Did Tutoring Help You (Later Education, Career, Life, etc)?

• 

  netjock on 16/02/2021 - 19:18

  My parents explored tutoring for me in late high school (but I didn't want or need it - I'm not a rote memory student; I'm also a lifelong learner and prefer studying by myself and do so to this day with my broad personal interests) and I won't be sending my kids to tutoring (I plan to send them to a play based school for primary).

  Doesn't work for everyone.

  Society focuses too much on standardised academics but nobody wants to admit that tradies make more than most university graduates these days. The smarter we get (just answering standardised questions) the dumber we get (can't problem solve).

  • 

    p1 ama on 16/02/2021 - 19:44

    +8

    Society focuses too much on standardised academics but nobody wants to admit that tradies make more than most university graduates these days. The smarter we get (just answering standardised questions) the dumber we get (can't problem solve).

    They don't on average. Some tradies do, but you're downplaying how difficult and competitive it is.

    You need to be reasonably intelligent to be able to run your own business as a tradie, build the connections to get well paying jobs, work in an effective and efficient manner, and make the right investment decisions to build your own future. If you're dumb, you're not going to make it as a tradie, you'll end up doing low-paid labour work carrying bricks for the smart tradies.

    I think the comparison of tradies vs. "university graduates" is also quite disingenuous in the sense that they're fundamentally very different types of jobs. Working in the sun is very different from working in an air-conditioned office. If being a tradie was as easy/attractive as you claim, we'd have plenty of people wanting to become tradies. if you haven't tried it, I suggest try being an apprentice for a while, it's not easy.

    • 

      netjock on 16/02/2021 - 23:07

      +1

      You need to be reasonably intelligent to be able to run your own business as a tradie, build the connections to get well paying jobs, work in an effective and efficient manner, and make the right investment decisions to build your own future.

      I am just saying gross. Most tradies are pretty ineffective, inefficient and make bad investment decisions. All those new Rangers and HiLuxes plus the sales figure ever year can attest to that fact.

      I think the comparison of tradies vs. "university graduates" is also quite disingenuous in the sense that they're fundamentally very different types of jobs.

      That is just caste system. A job is a job. Sitting in an air conditioned office making $50k doesn't make you better than a garbologist making $100k. I don't see a $100 handed out by a tradie any less accepted than an officer worker so why so different?

      My parents came from construction. I was cleaning construction sites at 8, helping spread concrete by 10 and reading plans at 14 and building multi unit developments by 17. Now I work in finance. I can still go back to doing it but then being effective and efficient I'd rather be making the same as a tradie doing 4hrs of work on an 8 hour day than being out there.

      • 

        p1 ama on 16/02/2021 - 23:50

        That is just caste system. A job is a job. Sitting in an air conditioned office making $50k doesn't make you better than a garbologist making $100k. I don't see a $100 handed out by a tradie any less accepted than an officer worker so why so different?

        Because the work that you are doing is different. You probably work harder per $ as a tradie than you do sitting in an office. At least in my experience anyway.

        My parents came from construction. I was cleaning construction sites at 8, helping spread concrete by 10 and reading plans at 14 and building multi unit developments by 17. Now I work in finance. I can still go back to doing it but then being effective and efficient I'd rather be making the same as a tradie doing 4hrs of work on an 8 hour day than being out there.

        If being a tradie is so great why aren't you a tradie? (Honest question).

        • 

          netjock on 17/02/2021 - 10:44

          -5

          @p1 ama:

          If being a tradie is so great why aren't you a tradie? (Honest question).

          If you read it properly I work half the hours and make just as much. Good basic comprehension of language you are trying to communicate in helps too. It isn't even basic math. It is basic common sense. A little bit of effort at a young age pays off.

          Because the work that you are doing is different. You probably work harder per $ as a tradie than you do sitting in an office. At least in my experience anyway.

          You think? I know a plumber / electrician who would charge $120 per hour. Even to just install a light or replace a range hood. 80% of the time you get the easy jobs simply because you arrive clean, take your shoes off and clean up after yourself. Would you call back a tradie who is going to walk through your house leaving fragments of soil, leave off cuts behind. The easy money is actually with the easy attention to detail. You think an easy high paying office job means getting passes at uni because you can't be bothered to read the question properly.

          • 

            Bjingo on 17/02/2021 - 11:53

            +3

            @netjock: Damn, no need to be as arse, he even said it was an honest question.

            Even if you are getting fiery, questioning an individuals language comprehension is unnecessary. Just answering the question by reiterating what you said works far better.

            furthermore you never state you work half the hours and make just as much, you say;

            I'd rather be making the same as a tradie doing 4hrs of work on an 8 hour day than being out there.

            Firstly, the issue lies with what was written, not his comprehension. Due to grammatical errors, that says you would rather make the same as what a tradie makes in 4 hours of work, by working an 8 hour day because you don't want to be out there. Due to you writing it, you knew what you actually wanted to get across, whereas for someone else, that literally says the opposite. So, double check your writing before being nasty.

