I’m not familiar with tutoring markets/services, so I was going to let other people who might be more familiar with this topic comment instead, but seeing no activity I’ll share my initial thoughts:
I haven’t really thought or seen much about a “gig market” for teaching/tutoring, meaning that I don’t have many models to evaluate so it’s difficult for me to judge the effectiveness of the idea. I do suppose that some people might have the free time, expertise, and network where it makes sense to do this as a part-time/informal thing. However, I do have some concerns:
reducing the price below market rate would presumably lead to a gap between supply/capacity and demand: in particular, I would expect that more people would want to sign up for these classes and perhaps fewer people would be willing to serve as tutors. To remedy this would likely require some kind of selection mechanism, such as interest or merit based selections (like some scholarship applications) and/or demonstrating financial need. Especially building on that note of financial need: if people do not face financial need but consider the lessons to be valuable, they should be willing to pay more than 75% of market rate, which means that the opportunity for more giving is lost.
I’m a bit confused by your emphasis on 1-on-1 “because those have the highest cost”: if you are saying that as a bad thing (i.e., “people can’t afford them at regular prices”) I see what you are saying but I’d still refer you back to my first point. Additionally, I think that one would need to weigh the costs and benefits of individualized vs. group sessions (e.g., less revenue for giving vs. improved training), and my weak/initial impression is that it’s going to tip heavily in favor of group sessions since you can make multiples of revenue (or charge lower prices and reach more people at the same revenue) and still bring substantial benefits to students. In short, I highly doubt that the “training benefit” is inversely proportional to the number of people in a group for most things (because of, e.g., learning from others’ mistakes/successes, lessons that apply to everyone)--in other words, a student in a group of two people does not learn at only half the rate; I’d suspect it’s more like 70-80% (of course depending on the specific thing in question).
Thank you for the feedback, Harrison! Good things to think about. I think it would be best if I could do a proof of concept first to clarify the exact nature of my suggestions.
I’m not familiar with tutoring markets/services, so I was going to let other people who might be more familiar with this topic comment instead, but seeing no activity I’ll share my initial thoughts: I haven’t really thought or seen much about a “gig market” for teaching/tutoring, meaning that I don’t have many models to evaluate so it’s difficult for me to judge the effectiveness of the idea. I do suppose that some people might have the free time, expertise, and network where it makes sense to do this as a part-time/informal thing. However, I do have some concerns:
reducing the price below market rate would presumably lead to a gap between supply/capacity and demand: in particular, I would expect that more people would want to sign up for these classes and perhaps fewer people would be willing to serve as tutors. To remedy this would likely require some kind of selection mechanism, such as interest or merit based selections (like some scholarship applications) and/or demonstrating financial need. Especially building on that note of financial need: if people do not face financial need but consider the lessons to be valuable, they should be willing to pay more than 75% of market rate, which means that the opportunity for more giving is lost.
I’m a bit confused by your emphasis on 1-on-1 “because those have the highest cost”: if you are saying that as a bad thing (i.e., “people can’t afford them at regular prices”) I see what you are saying but I’d still refer you back to my first point. Additionally, I think that one would need to weigh the costs and benefits of individualized vs. group sessions (e.g., less revenue for giving vs. improved training), and my weak/initial impression is that it’s going to tip heavily in favor of group sessions since you can make multiples of revenue (or charge lower prices and reach more people at the same revenue) and still bring substantial benefits to students. In short, I highly doubt that the “training benefit” is inversely proportional to the number of people in a group for most things (because of, e.g., learning from others’ mistakes/successes, lessons that apply to everyone)--in other words, a student in a group of two people does not learn at only half the rate; I’d suspect it’s more like 70-80% (of course depending on the specific thing in question).
Thank you for the feedback, Harrison! Good things to think about. I think it would be best if I could do a proof of concept first to clarify the exact nature of my suggestions.