A-level Maths tutor badly needed

[Samsonknight]

Hi,

I am still looking for a place that does AS & A2 maths in one year.However I
have had no luck , all the places I have found are outside of London or do
long distance learning . I am now considering in investing into an A-level
maths tutor that is willing to cover P1,P2,S1 for the AS units for the
November exams. and the additional A2 units which will be taken in June -
preferably EDEXCEL as I had done that 2 years ago for AS.

I will enter all of my modules as a private cadidate.

Can anyone here please give me advice on where I can get such a tutor - I am
a bit worried that I cant find anywhere to do it, as I am very keen to do
it. - and would prefer to do it in 1 year.

I am based in South London.

Thank you!

Sam

[Kate]

Post by Samsonknight
Hi,
I am still looking for a place that does AS & A2 maths in one year.However I
have had no luck , all the places I have found are outside of London or do
long distance learning . I am now considering in investing into an A-level
maths tutor that is willing to cover P1,P2,S1 for the AS units for the
November exams. and the additional A2 units which will be taken in June -
preferably EDEXCEL as I had done that 2 years ago for AS.
I will enter all of my modules as a private cadidate.
Can anyone here please give me advice on where I can get such a tutor - I am
a bit worried that I cant find anywhere to do it, as I am very keen to do
it. - and would prefer to do it in 1 year.
I am based in South London.
Thank you!
Sam

Croydon College do a flexstudy programme where they allocate you a tutor and
you can do work at home, via email and then meet up whenever you want. I
think if you were doing just one subject you could do it all in one year.

Alternatively if you can afford £1400 a term then
http://www.campbellharris.com

[Samsonknight]

Post by Kate
Croydon College do a flexstudy programme where they allocate you a tutor and
you can do work at home, via email and then meet up whenever you want. I
think if you were doing just one subject you could do it all in one year.

I feel I can do it in 1 year as well. AS I have had some prior experience on
the AS part of the course from 2 years back.

I just phoned one of my ex tutors from 2 years back , and he said he was
willing to tutor me 4 hours a week for 50 pounds - is it worth it? is it
enough?

Thanks for informing me about croydon college, I will look into it. I guess
I am a bit worried as this is a bit "riskier" then going to a college and
doing it in a year. But I guess if I put effort into it I can get through
it.

Post by Kate
Alternatively if you can afford £1400 a term then
http://www.campbellharris.com

A bit expensive, but if your willing to lend me to £1400, I am willing to do
that :)

Sam

[John Porcella]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Kate
Croydon College do a flexstudy programme where they allocate you a tutor

and

Post by Kate
you can do work at home, via email and then meet up whenever you want.

I

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Kate
think if you were doing just one subject you could do it all in one year.

I feel I can do it in 1 year as well. AS I have had some prior experience on
the AS part of the course from 2 years back.
I just phoned one of my ex tutors from 2 years back , and he said he was
willing to tutor me 4 hours a week for 50 pounds - is it worth it? is it
enough?

If he wants £50 per hour then that is far beyond the market rate.

I do not think that four hours is enough to cover six modules properly if
you need to go over all of the syllabi and leave enough time to practice on
loads of past papers for each module. I am assuming that you are looking
for the top grades and not just mere passes.

[Toby]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 00:05:08 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Kate
Croydon College do a flexstudy programme where they allocate you a tutor

and

Post by Kate
you can do work at home, via email and then meet up whenever you want.

I

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Kate
think if you were doing just one subject you could do it all in one

year.

Post by Samsonknight
I feel I can do it in 1 year as well. AS I have had some prior experience

on

Post by Samsonknight
the AS part of the course from 2 years back.
I just phoned one of my ex tutors from 2 years back , and he said he was
willing to tutor me 4 hours a week for 50 pounds - is it worth it? is it
enough?

If he wants £50 per hour then that is far beyond the market rate.
I do not think that four hours is enough to cover six modules properly if
you need to go over all of the syllabi and leave enough time to practice on
loads of past papers for each module. I am assuming that you are looking
for the top grades and not just mere passes.

As the others have said, four hours of personal tuition really should
be plenty of time in order to do your best.

[John Porcella]

Post by Toby
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 00:05:08 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Kate
Croydon College do a flexstudy programme where they allocate you a tutor

and

Post by Kate
you can do work at home, via email and then meet up whenever you want.

I

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Kate
think if you were doing just one subject you could do it all in one

year.

Post by Samsonknight
I feel I can do it in 1 year as well. AS I have had some prior experience

on

Post by Samsonknight
the AS part of the course from 2 years back.
I just phoned one of my ex tutors from 2 years back , and he said he was
willing to tutor me 4 hours a week for 50 pounds - is it worth it? is it
enough?

If he wants £50 per hour then that is far beyond the market rate.
I do not think that four hours is enough to cover six modules properly if
you need to go over all of the syllabi and leave enough time to practice on
loads of past papers for each module. I am assuming that you are looking
for the top grades and not just mere passes.

As the others have said, four hours of personal tuition really should
be plenty of time in order to do your best.

I believe that you should forgot to type 'not'.

I asked a maths tutor of over twenty years practice if four hours each week
was enough, if the person had previous knowledge, and he laughed!

[Toby]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:45:59 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Toby
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 00:05:08 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Kate
Croydon College do a flexstudy programme where they allocate you a

tutor

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight
and

Post by Kate
you can do work at home, via email and then meet up whenever you

want.

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
I

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Kate
think if you were doing just one subject you could do it all in one

year.

Post by Samsonknight
I feel I can do it in 1 year as well. AS I have had some prior

experience

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
on

Post by Samsonknight
the AS part of the course from 2 years back.
I just phoned one of my ex tutors from 2 years back , and he said he

was

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight
willing to tutor me 4 hours a week for 50 pounds - is it worth it? is

it

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight
enough?

If he wants £50 per hour then that is far beyond the market rate.
I do not think that four hours is enough to cover six modules properly if
you need to go over all of the syllabi and leave enough time to practice

on

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
loads of past papers for each module. I am assuming that you are looking
for the top grades and not just mere passes.

As the others have said, four hours of personal tuition really should
be plenty of time in order to do your best.

I believe that you should forgot to type 'not'.
I asked a maths tutor of over twenty years practice if four hours each week
was enough, if the person had previous knowledge, and he laughed!

Don't tell me what I meant to say. Four hours a week is plenty. Your
source is either too slow or too greedy.

[John Porcella]

Post by Toby

Post by Toby
As the others have said, four hours of personal tuition really should
be plenty of time in order to do your best.

I believe that you forgot to type 'not'.
I asked a maths tutor of over twenty years practice if four hours each week
was enough, if the person had previous knowledge, and he laughed!

Don't tell me what I meant to say.

I have never ever told you what you should say!

Four hours a week is plenty. Your

Post by Toby
source is either too slow or too greedy.

Four hours is indeed plenty for a genius, I agree. But for somebody who has
not studied mathematics recently and was not good enough to achieve the top
grade at the first attempt, I suggest that we are not looking at a genius,
but somebody keen, well motivated and closer to the normal level of ability
in mathematics. In which case, I put it to you, that four hours is unlikely
to prove sufficient to guarantee this type of person the top grade.

Perhaps you are of a genius level of intelligence, but statistically I doubt
it.

[Robert de Vincy]

Post by John Porcella
Perhaps you are of a genius level of intelligence, but statistically I
doubt it.

If you really did meet a genuine genius, you would still -- statistically --
have to doubt it.

So denying or refusing to believe something purely on statistical cogency
is not a wise move.

[John Porcella]

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by John Porcella
Perhaps you are of a genius level of intelligence, but statistically I
doubt it.

If you really did meet a genuine genius, you would still --

statistically --

Post by Robert de Vincy
have to doubt it.

How true.

Post by Robert de Vincy
So denying or refusing to believe something purely on statistical cogency
is not a wise move.

My point exactly.

[Ray Pang]

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by John Porcella
Perhaps you are of a genius level of intelligence, but statistically I
doubt it.

If you really did meet a genuine genius, you would still --
statistically --
have to doubt it.
So denying or refusing to believe something purely on statistical cogency
is not a wise move.

Why? When do you decide (not) to believe something? It's rare that you can
be statistically 100% certain of something.

[Robert de Vincy]

Post by Ray Pang

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by John Porcella
Perhaps you are of a genius level of intelligence, but statistically
I doubt it.

If you really did meet a genuine genius, you would still --
statistically --
have to doubt it.
So denying or refusing to believe something purely on statistical
cogency is not a wise move.

Why? When do you decide (not) to believe something?

Well, in this case, it seems that JPorc would decide not to believe (i.e.
doubt) the truth of someone's being a genius at the moment that it is
announced he/she is a genius. Dunno about anyone else, since no one else
has posted their policy on when to believe/doubt/whatever.

Or are we playing Semantic Catch-Up again, where "doubt" is being defined
as different to "don't believe something"?

Post by Ray Pang
It's rare that you can be statistically 100% certain of something.

You rephrased my message! Thanks.

[Ray Pang]

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by Ray Pang

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by John Porcella
Perhaps you are of a genius level of intelligence, but statistically
I doubt it.

If you really did meet a genuine genius, you would still --
statistically --
have to doubt it.
So denying or refusing to believe something purely on statistical
cogency is not a wise move.

Why? When do you decide (not) to believe something?

Well, in this case, it seems that JPorc would decide not to believe (i.e.
doubt) the truth of someone's being a genius at the moment that it is
announced he/she is a genius.

You're right. This "statistically, I doubt it" stuff is cobblers.
Statistically, I doubt his name really is John Porcella.

Post by Robert de Vincy
Or are we playing Semantic Catch-Up again, where "doubt" is being defined
as different to "don't believe something"?

I'm not sure. They do seem to mean the same thing when you think about it,
but "doubt" tends to imply (to me) that you've not completely dismissed
something. Maybe not.

[Toby]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:10:09 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby

Post by Toby
As the others have said, four hours of personal tuition really should
be plenty of time in order to do your best.

I believe that you forgot to type 'not'.
I asked a maths tutor of over twenty years practice if four hours each

week

Post by Toby

was enough, if the person had previous knowledge, and he laughed!

Don't tell me what I meant to say.

I have never ever told you what you should say!
Four hours a week is plenty. Your

Post by Toby
source is either too slow or too greedy.

Four hours is indeed plenty for a genius, I agree.

I didn't say that so you're not agreeing with me.

Post by John Porcella
But for somebody who has
not studied mathematics recently and was not good enough to achieve the top
grade at the first attempt, I suggest that we are not looking at a genius,
but somebody keen, well motivated and closer to the normal level of ability
in mathematics. In which case, I put it to you, that four hours is unlikely
to prove sufficient to guarantee this type of person the top grade.
Perhaps you are of a genius level of intelligence, but statistically I doubt
it.

How ironic; even if I were a genius, the statistical rarity would not
have changed.

[John Porcella]

Post by Toby
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:10:09 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby

Post by Toby
As the others have said, four hours of personal tuition really should
be plenty of time in order to do your best.

I believe that you forgot to type 'not'.
I asked a maths tutor of over twenty years practice if four hours each

week

Post by Toby

was enough, if the person had previous knowledge, and he laughed!

Don't tell me what I meant to say.

I have never ever told you what you should say!
Four hours a week is plenty. Your

Post by Toby
source is either too slow or too greedy.

Four hours is indeed plenty for a genius, I agree.

I didn't say that so you're not agreeing with me.

Firstly, you did not say anything at all here.

Secondly, my point, which you either do not understand or do not agree with,
is that four hours would only be enough for the very exceptional or for
those not seeking to maximise their potential as a pass is enough.
Therefore I could only agree with you over the four hours in very limited
circumstances.

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
But for somebody who has
not studied mathematics recently and was not good enough to achieve the top
grade at the first attempt, I suggest that we are not looking at a genius,
but somebody keen, well motivated and closer to the normal level of ability
in mathematics. In which case, I put it to you, that four hours is unlikely
to prove sufficient to guarantee this type of person the top grade.
Perhaps you are of a genius level of intelligence, but statistically I doubt
it.

How ironic; even if I were a genius, the statistical rarity would not
have changed.

Very true, but this does not stop there being two in my school class.

[Samsonknight]

Post by Ginnie Redston

Post by Toby
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:10:09 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby

Post by Toby
As the others have said, four hours of personal tuition really

should

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby

Post by Toby
be plenty of time in order to do your best.

I believe that you forgot to type 'not'.
I asked a maths tutor of over twenty years practice if four hours each

week

Post by Toby

was enough, if the person had previous knowledge, and he laughed!

Don't tell me what I meant to say.

I have never ever told you what you should say!
Four hours a week is plenty. Your

Post by Toby
source is either too slow or too greedy.