          • 

            p1 ama on 17/02/2021 - 12:41

            +2

            @netjock:

            If you read it properly I work half the hours and make just as much.

            Which contradicts your original point that being a tradie is great money. /thread

            • 

              netjock on 17/02/2021 - 12:47

              @p1 ama: Great money compared to someone who works full time as an employee and making $65k 9-5. Making $100k plus as a tradie isn't twice the amount of work.

              Which contradicts your original point that being a tradie is great money.

              Would really help if you understood I never say what I do is "the" normal. It is personal choice.

              For most people the decision is made at a young age. You got two options, either you can pursue academics and have a great career with great money or use some brains and learn some muscle reflex that will also give you similar money except physically more demanding.

              Trades is great money if you know how to make it. FIFO MacDonald's workers were making $70k but most people want to stay in big cities and take $45k so they can sip barista coffee in their off time.

              • 

                p1 ama on 17/02/2021 - 14:35

                @netjock:

                Great money compared to someone who works full time as an employee and making $65k 9-5.

                People with university degrees are not working 9-5 making $65k. The median university graduate salary is around $65k and will only go up from there.

                Source: https://www.monash.edu/career-connect/explore/work-australia/pay#:~:text=For%20graduates,(2019%20AAGE%20Employer%20Survey).

                Making $100k plus as a tradie isn't twice the amount of work.

                You're comparing the top 10% of tradies to the bottom 20% of university graduates. Don't you see the issue with that?

                Would really help if you understood I never say what I do is "the" normal. It is personal choice.

                As it is for most people. You seem to forget that most people are making the same decisions you are and coming to the same conclusions as you.

                That conclusion is, for most, being a tradie is not the best career path for various reasons.

                For most people the decision is made at a young age. You got two options, either you can pursue academics and have a great career with great money or use some brains and learn some muscle reflex that will also give you similar money except physically more demanding.

                Exactly my point.

                FIFO MacDonald's workers were making $70k but most people want to stay in big cities and take $45k so they can sip barista coffee in their off time.

                What percentage of people drink barista coffee? It's all well and good to make sweeping generalisations, but they hardly reflect the average person.

                • 

                  netjock on 17/02/2021 - 14:53

                  @p1 ama:

                  The median university graduate salary is around $65k and will only go up from there.

                  Median means there is 50% making below that.

                  You're comparing the top 10% of tradies to the bottom 20% of university graduates. Don't you see the issue with that?

                  You are just pulling statistics out of thin air aren't you?

                  Average adult salaries are $89k per the ABS then there must be a lot of graduates out there making less than $90k.

                  I would like you to explain why the top 5 best selling vehicles in Australia 1, 2 and 5 of them are HiLux, Ranger and Triton which is vehicle of choice for tradies. The other two is Corolla and i30 which are cheaper vehicles. Uni is a guarantee to good money?

                  Universities are a business, they just worry about volume not about how much you make. Notice how the statistics is how many of their grads are in a job but very little is said about graduate salaries.

                  • 

                    p1 ama on 17/02/2021 - 16:00

                    +1

                    @netjock:

                    Median means there is 50% making below that.

                    Graduate. That means that's where they start, not where university degree holders are. You are taking the median of the lowest group of university degree holders.

                    Average adult salaries are $89k per the ABS(abs.gov.au) then there must be a lot of graduates out there making less than $90k.

                    Yes, because all adults have university degrees…

                    I would like you to explain why the top 5 best selling vehicles in Australia 1, 2 and 5 of them are HiLux, Ranger and Triton which is vehicle of choice for tradies. The other two is Corolla and i30 which are cheaper vehicles.

                    Because there are relatively few vehicles suitable for tradies and plenty for everyone else. When the pool is broader, each car gets a smaller share.

                    Uni is a guarantee to good money?

                    I never said that going to university is a guarantee to good money. Problem with what you're saying is that you're taking arguments about averages to extremes when it suits what you're saying.

                    University graduates on average earning more is a completely different statement to university is a guarantee to good money.

                    Universities are a business, they just worry about volume not about how much you make. Notice how the statistics is how many of their grads are in a job but very little is said about graduate salaries.

                    Which is irrelevant to the broader point. I agree that universities are businesses, it doesn't change that university graduates, on average, make more than non-university graduates.

                    It doesn't mean that all university graduates earn more than all non-university graduates. It also doesn't mean that a university education is the only path to a high income.

                    • 

                      netjock on 17/02/2021 - 16:47

                      -2

                      @p1 ama: Boy can you argue.

                      Because there are relatively few vehicles suitable for tradies and plenty for everyone else

                      You might also consider tradies are not a significant part of the population. Here we go. Funny statistics.

