Tutoring is forced homework? (1 Viewer)

[oasfree]

I have talked to some parents whose kids did not do too well in HSC and School certificate. They all seem to claim that tutoring is really about using tutoring colleges to force the kids to do homework. I wonder if this is rationalisation for failure or genuine feeling. They also claim that many kids go to tutoring places just to avoid being prodded by their parents and to socialise with other kids. How true are all these claims? It costs a lot of money for the parents, and if these claims are true, that's a pity.

Is there any tutoring places out there that run smaller groups and encourage students to think? Any one with a philosophy that good learning is about being creative and challenged? Or it's all about pushing formulas and tricks to save time and try to chase after higher marks?

After my kid landed in OC class with scores way higher than kids I knew that spent a lot of time at coaching places, my friends and relatives scratched their heads. They wonder why a kid who spend so much time playing, watching DVDs, ... and study probably half as hard as their own kids managed that. The secret is simple. All I did was to encourage the kid to think and to read a lot and avoid putting stress on the memory by doing too much repetitive homework.

 

[iSplicer]

Tutoring is forced motivation, rather than homework.

 

[studentcheese]

Tutoring is forced homework if the parents are forcing the kid to get tutored. Personally, I asked my mum if I could get coached for Mathematics because I wanted to learn ahead. If a kid wishes to go tutoring himself/herself, then that would not be forced tutoring.

Yes, and I do agree that thinking would increase results. I went selective school tutoring for one term before the test and then got in. I believe that my natural intelligence got me in, and to a lesser extent, tutoring also helped me familiarise with the questions asked.

Some of the claims are true. Some parents spend thousands of dollars to get children tutored for selective schools, but with some parents, none of their kids get in. If a kid goes tutoring, s/he needs to use his/her brain to think of various ways to solve problems, not by memorising the teacher's solutions.

In the end, tutoring for selective is a waste of time if a) the kid is not motivated or b) the kid is not actually smart. Tutoring for the HSC, on the other hand, is different. Tutoring for the HSC actually helps more than tutoring for selective.

My parents spend $500 on tutoring for me to get into a selective school and I got in. However, they had spent $2000 for my younger brother to get in, and in the end, he did not make it. After that, my parents began to scold him that he had not tried hard enough to get in. In a nutshell, parents should realise that getting into selective is not about memorising solutions or trying extremely hard, but it's about natural intelligence. Kids are gonna struggle in selective schools if they get in through memorising as everyone else around them would be super smart. For one, my brother is struggling in a comprehensive school at the moment (let alone doing well in a selective school).

 

[oasfree]

In the end, tutoring for selective is a waste of time if a) the kid is not motivated or b) the kid is not actually smart. Tutoring for the HSC, on the other hand, is different. Tutoring for the HSC actually helps more than tutoring for selective.

As the population of Asian kids in many of Sydney's selective schools get to about 80% or more, I hear outcry from Aussie parents. Of course they always go on about how Asian selective school kids are not intelligent and only got in because of hard work or tutoring ... What I see is that there is room for both hardworking and smart students to get in. Kids only need to get about 65% in their tests and combine with a good score given by their school for English and Math, they should scrape into one of the top 10 selective schools. I think some can even get in with average intelligence and plenty of hard work. I guess they just want to fight at the bottom end of the scale where kids just get enough marks to scrape in. At this end, a difference of 1 mark means getting in or failing to get a placement.

That's why many parents spend money on tutoring and get their average kids in. Later these kids would struggle a lot to keep up.

HSC is a different thing. There is so much more work to get about 12 units. Many of them could not be coached. I suppose some just hope to be familiar with exam questions and improve marks on maths and sciences.

 

[tommykins]

As the population of Asian kids in many of Sydney's selective schools get to about 80% or more, I hear outcry from Aussie parents. Of course they always go on about how Asian selective school kids are not intelligent and only got in because of hard work or tutoring ...

Why is eveyrone so scared of a little competition?

 

[VuongstER_boi]

You know, I know people that didn't go tutoring for certain subjects in the hsc that scored higher than those people that went for hsc...I mean way higher like...2 band higher prolly?Some of those people went tutoring relied on their tutors so much that they didn't have the ability to be self-responsive to their learning. However, I do believe that tutoring has some of it's benefits ( ie the resources that they provide.) & also some teachers do try to inspire & make it fun ( it isn't completely true with "Here's the work. Do it! Memorise!"). However, I would recommend tutoring for the selective school exams as the preparation they give is quite helpful! There aren't many resources out there for selective school preparations so tutoring can provide you with alot of that resource.

 

[oasfree]

However, I would recommend tutoring for the selective school exams as the preparation they give is quite helpful! There aren't many resources out there for selective school preparations so tutoring can provide you with alot of that resource.

I once read on answers.yahoo.com that the materials out there to prepare for selective school/OC tests were very useful. The coaching places friends' kids went to offer trial tests in a secretive manner. They mark and give the result but never give the questions out or the answer to the wrong questions out. This creates the fiction that they own the real tests (by some kind of corruption). This is surely impossible. Some parents think by paying for these trial tests, their kids get a huge chance.

Last year my own kid went for the OC tests. I did use some of the materials I could get from the shops and the released old papers from the education department. My kid gave the coached kids a real whack! The kid landed in OC at the top of the pile. As the only 2 uncoached kids among 15 new kids, my kid and her uncoached friend gave the others a run for the money.

I suppose for parents who aren't familiar with this whole game, getting the stuff from teh shop and go through them with the kids might be a bit daunting.

 

[DucKy::]

HSC is a different thing. There is so much more work to get about 12 units. Many of them could not be coached. I suppose some just hope to be familiar with exam questions and improve marks on maths and sciences.

You should look at the HSC now. The only subjects I completed that involved creative learning (I felt) were history and extension history. The others (math, chem, eng) were rote, and also happen to be some of the better scaling subjects. In recent years students have commented after each HSC how unstimulating the NSW syllabus is (I still pounce on the SMH around the same time of the year!)- the structure of the whole system has been encouraging rote learning, so I don't think coaching should be put under fire.

 

[nelses]

It is important that you don't take just one example of a child making it into OC. Obviously a lot of students don't succeed in making it into a selective class or school, but a lot of those also don't go to coaching.

In Oasfree's case, his child didn't have tutoring – but nearly every other student who made it into that class did, and I'd say that's statistically significant.

So in general, I think that tutoring does give kids an edge over kids who don't go and increase their chances of making it into a better school or class where the environment helps foster better learning. Of course, it also depends on the student and the nature of the teaching, and it is important for kids to play sport and get life experience outside of study, but who says kids can't work and play simultaneously at tutoring?