Four hours is indeed plenty for a genius, I agree.

I didn't say that so you're not agreeing with me.

Firstly, you did not say anything at all here.
Secondly, my point, which you either do not understand or do not agree with,
is that four hours would only be enough for the very exceptional or for
those not seeking to maximise their potential as a pass is enough.
Therefore I could only agree with you over the four hours in very limited
circumstances.

What would you recommend I do then? If I had tonnes of cash I would pay for
much more hours, however I don't and that is my dilemma. I could just do an
AS in maths for free and take the traditonal route, but I rather not as this
would mean I would have to spend an extra 2 years at college for one subject
before going to uni

[Toby]

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:54:54 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by Ginnie Redston

Post by Toby
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:10:09 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby

Post by Toby
As the others have said, four hours of personal tuition really

should

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby

Post by Toby
be plenty of time in order to do your best.

I believe that you forgot to type 'not'.
I asked a maths tutor of over twenty years practice if four hours each

week

Post by Toby

was enough, if the person had previous knowledge, and he laughed!

Don't tell me what I meant to say.

I have never ever told you what you should say!
Four hours a week is plenty. Your

Post by Toby
source is either too slow or too greedy.

Four hours is indeed plenty for a genius, I agree.

I didn't say that so you're not agreeing with me.

Firstly, you did not say anything at all here.

I did not say that four hours is plenty for a genius, so you can't
agree with me. You are so weird.

Post by Ginnie Redston
Secondly, my point, which you either do not understand or do not agree with,
is that four hours would only be enough for the very exceptional or for
those not seeking to maximise their potential as a pass is enough.
Therefore I could only agree with you over the four hours in very limited
circumstances.

Of course I understand your point, and I've mentioned plenty of times
that you're wrong, in my opinion - as have everybody else, pretty
much, who seem to have any experience of learning of teaching, in this
forum.

Post by Ginnie Redston

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
But for somebody who has
not studied mathematics recently and was not good enough to achieve the

top

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
grade at the first attempt, I suggest that we are not looking at a

genius,

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
but somebody keen, well motivated and closer to the normal level of

ability

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
in mathematics. In which case, I put it to you, that four hours is

unlikely

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
to prove sufficient to guarantee this type of person the top grade.
Perhaps you are of a genius level of intelligence, but statistically I

doubt

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
it.

How ironic; even if I were a genius, the statistical rarity would not
have changed.

Very true, but this does not stop there being two in my school class.

From the criteria you gave, I don't think of them as geniuses - such a
quality is much more rare, so unless they did something else, sorry,
you've got low standards :P Otherwise I'd know about 5 geniuses.

[Stuart Williams]

In article <cebv7t$m56$***@titan.btinternet.com>, ***@btinternet.com
says...

Post by Ginnie Redston

Post by Toby
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:10:09 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby

Post by Toby
As the others have said, four hours of personal tuition really

should

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby

Post by Toby
be plenty of time in order to do your best.

I believe that you forgot to type 'not'.
I asked a maths tutor of over twenty years practice if four hours each

week

Post by Toby

was enough, if the person had previous knowledge, and he laughed!

Don't tell me what I meant to say.

I have never ever told you what you should say!
Four hours a week is plenty. Your

Post by Toby
source is either too slow or too greedy.

Four hours is indeed plenty for a genius, I agree.

I didn't say that so you're not agreeing with me.

Firstly, you did not say anything at all here.

Why can't you control this tic? One absolutely standard meaning of "say"
is "set forth in words" (e.g. Chambers Dictionary). Just because its
primary meaning is "speak", you seem incapable of registering that there
are extended meanings - and this one is so widespread and well-supported
historically and literarily that your continued "correction" of it just
makes you look more of an arse than usual.

SW

[Alun Harford]

Post by John Porcella
I believe that you should forgot to type 'not'.
I asked a maths tutor of over twenty years practice if four hours each week
was enough, if the person had previous knowledge, and he laughed!

What on earth are you on about?
Although I'll admit that my teachers were excellent, I did it in only
slightly more time with a class of 15 (my F.Maths A-level group).
We all got good marks, at least to my knowledge.

Alun Harford

[John Porcella]

Post by Alun Harford

Post by John Porcella
I believe that you should forgot to type 'not'.
I asked a maths tutor of over twenty years practice if four hours each

week

Post by John Porcella
was enough, if the person had previous knowledge, and he laughed!

What on earth are you on about?

Nothing. I am not making the claim above, but a vastly experienced tutor
is.

Post by Alun Harford
Although I'll admit that my teachers were excellent, I did it in only
slightly more time with a class of 15 (my F.Maths A-level group).
We all got good marks, at least to my knowledge.

It depends what you mean by 'good'. I am assuming, possibly wrongly, that
the poster is looking for the top grade, not just a pass. But, yes, sure,
if the poster's ambition is no greater than scraping a mere pass, then four
hours may well be plenty. But why settle for underachievement?

Congratulations on being satisfied with your grade(s).

[Alun Harford]

Post by John Porcella

Post by Alun Harford

Post by John Porcella
I believe that you should forgot to type 'not'.
I asked a maths tutor of over twenty years practice if four hours each

week

Post by John Porcella
was enough, if the person had previous knowledge, and he laughed!

What on earth are you on about?

Nothing. I am not making the claim above, but a vastly experienced tutor
is.

Post by Alun Harford
Although I'll admit that my teachers were excellent, I did it in only
slightly more time with a class of 15 (my F.Maths A-level group).
We all got good marks, at least to my knowledge.

It depends what you mean by 'good'. I am assuming, possibly wrongly, that
the poster is looking for the top grade, not just a pass.

The vast majority got an A.

Alun Harford

[John Porcella]

Post by Alun Harford
The vast majority got an A.

Well done to them, then!

I once read that about half of the FM A level entries got the top grade, but
in one sense it is not surprising since only the best (or the foolhardy)
would attempt it otherwise.

[Samsonknight]

Post by John Porcella

Post by Alun Harford

Post by John Porcella
I believe that you should forgot to type 'not'.
I asked a maths tutor of over twenty years practice if four hours each

week

Post by John Porcella
was enough, if the person had previous knowledge, and he laughed!

What on earth are you on about?

Nothing. I am not making the claim above, but a vastly experienced tutor
is.

Post by Alun Harford
Although I'll admit that my teachers were excellent, I did it in only
slightly more time with a class of 15 (my F.Maths A-level group).
We all got good marks, at least to my knowledge.

It depends what you mean by 'good'. I am assuming, possibly wrongly, that
the poster is looking for the top grade, not just a pass. But, yes, sure,
if the poster's ambition is no greater than scraping a mere pass, then four
hours may well be plenty. But why settle for underachievement?
Congratulations on being satisfied with your grade(s).

I am looking to get an A-C overall , preferably a B - I would be disapointed
if I got less as this is the only subject left to concetnrate on ....But
with the other factors John has previously mentioned, there is still a huge
possibility I could flop due to lack of teaching time , and the fact that I
am a bit rusty at maths as I last did it 2 years ago.

[Samsonknight]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by John Porcella

Post by Alun Harford

Post by John Porcella
I believe that you should forgot to type 'not'.
I asked a maths tutor of over twenty years practice if four hours each

week

Post by John Porcella
was enough, if the person had previous knowledge, and he laughed!

What on earth are you on about?

Nothing. I am not making the claim above, but a vastly experienced tutor
is.

Post by Alun Harford
Although I'll admit that my teachers were excellent, I did it in only
slightly more time with a class of 15 (my F.Maths A-level group).
We all got good marks, at least to my knowledge.

It depends what you mean by 'good'. I am assuming, possibly wrongly, that
the poster is looking for the top grade, not just a pass. But, yes, sure,
if the poster's ambition is no greater than scraping a mere pass, then

four

Post by John Porcella
hours may well be plenty. But why settle for underachievement?
Congratulations on being satisfied with your grade(s).

I am looking to get an A-C overall , preferably a B - I would be disapointed
if I got less as this is the only subject left to concetnrate on ....But
with the other factors John has previously mentioned, there is still a huge
possibility I could flop due to lack of teaching time , and the fact that I
am a bit rusty at maths as I last did it 2 years ago.

Oh but saying that, when I did do maths 2 years back I found that I learnt
much more on my own then in a classroom with a teacher....I mastered P1
diffrentiation, co-ordinate geometry, Integration, basic alegbra on my own
then with all those hours spent with a teacher (I eventually ran out of
revision time and failed) - of whom I never knew what he was on about half
the time. Its only when I read the book by myself at home and practiced
practiced practiced - things finally clicked on. For this reason to a point
I agree with Toby on 4 hours being enough. However, in the back of my mind
I am still slightly scared because of the vast amount I would have to learn
in such a short period of time.

[John Porcella]

Post by Samsonknight
Oh but saying that, when I did do maths 2 years back I found that I learnt
much more on my own then in a classroom with a teacher....I mastered P1
diffrentiation, co-ordinate geometry, Integration, basic alegbra on my own
then with all those hours spent with a teacher (I eventually ran out of
revision time and failed) - of whom I never knew what he was on about half
the time. Its only when I read the book by myself at home and practiced
practiced practiced - things finally clicked on. For this reason to a point
I agree with Toby on 4 hours being enough. However, in the back of my mind
I am still slightly scared because of the vast amount I would have to learn
in such a short period of time.

In which case it is obvious that you do not lack for intelligence or
motivation. You were very unlucky in having a teacher that could not put it
across to you.

I knew of a nineteen year old student who wanted to do well in mathematics
so he found a tutor but did not like him, so he changed, then changed again!
After dumping a few tutors he found one that he could get on with. So
sometimes it pays to shop around.

[Ray Pang]

Post by Samsonknight
I am looking to get an A-C overall , preferably a B

Eh?

[John Porcella]

Post by Samsonknight
I am looking to get an A-C overall , preferably a B - I would be disapointed
if I got less as this is the only subject left to concetnrate on ....But
with the other factors John has previously mentioned, there is still a huge
possibility I could flop due to lack of teaching time , and the fact that I
am a bit rusty at maths as I last did it 2 years ago.

It will come back to you when you re-revise the stuff so do not let the two
years which have passed worry you unduly. However, I find that stuff I
learnt only the previous week has a nasty habit of not 'sticking', so I am
constantly having to go over the same thing again and again to make sure I
can hold it in my faulty brain!

Frankly, I believe that it is better to have too many classes rather than
too few if you are relying on aiming for the top grades.

Good luck, I am sure that you will do well if you really want to!

[Samsonknight]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Samsonknight
I am looking to get an A-C overall , preferably a B - I would be

disapointed

Post by Samsonknight
if I got less as this is the only subject left to concetnrate on ....But
with the other factors John has previously mentioned, there is still a

huge

Post by Samsonknight
possibility I could flop due to lack of teaching time , and the fact

that

Post by Samsonknight
I

Post by Samsonknight
am a bit rusty at maths as I last did it 2 years ago.

It will come back to you when you re-revise the stuff so do not let the two
years which have passed worry you unduly. However, I find that stuff I

Yeah , still very scary , considering that I would have to learn the A2 part
of the course which is harder and scarier in such a short period of time.
Also, I guess despite my motivation and determination I fear failure. Fair
enough if I grasped the concepts of P1 fairly easily on my own (with the
exception of trig and proof), but who says the same will happen when I move
onto harder units such as P3.

Post by Samsonknight
learnt only the previous week has a nasty habit of not 'sticking', so I am
constantly having to go over the same thing again and again to make sure I
can hold it in my faulty brain!

My weakness is my mental arithmatic, when put on the spot by a teacher or
tutor - I tend to get flustered , start to think irrationally and come up
with an incorrect answer. Sometimes the answer is so very simple and I just
look silly. However when given an exercise to do on my own without anyone
peering over my shoulder - I find that I could think clearer and am more
rational.

This weekness makes me feel terrible at times, as all the geniuses at maths
that I know can calculate things in their head much quicker then I can. I
can come to the same answer but it just takes longer.

Post by Samsonknight
Frankly, I believe that it is better to have too many classes rather than
too few if you are relying on aiming for the top grades.

I agree, but then again I am skeptical because of my prior experience with
classes , things are not taught at *your* pace - you are expected to keep up
and in my experience from 2 years back the teacher was just simply teaching
the topics to the level of understanding of the "genius" of the class, this
often led to reluctance in asking questions from many of the other students
in the class. Many of us fell behind in relation to our levels of
understanding of each topic; which then ultimately led to the failure of
most of us. A class of 18 decreased to 8 after the summer exams.