                      • 

                        p1 ama on 18/02/2021 - 00:28

                        @netjock:

                        Boy can you argue.

                        And you can't. /thread.

  • 

    Orico on 16/02/2021 - 21:39

    tradies make more than most university graduates these days

    University students live longer and let's face it, we do earn more in the longer term..

    • 

      netjock on 16/02/2021 - 23:09

      -1

      University students live longer

      Maybe. That is because you are less likely to be involved in workplace accidents.

      we do earn more in the longer term..

      Okay if you think so. You just live in that bubble.

  • 

    funnysht on 16/02/2021 - 21:45

    that true but have you worked as a tradie- it is a hard working life- prob couldnt do brick laying etc for more than 10 years due to back work et.

    I built some diy stuff- like floorboards etc few and was really tough.

    Whilst uni course- desk jobs have its own problems but you can generally work >10 yrs in these jobs

    • 

      netjock on 16/02/2021 - 23:12

      that true but have you worked as a tradie

      Yes. It is only hard work when you think you could carry 10 bricks instead of 8. I once engaged a brick layer would turned up early and started drinking, all the walls were slight not quite straight. Plenty of trades people have really bad life habits. Why do you think they have sausage sizzle outside Bunnings rather than a salad bar?

      DIY when you are an office worker is hard especially when you don't have the muscle reflexes, you over do all the motions and end up being sore.

      It is like you going out and playing 3 sets with top tennis players, even if you lose straight sets 6 - 0 you'll still feel sore just from running trying to chase down the ball.

• 

  Quantumcat on 16/02/2021 - 19:21

  +19

  Tutoring isn't about rote learning. It is a chance for someone to spend time one on one with the student and work out exactly what the misunderstandings are and present the concepts in a way that makes use of the things the student already understands and builds on them. You can also find out what base concepts are missing from the student's understanding and teach those first. For example one student I had really didn't understand fractions or how to manipulate equations. He was quite bright and had been able to solve basic algebra problems with intuition but when the problems got harder than what he could do by intuition and feel he was lost. He was really struggling with linear equations, the current topic that the parents got me in for. I was able to go back to the basics in teaching fractions, and all the things you can do with equations using physical objects and an old style scale. He was fine in maths after that, he just needed helping over that rough patch of understanding that he had missed. He would have been screwed without tutoring as the school had no interest in finding out what his issue was, they knew he was bright but they told his parents he was being lazy and must be getting bad grades now because he wasn't doing his homework (he was trying, but it was frustrating him).

• 

  DingoBilly on 16/02/2021 - 19:30

  +1

  I think it highly depends on the tutor, but assuming you have a good one then I can't see why it wouldn't help anyone and everyone.

  If you just learn everything yourself and don't interact with others you're likely to learn a lot of incorrect or inefficient ways of doing things. By being exposed to other ways of thinking or learning you'd pick up the skills easier but perhaps more importantly, that tutor can pick up on your mistakes and improve you.

  I'm like you in that I prefer studying in solitude, and a lot of the time involving others doesn't help. But when it does help it makes me far better at whatever that task was and I learn how to think differently which is great.

• 

  morse on 16/02/2021 - 19:31

  I only had a little tutoring for extended English (3 unit they called it back in the day) and it definitely helped me with my essay writing. I got very good marks for for someone at a public school who did very little study and practice. This was over 20 years ago. Since then, I’ve worked on my writing skills for various purposes and found it really useful. Don’t judge me by how I write on ozB though - I don’t put a lot of thought into it.

• 

  kanmen on 16/02/2021 - 19:35

  During high school, I felt like most weeknights and every weekend I spent my time in extra tutoring for almost every subject that I studied. Half of it was societal/cultural pressure/expectations to go to tutoring, half of it was because it was helpful. Did it impact my end results? Maybe, maybe not.

  My experience is probably common for someone from a Asian background.

• 

  pharkurnell on 16/02/2021 - 19:38

  Whats a ' rote memory student;'

  • 

    ihbh on 16/02/2021 - 21:03

    Doing something by repetition or routine, without full comprehension. I've got broad interests but for many of those want to get to a pretty deep level over time.

• 

  p1 ama on 16/02/2021 - 19:40

  +15

  I'm an ex-teacher, so I can give my view as (1) a student, (2) an education professional, (3) someone who did tutoring work in uni.

  My view on it is that it is largely neutral, but I have specific examples of it being both good and bad for students. First, let me discuss the nature of tutoring.

  If parents send their kids to tutoring (or kids seek out tutoring themselves, say in high school) in response to an issue, then the tutoring is usually effective. For example, if a kid has identified that they're not very good at essay writing and wish to improve this skill, then this is where an individual tutor can really help. They can give the kid access to a wider variety of resources, can point them in the right direction, mark their work and suggest improvements, offer expertise and bespoke help in specific areas…etc. Note though, that this has to start with the student (or their parent) identifying a very specific need and a desire to improve on that particular issue.

