Home schooling with private tutors

There's an article in today's NY Times about home schooling with private tutors.

In what is an elite tweak on home schooling — and a throwback to the gilded days of education by governess or tutor — growing numbers of families are choosing the ultimate in private school: hiring teachers to educate their children in their own homes.

Surprisingly, it doesn't cost much more to have private teachers than it does to send your children to a top private school.

The cost for such teachers generally runs $70 to $110 an hour. And depending on how many hours a teacher works, and how many teachers are involved, the price can equal or surpass tuition in the upper echelon of private schools in New York City or Los Angeles, where $30,000 a year is not unheard of.

One wonders why private school tuition costs so much money. After the teacher's salary and cost of the school building, where else does the money go?

Why is this the most emailed article in today's edition? Is it because people are shocked at the luxuries the rich can afford? Or is it because the typical NY Times reader is in the position to hire his own private teacher for his children.

Comments

[Austrian]

A lot more people could afford a private tutor, if government didn't steal people's money (via school tax) for their monopoly educational system. Talk about perpetuating a class divide...

[SciFiGeek]

You can't have private tutors for everyone, then half the population would be tutoring the other half.

I don't think the average NYT reader is in position for this, but the people the advertisers are hoping to reach are. The NYT has the third-largest circulation in the country (behind USA Today and the WSJ) at about one and a half million. A lot of those are just New Yorkers reading the local paper. For all its snob appeal it still has stories about the cat that gets stuck between two walls or the two birds that got chased away from their nest, in the Metro section. The thing is that there are a LOT of very rich people in New York.

Another fine example of what money buys you in the world of education: Your kids not having to go to some dump of a public school. It's probably worth every penny.

[nancyspungenesq.]

Jesus. "Krystal" and "Tiffany." There's probably no place in regular school for these intellectual giantesses.

I wonder how much easier it is to get good grades from a tutor than it is from even the most money-grubbing private school. What are the odds that someone with whom you're contracting with for $75-$110 an hour is going to flunk you? Or load you up with homework? This article was a real softball.

This must be how all those dimwit celebrities get into Ivy League colleges.

[Half Sigma]

"I wonder how much easier it is to get good grades from a tutor than it is from even the most money-grubbing private school."

They have to take the same SAT, same SAT II, and same AP tests as everyone else. So this seems like a non-issue to me.

[nobody]

Private tutoring is far superior, if done properly. If you think about it, our public (and private) school are simply factories turning out a massed produced product catered to the lowest demoninator. A teacher can simply not pay the level of attention to 20 pupils than to one or two. The level of customization in an individual teaching program can be far more efficient than the state approved plan.

[nancyspungenesq.]

True, standardized tests are a factor, but aren't grades still a substantial part of the decision? I admit it's been a while since I applied to college. I remember that many classmates compensated for low SATs with high grades. That might not work for Harvard, but it could mean the difference between getting into, say, UCLA, or not.

[Half Sigma]

nancy, I take it that your conern is that the poor rich kids won't get into as prestigious a college on account of their private home-schooling.

I would suppose that Harvard-bound kids in that situation would want to take as many standardized tests as possible to build a track record that can be used to evaluate their candidacy.

I wouldn't worry too much about them.

[nancyspungenesq]

Actually, I was concerned that the poor *poor* kids would be outcompeted for admissions by these tutored kids, who have (I suspect) essentially purchased good grades for themselves without the obstacles of homework, hostile teachers, or curve-grading (or have high schools stopped doing that?). The article didn't address how, or if, colleges weigh grades from tutors versus grades from a particular high school.

[The Superfluous Man]

Even the upper middle class could afford it, if you had a 5, or even 10, person class. I don't know whether that affects the quality or not. Or broker a discount through referring your friend.
" remember that many classmates compensated for low SATs with high grades"
Is that true mostly of under represented minorities? Innercity schools have inflated GPAs, relative to their SAT scores.

Colleges require more SAT subject tests from home-schooled kids.

"A teacher can simply not pay the level of attention to 20 pupils than to one or two."
The advantage of a tutor is customization. But if you have kids of similar ability, meaning they learn at similar speeds, customization will be of much less issue. For instance, In my math class, the marginal students restricted the amount of material covered.

[The Princess Mom]

It's amazing how much time is wasted lining kids up or waiting for passing period or taking attendance and waiting for the class to quiet down. Studies show that most elementary schools provide about 3.5 hours of instructional time in a six hour day. Now imagine if you had six hours of instructional time one-on-one with your own personal teacher.

The only benefit of an article such as this would be to make it more acceptable to home- or virtual-school, and more clear to the powers-that-be that our public education system is a dinosaur.

[nancyspungenesq]

Oh, snap, SFM. Many of the people I'm remembering are indeed URMs, the majority at my high school. Me, I had an inflated SAT score relative to my grades. Lousy teachers and low-achieving classmates doesn't necessarily equal great grades, especially if you're the type who argues with teachers and considers homework beneath you. At least not in parochial school.