This same problem as mentioned above also happened to me during GCSE, I was
on the verge of failure but I got tuition then and with a lot of hard work
and practice at home I passed. I think it all comes down to the individual
effort with maths at the end of the day, and for that reason I couldn't
agree with Dr Walker opinion that maths is innate. I guess its innate in the
respect that some people can calculate things faster then others. But on
other aspects , I guess some people like myself just learn better on their
own then in a class due to the factors mentioned above. People that I know
that have failed maths , including myself was due to lazyness or in my case
underestimation of the subject and leaving revision 2 weeks before the
exam - with 3 other AS levels left to revise. To be honest if I were to
believe that maths is innate , I probably would have failed at GCSE with an
U mainly due to pessimism and hence not trying.

Post by Samsonknight
Good luck, I am sure that you will do well if you really want to!

I certainly hope so. Do you have MSN John? If so , do you mind me adding you
onto my list.

Post by Samsonknight
--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

[Toby]

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:34:23 +0000 (UTC), "Samsonknight"

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Samsonknight
I am looking to get an A-C overall , preferably a B - I would be

disapointed

Post by Samsonknight
if I got less as this is the only subject left to concetnrate on ....But
with the other factors John has previously mentioned, there is still a

huge

Post by Samsonknight
possibility I could flop due to lack of teaching time , and the fact

that

Post by Samsonknight
I

Post by Samsonknight
am a bit rusty at maths as I last did it 2 years ago.

It will come back to you when you re-revise the stuff so do not let the

two

Post by Samsonknight
years which have passed worry you unduly. However, I find that stuff I

Yeah , still very scary , considering that I would have to learn the A2 part
of the course which is harder and scarier in such a short period of time.
Also, I guess despite my motivation and determination I fear failure. Fair
enough if I grasped the concepts of P1 fairly easily on my own (with the
exception of trig and proof), but who says the same will happen when I move
onto harder units such as P3.

Post by Samsonknight
learnt only the previous week has a nasty habit of not 'sticking', so I am
constantly having to go over the same thing again and again to make sure I
can hold it in my faulty brain!

My weakness is my mental arithmatic, when put on the spot by a teacher or
tutor - I tend to get flustered , start to think irrationally and come up
with an incorrect answer. Sometimes the answer is so very simple and I just
look silly. However when given an exercise to do on my own without anyone
peering over my shoulder - I find that I could think clearer and am more
rational.
This weekness makes me feel terrible at times, as all the geniuses at maths
that I know can calculate things in their head much quicker then I can. I
can come to the same answer but it just takes longer.

Post by Samsonknight
Frankly, I believe that it is better to have too many classes rather than
too few if you are relying on aiming for the top grades.

I agree, but then again I am skeptical because of my prior experience with
classes , things are not taught at *your* pace - you are expected to keep up
and in my experience from 2 years back the teacher was just simply teaching
the topics to the level of understanding of the "genius" of the class, this
often led to reluctance in asking questions from many of the other students
in the class. Many of us fell behind in relation to our levels of
understanding of each topic; which then ultimately led to the failure of
most of us. A class of 18 decreased to 8 after the summer exams.
This same problem as mentioned above also happened to me during GCSE, I was
on the verge of failure but I got tuition then and with a lot of hard work
and practice at home I passed. I think it all comes down to the individual
effort with maths at the end of the day, and for that reason I couldn't
agree with Dr Walker opinion that maths is innate. I guess its innate in the
respect that some people can calculate things faster then others. But on
other aspects , I guess some people like myself just learn better on their
own then in a class due to the factors mentioned above. People that I know
that have failed maths , including myself was due to lazyness or in my case
underestimation of the subject and leaving revision 2 weeks before the
exam - with 3 other AS levels left to revise. To be honest if I were to
believe that maths is innate , I probably would have failed at GCSE with an
U mainly due to pessimism and hence not trying.

Post by Samsonknight
Good luck, I am sure that you will do well if you really want to!

I certainly hope so. Do you have MSN John? If so , do you mind me adding you
onto my list.

Post by Samsonknight
--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

If YOU feel you need more than four hours a week, then use more than
four hours - you've plenty of time to test out with your tutor how
many hours you need - you can refine it.

JUST DON'T LISTEN TO
PORCELLA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Samsonknight]

Post by Toby
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:34:23 +0000 (UTC), "Samsonknight"

Post by Samsonknight
This same problem as mentioned above also happened to me during GCSE, I was
on the verge of failure but I got tuition then and with a lot of hard work
and practice at home I passed. I think it all comes down to the individual
effort with maths at the end of the day, and for that reason I couldn't
agree with Dr Walker opinion that maths is innate. I guess its innate in the
respect that some people can calculate things faster then others. But on
other aspects , I guess some people like myself just learn better on their
own then in a class due to the factors mentioned above. People that I know
that have failed maths , including myself was due to lazyness or in my case
underestimation of the subject and leaving revision 2 weeks before the
exam - with 3 other AS levels left to revise. To be honest if I were to
believe that maths is innate , I probably would have failed at GCSE with an
U mainly due to pessimism and hence not trying.

Post by John Porcella
Good luck, I am sure that you will do well if you really want to!

I certainly hope so. Do you have MSN John? If so , do you mind me adding you
onto my list.

Post by John Porcella
--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

If YOU feel you need more than four hours a week, then use more than
four hours - you've plenty of time to test out with your tutor how
many hours you need - you can refine it.
JUST DON'T LISTEN TO

PORCELLA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!

LOL

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Samsonknight
This same problem as mentioned above also happened to me during GCSE, I was
on the verge of failure but I got tuition then and with a lot of hard work
and practice at home I passed. I think it all comes down to the individual
effort with maths at the end of the day, and for that reason I couldn't
agree with Dr Walker opinion that maths is innate.

I can't force you to agree, but you're still wrong. What you
are saying above is that "at the end of the day" you *did* learn to
cope with GCSE. So you *do* understand "let x be the number of sheep",
you can do some trigonometry, you can factorise "x^2 - y^2", and so on.
By the time you've done A-level, you will understand [eg] a reasonable
amount of calculus. You may or may not turn out to be the world's
greatest mathematician, but you are not innumerate.

You may not believe this, but there are people out there who
will never understand calculus. Never, ever, with knobs on. Some
of them are, of course, just feckless, and if their lives depended on
it and you gave them extra tuition and a lot of time, they would
eventually cotton on. But most simply do not understand. You can
say to them "look, just divide through by x ..." and they say, "no,
sorry, don't follow that". People "drop out" at different stages;
some never understand the structure of numbers, some never manage
long division, or abstraction or calculus or the field equations of
general relativity. For as long as they are not yet at their
ceilings, work and tuition will enable them to advance. After that,
there is no more to be done. Full stop.

I've used the analogy before that it's rather like being
colour blind. If I'm teaching you snooker, and I say something like
"pot the yellow, leaving the white behind the brown so that he's
snookered on the green", then most people can understand that, though
only a few of them may have the technical skills needed to execute
it. But a minority, especially if they were unaware of their colour-
blindness, simply wouldn't follow. "How do you know to do that? How
do you know which is the green?" Colour blindness is a minority
problem, and difficulty in playing snooker or wiring plugs is only a
minor problem in our society. Maths blindness is a majority problem,
most of those who have it do not realise it [beyond noticing that some
of their fellows seem to be geniuses -- "but I was no good at maths"],
and most of those who have maths vision do not realise their luck.

Post by Samsonknight
I guess its innate in the
respect that some people can calculate things faster then others.

*Speed* is only mildly relevant.

[Stuart Williams]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Kate
Croydon College do a flexstudy programme where they allocate you a tutor

and

Post by Kate
you can do work at home, via email and then meet up whenever you want. I
think if you were doing just one subject you could do it all in one year.

I feel I can do it in 1 year as well. AS I have had some prior experience on
the AS part of the course from 2 years back.
I just phoned one of my ex tutors from 2 years back , and he said he was
willing to tutor me 4 hours a week for 50 pounds - is it worth it? is it
enough?

God, yes - union rates are approaching 25 pounds an hour. You're getting
a bargain.
And 4 hours a week is more than enough for one-to-one tutoring.

SW

[John Porcella]

Post by Stuart Williams

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Kate
Croydon College do a flexstudy programme where they allocate you a tutor

and

Post by Kate
you can do work at home, via email and then meet up whenever you want.

I

Post by Stuart Williams

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Kate
think if you were doing just one subject you could do it all in one year.

I feel I can do it in 1 year as well. AS I have had some prior experience on
the AS part of the course from 2 years back.
I just phoned one of my ex tutors from 2 years back , and he said he was
willing to tutor me 4 hours a week for 50 pounds - is it worth it? is it
enough?

God, yes - union rates are approaching 25 pounds an hour. You're getting
a bargain.
And 4 hours a week is more than enough for one-to-one tutoring.

If you are a genius or are only looking for a grade E.

[Ray Pang]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Stuart Williams

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Kate
Croydon College do a flexstudy programme where they allocate you a

tutor

Post by Stuart Williams

Post by Samsonknight
and

Post by Kate
you can do work at home, via email and then meet up whenever you want.

I

Post by Stuart Williams

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Kate
think if you were doing just one subject you could do it all in one

year.

Post by Stuart Williams

Post by Samsonknight
I feel I can do it in 1 year as well. AS I have had some prior

experience on

Post by Stuart Williams

Post by Samsonknight
the AS part of the course from 2 years back.
I just phoned one of my ex tutors from 2 years back , and he said he was
willing to tutor me 4 hours a week for 50 pounds - is it worth it? is it
enough?

God, yes - union rates are approaching 25 pounds an hour. You're getting
a bargain.
And 4 hours a week is more than enough for one-to-one tutoring.

If you are a genius or are only looking for a grade E.

I'd have to agree, if this one-on-one tutoring is all you get. I'm not
entirely convinced that one-on-one tutoring alone is a good strategy, unless
you *are* a genius. When I was doing my GCSE and A-level maths, I found that
most of what I was being taught sank in when I actually did the exercises in
class amidst having a natter about what I'd been up to at the weekend, then
saying to Alex "No, you've got that wrong. Again. Here's why... Um, no
you're right. I think."

[Ginnie Redston]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Kate
Croydon College do a flexstudy programme where they allocate you a tutor

and

Post by Kate
you can do work at home, via email and then meet up whenever you want.

I

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Kate
think if you were doing just one subject you could do it all in one year.

I feel I can do it in 1 year as well. AS I have had some prior experience on
the AS part of the course from 2 years back.
I just phoned one of my ex tutors from 2 years back , and he said he was
willing to tutor me 4 hours a week for 50 pounds - is it worth it? is it
enough?

That's a *very* generous offer. Good A level maths tutors round here charge
£30 an hour, so he's offering a very good deal. If he knows his stuff (Maths
isn't my thing, but I know there have been a couple of recent changes to the
maths modular system, so check the exam board websites carefully) you should
grab this chance of individual tuition quickly. Four hours of individual
teaching - say 2 doubles - should give you plenty of time to cover the
course in a year - and provided you do YOUR bit - ie. work hard, you should
have an excellent chance of doing well.


Ginnie

[Samsonknight]

Post by Ginnie Redston
That's a *very* generous offer. Good A level maths tutors round here charge
£30 an hour, so he's offering a very good deal. If he knows his stuff (Maths
isn't my thing, but I know there have been a couple of recent changes to the
maths modular system, so check the exam board websites carefully) you should

The guy I have approached to tutor me , would prefer me to follow the MEI
curricullum for my maths A-level as he is very aquainted with it - and knows
the syllabus very well. I am much more aquainted with EDEXCEL, as I did it 2
years ago , but I guess the syllabus has been modified since I have done it.

I am willing to follow the MEI board, but I have heard that universities
don't have the same respect for it as with other boards because it lacks
"abstract maths" and is more specific to engineering side of things. Is this
true?

Post by Ginnie Redston
grab this chance of individual tuition quickly. Four hours of individual
teaching - say 2 doubles - should give you plenty of time to cover the
course in a year - and provided you do YOUR bit - ie. work hard, you should
have an excellent chance of doing well.

Yes , he also said the same in regards to 4 hours being enough , but I guess
I am just a bit concerned at the fact that I would be unable to cover 6
different units in such a short period of time throughly. Three by January,
and a further three by June. As I will be getting 2 hours for the pure units
and a further 2 hours teaching time for the applied units. Which is just a
bit nerveracking as I don't know If we would cover a lot of material during
that time. But I guess as Ginnie said , if I put in the additional hardwork
at home - I probably could get a lot of material covered.- but unfortunantly
in that scienario I will be without guidance.

Sam

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Samsonknight
I am willing to follow the MEI board, but I have heard that universities
don't have the same respect for it as with other boards because it lacks
"abstract maths" and is more specific to engineering side of things. Is this
true?

