Med Student to tutor your Biology (1 Viewer)

[eiken]

I have a background in Molecular Biology, Genetics, and Biochemistry and will be able to help high school and university students. I can explain concepts in the usual tutoring format (i.e., interactive or didactic), or I can go over specific questions (i.e., homework problems, assignments, etc).

Fees are $20/hour for high school level and $30/hour for university level. One caveat, I am not from Australia and will only be able to provide tutoring online. Its convenient and fast (and cheaper), but I understand that some people prefer the face to face experience.

You can reach me by MSN eikenhein@hotmail.com (preferred) or email b10gilbert@lycos.com

My credentials:
M.D., Doctor of Medicine (class of 2011)
Wayne State University
Detroit, MI, USA
Z-score of 680; within top 5% of class

Honours B.Sc., Biology (class of 2006)
University of Toronto
Toronto, ON, Canada
GPA 3.72/4.00

Governor General's Academic Medal
Chemistry 12 - 99%
Biology 12 - 98%
Mathematics 12 - 96%
Physics 12 - 95%
English 12 - 95%

 

[behemoth100]

What experience do you have with the biology HSC syllabus? The marker's of the HSC are strict in that you have to answer the questions within the bounds of the syllabus, not using information that is at a greater level.
There are notes and such posted on boredofstudies that may give an idea of what kind of information and the level of detail that is required.

Im only saying this because it looks like you are based in the US, I'm not taking a shot at you or anything.

 

[googled]

What experience do you have with the biology HSC syllabus? The marker's of the HSC are strict in that you have to answer the questions within the bounds of the syllabus, not using information that is at a greater level.

I haven't heard that before. Have you got a link? (Btw, I'm not taking a shot either, just curious )

 

[ari89]

Epic site

 

[behemoth100]

I haven't heard that before. Have you got a link? (Btw, I'm not taking a shot either, just curious )

Nope no link, just personal experience being marked down in trials and assessments for including information that is more complicated that was taught (I did a bit of extra study with txtbooks and the web when I did my HSC. I thought a partial first year uni level of understanding for bio would help. It did not )

Also if you look at any "outstanding" answers (can't remember if BOS.edu provides it or not) they are all directly syllabus related. Plus if you look at the marking notes for 2006 it specifically states that not talking about syllabus content was a reason for not being awarded full marks:
"These responses did not address the syllabus content and/or outcomes being assessed and hence did not score full marks."

http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/hsc_exams/hsc2006exams/pdf_doc/biology_notes_06.pdf

Page 5, just above the table of answers for the MC. 4th last line.

 

[behemoth100]

Epic site

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA hahahahahahaha... hahahaha ....haha. .... .... aahha.... *chuckles*... *wipes tears from eyes*........
....
....
....
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

 

[googled]

Nope no link, just personal experience being marked down in trials and assessments for including information that is more complicated that was taught (I did a bit of extra study with txtbooks and the web when I did my HSC. I thought a partial first year uni level of understanding for bio would help. It did not )

Also if you look at any "outstanding" answers (can't remember if BOS.edu provides it or not) they are all directly syllabus related. Plus if you look at the marking notes for 2006 it specifically states that not talking about syllabus content was a reason for not being awarded full marks:
"These responses did not address the syllabus content and/or outcomes being assessed and hence did not score full marks."

http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/hsc_exams/hsc2006exams/pdf_doc/biology_notes_06.pdf

Page 5, just above the table of answers for the MC. 4th last line.

I see what you mean. I did the same thing in terms of going beyond the course, although I always found that to do really well at biology you need to understand the chemical processes and the 'extra stuff' to achieve full marks using the stuff you are meant to know (if that makes sense). For example, when looking at fermentation, it helps to understand WHY lactic acid or ethanol is produced, and I really doubt you would lose marks for mentioning reduction of pyruvate (I didn't). It's the same with stuff on enzyme denaturation - mentioning disruption of electrostatic, hydrophobic etc. bonding didn't cause me to lose marks. Simple stuff like that makes pretty much everything in the course make sense. I guess it depends on what is classed as 'in the course' as well. Open 2 bio textbooks and both will have different angles at approaching the course.

IMO, do what works best for you.

 

[behemoth100]

I see what you mean. I did the same thing in terms of going beyond the course, although I always found that to do really well at biology you need to understand the chemical processes and the 'extra stuff' to achieve full marks using the stuff you are meant to know (if that makes sense). For example, when looking at fermentation, it helps to understand WHY lactic acid or ethanol is produced, and I really doubt you would lose marks for mentioning reduction of pyruvate (I didn't). It's the same with stuff on enzyme denaturation - mentioning disruption of electrostatic, hydrophobic etc. bonding didn't cause me to lose marks. Simple stuff like that makes pretty much everything in the course make sense. I guess it depends on what is classed as 'in the course' as well. Open 2 bio textbooks and both will have different angles at approaching the course.

IMO, do what works best for you.

Yeah you make some good points, but picture this. A student being tutored asks his/her tutor what would be a good answer to: How do gene mutations occur? Now in the syllabus the answer is pathetic: mutations arise from insertions/deletions/substitutions of the genetic code due to environmental factors such as radiation.

But if a tutor such as the OP, who is an MD and knows about this in quite some detail gave one example as: ionisation of proteins located in the nuclear membrane by radiation such as alpha particles result in the ejection of electrons from atoms, which causes parts of the protein to become positively charged and bind to the negatively charged backbone of DNA, resulting in chinks in the DNA sequence and breaking of hydrogen bonds between Adenine/Thymine and Cytosine/Guanine, isn't going to get any marks at all, regardless of how correct it is.

My strategy for the HSC was to save the 'extra' info for the big qs like the 5,6,7 markers. Then add in extra little bits of info on top of syllabus data to maximise your chance of getting full marks.

 

[googled]

But if a tutor such as the OP, who is an MD and knows about this in quite some detail gave one example as: ionisation of proteins located in the nuclear membrane by radiation such as alpha particles result in the ejection of electrons from atoms, which causes parts of the protein to become positively charged and bind to the negatively charged backbone of DNA, resulting in chinks in the DNA sequence and breaking of hydrogen bonds between Adenine/Thymine and Cytosine/Guanine, isn't going to get any marks at all, regardless of how correct it is.

That's brilliant! Yeah I see your point. I remember my teacher talking about the problem of criteria marking with biology. A few years ago there was an uproar over an extended response question that specifically wanted students to talk about genetic engineering as the most likely cause of human evolution in the next 200 years. Some students said that evolution would 'not' occur and gave reasons why (ultimately selective pressure). The later got 0 marks. Apparently now BOS allows 'holistic' marking which allows the marker to award marks if the student understands the science behind what they are stating and clearly demonstrates it. These sorts of things are difficult to confirm as things can change from year to year - if anyone can support or discredit this please do as I would be interested in confirmation of accuracy. On the flipside (and yes I realise this contradicts that prior), biology often it's marked based on specific words which are necessarily biological terminology, such as the need to mention 'cause and effect' when dealing with epidemiology and not saying the same thing in different words.

Best thing to do is read the marking criteria released (especially if you're tutoring a subject).