Do students need tutoring to succeed in the VCE?

[Planck's constant]

B) For someone who dismisses any argument against their opinion as 'plain stupid'

I did say that
I cannot deny it

[Mariammm]

Student a may outdo student b due to differences in intellectual capacity

You are comparing apples with bananas.

I am talking :

1) I am one of 30 students being taught in a classroom setting by Dr Wee for 2 hours a week
2) I am the LONE student being taught one-to-one by Dr Wee for 10 hours a week

2 > 1

Obvious



.

I clearly answered that part in my argument ... Yet you chose to just look at one line of it

So i assume you are arguing that if the same student was put in both situations, they would achieve better with the latter - this my be the case, but sometimes when  you work to tear apart and understand a subject and consequently, your own learning technique it works out better than being spoonfed the knowledge by a tutor

I didnt shut down your argument but said that you cant speak for everyone .. So dont be throwing unrelated analogies

And i said 'intellectual capacity AND personal effort'

[WhoTookMyUsername]

well the OP said if tutoring is "NEEDED" clearly; it's not NEEDED. and the degree that it helps is very subjective

[Mariammm]

well the OP said if tutoring is "NEEDED" clearly; it's not NEEDED. and the degree that it helps is very subjective

This i agree with ... But one question is being asked and another is being answered

[WhoTookMyUsername]

Well there's no answer to the other question so there's really no point debating it IMO

[DlP]

I should have been more careful with my words. That was slightly ambiguous. I didn't mean all, just the fact that any tutored student could out-perform one without tutoring. Of course not all students with a tutor could out-do any without - that would be embarrassing.

Also, I see tutors as something different. To me, a private tutor would be one teacher helping one student at a time, but there can be multiple students there at once. A tutor (I just call them tutors) would be in a classroom setting, similar to what schools do. I generally see private tutors as those helping students who are struggling, while classroom-based tutors as those generic tutors people talk (and occasionally complain) about.


@greenbeans: No...not quite what I was getting at.
The school and its teachers are partially responsible for the atmosphere it provides. I find that students from different backgrounds (I'm Asian) generally aren't so focussed on education, and the teachers (can) do little to change that. Then people complain about these other students making it seem like tutoring is essential. Maybe tuition provides something that some schools tend to be lacking.

On the other hand, I know a few of my teachers were very critical of tuition. One of my friends was very strongly opposed to tutors as well (only because he didn't go to one, and almost everyone else did). When I asked one of my teachers, she said that she felt that way because many tuition centres took credit for what they're students were really doing. I don't know if the situation is the same anywhere in Vic, but in one of the top selective schools in my state, most of the students come from one particular area. It could be because that area has the combination of high socio-economic status and a large Asian population.

But the point was that it wasn't the tutors that were so great, it was the students. She believed that their (the tutor's) students didn't accurately measure the tuition centre's success, but it was largely the student's doing and that their participation in tuition was merely an expression of their own or their parents values.


@argonaut: That's some really intensive tutoring. How do those 10 hours fit around the week?
@fuzzylogic: I think that the atmosphere is quite a large part. Positive peer pressure, although it's much more subtle.

[WhoTookMyUsername]

I should have been more careful with my words. That was slightly ambiguous. I didn't mean all, just the fact that any tutored student could out-perform one without tutoring. Of course not all students with a tutor could out-do any without - that would be embarrassing.

uh... what? Are you trying to say that if one person took the VCE twice and simulataneously, the one with tutoring would perform better? THe way you've phrased it i read it as "any tutored student > any one without tutoring"

[DlP]

Basically, tutored students seem to be doing better.
A simpler way of putting it (although my perspective is skewed).

[greenbeans]

But the point was that it wasn't the tutors that were so great, it was the students. She believed that their (the tutor's) students didn't accurately measure the tuition centre's success, but it was largely the student's doing and that their participation in tuition was merely an expression of their own or their parents values.

^^^ this. totally what i believe in, clearly i've offended/confused/frustrated a few AN members here by not putting my own thoughts, beliefs whatever into something prosaic enough as DlP has so beautifully done.
so on the whole i am for tutors as i love the profession, yet i, personally am against getting myself tutored, but this issue has so many facets to it that having a clear cut answer is such a no-no.

[paulsterio]

not necessarily, tutoring has the capacity to diminish one's performance. for example, had i done methods tuition, say, it might have been possible for me to end up doing worse because of a false sense of security and because of me not trying my best to understand and do well.

also, group tuition isn't necessarily worse than 1-on-1. group tuition has the advantage of competition and that's a massive advantage.

[HERculina]

I actually disagree with that. How can tutoring make you do worse? If you're a great student wouldn't you be smart enough to use the tutoring as an advantage and improve with it? Plus I've never heard of someone with tutoring say it made them worse. Someone who says so must have already been unmotivated in the first place.

[paulsterio]

Hmm, I'm not in a position to say, but I was just putting the idea out there.

I was thinking along the lines of tuition being kinda like "spoonfeeding" which is basically telling students how to do things without them understanding it. This gives them a sense of "oh I know how to do this and I understand it", whilst they actually do not. This might be bad for the student because they then go on without ever learning it properly

For example, personally, I knew how to find derivatives way before I understood what it meant in terms of the instantaneous rate of change. That's because an older friend of mine taught me it as a way of finding a stationary point. "Find the derivative, set it equal to zero, solve for x". That's what I knew, but I didn't understand. I think tuition can also have this effect?

[Fishyiscool]

I actually disagree with that. How can tutoring make you do worse? If you're a great student wouldn't you be smart enough to use the tutoring as an advantage and improve with it? Plus I've never heard of someone with tutoring say it made them worse. Someone who says so must have already been unmotivated in the first place.

As much as I love you, Hercules, tutoring for health was a waste of my life and made me dumber. XD my marks dropped from a+ to c+ xD I guess I spent time I could have spent studying at tutor.. Then came home and wasted time coz I'd 'worked so hard at tutor' LOL. Coz I'm a psycho like that xD it prob depends on what tutor and whether it's one on one or group (like I had for health).

[HERculina]

Lol ok  . Maybe it varies for different people. I just think that tutoring is more of a stay the same vs get better thing rather than a get worse vs get better thing if that makes sense =D

[Fishyiscool]

Lol ok  . Maybe it varies for different people. I just think that tutoring is more of a stay the same vs get better thing rather than a get worse vs get better thing if that makes sense =D

Yeeeeh I get what u mean ; I guess it depends on the person and how lazy they are