If you apply to a popular course, no-one is going to be in the
slightest bit interested in which board you have taken. Indeed, I would
be very surprised if even 1% of ATs for such courses have the slightest
idea what the differences are between the various boards. When you have
a pile of 1000+ UCAS forms, you are much more interested in important
things like how good the applicant is than in wasting time agonising
about which board is best.

If you apply to an unpopular course, then no-one is going to be
in the slightest bit interested in which board you have taken. Rather,
the AT will be trying to persuade you that his/her course is not as bad
as you might think, and please pretty please come to Loamshire Poly.

It just is not important.

Post by Samsonknight
Yes , he also said the same in regards to 4 hours being enough , but I guess
I am just a bit concerned at the fact that I would be unable to cover 6
different units in such a short period of time throughly.

If I had to spend 4 hours per week one-to-one with the same
student, I would be throwing things at the wall by Friday. If you
keep your side of the bargain, read the books, do the work, try the
questions, it's *far* more than enough. At least, if you're capable
of understanding A-level maths it's far more than enough; if you're
in the large part of the population that will never "get" maths, then
no amount of time is enough.

[Toby]

On 27 Jul 2004 14:21:41 GMT, ***@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
wrote:

<snippity>

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If I had to spend 4 hours per week one-to-one with the same
student, I would be throwing things at the wall by Friday. If you
keep your side of the bargain, read the books, do the work, try the
questions, it's *far* more than enough. At least, if you're capable
of understanding A-level maths it's far more than enough; if you're
in the large part of the population that will never "get" maths, then
no amount of time is enough.

Is it possible, assuming no other factors, that someone who gets A/A*
at GCSE maths could find A Level maths too difficult (not "getting
it") i.e. C or below?

[Ray Pang]

Post by Toby
<snippity>

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If I had to spend 4 hours per week one-to-one with the same
student, I would be throwing things at the wall by Friday. If you
keep your side of the bargain, read the books, do the work, try the
questions, it's *far* more than enough. At least, if you're capable
of understanding A-level maths it's far more than enough; if you're
in the large part of the population that will never "get" maths, then
no amount of time is enough.

Is it possible, assuming no other factors, that someone who gets A/A*
at GCSE maths could find A Level maths too difficult (not "getting
it") i.e. C or below?

It is possible for an A* GCSE Maths student to get a C at A-level due to
other commitments and concerns (and maybe poor time management) - I know
somebody who did exactly this (but not through not "getting it"). She went
on to get a 2:1 in Maths.

[Toby]

Post by Ray Pang

Post by Toby
<snippity>

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If I had to spend 4 hours per week one-to-one with the same
student, I would be throwing things at the wall by Friday. If you
keep your side of the bargain, read the books, do the work, try the
questions, it's *far* more than enough. At least, if you're capable
of understanding A-level maths it's far more than enough; if you're
in the large part of the population that will never "get" maths, then
no amount of time is enough.

Is it possible, assuming no other factors, that someone who gets A/A*
at GCSE maths could find A Level maths too difficult (not "getting
it") i.e. C or below?

It is possible for an A* GCSE Maths student to get a C at A-level due to
other commitments and concerns (and maybe poor time management) - I know
somebody who did exactly this (but not through not "getting it"). She went
on to get a 2:1 in Maths.

Yeah, that's understandable, but I mean is it possible assuming there
were no other factors, e.g. time management, commitments etc..

[Ray Pang]

Post by Toby

Post by Ray Pang

Post by Toby
<snippity>

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If I had to spend 4 hours per week one-to-one with the same
student, I would be throwing things at the wall by Friday. If you
keep your side of the bargain, read the books, do the work, try the
questions, it's *far* more than enough. At least, if you're capable
of understanding A-level maths it's far more than enough; if you're
in the large part of the population that will never "get" maths, then
no amount of time is enough.

Is it possible, assuming no other factors, that someone who gets A/A*
at GCSE maths could find A Level maths too difficult (not "getting
it") i.e. C or below?

It is possible for an A* GCSE Maths student to get a C at A-level due to
other commitments and concerns (and maybe poor time management) - I know
somebody who did exactly this (but not through not "getting it"). She went
on to get a 2:1 in Maths.

Yeah, that's understandable, but I mean is it possible assuming there
were no other factors, e.g. time management, commitments etc..

I guess there msut be. There were plenty of A grade A-level students at
Warwick who went on to get "merely" pass degrees, or thirds (by merely, I
mean mearly by the average Warwick standard, rather than any inferrence of
passes or thirds being second-rate degrees, which I suppose they're not,
they're 4th and third rate by definition, but I digress...). Some of it was
due to a lack of enthusiasm, brought about because the maths was no longer a
doddle, and the effort required to understand it was more than they'd ever
faced.

So I suppose the same thing could happen at A-level. Some people just give
up when the going gets tough. Which is fair enough. If I didn't find my
course the slightest bit interesting for any reason, I wouldn't expect to be
able to keep up with the minimum effort required to get the grade I wanted.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Toby

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If I had to spend 4 hours per week one-to-one with the same
student, I would be throwing things at the wall by Friday. If you
keep your side of the bargain, read the books, do the work, try the
questions, it's *far* more than enough. At least, if you're capable
of understanding A-level maths it's far more than enough; if you're
in the large part of the population that will never "get" maths, then
no amount of time is enough.

Is it possible, assuming no other factors, that someone who gets A/A*
at GCSE maths could find A Level maths too difficult (not "getting
it") i.e. C or below?

Perfectly possible, but I reject your suggestion that getting a C in an
A-level means one has found it "too difficult". Getting a C means one has
achieved average marks. In my case, I would rather take on someone who had a
C in A-level Maths than someone who had no A-level Maths at all because they
feared it would be "too difficult".

I have, admittedly not very often, seen someone who hasn't performed well
at GCSE Maths "get it" at A-level and do well. Also there are people who
perform well at GCSE but just "don't get it" at A-level and actually fail.

I'm not yet convinced with the line, which Andy gives, that it's entirely
down to innate ability. All of us who have ever been invoved in teaching or
learning maths, or other things involving formal abstraction such as
programming, will know there is often a "click" whereby something that
seemed hard to grasp suddenly falls in place. The big question is working
out just what that "click" is and how to make it happen. It may be harder to
make it happen in some people than in others, that doesn't mean that it's
impossible to make it happen.

Matthew Huntbach

[Toby]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Toby

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If I had to spend 4 hours per week one-to-one with the same
student, I would be throwing things at the wall by Friday. If you
keep your side of the bargain, read the books, do the work, try the
questions, it's *far* more than enough. At least, if you're capable
of understanding A-level maths it's far more than enough; if you're
in the large part of the population that will never "get" maths, then
no amount of time is enough.

Is it possible, assuming no other factors, that someone who gets A/A*
at GCSE maths could find A Level maths too difficult (not "getting
it") i.e. C or below?

Perfectly possible, but I reject your suggestion that getting a C in an
A-level means one has found it "too difficult". Getting a C means one has
achieved average marks. In my case, I would rather take on someone who had a
C in A-level Maths than someone who had no A-level Maths at all because they
feared it would be "too difficult".

OK, perhaps I should have said getting a higher grade too difficult,
something I equate with "getting it".

Post by Matthew Huntbach
I have, admittedly not very often, seen someone who hasn't performed well
at GCSE Maths "get it" at A-level and do well. Also there are people who
perform well at GCSE but just "don't get it" at A-level and actually fail.
I'm not yet convinced with the line, which Andy gives, that it's entirely
down to innate ability. All of us who have ever been invoved in teaching or
learning maths, or other things involving formal abstraction such as
programming, will know there is often a "click" whereby something that
seemed hard to grasp suddenly falls in place. The big question is working
out just what that "click" is and how to make it happen. It may be harder to
make it happen in some people than in others, that doesn't mean that it's
impossible to make it happen.
Matthew Huntbach

I reckon maths is much more to do with innate ability than any other
subject that I know or have studied.

[John Porcella]

Post by Toby
I reckon maths is much more to do with innate ability than any other
subject that I know or have studied.

Funnily enough, I think that the opposite is true! With mathematics exams
at this level, you can become very competent by learning formulae and
attempting millions of mock and past question papers. Familiarity is gained
this way to do well in the examinations. However, in many the business
subjects and social sciences, much of it is your personal response on the
day, i.e. how you respond to a case or a scenario and little of it can be
learnt in advance. Imagination and flair are required rather than just
dogged persistence.

[Toby]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:07:59 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby
I reckon maths is much more to do with innate ability than any other
subject that I know or have studied.

Funnily enough, I think that the opposite is true! With mathematics exams
at this level, you can become very competent by learning formulae and
attempting millions of mock and past question papers. Familiarity is gained
this way to do well in the examinations. However, in many the business
subjects and social sciences, much of it is your personal response on the
day, i.e. how you respond to a case or a scenario and little of it can be
learnt in advance. Imagination and flair are required rather than just
dogged persistence.

You've completely missed the point; Andy is talking about proper
maths, not an exam, not formulae etc. etc..

[John Porcella]

Post by Toby
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:07:59 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby
I reckon maths is much more to do with innate ability than any other
subject that I know or have studied.

Funnily enough, I think that the opposite is true! With mathematics exams
at this level, you can become very competent by learning formulae and
attempting millions of mock and past question papers. Familiarity is gained
this way to do well in the examinations. However, in many the business
subjects and social sciences, much of it is your personal response on the
day, i.e. how you respond to a case or a scenario and little of it can be
learnt in advance. Imagination and flair are required rather than just
dogged persistence.

You've completely missed the point; Andy is talking about proper
maths, not an exam, not formulae etc. etc..

Andy was not talking about that (or anything for that matter).

Since when is mathematics at 'A' level not 'proper' mathematics? Arithmetic
in primary school is still mathematics!

[Toby]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:17:55 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:07:59 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby
I reckon maths is much more to do with innate ability than any other
subject that I know or have studied.

Funnily enough, I think that the opposite is true! With mathematics

exams

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
at this level, you can become very competent by learning formulae and
attempting millions of mock and past question papers. Familiarity is

gained

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
this way to do well in the examinations. However, in many the business
subjects and social sciences, much of it is your personal response on the
day, i.e. how you respond to a case or a scenario and little of it can be
learnt in advance. Imagination and flair are required rather than just
dogged persistence.

You've completely missed the point; Andy is talking about proper
maths, not an exam, not formulae etc. etc..

Andy was not talking about that (or anything for that matter).
Since when is mathematics at 'A' level not 'proper' mathematics? Arithmetic
in primary school is still mathematics!

A Level maths is not the sort of maths that people who know maths,
like Andy, refer to when talking about true mathematical ability - it
goes way beyond. Read what he's written again.

[Ray Pang]

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby
I reckon maths is much more to do with innate ability than any other
subject that I know or have studied.

Funnily enough, I think that the opposite is true! With mathematics exams
at this level, you can become very competent by learning formulae and
attempting millions of mock and past question papers.

But that's not what Toby was saying. He was saying that maths requires
innate ability, not *being able to do GCSE* Maths.

[John Porcella]

Post by Ray Pang

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby
I reckon maths is much more to do with innate ability than any other
subject that I know or have studied.

Funnily enough, I think that the opposite is true! With mathematics exams
at this level, you can become very competent by learning formulae and
attempting millions of mock and past question papers.

But that's not what Toby was saying. He was saying that maths requires
innate ability, not *being able to do GCSE* Maths.

Any subject is made easier with innate ability, but that is not enough.
Maths at GCSE is still mathematics!

[Ray Pang]

Post by John Porcella

Post by Ray Pang

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby
I reckon maths is much more to do with innate ability than any other
subject that I know or have studied.

Funnily enough, I think that the opposite is true! With mathematics

exams

Post by Ray Pang

Post by John Porcella
at this level, you can become very competent by learning formulae and
attempting millions of mock and past question papers.

But that's not what Toby was saying. He was saying that maths requires
innate ability, not *being able to do GCSE* Maths.

Any subject is made easier with innate ability, but that is not enough.
Maths at GCSE is still mathematics!

My point is that Toby's use of the word "maths" was in the wider context,
rather than maths for school examinations. In which case learning forumlae
is not going to help at all. Innate ability will help you with Toby's idea
of "maths".

GCSE Maths is indeed maths, but the method you desribe of "learning" it is
not specific to maths at all.

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
I'm not yet convinced with the line, which Andy gives, that it's entirely
down to innate ability.

As that's not my line, but somewhat its converse, your lack of
conviction is unsurprising.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
All of us who have ever been invoved in teaching or
learning maths, or other things involving formal abstraction such as
programming, will know there is often a "click" whereby something that
seemed hard to grasp suddenly falls in place.

