts of the top 5 schools are (OVERALL) academically more gifted, but that is not to say that there are no "dumb arses" (hmm, very politically correct there) in the top 5 schools and that is also not to say that schools beyond the top 5 schools don't have incredibly intelligent people.

Sure you have intelligent people at many other schools as they don't bother traveling to top schools. It's the norm to have one or two incredibly smart kids at some of the schools ranked further down from 50th. Last year one student who got 100UAI came from Smith Hill, Wollongong. This school was ranked quite low among selective schools. Many students who are prodded along too hard by parents eventually become a rebel or simply get burnt out by year 10. These may look like dumb arses because they lose their will to compete. They get too tired.

[PrettyVacant]

"Many students" is not correct...in reality it is a very small percentage.


My point was that you were incorrect, sir. You have merely agreed with me (with my point about the intelligent students at "lower" schools) and stated an obvious (yet incorrect) comment about people burning out.


And also the original topic of this thread was "Why selective school kids need tutors?"...to answer that question, it's to stay on top of a very academically capable cohort.