VeritasPrepRon wrote:
EMess51 wrote:
Thank you for the reply, it was very thoughtful. I know a pure performance based approach isn't in the tutor's best interest, however, having that be a large percent of their pay ensures that their goals are aligned. For example, I was thinking like $50/hour and $500 for (previously got 650) 30points improvement and maybe like $1000 for 50 points up and then like $200 for every 10 pts over 700. Again, don't quote me on any of this, I am just throwing out ideas that seem to be logical to me. If the tutor thinks that the student is incapable of achieving his desired score, then instead of wasting the students time this would force them to be more selective in who they tutor but more importantly honest. Tutors tend to just pat you on the back over and over again, which adds nothing to your score, which is all you really care about.
What do you think about the proposed structure??? All comments appreciated.
PS: As for the future earnings power portion of your reply...Anyone who had a decent job or any chance would never sign-up for an royalty on their own future earnings (or at least not anyone with successful careers pre-mba).
Hi EMess51, this is an interesting topic because I personally love hearing about how students I teach/tutor improve their scores. It's much more rewarding for a tutor to see their student go up by 50 or 100 or 200 points instead of stagnating at the same level. The problem with performance pay is that students are incentivized to not perform well. The per hour basis makes it so that students try and maximize their return in as little time as possible, which is good for both parties. The performance payscale encourages students to spend a lot of time with tutors and very little time on their own.
In my experience, I've often asked my students to memorize the multiplication table (huge time saver on the quant section) or know all the fractions up until 1/10, but the next session they cannot answer 7x8 or 9x12 in less than 10 seconds. If a financial advisor tells you to save 100$ per week and you don't do it, can you really penalize them because you didn't have 5,000$ at the end of the year? The students I tutor who do well are the ones who study on their own. As HerrGrau eloquently put "the tutor is a guide, an organizer, and a motivator". If you do a tutoring session on the 1st of the month and don't do any studying or tutoring for the next 3 weeks, the chances of you getting a good score aren't particularly high, but that isn't the responsibility of the tutor.
I personally agree that tutors should be incentivized by the performance of their pupil, but it's very hard to make that incentive significant without severaly penalizing the tutor. The way the market works, good tutors pick up more students and probably charge more money, whereas substandard tutors don't have (m)any students and charge less. HG's response above was completely on point: Students should try to find someone who's both an expert and in tune with their needs. Couldn't have put it any better myself.
Thanks!
-Ron
Ron I totally get where you both are coming from, which is why I mentioned a structure that is not 100% performance based, but rather probably closer to 50/50 perf vs hourly. I think if I could interview a room full of tutors all at the same time, then I could make a pretty good guess as to who would work well with me, however, since you meet them one at a time and they all get 750's+ and have had success with others the decision is a total stab in the dark. Obviously I know to look for big signs of them acting lazy, being tardy, etc. However, beyond that there is very little one can ascertain from the tutor, in terms of "how much do I think he can help me." All the tutors are probably smart, have had some experience, etc.
I agree that no tutor would sign up for a 100% performance based, however, why would a tutor not want to have a risk vs. reward pay structure if he/she is confident in their abilities. However, I understand that most of the responsiblity lies on the pupil (me). The problem lies with my last experience being super unorganized and extremely inefficient (i.e. I paid for way more hours of tutoring than I got in value). I would love it if someone shared in my success and I want them to get rewarded above and beyond the per hour level. I would hope to create a structure that a good tutor would make 25%+ more money on this structure, an average tutor would make the same and a poor tutor make 25% less than the normal per hour tutor. The specifics are less important and the money is less important to me than making sure they are incentivized to be EFFICIENT! Right now the incentive lies in the "I'll give you a little taste now, but save the best till next time" approach, which is the same as a psychologist. In my opinion I think it should be structured more like a mechanic (i.e. if they can get a 12 hour job done in 8 hours...they still get paid for 12, but if it takes 18 hours they still get paid for 12). What do you think? Anyone willing to set-up something more performance based or know anyone??
close
02 Apr 2013, 07:52