Right. And the person who is clicked therefore had the innate
ability. It is possible to be able but not perform. But in maths there
are lots of unable people, who therefore cannot perform*. There are also
lots of people who can churn out maths without ever really understanding
what they are doing -- at very high levels of performance, getting firsts
in cognate disciplines like physics and computing, even [heaven help us!]
in maths.

What is one supposed to do in maths with the person who simply
cannot follow a logical argument? With the person who simply cannot
understand an abstraction? Whose eyes glaze over when you say "Let x
be the number of sheep"? There's nothing there to click. This is
quite different from the student who says "but *why* do we take x over
to the other side?", whose marks will improve dramatically when someone
explains it, or the student who is always dropping marks by forgetting
brackets or minus signs and whose marks will improve by taking more
care, or the student who is "hung up" and will [sometimes] improve
dramatically by skipping that area and coming back to it a year later.

There is an innate *in*ability -- innumeracy, illogicality,
desperate need for the concrete -- that most of the population has.
They simply can't do maths to any decent level, nor can they ever
write decent computer programs or understand [eg] theoretical physics.
They may still be bright, intelligent people, who can do well at
English or history or music, even some bits of engineering/science.
And just to be clear, I'm not talking from some hi-falutin' view of
maths in which a C at A-level is a disaster, but about the general
level of maths in the population at large -- a level which only a
minority of readers of this article have any teaching or learning
experience of.

* OTOH, I have sometimes wondered how far a "Faking It" programme
could get in this area. I envisage some random non-mathematician
giving a short seminar at a conference along with three PhD students.
Most such seminars are utterly incomprehensible anyway, very few PhD
students can pitch talks properly; so toss in a few buzz-phrases,
spout some jargon in response to questions, refer anyone persistent
to a forthcoming paper or to the seminal work of Prof Deitelheinz,
and see if the audience is deceived.

[Toby]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Matthew Huntbach
I'm not yet convinced with the line, which Andy gives, that it's entirely
down to innate ability.

As that's not my line, but somewhat its converse, your lack of
conviction is unsurprising.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
All of us who have ever been invoved in teaching or
learning maths, or other things involving formal abstraction such as
programming, will know there is often a "click" whereby something that
seemed hard to grasp suddenly falls in place.

Right. And the person who is clicked therefore had the innate
ability. It is possible to be able but not perform. But in maths there
are lots of unable people, who therefore cannot perform*. There are also
lots of people who can churn out maths without ever really understanding
what they are doing -- at very high levels of performance, getting firsts
in cognate disciplines like physics and computing, even [heaven help us!]
in maths.
What is one supposed to do in maths with the person who simply
cannot follow a logical argument? With the person who simply cannot
understand an abstraction? Whose eyes glaze over when you say "Let x
be the number of sheep"? There's nothing there to click. This is
quite different from the student who says "but *why* do we take x over
to the other side?", whose marks will improve dramatically when someone
explains it, or the student who is always dropping marks by forgetting
brackets or minus signs and whose marks will improve by taking more
care, or the student who is "hung up" and will [sometimes] improve
dramatically by skipping that area and coming back to it a year later.
There is an innate *in*ability -- innumeracy, illogicality,
desperate need for the concrete -- that most of the population has.
They simply can't do maths to any decent level, nor can they ever
write decent computer programs or understand [eg] theoretical physics.
They may still be bright, intelligent people, who can do well at
English or history or music, even some bits of engineering/science.
And just to be clear, I'm not talking from some hi-falutin' view of
maths in which a C at A-level is a disaster,

Grrr, I wasn't trying to be pontsy, I should have said "a higher grade
too difficult" :P

How much can you tell about the maths potential of your Notts students
when you interview them?

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
but about the general
level of maths in the population at large -- a level which only a
minority of readers of this article have any teaching or learning
experience of.
* OTOH, I have sometimes wondered how far a "Faking It" programme
could get in this area. I envisage some random non-mathematician
giving a short seminar at a conference along with three PhD students.
Most such seminars are utterly incomprehensible anyway, very few PhD
students can pitch talks properly; so toss in a few buzz-phrases,
spout some jargon in response to questions, refer anyone persistent
to a forthcoming paper or to the seminal work of Prof Deitelheinz,
and see if the audience is deceived.

Thing is, because the population at large, as you say, has no great
understanding, no one would want to watch the program, nor would
understand whether the bloke was faking well - directly, anyway...

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Toby
How much can you tell about the maths potential of your Notts students
when you interview them?

We no longer interview. It reached the stage where every
member of staff was giving up two afternoons a week for no visible
benefit at all, so we gradually cut it down [with no discernible
malefit] and a couple of years ago I zapped the whole process. It
was a complete waste of time by then.

Instead, we organise visits; applicants [and parents] get
talks, Q&A sessions, guided tours, a chance to feed the ducks, and
a chance to chat [uncensored] with students over coffee. Much more
useful to them, much less work for us.

Post by Toby

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
* OTOH, I have sometimes wondered how far a "Faking It" programme
could get in this area. [...]

Thing is, because the population at large, as you say, has no great
understanding, no one would want to watch the program, nor would
understand whether the bloke was faking well - directly, anyway...

How much did you understand about dog handling, modern
painting, DJ'ing, etc? If any layman could spot the fake easily,
then there would be no point to the programme. The fun would come
from the faker spouting gobbledegook and the experts arguing about
whether this was profound nonsense or rubbish nonsense. [Coming
next week: "Faking It" turns to brain surgery ....]

[Toby]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Toby
How much can you tell about the maths potential of your Notts students
when you interview them?

We no longer interview. It reached the stage where every
member of staff was giving up two afternoons a week for no visible
benefit at all, so we gradually cut it down [with no discernible
malefit] and a couple of years ago I zapped the whole process. It
was a complete waste of time by then.
Instead, we organise visits; applicants [and parents] get
talks, Q&A sessions, guided tours, a chance to feed the ducks, and
a chance to chat [uncensored] with students over coffee. Much more
useful to them, much less work for us.

Fair enough; is there a point, then, when you're able to discern an
individual student's potential?

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Toby

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
* OTOH, I have sometimes wondered how far a "Faking It" programme
could get in this area. [...]

Thing is, because the population at large, as you say, has no great
understanding, no one would want to watch the program, nor would
understand whether the bloke was faking well - directly, anyway...

How much did you understand about dog handling, modern
painting, DJ'ing, etc? If any layman could spot the fake easily,
then there would be no point to the programme. The fun would come
from the faker spouting gobbledegook and the experts arguing about
whether this was profound nonsense or rubbish nonsense. [Coming
next week: "Faking It" turns to brain surgery ....]

Hmm, I still think there would be a biased perception of it...

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Toby
Fair enough; is there a point, then, when you're able to discern an
individual student's potential?

Not really. Tutorials and assessed coursework go part of
the way, but only part. First-year exams give a pecking order,
but even that is not the full story. There is the same problem
much later; you might think that by the time someone has been
with us for three or four years, we should *know* that student's
potential as a research student, but in real life there are many
surprises.

It's easy to see when someone is coping with ample to spare;
and when someone is not coping. But university courses are, broadly,
designed to stretch the audience, so most students are in the grey
area between, and you often can't be sure whether they are coping
but about to fall off, or coping and about to "click".

[Toby]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Toby
Fair enough; is there a point, then, when you're able to discern an
individual student's potential?

Not really. Tutorials and assessed coursework go part of
the way, but only part. First-year exams give a pecking order,
but even that is not the full story. There is the same problem
much later; you might think that by the time someone has been
with us for three or four years, we should *know* that student's
potential as a research student, but in real life there are many
surprises.
It's easy to see when someone is coping with ample to spare;
and when someone is not coping. But university courses are, broadly,
designed to stretch the audience, so most students are in the grey
area between, and you often can't be sure whether they are coping
but about to fall off, or coping and about to "click".

Oh no, not the infamou clicking again!!!

[John Porcella]

Post by Toby
Thing is, because the population at large, as you say, has no great
understanding, no one would want to watch the program, nor would
understand whether the bloke was faking well - directly, anyway...

I am not so sure...'Good Will Hunting' and 'A Beautiful Mind' were pretty
popular.

[Toby]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:08:01 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby
Thing is, because the population at large, as you say, has no great
understanding, no one would want to watch the program, nor would
understand whether the bloke was faking well - directly, anyway...

I am not so sure...'Good Will Hunting' and 'A Beautiful Mind' were pretty
popular.

Tell me whether these films were about relationships formed by people
who did maths, or films about maths.

[John Porcella]

Post by Toby
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:08:01 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby
Thing is, because the population at large, as you say, has no great
understanding, no one would want to watch the program, nor would
understand whether the bloke was faking well - directly, anyway...

I am not so sure...'Good Will Hunting' and 'A Beautiful Mind' were pretty
popular.

Tell me whether these films were about relationships formed by people
who did maths, or films about maths.

Both.

[Ray Pang]

Post by Toby
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:08:01 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby
Thing is, because the population at large, as you say, has no great
understanding, no one would want to watch the program, nor would
understand whether the bloke was faking well - directly, anyway...

I am not so sure...'Good Will Hunting' and 'A Beautiful Mind' were pretty
popular.

Tell me whether these films were about relationships formed by people
who did maths, or films about maths.

Both.

I don't see how Good Will Hunting was about Maths. None of the maths was
actually explained.

[Toby]

Post by Ray Pang

Post by Toby
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:08:01 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby
Thing is, because the population at large, as you say, has no great
understanding, no one would want to watch the program, nor would
understand whether the bloke was faking well - directly, anyway...

I am not so sure...'Good Will Hunting' and 'A Beautiful Mind' were pretty
popular.

Tell me whether these films were about relationships formed by people
who did maths, or films about maths.

Both.

I don't see how Good Will Hunting was about Maths. None of the maths was
actually explained.

Exactly.

[John Porcella]

Post by Toby

Post by Ray Pang

Post by Toby
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:08:01 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby
Thing is, because the population at large, as you say, has no great
understanding, no one would want to watch the program, nor would
understand whether the bloke was faking well - directly, anyway...

I am not so sure...'Good Will Hunting' and 'A Beautiful Mind' were pretty
popular.

Tell me whether these films were about relationships formed by people
who did maths, or films about maths.

Both.

I don't see how Good Will Hunting was about Maths. None of the maths was
actually explained.

Exactly.

So what if it was not explained? The point was that it was difficult stuff,
and hence the professor's shock that somebody, anybody had been able to
solve the problem as set.

[John Porcella]

Post by Ray Pang

Post by Toby
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:08:01 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby
Thing is, because the population at large, as you say, has no great
understanding, no one would want to watch the program, nor would
understand whether the bloke was faking well - directly, anyway...

I am not so sure...'Good Will Hunting' and 'A Beautiful Mind' were pretty
popular.

Tell me whether these films were about relationships formed by people
who did maths, or films about maths.

Both.

I don't see how Good Will Hunting was about Maths. None of the maths was
actually explained.

How could it? The writer was not a mathematician though I did spot a
mathematician as a technical consultant. The film was not a maths lecture
so it was not expected for the audience to be taught any maths!

[Toby]

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:14:08 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Ray Pang

Post by Toby
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:08:01 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby
Thing is, because the population at large, as you say, has no great
understanding, no one would want to watch the program, nor would
understand whether the bloke was faking well - directly, anyway...

I am not so sure...'Good Will Hunting' and 'A Beautiful Mind' were pretty
popular.

Tell me whether these films were about relationships formed by people
who did maths, or films about maths.

Both.

I don't see how Good Will Hunting was about Maths. None of the maths was
actually explained.

How could it? The writer was not a mathematician though I did spot a
mathematician as a technical consultant. The film was not a maths lecture
so it was not expected for the audience to be taught any maths!

So it was not a film about maths, it was about a bloke who could get
maths, along with history and chemistry and other things as I recall
i.e. he was very precocious and smart but socially lacking...Romance
ensued, he hit it off with his psychologist...It was not a film about
maths.

[John Porcella]

Post by Toby
Grrr, I wasn't trying to be pontsy,

No, I do not think that your post was at all 'poncy'.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Matthew Huntbach
I'm not yet convinced with the line, which Andy gives, that it's entirely
down to innate ability.

As that's not my line, but somewhat its converse, your lack of
conviction is unsurprising.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
All of us who have ever been invoved in teaching or
learning maths, or other things involving formal abstraction such as
programming, will know there is often a "click" whereby something that
seemed hard to grasp suddenly falls in place.

Right. And the person who is clicked therefore had the innate
ability. It is possible to be able but not perform. But in maths there
are lots of unable people, who therefore cannot perform*.