  However, there are also many parents who send their kids to large tutoring centres (usually Asian - this is an honest observation, I'm Asian myself) where I personally don't find there to be much value. From what I gather, this is just additional schooling time. Maybe students might get something out of hearing the same concepts explained by someone else, but this is not something that is unavailable elsewhere (YouTube, books…etc.) and if anything, these tutoring centres seem to be a substitute for discipline than anything else (as in they will force a kid to spend a few hours on a weekend to focus on schoolwork) and I find it hard to believe that they are offering the value that they are charging. Obviously there are many parents who send their kids to these tutoring centres because of (1) FOMO, (2) cultural reasons, (3) babysitting (gives them a chance to go to the shops on the weekend or whatever without their kids).

  So my view on it is that tutoring can be helpful if it is complementary and active in that it seeks to resolve an issue. In some cases, I think it can actually be quite negative because it's used as patchwork on top of very deep systemic issues. Many parents and students use tutoring as a way of just getting the highest grades possible without considering why they are struggling in the first place, which is a fine short term goal, but will just bite them in the back later on when they realise they don't understand anything they've learned. I think that over-coaching also tends to lead many students to these sorts of issues.

  • 

    ihbh on 16/02/2021 - 21:00

    Thanks for this. It has broadened my understanding of tutoring in primary/secondary. I had assumed it was kids being sent to "classes" after school to do get more homework/help with homework/practice with tests, etc. Or in smaller group like the chat my wife had with a mother on the next street who was driving her daughter (who hasn't started uni yet) to tutor a kid. My wife asked what it was like and she said the kid didn't really need tutoring, they just wanted the next year's material.

    I kind of knew of the possibility of university type tutoring, but discarded it as being rare, and can see the benefit of it, although most parents subject to FOMO, cultural reasons, peer pressure, etc., are unlikely to engage these services for their children.

    • 

      p1 ama on 16/02/2021 - 21:06

      My wife asked what it was like and she said the kid didn't really need tutoring, they just wanted the next year's material.

      This just sounds bogus to me. If you want "next year's materials", go to a bookshop and buy the textbook for the year ahead. If I didn't know any better, I think this is just the mother boasting about her kid "not really needing tutoring".

      • 

        ihbh on 16/02/2021 - 21:12

        No, sorry, her daughter was tutoring someone who just wanted to learn one year ahead of their class!

  • 

    fossilfuel on 16/02/2021 - 23:08

    +1

    Many parents and students use tutoring as a way of just getting the highest grades possible without considering why they are struggling in the first place, which is a fine short term goal, but will just bite them in the back later on when they realise they don't understand anything they've learned.

    Completely agree with this. Some of the students in my cohort very high ATARs ended up dropping out of uni since they've lost their tutoring "safety net" and struggle to complete their work without guidance. Or they might have cruised through their degree getting passes then realise they have very limited hiring potential.

    Like you said, they've been taught how to maximise their exam marks rather than how to learn which is crucial for success in uni and beyond.

    In some cases, I think it can actually be quite negative because it's used as patchwork on top of very deep systemic issues.

    I thinking having one or a series of exams dictate a student's future is abhorrent.

    Especially in terms of university admission, a portfolio-based admission criteria would work better where ATAR is weighted against extra-curricular achievement/work experience/sporting etc. Successful students are those who are all rounders.

    Like OC or Selective, students can get tutored to achieve above certain cutoffs to get a placement however they might end up struggling in that environment.

    • 

      p1 ama on 16/02/2021 - 23:59

      +2

      Like you said, they've been taught how to maximise their exam marks rather than how to learn which is crucial for success in uni and beyond.

      Agreed - it's not just that they've learned to maximise exam marks, but that they've learned to maximise exam marks in a very narrow subject and cannot take the skills they've learned there to other applications.

      I thinking having one or a series of exams dictate a student's future is abhorrent.

      I don't agree. I've been involved with various roles in education and nobody has ever managed to convince me of a better system than exams as a relatively fast, fair and verifiable metric of student performance.

      Especially in terms of university admission, a portfolio-based admission criteria would work better where ATAR is weighted against extra-curricular achievement/work experience/sporting etc. Successful students are those who are all rounders.

      That's a nice dream, but I don't see how that is at all realistic. You're just passing the burden and pressure to other locations. Instead of hiring tutors to help them with their maths, they're going to hire expert tennis coaches to help them with their tennis instead (and of course, the only reason they're doing tennis is to get into uni after which they're never going to touch a racket again).

      The issue is not exams, IMO, but rather that it's a competitive process, so no matter how you set the selection criteria, the nexus of competition is going to converge to that particular criteria, so competition will be equally fierce, just in different areas. I don't think that there is any real way that you can select "all rounders".

