<p>I think there is a difference in teaching a student to study efficiently - which is certainly a good thing - and parents hiring a tutor to ensure that their child hones in on specific material and does not spend extra time figuring out important concepts. Some students may not understand the material well enough to find adequate resources, so they waste time and energy, and thus sap motivation. A tutor familiar with the curriculum will know exactly what the student needs to cover, and so will focus on only the relevant material at the right time. I see this as useful - in the OPs perspective - for the top student who has a stronger/weaker bent - the student who is way ahead of his class in math for example, but along with his class in honors English and yet expecting to receive As in all subjects. I don’t see anything wrong with using a tutor - the student still does the work, and it is a slippery slope to try to judge what is an advantage and what is simply a student’s motivation. Does the kid who watches MIT physics lectures on you tube have an advantage over those who don’t have internet at home? Or, is it only an advantage when parents spend $$$ on the resource?</p>
<p>It’s very common here for students to be tutored during the summer to master a subject prior to taking it in school (and also have tutoring once a week during the school year). The goal - to make sure they get an A. </p>
<p>The students who are being tutored have high GPA’s and many are in GATE. They are not struggling students. My son was one of the few in one of his classes last year that didn’t have summer tutoring. </p>
<p>The quality of AP courses varies all over the place and the grading on the test is done at a relatively low level (a parent told me this after he took a few of them to see what it was like). Given this, it’s not a bad idea to retake what should be the same course but often isn’t. The college may place special emphasis on some subjects for their program that aren’t covered in AP courses.</p>
<p>"My, but you do like to generalize, MiamiDAP. Have you done a controlled, double blind study that tells you that “the majority” of students in colleges across the country who start out as pre-meds switch because they can’t handle the work? "</p>
<p>Again, apparently I am miscommunicating. I did address the tutor as teacher of efficiency in studying, already. Both basic study skills (as even the basics of study organization tend to be taught less often than more often in the standard classroom currently) and more advanced, sophisticated study skills such as you describe. It has been addressed as a reason (valid reason, i.m.o.) for engaging a tutor, one of many reasons listed.</p>
<p>^ = also an incentive with which I am familiar, but less so to ensure the A as to ensure advance familiarity, which is more of a necessity (even) for many LD – esp. ADD – kids. That Second Time Around has made a huge (and again, i.m.o., valid) difference for such students, including those being medicated and accommodated. Often this is for basic courses, such as CP Biology. I don’t doubt what you say, just embellishing on it as a reason. One student of mine has done this twice now. The results are a testament to how accommodation & repetition do not necessarily give LD students “a leg up” but merely allow them to achieve “the best possible that they can achieve” (with this handicap). This student does not get A’s in the classroom course with such advance tutoring. He normally gets a B or B+, and that is indeed the best that he would achieve.</p>
<p>(I know none of us here have spent much time addressing LD as a reason for tutoring. That clearly wasn’t the motivation for the OP starting the thread; he is interested in a different discussion, which I think we’ve tried to stay within. As an aside, increases in teacher workload, and reductions in some differentiated special services, have also been an impetus for LD families to seek out supplemental tutoring.)</p>
<p>of course a fact should be supported by data, such as premed students that attend a school that the 75th% that is 29 are having classes as hard/or graded with students with a curve vs. a school that has a, say 34 for a 75th percentile. Well, that’s a no brainer, the weed out classes aren’t as hard at the first school. But, ya, like others, I have no data, just a hunch.</p>
<p>That’s easy. Colleges need to come up with a new measure for a prospective student’s achievement - cost effectiveness. For example, if a student has a 2400 SAT, and he costs his parents $480K in private school tuition and tutoring, he’s $200 per point. OTOH, a kid goes to a public school and knows no tutors, he costs his parents and the school $120K, then he’s $50 per point for a 2400 SAT, a much better student.</p>
<p>Did I get the math right? Not against private schools or tutoring because of our lack of either. Just a thought of how to measure a student’s potential.</p>
<p>All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.</p>
<p>Endless competitiveness is not healthy. And it doesn’t even necessarily help to achieve the best learning outcomes. I originally come from the country there style of education is very uncompetitive. Younger kids (younger than 10-11 depending the school) don’t even usually get grades because schools want to make comparing kids as hard as possible. There are no ranks and all kind of comparing to others is discouraged. No gifted classes or even different paths or difficulty levels in core classes before what equals 10th class. Before that kids only real choice to lessen or raise academic rigour is language selection. You only have to study two foreign language before High school but if you want you you can also study three or four foreign language. Kids will choose either vocational path or academic path after class 9. Many vocational programs require better GPA’s than academic programs and also kids who will take the vocational path are eligible to University admissions same way as those in pure academic path. And even kids who need extended special education are integrated to normal classes as much as possible. And kids are certainly not using as much time for school work as average American kids. In fact I think they are always on the near bottom in the studies about how much time is invested for school work. </p>