Maybe I'm just being optmistic. I would like to think there are a lot of
people who appear unable but who could eventually be got to click.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
What is one supposed to do in maths with the person who simply
cannot follow a logical argument? With the person who simply cannot
understand an abstraction? Whose eyes glaze over when you say "Let x
be the number of sheep"? There's nothing there to click.

Well, they haven't clicked at a low level. Someone whose eyes glaze over at
"let x be the number of sheep" may one day click and grasp this essential
piece of abstraction.

Matthew Huntbach

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Maybe I'm just being optmistic.

LibDems! Back in the real world ....

Post by Matthew Huntbach
I would like to think there are a lot of
people who appear unable but who could eventually be got to click.

There are. But still only a small proportion of the population.
I expect most of your students could eventually be got through GCSE
maths. [Ducks hastily ....]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Well, they haven't clicked at a low level. Someone whose eyes glaze over at
"let x be the number of sheep" may one day click and grasp this essential
piece of abstraction.

Yes, but you have to kiss an awful lot of frogs before one
turns into a prince[ss].

[Ray Pang]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Matthew Huntbach
I'm not yet convinced with the line, which Andy gives, that it's entirely
down to innate ability.

As that's not my line, but somewhat its converse, your lack of
conviction is unsurprising.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
All of us who have ever been invoved in teaching or
learning maths, or other things involving formal abstraction such as
programming, will know there is often a "click" whereby something that
seemed hard to grasp suddenly falls in place.

Right. And the person who is clicked therefore had the innate
ability. It is possible to be able but not perform. But in maths there
are lots of unable people, who therefore cannot perform*.

Maybe I'm just being optmistic. I would like to think there are a lot of
people who appear unable but who could eventually be got to click.

It's hard to dismiss either view, because anything I've had to do in my
maths life I've (sometimes eventually) got it to click (except Algebraic
Geometry a year or two ago, which just wouldn't click for some reason, hence
my pathetic mark in it) but I remember when I first learnt about proof by
induction, and how that just suddenly clicked the day after I was
regurgitating the process taught to us. I then tried to explain this to
somebody else who was doing A-level maths (and went on to do uni maths) and
no matter how many different ways I put it, it just wouldn't go in. Either
my teaching was awful, or Andy is right in that certain levels of
abstraction will never click.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Ray Pang

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Matthew Huntbach
All of us who have ever been invoved in teaching or
learning maths, or other things involving formal abstraction such as
programming, will know there is often a "click" whereby something that
seemed hard to grasp suddenly falls in place.

Right. And the person who is clicked therefore had the innate
ability. It is possible to be able but not perform. But in maths there
are lots of unable people, who therefore cannot perform*.

Maybe I'm just being optmistic. I would like to think there are a lot of
people who appear unable but who could eventually be got to click.

It's hard to dismiss either view, because anything I've had to do in my
maths life I've (sometimes eventually) got it to click (except Algebraic
Geometry a year or two ago, which just wouldn't click for some reason, hence
my pathetic mark in it) but I remember when I first learnt about proof by
induction, and how that just suddenly clicked the day after I was
regurgitating the process taught to us. I then tried to explain this to
somebody else who was doing A-level maths (and went on to do uni maths) and
no matter how many different ways I put it, it just wouldn't go in. Either
my teaching was awful, or Andy is right in that certain levels of
abstraction will never click.

No, your teaching was not awful. Proof by induction and the closely related
use of recursion in programming is well known as a point where a lot of
people just seem to switch off. I do a little proof by induction in my
algorithms course, and I know that few of the students, hardly any of those
who don't have a maths background, grasp it. I've taught recursion in
introductory programming almost every year that I've been doing the
leturing job, and while to me it is intuitively obvious, and
always has been, it's clear that to the majority of the class it isn't, it's
a difficult subject which they would go to any lengths to avoid doing. Any
glance at the literature on teaching programming will show that this is
universal, not just a problem with my teaching. No-one seems to have
discovered a way of putting it across that doesn't lose a large proportion
of the class.

I'm interested to know what it is that people find so hard in the concept
of solving a problem by solving a simpler version of the same problem and the
adjusting the solution to get the solution to the original problem. As I
said, I'm reluctant to conclude that there's something in the brain of the
majority of the population which simply means they will never, ever grasp
this.

Matthew Huntbach

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
I'm interested to know what it is that people find so hard in the concept
of solving a problem by solving a simpler version of the same problem and the
adjusting the solution to get the solution to the original problem. As I
said, I'm reluctant to conclude that there's something in the brain of the
majority of the population which simply means they will never, ever grasp
this.

And yet all of our experience is that it *is* so. Instead of
banging our heads trying to teach this stuff to everyone, perhaps we
should accept the difference, teach recursion/induction to the minority
who will understand it and do something else with the rest.

Of course, *some* of the problem lies with the fact that
sixth-formers [and earlier] are often taught by those who don't
understand. So many undergraduates arrive with a horrible baggage
of consequential misunderstandings, in which "induction means
assuming what you have to prove" and so on, and once those ideas
are fixed, it's very hard to clear them away and start again.

[John Porcella]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Right. And the person who is clicked therefore had the innate
ability.

I see what you are getting at, though I am the sort of person that has to
have the nastier parts of the A level mathematics syllabus explained many
times (since I also have a tendency to forget) before it clicks with me. I
do not think that I have an innate ability with mathematics, but I could be
wrong as I was in the top set for maths at school, and nearly in the top
three or four, though the top two were geniuses so I could never touch them
for ability.

It is possible to be able but not perform.

Sure, nerves. laziness and arrogance can easily play a part in
underperforming.

But in maths there

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
are lots of unable people, who therefore cannot perform*.

True, though the English seem to have made an artform (science?) out of
convincing ourselves that we are 'rubbish' at mathematics.

There are also

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
lots of people who can churn out maths without ever really understanding
what they are doing

Could you explain this further, please?

-- at very high levels of performance, getting firsts

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
in cognate disciplines like physics and computing, even [heaven help us!]
in maths.
What is one supposed to do in maths with the person who simply
cannot follow a logical argument? With the person who simply cannot
understand an abstraction? Whose eyes glaze over when you say "Let x
be the number of sheep"? There's nothing there to click.

Patience, repetition and a different approach?


This is

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
quite different from the student who says "but *why* do we take x over
to the other side?", whose marks will improve dramatically when someone
explains it, or the student who is always dropping marks by forgetting
brackets or minus signs and whose marks will improve by taking more
care, or the student who is "hung up" and will [sometimes] improve
dramatically by skipping that area and coming back to it a year later.

Fair points.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
There is an innate *in*ability -- innumeracy, illogicality,
desperate need for the concrete -- that most of the population has.

This is an English problem, perhaps, as I do not find such pride of
mathematical ignorance to be prevalent elsewhere so much.

[Toby]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:08:00 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Right. And the person who is clicked therefore had the innate
ability.

I see what you are getting at, though I am the sort of person that has to
have the nastier parts of the A level mathematics syllabus explained many
times (since I also have a tendency to forget) before it clicks with me. I
do not think that I have an innate ability with mathematics, but I could be
wrong as I was in the top set for maths at school, and nearly in the top
three or four, though the top two were geniuses so I could never touch them
for ability.

It's highly unlikely that there were two geniuses in your class.

Post by John Porcella
It is possible to be able but not perform.

Shitty sentence aside, this probably means that you don't "get" maths,
as Andy has been emphasising.

Post by John Porcella
Sure, nerves. laziness and arrogance can easily play a part in
underperforming.
But in maths there

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
are lots of unable people, who therefore cannot perform*.

True, though the English seem to have made an artform (science?) out of
convincing ourselves that we are 'rubbish' at mathematics.
There are also

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
lots of people who can churn out maths without ever really understanding
what they are doing

Could you explain this further, please?

ROFL you just described this in another post - merely learning
formulae etc. by rote for exams...

Post by John Porcella
-- at very high levels of performance, getting firsts

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
in cognate disciplines like physics and computing, even [heaven help us!]
in maths.
What is one supposed to do in maths with the person who simply
cannot follow a logical argument? With the person who simply cannot
understand an abstraction? Whose eyes glaze over when you say "Let x
be the number of sheep"? There's nothing there to click.

Patience, repetition and a different approach?
This is

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
quite different from the student who says "but *why* do we take x over
to the other side?", whose marks will improve dramatically when someone
explains it, or the student who is always dropping marks by forgetting
brackets or minus signs and whose marks will improve by taking more
care, or the student who is "hung up" and will [sometimes] improve
dramatically by skipping that area and coming back to it a year later.

Fair points.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
There is an innate *in*ability -- innumeracy, illogicality,
desperate need for the concrete -- that most of the population has.

This is an English problem, perhaps, as I do not find such pride of
mathematical ignorance to be prevalent elsewhere so much.

[John Porcella]

Post by Toby
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:08:00 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Right. And the person who is clicked therefore had the innate
ability.

I see what you are getting at, though I am the sort of person that has to
have the nastier parts of the A level mathematics syllabus explained many
times (since I also have a tendency to forget) before it clicks with me.

I

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
do not think that I have an innate ability with mathematics, but I could be
wrong as I was in the top set for maths at school, and nearly in the top
three or four, though the top two were geniuses so I could never touch them
for ability.

It's highly unlikely that there were two geniuses in your class.

Unlikely, but it was the case. One studied to be a doctor in the end, and
the other was advanced to our form from the year (!) below, and he was still
in the top two of the class for those one full year older than him! He now
teaches mathematics in the East End of London, poor devil!

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
It is possible to be able but not perform.

Shitty sentence aside,

Why 'shitty'?

this probably means that you don't "get" maths,

Post by Toby
as Andy has been emphasising.

That is the point I am making! I can get top grades in mathematics by sheer
effort of will and good tutoring, but other subjects that require a more
independent, subject analysis are not as easy to crack.

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
There are also

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
lots of people who can churn out maths without ever really

understanding

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
what they are doing

Could you explain this further, please?

ROFL you just described this in another post - merely learning
formulae etc. by rote for exams...

This is as much as I suspected, however I wanted the writer of this to make
it clear. After all, you do know the saying about assumptions?

[Robert de Vincy]

Post by John Porcella
After all, you do know the saying about assumptions?

Never ASSUME or you will make a tired and worn old cliché out of U and
ME.

[Ray Pang]

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by John Porcella
After all, you do know the saying about assumptions?

Never ASSUME or you will make a tired and worn old cliché out of U and
ME.

I think he might have been referring to the one about assumption
breastfeeding "screw" ups.

[John Porcella]

Post by Ray Pang

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by John Porcella
After all, you do know the saying about assumptions?

Never ASSUME or you will make a tired and worn old cliché out of U and
ME.

I think he might have been referring to the one about assumption
breastfeeding "screw" ups.

Ray, you are a genius, and THAT is not an assumption!

[John Porcella]

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by John Porcella
After all, you do know the saying about assumptions?

Never ASSUME or you will make a tired and worn old cliché out of U and
ME.
--
BdeV

I remember poor old Bob tell that one.

I was thinking of the reference to assumptons in 'Under Siege II: Dark
Territory' and 'The Fourth Protocol' (I think!).

[Toby]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:26:13 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:08:00 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Right. And the person who is clicked therefore had the innate
ability.

I see what you are getting at, though I am the sort of person that has to
have the nastier parts of the A level mathematics syllabus explained many
times (since I also have a tendency to forget) before it clicks with me.

I

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
do not think that I have an innate ability with mathematics, but I could

be

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
wrong as I was in the top set for maths at school, and nearly in the top
three or four, though the top two were geniuses so I could never touch

them

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
for ability.

It's highly unlikely that there were two geniuses in your class.

Unlikely, but it was the case. One studied to be a doctor in the end, and
the other was advanced to our form from the year (!) below, and he was still
in the top two of the class for those one full year older than him! He now
teaches mathematics in the East End of London, poor devil!

That really isn't the definition of genius, if there even is a proper
definition, in my opinion...What you have described is hardly rare.

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
It is possible to be able but not perform.

Shitty sentence aside,

Why 'shitty'?

Why do you EVER correct people - you always get stuff wrong.

Post by John Porcella
this probably means that you don't "get" maths,

Post by Toby
as Andy has been emphasising.

That is the point I am making! I can get top grades in mathematics by sheer
effort of will and good tutoring, but other subjects that require a more
independent, subject analysis are not as easy to crack.

Fine, but that is just A Level maths - if you have to work so hard, it
probably means you aren't truly going to "click" with maths.

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
There are also

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
lots of people who can churn out maths without ever really

understanding

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
what they are doing

Could you explain this further, please?

ROFL you just described this in another post - merely learning
formulae etc. by rote for exams...