      Instead, I think the focus should be on better developing pathways so that kids at 18 understand the various options available to them and are able to select the options which best suit what they want to do with their life rather than all competing for the absolute top of the top courses.

      FWIW, I personally never took my exams too seriously in Y12. I definitely did as well as I could and I studied hard, but it wasn't something I was that particularly concerned about. If I got into my course, great, if not, there are other courses and universities where I'd happily be. I don't think that ATAR really has that much bearing on someone's life. There's always options to get where one wants to go and what I've personally seen is that most do end up getting where they want to go eventually.

      • 

        fossilfuel on 17/02/2021 - 20:39

        I don't agree. I've been involved with various roles in education and nobody has ever managed to convince me of a better system than exams as a relatively fast, fair and verifiable metric of student performance.

        I work in education and I think an end of term or semester exam is a lazy way of measuring student achievement. Currently, students complete an exam, get their results, then move on to the next topic. There's no teacher accountability to help their students address their shortcomings. If certain foundational skills are not grasped, then some students will fall further behind as time goes on.

        Student performance is better measured with more frequent formative assessments so that teachers know where individual strengths and shortcomings lie and provide corrective feedback/focused support. Teachers are skilled in evaluating student performance and they don't need an exam/numbers to do so. They can use rubrics (e.g https://s3.studylib.net/store/data/008044205_1-034fb6e248c4a…) to show where students currently are in terms of skill development and where they need to go next. Unfortunately, teachers are bombarded with so much extra administrative burden (welfare, extracurricular, programming, reporting, data collection etc) that anything that is not exam based is impossible to implement.

        The new English and Maths curriculums are brilliant. It does exactly this by explicitly mapping the competencies and skills that students need to develop before they can progress towards more advanced skilsets.

        In Finland, there's no standardised test and they teach students how to learn which is whytheir students are among the top in the world.

        That's a nice dream, but I don't see how that is at all realistic. You're just passing the burden and pressure to other locations. Instead of hiring tutors to help them with their maths, they're going to hire expert tennis coaches to help them with their tennis instead (and of course, the only reason they're doing tennis is to get into uni after which they're never going to touch a racket again).

        I did not say that students need to master a skill for uni admission rather they should develop a broad range of skills. There's no competition with tennis and students build essential skills like their gross motor, teamwork and strategy. Whereas, the ATAR ranking system (and as you mentioned before), students are being taught a very narrow set of skills and concepts in order to outperform other students. With this system, they're taught as much syllabus content within a year and exam technique to maximise marks. This does not translate well to tertiary education where strong critical thinking and analytic skills are essential.

        The issue is not exams, IMO, but rather that it's a competitive process, so no matter how you set the selection criteria, the nexus of competition is going to converge to that particular criteria, so competition will be equally fierce, just in different areas. I don't think that there is any real way that you can select "all rounders".

        Which is why education should scrap the entire ATAR system to enter uni and competitive process throughout schooling. It fuels selfishness as students are focused on outperforming their peers. It also benefits those who can afford tutoring.

        Rather, have a system where students develop a broad range of skills so that they will excel no matter what pathway they choose. If ATAR and standardised testing is scrapped, teachers have more time to focus on running extra-curricular activities/skill building programs, identifying student needs, individualised education and differentiation etc. Students won't worry about exam results and they would be more willing to help each other develop and achieve competencies across subjects. Students won't need external/expert tennis coaches because the goal of education would be to develop a broad range of skills not outperform their peers. Schools are very capable of implementing this if standardised testing is eliminated and administrative burden for teachers is significantly reduced.

        Unis can use qualitative data to evaluate the suitability of students for courses. ATAR might give unis an indicator of how well a student might perform in a course but it should not be the only thing that unis take into account for course entry. Currently ATAR (and completion of pre-req subjects) is the only criteria for uni entry.

        • 

          p1 ama on 18/02/2021 - 00:26

          @fossilfuel:

          I work in education and I think an end of term or semester exam is a lazy way of measuring student achievement. Currently, students complete an exam, get their results, then move on to the next topic. There's no teacher accountability to help their students address their shortcomings. If certain foundational skills are not grasped, then some students will fall further behind as time goes on.

          You're jumping between two points. I think it's important to distinguish between exams during one's schooling life and exams at the end of one's schooling life.

          I actually agree that assessments during one's schooling life should always be geared towards helping students address their shortcomings with a focus on developing their long term skills. However, that's not what we're discussing here, which is the use of exams as a selection metric for universities.

          I don't know why you're bringing in things like standardised tests. It's completely irrelevant to the original point you made.

          In other words, you're making two cases at the same time - that (1) exams are bad as a pedagogical tool (which I agree with), and that (2) exams are not ideal for selection into university courses (which I somewhat disagree with).

          I did not say that students need to master a skill for uni admission rather they should develop a broad range of skills. There's no competition with tennis and students build essential skills like their gross motor, teamwork and strategy.