But, I also remember seeing the same grade-compensation for some white girls at the wealthier schools. Sometimes due to AP grade weighting, sometimes not. "A" grades were often the reward for being polite and turning in your copious little assignments on time.

My point being, if low-testing wealthy kids can in essence purchase a high GPA via tutoring, they have an edge for college slots. True, they wouldn't be the only applicants with inflated grades -- but, to me, they're the least sympathetic. At least the bad-school kids have to put up with bad-school bull to get their inflated grades.

[Half Sigma]

Colleges admissions comittees aren't entirely stupid, which is why they evaluate class rank and not grade point average.

Some high schools have been withholding class ranks, essentially making their grades useless.

[The Superfluous Man]

I've always though grades prima facie a ridiculous way of comparing kids from different schools, and at times even within a school but with different teachers. But, GPA does add predictive power above that of the SAT. Maybe GPA indicates diligence, maybe because the SAT is not a full IQ test, and thus not as predictive.

Kinda funny Nancy. Imagine a school in the black ghetto, where the median grade is a C-, while over at Malibu High, Chinatown, or Yeshiva, the median grade's a B+, all normed to the SAT average. Both accurate, and too much so. Honest grades are politically impossible. Besides, I suspect teachers cannot handle giving so few A's. Instead they'll just flagellate themselves, even after having taught say, at a good private school. GPA is just hidden affirmative action, if the URM in question goes to a bad school. (BTW, I go to a religious private school, with no experience whatsoever of URM public schools.)

How can you really discern how good a school is, when intelligence largely determines outcomes, and is stable throughout one's life? Sharon Begley in the WSJ wrote an article recently about how one's intelligence stays the same relative to others throughout life, beginning from infancy. Schools, therefore, may distinguish themselves not in the college acceptances of their students, but in the amount of knowledge communicated to them, and the mores and manners instilled therein. I would add to that instilling a skeptical, empirical, Occam's razor type mentality, like that of Mr. Sigma. It's also important to match a child with students of similar ability, (likely) even if it means downgrading schools.

[nancyspungenesq]

The Journal article didn't address what really concerns me, which is not whether smart people stay smart, but whether smart people succeed. Based on my own observations, I'd say adult success (not just getting through K-12 and getting high test scores) is heavily related to status/income of one's family, regardless of IQ.

Thinking back to the smartest guys from school, it seems that the ones with money succeeded professionally later in life, whereas the ones without, just ended up weird and marginal. Doesn't necessarily mean they're not happy, I guess, but still gives me pause.

[The Superfluous Man]

Nancy, though correlation is not necessarily causation, these tables are relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ#Practical_validity

[SciFiGeek]

Say, nancy: what did the smart poor guy who ended up weird and marginal actually wind up doing? Were they any better off than stupid poor guys?

I wouldn't be too surprised if the optimal IQ varies from social class to social class.

[Half Sigma]

Assuming IQ has a median of 100 and standard deviation of 15...

A kid with an IQ of 130 would be one std dev above the norm in an upper middle class school where the other kids had an average IQ of 115, so the average kids might not find him that much different.

But he's be two std devs above the norm in a middle class school where the kids have an average IQ of 100, and the other kids would think he's weird because of the greater difference in IQs and the high IQ kid would be denied normal social interaction and would be at greater risk of becoming weird.

Same kid would be a total misfit at a ghetto school with an average IQ of 85.

[nancyspungenesq]

"what did the smart poor guy who ended up weird and marginal actually wind up doing? Were they any better off than stupid poor guys?"

The below-average ones probably had it worse, generally -- more scrapes with the law; even more limited job opportunities. However, average "poor" guys -- by which I don't necessarily mean poor, just working-class families -- did noticably better *romantically* than their bright counterparts. It's those counterparts who tended to be sexually marginalized, considered creepy, not able to take rejection, etc. -- even if they looked OK.

They average-to-slightly-above guys were also more likely to have stable jobs and make more money, usually in fields like sales, which depend heavily on likeability. Brighter working-class guys would go to some bad college, often taking a long time to make it through (or drop out), then not do very well in the professional world. Whereas, brighter guys from well-off families, even if they'd been middle-school dorks, would often make the "Revenge of the Nerds" recovery in college and in the professional world.

Granted, it's hard to judge someone's long-term financial success from anecdotes and scraps of info. But many of the OK-looking guys I've ever known who did the worst with women were that type of guy. The self-styled intellectual, without corresponding status/resources.

It occurs to me, though, that I never gave anyone an IQ test. So, some of them may not have really been very bright, but just adopted an intellectual, outsider pose to feel better about being socially undesirable. And did "intellectual" activities because they can be done alone, without physical exertion. That would help explain the lack of achievement to back up the supposed ability. Half-Sigma's theory makes sense, though.

[tiem]

Nancy, I think the key is, as you say, that you don't know people's IQ. There are two main points here
(1) you may not have been exposed to a big range of IQ, so underestimate its importance
(2) you may be confusing IQ with the personality trait of "openness to experience" (probably what you mean by intellectual), which has no correlation with success. (I'm skeptical that social undesirability causes intellectuals.)