This is as much as I suspected, however I wanted the writer of this to make
it clear. After all, you do know the saying about assumptions?

There's lots of evidence that you're an ass?

[John Porcella]

Post by Toby
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:26:13 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:08:00 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Right. And the person who is clicked therefore had the innate
ability.

I see what you are getting at, though I am the sort of person that has to
have the nastier parts of the A level mathematics syllabus explained many
times (since I also have a tendency to forget) before it clicks with me.

I

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
do not think that I have an innate ability with mathematics, but I could

be

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
wrong as I was in the top set for maths at school, and nearly in the top
three or four, though the top two were geniuses so I could never touch

them

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
for ability.

It's highly unlikely that there were two geniuses in your class.

Unlikely, but it was the case. One studied to be a doctor in the end, and
the other was advanced to our form from the year (!) below, and he was still
in the top two of the class for those one full year older than him! He now
teaches mathematics in the East End of London, poor devil!

That really isn't the definition of genius, if there even is a proper
definition, in my opinion...What you have described is hardly rare.

In your opinion...that reminds me of another saying about opinions and
arseholes!

Yes, you are right, it is hardly rare. However, there were indeed two
people in my class with genius level IQs. However, Toby, I agree that this
definition is very, very debatable.

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
It is possible to be able but not perform.

Shitty sentence aside,

Why 'shitty'?

Why do you EVER correct people - you always get stuff wrong.

Why do you answer my question with a question and avoid enlightening me as
to why you thought that my sentence was 'shitty'?

I never suggested that I was perfect. If you find errors in what I write,
then please do not be selfish, enlighten me!

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
this probably means that you don't "get" maths,

Post by Toby
as Andy has been emphasising.

That is the point I am making! I can get top grades in mathematics by sheer
effort of will and good tutoring, but other subjects that require a more
independent, subject analysis are not as easy to crack.

Fine, but that is just A Level maths - if you have to work so hard, it
probably means you aren't truly going to "click" with maths.

Again you suggest, unwisely, that 'A' level mathematics is not mathematics.
Why do you not enlighten us with why ALL of the examination boards at school
level have misnamed their examinations.

I am clicking well enough to get the top grades, thus far.

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
There are also

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
lots of people who can churn out maths without ever really

understanding

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
what they are doing

Could you explain this further, please?

ROFL you just described this in another post - merely learning
formulae etc. by rote for exams...

This is as much as I suspected, however I wanted the writer of this to make
it clear. After all, you do know the saying about assumptions?

There's lots of evidence that you're an ass?

There is evidence immediately above that suggests that you cannot spot a
plural.

[Toby]

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:26:53 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:26:13 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:08:00 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Right. And the person who is clicked therefore had the innate
ability.

I see what you are getting at, though I am the sort of person that has

to

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
have the nastier parts of the A level mathematics syllabus explained

many

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
times (since I also have a tendency to forget) before it clicks with

me.

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
I

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
do not think that I have an innate ability with mathematics, but I

could

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
be

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
wrong as I was in the top set for maths at school, and nearly in the

top

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
three or four, though the top two were geniuses so I could never touch

them

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
for ability.

It's highly unlikely that there were two geniuses in your class.

Unlikely, but it was the case. One studied to be a doctor in the end,

and

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
the other was advanced to our form from the year (!) below, and he was

still

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
in the top two of the class for those one full year older than him! He

now

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
teaches mathematics in the East End of London, poor devil!

That really isn't the definition of genius, if there even is a proper
definition, in my opinion...What you have described is hardly rare.

In your opinion...that reminds me of another saying about opinions and
arseholes!
Yes, you are right, it is hardly rare. However, there were indeed two
people in my class with genius level IQs. However, Toby, I agree that this
definition is very, very debatable.

You didn't use that to describe them as geniuses...However, I'm still
suspicious you'll say their IQs are 150 or something...

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
It is possible to be able but not perform.

Shitty sentence aside,

Why 'shitty'?

Why do you EVER correct people - you always get stuff wrong.

Why do you answer my question with a question and avoid enlightening me as
to why you thought that my sentence was 'shitty'?
I never suggested that I was perfect. If you find errors in what I write,
then please do not be selfish, enlighten me!

Because you never truly read/listen/blah to what people say half the
time, you are bent on your own little reasoning system and so I cannot
find the motivation.

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
this probably means that you don't "get" maths,

Post by Toby
as Andy has been emphasising.

That is the point I am making! I can get top grades in mathematics by

sheer

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
effort of will and good tutoring, but other subjects that require a more
independent, subject analysis are not as easy to crack.

Fine, but that is just A Level maths - if you have to work so hard, it
probably means you aren't truly going to "click" with maths.

Again you suggest, unwisely, that 'A' level mathematics is not mathematics.
Why do you not enlighten us with why ALL of the examination boards at school
level have misnamed their examinations.
I am clicking well enough to get the top grades, thus far.

I didn't say it was maths, I said it was A Level maths, the exact
label. I'm trying to make the point that there ARE levels of maths,
and being able to get right a certain examination doesn't mean you
"click" in the way Andy is talking about - a proper, full, true,
gorgeous understanding of Maths to its current boundaries.

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
There are also

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
lots of people who can churn out maths without ever really

understanding

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
what they are doing

Could you explain this further, please?

ROFL you just described this in another post - merely learning
formulae etc. by rote for exams...

This is as much as I suspected, however I wanted the writer of this to

make

Post by Toby

Post by John Porcella
it clear. After all, you do know the saying about assumptions?

There's lots of evidence that you're an ass?

There is evidence immediately above that suggests that you cannot spot a
plural.

I'm sorry, you're being weird again; do you mean I should have written
"there are lots of evidence" or that you are admitting to only a
single piece of evidence pointing to your being an ass?

How amusing, either way.

[Ray Pang]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
There are also

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
lots of people who can churn out maths without ever really understanding
what they are doing

Could you explain this further, please?

I'll try. You mentioned earlier that there are people who can remember
formulae and bluff their way through exams. At university, that is a lot
more difficult to do, but there are people who remember the techniques, the
proofs and the bookwork and gain marks there, without really grasping the
underlying point of what's happening. In a uni level proof, it is not
difficult to understand each stage in a proof. What's difficult is knowing
why you're doing what you're doing, especially if your memory isn't great.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
This is

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
quite different from the student who says "but *why* do we take x over
to the other side?", whose marks will improve dramatically when someone
explains it, or the student who is always dropping marks by forgetting
brackets or minus signs and whose marks will improve by taking more
care, or the student who is "hung up" and will [sometimes] improve
dramatically by skipping that area and coming back to it a year later.

Fair points.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
There is an innate *in*ability -- innumeracy, illogicality,
desperate need for the concrete -- that most of the population has.

This is an English problem, perhaps, as I do not find such pride of
mathematical ignorance to be prevalent elsewhere so much.

You're referring to ignorance, rather than inability. People generally are
able to do rudimentary maths and arithmetic.

[John Porcella]

Post by Ray Pang

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
There are also

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
lots of people who can churn out maths without ever really

understanding

Post by Ray Pang

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
what they are doing

Could you explain this further, please?

I'll try. You mentioned earlier that there are people who can remember
formulae and bluff their way through exams. At university, that is a lot
more difficult to do, but there are people who remember the techniques, the
proofs and the bookwork and gain marks there, without really grasping the
underlying point of what's happening. In a uni level proof, it is not
difficult to understand each stage in a proof. What's difficult is knowing
why you're doing what you're doing, especially if your memory isn't great.

Well explained. Hopefully, the explanation of why something is done is
explained by the lecturer.

Post by Ray Pang

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
There is an innate *in*ability -- innumeracy, illogicality,
desperate need for the concrete -- that most of the population has.

This is an English problem, perhaps, as I do not find such pride of
mathematical ignorance to be prevalent elsewhere so much.

You're referring to ignorance, rather than inability. People generally are
able to do rudimentary maths and arithmetic.

Yes, though I have heard many boast with pride that they "can't do maths".

[Ray Pang]

Post by John Porcella

Post by Ray Pang

Post by John Porcella
This is an English problem, perhaps, as I do not find such pride of
mathematical ignorance to be prevalent elsewhere so much.

You're referring to ignorance, rather than inability. People generally are
able to do rudimentary maths and arithmetic.

Yes, though I have heard many boast with pride that they "can't do maths".

Again, that is ignorance. They can, of course, add things up. It's a
'coolness' thing I believe. Same with computers, spelling, fitting a plug,
etc. It says "I am not a geek". Nobody goes around saying "I couldn't handle
a pint if my life depended on it" even though there are people who can't
handle a pint. Nobody goes around saying "I couldn't pull in a brothel" even
though there probably are people who would have serious difficulty.

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
There are also

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
lots of people who can churn out maths without ever really understanding
what they are doing

Could you explain this further, please?

People who can apply formulas, reproduce bookwork, solve set
questions as long as they are essentially identical to ones worked
in class, but who do not know when the formula should or should not
be used, are incapable of producing bookwork that is a minor variant
on lecture notes, and have not the foggiest idea how to set about
solving problems that are new.

In the days when we *did* interview applicants, we would set
them maths problems which were deliberately not "A level" but were
designed to get the student thinking about some new situation. The
occasional genius just solved the new problem [these were not *hard*
problems]. Most tried a few things, got stuck, and then we tried to
steer them towards a solution. But quite a lot just put their pens
down, "no, we haven't done that". "I know, I want to see what you
make of an unseen problem." "But we haven't been told how to do
this." "OK, what does this problem remind you of?" "We haven't
been told ...."

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
What is one supposed to do in maths with the person who simply
cannot follow a logical argument? [...]

Patience, repetition and a different approach?

We are dealing with education, not dog training.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
There is an innate *in*ability -- innumeracy, illogicality,
desperate need for the concrete -- that most of the population has.

This is an English problem, perhaps, as I do not find such pride of
mathematical ignorance to be prevalent elsewhere so much.

*Pride* in ignorance may well be an English problem. But
innumeracy is, apparently, the natural state, and those who can
transcend it are unusual and lucky. I don't think we should be
surprised by this. Ever since we have had civilisation, we have
had, for example, "amazing" language skills. We can still read,
eg, the Iliad today, and no-one has to say "well, for the period
it's remarkable, but of course Homer didn't understand how to
add love interest, or how metaphors can work, or ...". Likewise
a hundred great novels, poems, histories, even plays of ancient
times. A modern reader may need some explanation of conventions
or assumed background, and almost certainly needs a translation,
but otherwise these works are not very different from their modern
equivalents.

By contrast, in maths, indeed in the whole of science and
technology, there is just one ancient work which still [just about]
stands up: Euclid's "Elements". Ironically, that sort of geometry
is so out of fashion that scarcely anyone still does it, even as a
postgrad. Almost everything else in maths is "recent". Euler, in
the mid-18thC, is the earliest mathematician who could have been
handed an A-level exam paper [translated into Latin ...] and made
any sense at all of any of it. If it took two thousand years from
Pythagoras for us to get started in algebra, and several hundred
more for us to get to calculus, complex numbers, etc., no wonder
that most people "don't get it". We expect undergraduates these
days to understand things that flummoxed Newton and Galileo.

[John Porcella]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Toby

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If I had to spend 4 hours per week one-to-one with the same
student, I would be throwing things at the wall by Friday. If you
keep your side of the bargain, read the books, do the work, try the
questions, it's *far* more than enough. At least, if you're capable
of understanding A-level maths it's far more than enough; if you're
in the large part of the population that will never "get" maths, then
no amount of time is enough.

Is it possible, assuming no other factors, that someone who gets A/A*
at GCSE maths could find A Level maths too difficult (not "getting
it") i.e. C or below?

Perfectly possible, but I reject your suggestion that getting a C in an
A-level means one has found it "too difficult". Getting a C means one has
achieved average marks. In my case, I would rather take on someone who had a
C in A-level Maths than someone who had no A-level Maths at all because they
feared it would be "too difficult".
I have, admittedly not very often, seen someone who hasn't performed well
at GCSE Maths "get it" at A-level and do well. Also there are people who
perform well at GCSE but just "don't get it" at A-level and actually fail.

Apparently the leap from GCSE to A level mathematics is large. I am
finishing off A level mathematics without knowledge of the GCSE syllabus and
I have been caught out at times with material that is "assumed knowledge".
But once the hole is plugged then I am okay.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
I'm not yet convinced with the line, which Andy gives, that it's entirely
down to innate ability.

Whilst the best mathematicians have an innate ability, as evidenced by the
very recent report that top mathematicians use both sides of their brains
simultaneously to do their thing, I am convinced that with good tuition and
a willing student, mathematics can be put across to those who have, like me,
little innate ability in the subject, just a desire for knowledge and
self-improvement.