          And my point is that no matter which "skills" you select as the selection criteria, students and parents will spend oodles amount of money perfecting that skill and the nexus of competition is just going to move there.

          At the end of the day, when you have a course with (say) 100 places and there are 1000 students who want to get in, no matter what you set the selection criteria to be, 900 students are going to miss out . Knowing that, all 1000 students are just going to spend money, time and resources into hacking apart whatever the selection criteria is going to be.

          And what do you mean there's "no competition with tennis"? Sports is highly competitive even at a school level already. If you're going to make it a selection criteria, it will just get even more competitive.

          The issue, IMO, is not with the way we select 100/1000 students into a course, but rather, that 1000 students wish to go into this course in the first place. If we can address that selection problem, I think the focus will naturally shift away from the sheer competition we see now.

          Which is why education should scrap the entire ATAR system to enter uni and competitive process throughout schooling. It fuels selfishness as students are focused on outperforming their peers. It also benefits those who can afford tutoring.

          Again, no matter what system you have. When some people get what they want and others don't, it naturally fuels selfishness. It has nothing to do with the ATAR.

          Schools are very capable of implementing this if standardised testing is eliminated and administrative burden for teachers is significantly reduced.

          This isn't a discussion about standardised testing. FWIW, I think you're completely living in fantasy land if you think any reform is going to make students help each other and spend time developing other competencies. You're completely underestimating the cut-throat nature of humans in general.

          Unis can use qualitative data to evaluate the suitability of students for courses.

          Strong, strong, strong disagree. Qualitative metrics are always bad because they are inherently unfair and require a value judgement. One of the reasons for the ATAR is that it's actually very clear. You can't have different people look at two students and argue over who has the higher ATAR, for instance. Your alternative is just going to spark huge outrage and cause even more uncertainty for students.

          Also, let's not kid ourselves that universities have the resources to sit there and assess hundreds of thousands of portfolios of student achievement. Again, I think what you're saying makes sense in some narrow utopian world, but I just can't see how it can practically be implemented.

          • 

            fossilfuel on 18/02/2021 - 22:02

            @p1 ama:

            You're jumping between two points. I think it's important to distinguish between exams during one's schooling life and exams at the end of one's schooling life.

            I think it's very possible to train teachers to evaluate student learning with metrics other than final HSC performance/ATAR for the purposes of uni entrance (like I said before, progression or essential learning skills using rubrics).

            I raise the point about standardised testing because the in-school and final HSC exams are essentially a series of standardised tests to determine entrance into uni courses. It evaluates how effectively a student rote learns a narrow set of knowledge rather than how effectively they learn/develop skills essential for learning. My biggest issue with ATAR and the HSC exams is it does not fairly identify if students are a good fit for a course. Students need to overcome a "hurdle" and they're offered a place in the course which is a very lazy evaluation process. Someone can get a 99+ ATAR and flunk law school whereas someone with 90+ ATAR with strong reasoning skills might consistently achieve distinctions.

            And my point is that no matter which "skills" you select as the selection criteria, students and parents will spend oodles amount of money perfecting that skill and the nexus of competition is just going to move there.

            My point is that selection should be based on development of a broad range of skills not perfection of a single skill. And I never said that certain skills should be part of the selection criteria. Sure there might be competition within tennis but for the purposes of uni selection, it is crucial to consider what skills students develop AND how they develop those skills not who is the best tennis player.

            The issue, IMO, is not with the way we select 100/1000 students into a course, but rather, that 1000 students wish to go into this course in the first place. If we can address that selection problem, I think the focus will naturally shift away from the sheer competition we see now.

            That's a university problem. The current problem is that there's 1000 students who wish to enter one course at one uni and there's only so many places a uni can offer. If there are 1000 student who wish to enter a course and they are equally competent, why not increase the number of places? Not just at one uni but across all unis and make the degree equally appealing even at "less prestigeous" unis. This requires a system and mindset change.

            This isn't a discussion about standardised testing. FWIW, I think you're completely living in fantasy land if you think any reform is going to make students help each other and spend time developing other competencies. You're completely underestimating the cut-throat nature of humans in general.

            Again, the reason why uni admissions/HSC/ATAR is so cut throat is because of the design. The series of standardised tests are used to rank and compare students, to outperform each other and fuel competition, so that certain students can secure a place in a course at the uni of their choice whereas others get left out.

            You're underestimating the potential for high school students to work together and help each other grow/learn. No matter what system you implement, there will always be competition. However a system which encourages students to grow, develop and refine competencies/skills would significantly reduce competition. The ATAR system does not reward students who help each other because it's designed to encourage competition.

            Strong, strong, strong disagree. Qualitative metrics are always bad because they are inherently unfair and require a value judgement. One of the reasons for the ATAR is that it's actually very clear. You can't have different people look at two students and argue over who has the higher ATAR, for instance. Your alternative is just going to spark huge outrage and cause even more uncertainty for students.