<p>Still kids do well enough in international comparisons. They have even been best at Pisa study in some years. So competing kids against each other and making them work all the time even at holidays is not the only way to have good enough results.</p>
<p>Singapore typically comes in around the top in international science and math competitions. Their kids are in a pressure environment from schools, peers and parents. Look at the demographics in state universities in California. Which groups are enrolled way out of proportion to their numbers in the state?</p>
<p>Yes, they do. I’m not saying that competing and pressuring wouldn’t produce some good learning results. But it is not the only way to get good results. Things can be done also differently and still kids will learn.</p>
<p>Well, I’ve seen unschooling produce exceptional results but I wonder if that has more to do with the parents and students. Unschooling is quite difficult to do in an institutional environment.</p>
<p>That is also true. But again, there are also other paths between über-competitive system and unschooling. And some of those also work well. Of course every system has it’s pros and cons and there probably is no one-fit-all model, but it is good to remember that things can be done in many ways and still have a very good outcome. </p>
<p>And it is also good to think what shall be lost, if kid works 60-80 hours per week then they are still children. And how much for example the loss of sleep will cost them and their still developing brains later.</p>
<p>One hypothesis is that the changing roles of women have led to a decline in the quality of teaching.</p>
<p>For a long time, teaching was one of the most popular career choices for top-notch women college graduates because many other professions were closed to them. The best and the brightest of the female population very often ended up in the classroom.</p>
<p>Then society shifted gears, and many other professions, including some with much better pay, became as available to women as they were to men. The best and the brightest of the female population distributed themselves among a wider range of occupations, just as men do. And therefore, the quality of teachers declined.</p>
<p>I don’t know whether there are good data out there to support this hypothesis, but it’s an interesting idea.</p>
<p>Epiphany - That’s not the situation here. We are talking about two different groups of students being tutored. Your group, some of which have learning disabilities, are being tutored to become familiar with the material prior to taking the class. The groups I’m familiar with have no learning disabilities, they are learning the subject(s) prior to taking the class to make sure they get an A. The “A” is what their parents want and what they push them to achieve. This whole tutoring thing has been going on here since elementary, starting with Kuman type programs, then, in middle and high school, attending small specialized tutoring groups and pre-learning the subject prior to taking it in class.</p>
<p>Presumably their kids will know the subject better having been exposed to it twice. I really don’t see a problem with this - it’s a capitalistic solution to a competitive problem.</p>
<p>Are there actually people out there who escaped the insanity? The quest for the best preschool experience which started at the ripe old age of 3. Then the frantic search for just the right avenue to channel their soon to be recognized gifted talent in sports, dance, theater, music, modeling or all of the above? Did they not rack up frequent driver miles and develop carpel tunnel from driving to multiple practices and rehearsals as they dutifully supported their ‘gifted’ child’s need to receive stimulation which they were not receiving in school? No one else had to schedule family vacations around camps, tournaments, or performances? After all, the Grand Canyon wasn’t going anywhere. No one else staycationed in state capitals or in the boondocks because their kids couldn’t miss a tournament? And no one else worried about how to fix the jalopy in the driveway as their coach drove up in his new car financed, in part, by you?</p>
<p>If so, I guess I can understand your shock at the tutor phenomenon.</p>
<p>I am fine with the idea of enrichment and tutoring. I would rather see the money go to brain development than carting kids around all week to numerous sports that take away from the development of the mind. For those who think academic enrichment is a waste I question what could be more important? By the way I am not talking about insane academic rote work on a daily basis so please no bashing.</p>
<p>thank god my parents are normal. they allowed me to be a kid when i was a kid. no early tutoring at preschool age or something. i just had an english tutor from late elementary school to middle school because i have a hearing disability.</p>
<p>wouldn’t it be amazing if you could do better than the tutored kids without being tutored? that’s my goal. :)</p>