Doing Extension 2 in prelim (1 Viewer)

[DatAtarLyfe]

Anyone else in prelim doing extension 2 maths at the moment? if you are, how are you finding it?
I started it in tutor about a month ago and just finished graphs. Currently loving it, but i expect it to get harder

 

[braintic]

Anyone else in prelim doing extension 2 maths at the moment? if you are, how are you finding it?
I started it in tutor about a month ago and just finished graphs. Currently loving it, but i expect it to get harder

What I don't understand is why schools are not permitted to begin Ext 2 until term 4, yet private tutors can start any time.
Apparently a level playing field is required ..... unless you are willing to pay to get an advantage.

The tutoring industry needs to be regulated.

 

[MilkyCat_]

what's the point

 

[DatAtarLyfe]

What I don't understand is why schools are not permitted to begin Ext 2 until term 4, yet private tutors can start any time.
Apparently a level playing field is required ..... unless you are willing to pay to get an advantage.

The tutoring industry needs to be regulated.

Tutoring is meant to accelerate students/help them with current topics. By getting a headstart, you learn to grasp the concepts exceptionally better than if you do them at school. However, I do agree with you, there is no longer a level playing field at school. My friend goes to selective and he tells me that about 3/4 of the class go to tutor and thus the teacher is rendered useless.
Yet you can't blame the tutoring industry, students want better marks and for some, me included, no amount of hard study and time can get me where I want to be without a tutor. That's not to say that everyone needs to go tutoring, i've known people who have gotten 99+ atar without external education. So if paying is needed to gain an advantage to maximise marks, than I think that's an appropriate justification.

 

[braintic]

Tutoring is meant to accelerate students/help them with current topics. By getting a headstart, you learn to grasp the concepts exceptionally better than if you do them at school. However, I do agree with you, there is no longer a level playing field at school. My friend goes to selective and he tells me that about 3/4 of the class go to tutor and thus the teacher is rendered useless.
Yet you can't blame the tutoring industry, students want better marks and for some, me included, no amount of hard study and time can get me where I want to be without a tutor. That's not to say that everyone needs to go tutoring, i've known people who have gotten 99+ atar without external education. So if paying is needed to gain an advantage to maximise marks, than I think that's an appropriate justification.

Why should someone less talented be able to get better results than someone more able just because they have thousands of dollars to fork out?

But ... that wasn't the point I was making ... I was simply saying that if we have to have tutors, then they should be made to follow the same rules as are imposed on schools.

 

[DatAtarLyfe]

But ... that wasn't the point I was making ... I was simply saying that if we have to have tutors, then they should be made to follow the same rules as are imposed on schools.

If tutors are bounded by the same rules as school, then they are rendered useless, there might as well not be tutors. Tutors are meant to go beyond school, or behind depending on ability of student, which is their job.
It's not every case where students that go tutoring get better marks than other students who don't, sometimes they go tutoring to get on par with the other students. In that case, the money is not being used as an unequal advantage moreover its being used to level out the playing field and its even a disadvantage to the parents as they're not even paying for excellent marks, there paying for the passing mark. I fully understand what you are trying to say and i don't disagree (somewhat true), i just think the generalisation of spending money on tutors produces unfair advantages is not true in all cases.

 

[braintic]

If tutors are bounded by the same rules as school, then they are rendered useless, there might as well not be tutors. Tutors are meant to go beyond school, or behind depending on ability of student, which is their job.
It's not every case where students that go tutoring get better marks than other students who don't, sometimes they go tutoring to get on par with the other students. In that case, the money is not being used as an unequal advantage moreover its being used to level out the playing field and its even a disadvantage to the parents as they're not even paying for excellent marks, there paying for the passing mark. I fully understand what you are trying to say and i don't disagree (somewhat true), i just think the generalisation of spending money on tutors produces unfair advantages is not true in all cases.

Why would they be rendered useless? What is wrong with teachers teaching the concepts first and tutors reinforcing them, instead of the other way around?

And .... by saying that you are pretty much implying that schools have been rendered useless by these rules.

My experience is that most students who have been pre-tutored in a topic really have very little understanding of the topic until it is taught properly in class. They might recall some formulas, but that's about it. (I'm thinking specifically about students who learn extension trig at tutoring while in year 10).

 

[Carrotsticks]

braintic, you are clearly a more accomplished Extension 2 teacher, so I understand your perspective on that. I'm on the side of wanting more regulations in the tutoring industry actually, despite being in it myself.

What is wrong with teachers teaching the concepts first and tutors reinforcing them, instead of the other way around?

My answer to that is that sometimes the teachers don't do it well, or just do it wrongly. But both parties are culprits here. I've seen, and corrected, many tutors teaching the wrong thing.