            And I'm saying again, teachers are trained and skilled in evaluating student performance. I strongly disagree that qualitative measure are inherently unfair. It does require professional judgement but you can train all teachers to apply and provide this judgement consistently. Just like HSC marking, papers are always marked twice and goes to a third marker if there's large disagreements about how a section/question is being marked. Papers are rarely sent to be marked a third time which means teacher judgements are mostly consistent. I don't see how it would cause outrage if the professional opinion of teachers is consistent.

            No matter what system you have, someone will always be pissy about it. With quantitative assessment, a student can get 40 in an exam but believe they should have been awarded 90. With qualitative assessment, a student might be evaluated to have less refined grammatical skills but believe that their grammar is perfect.

            Also, let's not kid ourselves that universities have the resources to sit there and assess hundreds of thousands of portfolios of student achievement. Again, I think what you're saying makes sense in some narrow utopian world, but I just can't see how it can practically be implemented.

            Universities won't need to do that because teachers would have done all the work and evaluated student achievement. If unis trust the ATAR system to accept/reject applications, why can't they trust consistently applied teacher judgement on student performance/learning skills?

            I'm not going to jump to conclusions about why you left the teaching profession but from what I observed across my workplaces, there's high teacher attrition as they're overburdened with all these additional demands (meeting targets, achieving as many band 6's as possible, administration/paperwork) and do not give full attention to their teaching. If Australia operated like Finland, I think there would be greater teacher retention and student satisfaction. If you have a chance, I definitely recommend watching this.

• 

  AustriaBargain on 16/02/2021 - 19:45

  +1

  If a tutor knows how to explain something to you that your regular teacher either doesn't know how to explain it specifically to you, or doesn't have the time to explain it specifically to you, then it makes sense. What's the alternative, go along with your schooling without understanding that thing?

  • 

    p1 ama on 16/02/2021 - 20:03

    Except that's a pretty far abstraction from reality. Many parents send their kids to tutoring without any aim and many kids go to tuition just to "get better marks", again without any specific aim on what/how to improve.

• 

  trustnoone on 16/02/2021 - 20:40

  +3

  I'm originally from the country so we didn't really have teachers for the subjects i wanted (maths, biology, physics, chem, eng), just someone you called on the phone 45 minutes a week. So I ended up getting one in my final year of Highschool, grades definitely shot up. Most of my assignments we worked on together so it made them better, and most of the other stuff helped me "think" the right way like "how do I go about this" or "why is this done this way". It really helped though that the guy was smart, but also open to doing what I wanted to go through, it wasn't exactly structured.

  Because of that though, it spurred me being able to go to Uni and then get my job from there. I guess it depends your school though, if you can get out what I got out from a teacher at a school, it may not be as important.

  • 

    p1 ama on 16/02/2021 - 21:07

    -1

    Most of my assignments we worked on together so it made them better

    i.e. cheating?

    • 

      trustnoone on 16/02/2021 - 21:33

      Apologies, I'm not sure what its like in other states and it was a few years back so I didn't think to add it, but for the subjects I was doing through phone access, assignments don't go towards your grade.

      Your grade is made up of a 50% exam at the end of year (I don't remember if its more), and the rest is made up from tests throughout the year (monitored) and 2 drives up to the capital city to run through all the experiments for each subject.

      Assignments, homework, etc are just there for learning. Though they're really there to help you nail the end of year exam (created by the school board I think not teachers).

• 

  AntifaBriggs on 16/02/2021 - 20:41

  Tutoring hindered me because of my unique style of learning.

  I have to solo everything bceause when I'm passively learning I'm screwed; which is what happens in tutoring. I soloed through my whole LLB by not attending lectures and actively reading through the case law and asking people in the study groups.

  • 

    AntifaBriggs on 16/02/2021 - 21:14

    I forgot to mention the most important caveat.

    In high school I was also granted permission to study by myself in the library. I was that close to being expelled because of how poor my "attendance" was. I had to prove that I was actually in the library which could be proved through the CCTV at the time. After a while I did get away with just not turning up at all and just studying at home.

    I am grateful for the Principal at that Selective School at the time. I won't name. I seriously considered home school at the time and some other method to get around the requirements of the department of education, but I would be even worse off if I got my way with that because I would actually have a teacher and set curriculum to mechanically go through each day.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 16/02/2021 - 21:15

  I did tutoring for the final 2 years of high school and really glad I did. I'm a slow learner and I went to a public school and my teachers didn't really care whether I understood anything. I clearly remember the tutor explaining math concepts repeatedly until every kid in the tutoring class was happy to move on.

  I don't plan to send my kids to selective schools but might consider private high school or public + tutoring.

  I didn't do as well as I hoped in hsc but it made no difference in getting into the career I'm in now.