All of us who have ever been invoved in teaching or

Post by Matthew Huntbach
learning maths, or other things involving formal abstraction such as
programming, will know there is often a "click" whereby something that
seemed hard to grasp suddenly falls in place.

Yes! I have found this too! I remember thinking that it was humanly
impossible to remember all the trig identities, but eventually, and with a
lot of practice it sank in.

The big question is working

Post by Matthew Huntbach
out just what that "click" is and how to make it happen. It may be harder to
make it happen in some people than in others, that doesn't mean that it's
impossible to make it happen.

Matthew, I could not agree with you more!

That is the skill of teaching.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach

[Ray Pang]

Post by John Porcella
I am convinced that with good tuition and
a willing student, mathematics can be put across to those who have, like me,
little innate ability in the subject, just a desire for knowledge and
self-improvement.

Isn't ability linked to willingness though? The people who just "don't get"
maths will have an excuse just lose all will to bother with it if they don't
get it.

Post by John Porcella
All of us who have ever been invoved in teaching or

Post by Matthew Huntbach
learning maths, or other things involving formal abstraction such as
programming, will know there is often a "click" whereby something that
seemed hard to grasp suddenly falls in place.

Yes! I have found this too! I remember thinking that it was humanly
impossible to remember all the trig identities, but eventually, and with a
lot of practice it sank in.

Er, I don't think that's what was being referred to about the "click". I
think it was more the fundamental understanding. In the case of trig
identities, it'd be that they're all actually one and the same (well sort
of, but the page of identities could be shrunk down to just a few), rather
than being able to do them all.

[John Porcella]

Post by Ray Pang

Post by John Porcella
I am convinced that with good tuition and
a willing student, mathematics can be put across to those who have, like me,
little innate ability in the subject, just a desire for knowledge and
self-improvement.

Isn't ability linked to willingness though?

Is it? I have a degree in Italian and I was asked to consider teaching it,
but I was unwilling as I would prefer to teach something else that actually
interests me. I am able, on paper, but not willing.

The people who just "don't get"

Post by Ray Pang
maths will have an excuse just lose all will to bother with it if they don't
get it.

Point taken, though what you are describing would appear to me to be
defeatism due to perceived complexity/difficulty and perhaps frustration.

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Toby
Is it possible, assuming no other factors, that someone who gets A/A*
at GCSE maths could find A Level maths too difficult (not "getting
it") i.e. C or below?

Absolutely. You can hit your ceiling at any point from primary
school through to PhD. At that specific level, there is a lot of stuff
in A-level that is conceptually quite hard: calculus, stats, complex
numbers, co-ordinate geometry, .... And a lot of stuff that just needs
to "click". At the same time, the levels of abstraction and rigour are
gradually ramping up.

Mostly, of course, there is a good correlation between GCSE and
A-level. Bright people stay bright, those who can think logically and
solve problems continue to think and solve. But there are individuals
who suddenly "get it" at A-level, having done poorly at GCSE, and others
for whom it all gets too much.

[John Porcella]

Post by Toby
<snippity>

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If I had to spend 4 hours per week one-to-one with the same
student, I would be throwing things at the wall by Friday. If you
keep your side of the bargain, read the books, do the work, try the
questions, it's *far* more than enough. At least, if you're capable
of understanding A-level maths it's far more than enough; if you're
in the large part of the population that will never "get" maths, then
no amount of time is enough.

Is it possible, assuming no other factors, that someone who gets A/A*
at GCSE maths could find A Level maths too difficult (not "getting
it") i.e. C or below?

It could be, particularly if the GCSE teacher was very good and the A level
one, not so good.

[Toby]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:07:58 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby
<snippity>

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If I had to spend 4 hours per week one-to-one with the same
student, I would be throwing things at the wall by Friday. If you
keep your side of the bargain, read the books, do the work, try the
questions, it's *far* more than enough. At least, if you're capable
of understanding A-level maths it's far more than enough; if you're
in the large part of the population that will never "get" maths, then
no amount of time is enough.

Is it possible, assuming no other factors, that someone who gets A/A*
at GCSE maths could find A Level maths too difficult (not "getting
it") i.e. C or below?

It could be, particularly if the GCSE teacher was very good and the A level
one, not so good.

Well of course, but assuming no other factors (as I said just up
there), i.e. poor teaching...

[paulenski englestein]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Samsonknight
I am willing to follow the MEI board, but I have heard that universities
don't have the same respect for it as with other boards because it lacks
"abstract maths" and is more specific to engineering side of things. Is this
true?

If you apply to a popular course, no-one is going to be in the
slightest bit interested in which board you have taken. Indeed, I would
be very surprised if even 1% of ATs for such courses have the slightest
idea what the differences are between the various boards. When you have
a pile of 1000+ UCAS forms, you are much more interested in important
things like how good the applicant is than in wasting time agonising
about which board is best.
If you apply to an unpopular course, then no-one is going to be
in the slightest bit interested in which board you have taken. Rather,
the AT will be trying to persuade you that his/her course is not as bad
as you might think, and please pretty please come to Loamshire Poly.
It just is not important.

Post by Samsonknight
Yes , he also said the same in regards to 4 hours being enough , but I guess
I am just a bit concerned at the fact that I would be unable to cover 6
different units in such a short period of time throughly.

If I had to spend 4 hours per week one-to-one with the same
student, I would be throwing things at the wall by Friday. If you
keep your side of the bargain, read the books, do the work, try the
questions, it's *far* more than enough. At least, if you're capable
of understanding A-level maths it's far more than enough; if you're
in the large part of the population that will never "get" maths, then
no amount of time is enough.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.

ignorance, bliss, etc.

[John Porcella]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If I had to spend 4 hours per week one-to-one with the same
student, I would be throwing things at the wall by Friday.

Why?

My maths tutor had to put up with me for longer than that and that was just
in one day! In between questions we argue over current events and education
policy!

If you

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
keep your side of the bargain, read the books, do the work, try the
questions, it's *far* more than enough. At least, if you're capable
of understanding A-level maths it's far more than enough; if you're
in the large part of the population that will never "get" maths, then
no amount of time is enough.

But Sam might be in the middle where it will go in if enough time is thrown
at the subject; this is what I found.

[Toby]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:07:57 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If I had to spend 4 hours per week one-to-one with the same
student, I would be throwing things at the wall by Friday.

Why?
My maths tutor had to put up with me for longer than that and that was just
in one day! In between questions we argue over current events and education
policy!
If you

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
keep your side of the bargain, read the books, do the work, try the
questions, it's *far* more than enough. At least, if you're capable
of understanding A-level maths it's far more than enough; if you're
in the large part of the population that will never "get" maths, then
no amount of time is enough.

But Sam might be in the middle where it will go in if enough time is thrown
at the subject; this is what I found.

My god he must be a saint...Or a masochist...Or insane...

[John Porcella]

Post by Toby
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:07:57 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If I had to spend 4 hours per week one-to-one with the same
student, I would be throwing things at the wall by Friday.

Why?
My maths tutor had to put up with me for longer than that and that was just
in one day! In between questions we argue over current events and education
policy!
If you

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
keep your side of the bargain, read the books, do the work, try the
questions, it's *far* more than enough. At least, if you're capable
of understanding A-level maths it's far more than enough; if you're
in the large part of the population that will never "get" maths, then
no amount of time is enough.

But Sam might be in the middle where it will go in if enough time is thrown
at the subject; this is what I found.

My god he must be a saint...Or a masochist...Or insane...

All three? 8-))

[John Porcella]

Post by Ginnie Redston

Post by Samsonknight
I just phoned one of my ex tutors from 2 years back , and he said he was
willing to tutor me 4 hours a week for 50 pounds - is it worth it? is it
enough?

That's a *very* generous offer.

I thought so too.

Good A level maths tutors round here charge

Post by Ginnie Redston
£30 an hour, so he's offering a very good deal.

As much as that? Which part of the country are you in, roughly?

If/when I get good enough I am going to have to consider some of that!!

If he knows his stuff (Maths

Post by Ginnie Redston
isn't my thing, but I know there have been a couple of recent changes to the
maths modular system, so check the exam board websites carefully) you should
grab this chance of individual tuition quickly. Four hours of individual
teaching - say 2 doubles - should give you plenty of time to cover the
course in a year

I fail to see how given that there are some real stinkers like P3, which are
a massive jump up from P1 and P2.

- and provided you do YOUR bit - ie. work hard, you should

Post by Ginnie Redston
have an excellent chance of doing well.

True words

[John Porcella]

Post by Samsonknight
Hi,
I am still looking for a place that does AS & A2 maths in one year.However I
have had no luck , all the places I have found are outside of London or do
long distance learning . I am now considering in investing into an A-level
maths tutor that is willing to cover P1,P2,S1 for the AS units for the
November exams.

I do not think that Edexcel have an examination sitting in November next.
You would have to wait until next January.

and the additional A2 units which will be taken in June -

Post by Samsonknight
preferably EDEXCEL as I had done that 2 years ago for AS.
I will enter all of my modules as a private cadidate.
Can anyone here please give me advice on where I can get such a tutor - I am
a bit worried that I cant find anywhere to do it, as I am very keen to do
it. - and would prefer to do it in 1 year.
I am based in South London.

I know a chap who has been tutoring for over twenty years, and I can
personally vouch for his knowledge and quality of tuition. However, I am
not sure if his location is good for you; his nearest tube is Warwick Avenue
on the Bakerloo line and his place is a very short walk away. If you want
more details then contact me directly at my e-mail address.

[Samsonknight]

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight
Hi,
I am still looking for a place that does AS & A2 maths in one

year.However

Post by John Porcella
I

Post by Samsonknight
have had no luck , all the places I have found are outside of London or do
long distance learning . I am now considering in investing into an A-level
maths tutor that is willing to cover P1,P2,S1 for the AS units for the
November exams.

I do not think that Edexcel have an examination sitting in November next.
You would have to wait until next January.

Oh I see, just that my ex peers sat the P2 exam in November last year.

Post by John Porcella
and the additional A2 units which will be taken in June -

Post by Samsonknight
preferably EDEXCEL as I had done that 2 years ago for AS.
I will enter all of my modules as a private cadidate.
Can anyone here please give me advice on where I can get such a tutor -

I

Post by John Porcella
am

Post by Samsonknight
a bit worried that I cant find anywhere to do it, as I am very keen to do
it. - and would prefer to do it in 1 year.
I am based in South London.

I know a chap who has been tutoring for over twenty years, and I can
personally vouch for his knowledge and quality of tuition. However, I am
not sure if his location is good for you; his nearest tube is Warwick Avenue
on the Bakerloo line and his place is a very short walk away. If you want
more details then contact me directly at my e-mail address.

Do you know how much he charges per hour? hmm Warwick avenue , I have no
idea where that is - but I will look into it.

Thanks again.

[Toby]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 12:48:48 +0000 (UTC), "Samsonknight"

Post by Samsonknight

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight
Hi,
I am still looking for a place that does AS & A2 maths in one

year.However

Post by John Porcella
I

Post by Samsonknight
have had no luck , all the places I have found are outside of London or

do

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight
long distance learning . I am now considering in investing into an

A-level

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight
maths tutor that is willing to cover P1,P2,S1 for the AS units for the
November exams.

I do not think that Edexcel have an examination sitting in November next.
You would have to wait until next January.

Oh I see, just that my ex peers sat the P2 exam in November last year.

There are Edexcel exams this November, but they will be in the
current style, not of the new syllabus, though if you're doing it in a
year that might not be a problem.

[John Porcella]

Post by Toby
There are Edexcel exams this November, but they will be in the
current style, not of the new syllabus, though if you're doing it in a
year that might not be a problem.

Thanks for the correction. I looked at the Edexcel website some weeks ago
and could not find any reference to November 2004 examinations this year. I
gave them a quick ring following your post, and yes, you are right. Thanks
again.

For those that need to know, P1, P2, S1, D1 and M1 are available on November
2nd.

http://www.edexcel.org.uk/VirtualContent/59454/GCE_Nov_04.pdf

[Toby]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:08:01 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby
There are Edexcel exams this November, but they will be in the
current style, not of the new syllabus, though if you're doing it in a
year that might not be a problem.

Thanks for the correction. I looked at the Edexcel website some weeks ago
and could not find any reference to November 2004 examinations this year. I
gave them a quick ring following your post, and yes, you are right. Thanks
again.
For those that need to know, P1, P2, S1, D1 and M1 are available on November
2nd.
http://www.edexcel.org.uk/VirtualContent/59454/GCE_Nov_04.pdf

No problem. I discovered this by looking on the Edexcel website...Just
look on the exam calendar...