I'm not sure where your students have gone tutoring in the past, but I've experienced the opposite! Many students tell me that they pretty much rely on my teaching to get them through their exams (and many perform quite well too) because their teacher did not explain things clearly. Now typically I'd be giving the teacher the benefit of the doubt because the opinions of students are generally to be taken with a grain of salt, but there have been (too many) times where I see the notes that the students have copied down from the board at school, and there are things that are downright wrong.

They can range from relatively minor things like

- "If the polynomial has real coefficients, then it has non-real roots in conjugate pairs and visa versa"

to more serious things (this one was recent) like

- Using normal 3U induction to solve strong induction problems.

- I had a recent example where there was a half-yearly exam question that couldn't be done without advanced university-learned techniques. I sent a counter-example to the student, who forwarded it to their teacher, and it was rejected (I was flabbergasted, how can you 'reject' a clear counter example?) I gave another and they finally removed the question from the paper.

- Last year when teaching Mechanics, many of my students had drawn centripetal force on their diagram. I asked them "Why?" and the typical response was "Well we draw the normal force, the gravitational force, so we also draw centripetal force".

- A few weeks ago, I was teaching recurrence relations in Integration and when dealing with the more difficult ones (which have quite a different approach to the standard reduction formula problems, so things like ), some of my students asked if these will ever be in exams because their teacher didn't show them any such thing. I directed them to 2013 HSC.

- Even more shockingly, when going through the problems where IBP was not required to construct the recurrence, some students were confused and when I investigated, I learned that they had been taught to ONLY use integration by parts! I directed them to 2014 HSC.

One of the things that I feel quite strongly against is 'super accelerated tutoring', where Year 9-10 students learn Year 11-12 concepts. Like you said, all they seem to get out of it is "Oh I remember seeing that formula".

In an ideal system, we won't need tutoring. But the key word here is "ideal".

 

[wiliaamnguuyen]

I started Extension 2 in term 4 year 10, learning Complex Numbers, Polynomials which required a strong grasp in 3u topics. The reason I asked my parents if I could take this after school class is to get ahead, and for my personal interest. I asked about the mates I had in year 12 who were doing Ext 2, and they said there teachers were very bad at explaining and they just worked on the Terry Lee textbook. This is another reason that prompted me to take the Extension 2 class, and I do not regret taking this class. One of the reasons are that, these teachers have experience and had done many questions and could devise a pattern between these exam questions and hence, could teach us. I finished Conics, Graphs, Polynomials and Complex and preparing for half yearlies in this tutoring. However, students who cannot afford to pay for these classes, in my opinion, are a bit advantage. I think it's about the student, and how far they would go to learn a difficult subject such as Ext 2 Maths on their own with a textbook. Having a teacher can provide insight and techniques to tackle questions

 

[braintic]

In an ideal system, we won't need tutoring. But the key word here is "ideal".

My main point is that if there has to be tutoring, then the rules for tutors should be the same as the rules for teachers. Otherwise, what is the point of having rules for teachers?
Tutors should not be permitted to start a course early, they should be forced to get Working with Children certification, and there should be some kind of regulatory body.
And for any tutor who claims to follow all the rules, then I have to ask ..... Do you declare your tutoring income for tax purposes? I am really tempted to suggest to the tax office that they peruse the tutoring advertisements on this site.

 

[Carrotsticks]

My main point is that if there has to be tutoring, then the rules for tutors should be the same as the rules for teachers. Otherwise, what is the point of having rules for teachers?
Tutors should not be permitted to start a course early, they should be forced to get Working with Children certification, and there should be some kind of regulatory body.
And for any tutor who claims to follow all the rules, then I have to ask ..... Do you declare your tutoring income for tax purposes? I am really tempted to suggest to the tax office that they peruse the tutoring advertisements on this site.

I'm on the side of regulating tutoring.

We regulate hairdressing and various other professions, tutoring should also be regulated. But there are some cons to it ie: some potential teachers realise they want to become teachers after a bit of time in the tutoring industry. But at the very least a Working with Children check should be mandatory. Where I work, all teachers have to have one.

 

[braintic]

I'm on the side of regulating tutoring.

But there are some cons to it ie: some potential teachers realise they want to become teachers after a bit of time in the tutoring industry.

Of course that argument could be used to argue against regulating any profession.
But good to know you agree in principle.

But ... no reference to the tax issue?

 

[Martin_SSEDU]

I personally did extension 2 unofficially when I was in Year 11 and I'd like to add to the discussion as to what I think accelerating should be about,

I find that even though a student can do extension 2 earlier, be it by self study or by tutoring, the question isn't about whether it's wrong to do it earlier or if the school system is slow, I believe that it's all about what the student can handle.

I take this point because I only did this level of study because I was at a point in my life where I was starting to really love maths and that I just wanted more and more to do to the point I was ready to push myself to the limit and take up a harder unit. I would say that if it wasn't for me accelerating and doing it earlier I would have been likely to have skipped out on it in year 12 because I would have been far to scared to risk my HSC upon something traditionally held as the hardest mathematics unit available.