• 

  Cave Fire on 16/02/2021 - 21:25

  Huge help for me. Times I had tutoring were for high school entrance Maths exams in NZ (School Cert) when I was fifteen and also a Biology tutor at uni. The biology tutor was old school and prepared handwritten notes. Remembered the content at exam time and they were good summaries… Well worth $20 an hour… The earlier one helped me with topics I never understood. It took a few sessions before I got a few calculus concepts right. If the tutor is good, they will adapt to your learning style. I'm also sure both helped me avoid getting close to failing or failing.

• 

  funnysht on 16/02/2021 - 21:43

  i think depends- if it is something you're weak at- then yes definitely would help you. Otherwise if you're already good at it then it is more about your own effort that judges how successful you are at that subject.

• 

  Ghost47 on 16/02/2021 - 22:34

  Tutoring helps if the tutee wants to learn.

• 

  jpanko on 16/02/2021 - 22:34

  +1

  When I was at uni, a number of us would tutor high school students to make some money on the side. Each of us had different students and different teaching styles. One of my friends actually developed/published her own set of notes for the full curriculum of some year 12 subjects, she taught 3 students at a time who were really gunning for a perfect score. Many of her students did do really well and achieved what they wanted.

  I tutored a pretty wide variety of students with different needs or goals. One of the best 'students' I had was a guy who was relatively switched on and went to a private school. He didn't exactly know what he wanted to do after high school and after a while many of our conversations turned into careers, goal setting, morals and ethics etc. His parents were pretty flush and didn't mind if he got tutoring or not, it was definitely his initiative. He ended up getting a scholarship to study commerce at Melbourne Uni.

  I got a referral through that family to tutor another student that was struggling through year 9 Maths and was told they should consider going doing a VCAL track, (alternative to VCE/HSC etc.). I spent time with the student trying to bring in some basics (ie. learning their times tables, understanding equations etc.) but in the end the student really had no desire to progress academically and had already settled on getting into a trade as soon as they could. I had a good conversation with the parents and that student and we ended tutoring because it wasn't suitable for that student.

  I think with tutoring it does depend on what the student is trying to get out of it, and then it's about finding a tutor to match. If you're a student who wants to get really high scores, you need to find a tutor who is actually experienced in helping students to do that. If you're a student that doesn't want to learn at all, no amount of tutoring is going to 'help' them, it will just be wasted money. If you're a parent who is forcing your kids to get tutoring it could be any of the above - it might 'work', it might not…. but most likely it will end up being a mismatch of student to tutor and it will inevitably be a waste of money for the parents and time for the young person.

• 

  chasingstoke on 16/02/2021 - 22:38

  Tutoring has made the biggest impact on my studies. I wouldn't have made it through last semester without additional help.

• 

  fossilfuel on 16/02/2021 - 23:20

  Tutoring helped me get enough marks/boost my ATAR and I got into the course of my choice. However during undergrad, I didn't do as well as I could. I think I developed unhealthy study habits/skills as a result of tutoring.

  It took me near the end of my degree to learn how to think critically, write properly and study effectively and undo all the unhealthy habits from the past. Luckily I've developed better habits and my masters course was much more manageable.

• 

  Drakesy on 17/02/2021 - 11:43

  My (asian) friends all had tutors and did extra curricular schooling on weekends to stay ahead of the class.
  Did it help them get a good ATAR? yes
  Did they cruise through school? yes

  Did they miss out on downtime and various social events on the weekend? yes.

  It all comes down to how badly you value a good ATAR score, imho a lot of them blitzed the ATAR but chose to do standard subjects that required far less ATARs for entry. If it were up to me, if my kids were failing school/struggling then yes, but if they were keeping up i wouldn't. Life's all about balance, missing out on social experiences when your mental health is highly volatile

• 

  afah0447 on 17/02/2021 - 12:37

  Tutoring was unheard of when i was high school and it was still pretty rare when i was at uni (usually some honours student looking to make a few extra bucks for beer money, nothing organised). Today's situation is madness and is only pushed so hard by big companies because they are making a killing off it.

• 

  Jugganautx on 17/02/2021 - 20:15

  Wait, your parents could afford tutors????

• 

  fishing on 18/02/2021 - 12:24

  I read that article and SMH. They only named schools in the article that have Opportunity Classes and are already coached from preschool to within an inch of their life.

  The article was a furphy

  The number of coaching"colleges" and backyard outfits in Hurstville is ridiculous…. It's like playing whack a mole

  Of course coaching assists kids.

  In NSW teachers "deliver" the curriculum. The teachers are not assessed on competency of delivery, let alone competency of teaching and mentoring. You only have to look at a half yearly report (almost always given on second last or last day of school term - to ensure no parental discussion) and see that the child is NYC - Not Yet Competent. After a couple of repeats, I realised that the kids were not competent because they hadn't been taught…. Such a joke

  Education in Australia to free up women to work not educate children…. It's a disgusting system