Why selective school kids need tutors? (1 Viewer)

[oasfree]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

 

[Trebla]

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?

Some teachers in selective schools do get humiliated by smart students, yet they don't leave. I know in my school, there is a terrible Chemistry teacher who just diverts any intelligent question by saying "check it in the textbook" or "you can find that out yourself".

There is a difference between being smart and being diligent. Not all smart kids are diligent. Not everyone has the ability to self learn. With some kids, even the smart ones, self-learning is very time consuming and inefficient because more than likely they would have many unanswered questions. If they pose these questions to the school teacher, usually the reply would be "wait till we get up to that topic" otherwise the teacher would pay less attention to those who want to learn the current topic, whereas with a tutor they can be answered more or less straightaway as they learn ahead.

 

[TearsOfFire]

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 don't agree with this. Like Treble says, not all selective school teachers are good; Thus one of the reasons students look for tutors. Some teachers may not even have to teach much, since most of the kids are getting tutored. But in saying that, there are still some excellent teachers at my school. Also, teaching at a selective school has its advantages over teaching at a comprehensive school ~ Most of the students want to learn and teachers may not be spending most of the time just yelling at students and just trying to maintain order inside the classroom.

 

[litany]

Why is tutoring helpful to selective school kids? It's my belief that GENERALLY SPEAKING, most students in selective schools are naturally intelligent and capable of learning and understanding pretty much anything they set their minds to in terms of the courses taught in the curriculum. With this in mind, the key points of usefulness regarding tutoring is that it:

1. Forces the student to practice the material, thus reinforcing their understanding and refreshing their memory.
   
2. Provides a more student-centred rather than class-centred teaching style, in that it allows for the weaknesses of a certain student to be addressed and not foregone in the best interests of teaching the whole class (as is the general case in high schools)
   
3. A linked point to the above, tutoring allows students to ask questions in an environment that is more forgiving to it. By this I mean - as many other posters mentioned - if there are other students in the tutoring class, they won't haze the student asking the question, and the questioning student won't feel intimidated.
   
4. Allows the student to CHOOSE their teacher/tutor, meaning the style of learning most conducive to student can be chosen, as opposed to leaving it to pure luck as is the case in high school.

 

[soporific]

i'm not sure if selective kids NEED tutoring, it's more so that they WANT to go to tutoring because of the competition. i think it works like that for every school, regardless of whether it is selective or not. everyone wants to receive the same (if not better) advantage as the person beside them.

 

[oasfree]

With some kids, even the smart ones, self-learning is very time consuming and inefficient because more than likely they would have many unanswered questions. If they pose these questions to the school teacher, usually the reply would be "wait till we get up to that topic" otherwise the teacher would pay less attention to those who want to learn the current topic, whereas with a tutor they can be answered more or less straightaway as they learn ahead.

I get this point. But self-learning is a big part that brings out the balance. If tutors always give the best solution, there will be no thinking. In the long term kids will be hesitant to think hard. But surely teachers do tend to run a one-way dialogue especially if you have a boring one. However I thought that teachers do organise groups of students to work and it's their job to do many activities at HS pretty much like primary school teachers do for little kids? Or at HS they just stop that group style and deliver boring instructions in a monotonous way?