The real reason as to why students are taking up doing extension units earlier then they are supposed to is usually because they are truly interested in doing it as you'll find just like school, the one's who aren't up for it will definitely quit at some point. I come to this conclusion based on my own belief as to how I treated my acceleration and maybe it's true that there are people out there being forced to study earlier but I don't see anything wrong with giving a helping hand to someone who just wants to do more. I do agree though there is a big moral question in this because if people, especially parents are given the wrong idea about accelerating and studying ahead you start getting a bunch of kids who don't want to do it and are in fact suffering.

Now to answer OP, I say enjoy it, have fun and study hard. Keep up with your studies for school and ace everything because that's what you should be aiming for. Remember, doing the extension units in year 11 doesn't mean you'll ace it in Year 12, I still had to study the same as any other extension 2 student, if not harder because I personally needed the acceleration to catch up in the first place. And yes it does get harder, but more fun!

 

[seanieg89]

Whilst regulation is ideal on the tax and working with children side of things, I don't see how it is a good thing to tie the hands of private tutors in terms of what they can teach. A major reason why anyone considers spending money on tutoring worthwhile is that you can choose a more preferable way to learn the course that the one your school is offering (whether this is speed / difficulty / whatever.)

As for being opposed to the possibility of "buying" a better education, I think this is a pretty unavoidable aspect of the world we live in. Money often CAN buy a better education. In any case, I imagine it would be rather difficult to regulate this industry. A large amount of it is between friends and family friends in extremely informal settings. At best you could come up with some kind of official certification required to be legally allowed to teach, and then

a) I would view this qualification and profession as pretty superfluous if bound to almost the same rules as teaching at schools
b) It would be laughably easy to slip under the net if you only take a few students that you knew well prior.

(By the way, I also think this is a silly restriction for schools themselves to have. Would be interested in knowing the logic behind it, I am sure there is a reason I am missing. It is not like a student cannot start reading the course material early anyway if he is so inclined.)

 

[rembo]

You misunderstand. Schools teach Ext 2 in Yr 12 because that's when it is due to be taught, not to be "fair". Yr 11 is filled with teaching the Math and Math Ext 1 syllabus, so it's not the time to be teaching the Yr 12 content at school.

And in some schools students CAN be accelerated and either do the HSC a year early (eg. my son is doing SDD prelim while in yr 10 and will do the HSC SDD while he's in Yr 11) or use it to 'get ahead' so they have more time to do the HSC study (at his school some students did accelerated Maths in Yr 9, and start the prelim content in Yr 10 -- they'll do HSC Math/ext1 in Yr11 and Math/Ext1/Ext2 in Yr 12 as normal, but should do better as they have a better grounding in the subject already).

Outside of school you can do what you want -- get a tutor to help study the current year syllabus, use a tutor to study ahead (what you have raised as an 'issue'), or just buy the excel study guides and some other books and study the Yr 12 Math Ext 2 syllabus whenever you want to (you could have started studying Math Ext 2 in Yr 7 if that suited you!).

So, in summary, schools don't wait until term 4 or Yr 11 to start the HSC subject content to be "fair", they do it then because that is when it needs to be taught to the Yr 11/12 student cohort.

 

[sy37]

I didn't know what a fraction was until 8th grade im 100% srs, and even then it was when I figured it out by myself that a fraction is essentially division. Worked hard, taught myself heaps between 9-10th grade after that, got into 2U (must meet certain standards at my nazi fucking catholic school) and failed it miserably (even though I beat more than 35% of the class, lol).

I was surprised when the other kids actually learnt maths in primary (we basically took a wheel tape and measured the playground everyday l0l), and even more surprised to see what a good maths teacher can do in 9th grade and 10th grade. If I had a tutor I think I'd be academically and mathematically ahead.

tl;dr tutoring can be beneficial, but it needs to be regulated in terms of type of assistance provided to students e.g. collusion comes to mind (and I see this, alot).

 

[braintic]

Schools don't wait until term 4 or Yr 11 to start the HSC subject content to be "fair", they do it then because that is when it needs to be taught to the Yr 11/12 student cohort.

I'm afraid you are wrong. If you are going to make a statement like that, you need to know the history of what you are talking about.
Some time ago (I'm going to guess 20 years), some schools WERE starting the 4 unit course earlier than term 4. After complaints from students and teachers about the fairness of this, it was mandated that a school could not begin teaching Ext 2 until term 4. Before this, most schools actually started Ext 2 at the beginning of term 1 year 12, while some were starting early in year 11. So this actually had the effect of bringing the starting time forward for most schools, because the start of term 4 was interpreted as the new beginning of year 12.