The price and the value

Working with me and my team is more expensive than working with most tutors. That’s because what we do is actually different in a few ways. Here’s how to make sure you’re getting good value for your money.

Does one of these describe you?

  • You need the right answers to math problems
  • You need to know the techniques for solving certain math problems
  • You need to know how to read a math book more easily and effectively
  • You need better study skills
  • You need to feel less anxiety in your class or during tests

If so, then we can help you, but you can probably find good help for less money. (Even if you need many of the above things, it’s probably worth looking around.)

Or are you looking for something more like this?

  • You want your classes to go better, but don’t know what more you could be doing
  • You want to understand your own mind better, and understand why you’re actually having trouble
  • You want to get better at solving problems, especially when you feel underprepared
  • You want to learn cognitive skills that will benefit you for decades
  • You want to excel at math competitions through creative thought, rather than by memorizing obscure math
  • You want an expert co-strategist

If so, then I respectfully suggest that you’re in the right place. The price is high, because it’s difficult to do this work well. Thank you for allowing us to give these benefits to you and your family.

What straight-A students get wrong

Adam Grant just wrote a lovely piece in the New York Times that points out that, as he puts it, “academic excellence is not a strong predictor of career excellence.”

He’s right, and for the right reasons, but a quick skim of the piece might lead you astray.

The key insight isn’t that “slackers win over the long haul.” Instead, it’s this: we’re always choosing between “explore and exploit,” and exploration is more powerful early on.

So don’t blindly optimize for the rules you’re given.  The dominant strategy over the long haul is to run little experiments that help identify options that are not “on the menu” but which are nonetheless available.

What this means for students in high school and college is that it’s not necessarily best just to do whatever everyone tells you to do, as well as you can figure out how to do it. It’s better to reserve some of your time and energy for little trials and explorations.

Study a new subject.  Try a new study method.  Meet some new people.  Experience the discomfort of failure (preferably, in a context where the long-term consequences will be minimal). And so forth.

A few quick examples of how I use this with students:

  • When my students make errors, I help them see whether it’s an “I didn’t know enough math” error or a different type entirely, e.g. “I didn’t approach this as creatively as I could have,” or “I was on auto-pilot, rather than giving this my full attention.”
  • In Chapter 20 of my book How to Be a Brighter Student, I get into this in some detail. I’ll include an excerpt in the comments below.
  • When students experiencing trouble shifting to this perspective, we often discover the need to discuss mindset and/or stress. (If you have the book, see Chapter 5, Harnessing Your Mindset, and Chapter 9, Stress: A Primer, for more detail.)


Some detail from Chapter 20 of  “How to Be a Brighter Student“, referenced above:

As you may have noticed, making important life decisions is mostly regarded by our culture as something best left to the experts: first your parents make decisions for you, then college counselors, then graduate advisors, then professional mentors and managers, and on and on and on.

This isn’t necessarily such a bad thing: experience often leads to better results. (Also, there are certain kinds of mental tasks related to decision-making that become biologically easier after one’s early 20’s, so advisors for students may be especially helpful.)

Sometimes these experts will be amazing professionals with fantastic, groundbreaking advice for you. On the other hand, sometimes they’ll just be a “safety net” of decent advice, so your very worst decisions won’t be too bad. You need to be able to tell the difference.

Ultimately, you’d prefer to make your own decisions, perhaps informed by the wisdom of others, but not defined by it or by them.

Most decisions are informed by your “autopilot.” You make decisions at least partly (if not entirely) by seeing that the current situation matches some past situation (possibly in relevant ways, and possibly not), and then doing in the present whatever you think was the right thing to do in the past. (See Gladwell’s Blink and Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow for more in-depth knowledge on this.) This is not a bad thing, but it’s useful to understand how to balance this important but unconscious force with your conscious, executive mind.

Math under pressure

This outstanding TED Talk by Barnard’s president is mainly about choking under pressure. But how interesting that the example Professor Beilock spends most time on is girls’ learning math.

One of the excellent points she makes so well is that there’s a difference between knowing how to do something, and being able to do it when the pressure’s on.  And as you have probably experienced yourself, the pressure is in some sense always on.

I’ve experienced this since my school days, and I’ve done my share of studying this issue and experimenting with various best practices. When it comes to preparation for math tests of any kind, I consider this issue to be of equal importance to actually learning math.

I know. It sounds like heresy. But I know it’s right. So we use a three-pronged approach to preparing for math tests and math competitions alike:

  • Learn the necessary math to fluency
  • Identify and resolve all your performance/execution issues (per the above)
  • Strengthen your ability to critically deconstruct and to creatively synthesize

We give equal weight to these keys to success, because we understand that it isn’t just about what you know. It’s also about what you can do, and how you feel when you do it.


Goodbye, Princeton. I loved you while it lasted.

I will no longer be recommending Princeton Review’s Math 2 prep books, because their latest edition features a test that is a problem-by-problem parody of an official College Board test.

I don’t have a problem with close copies of official tests — on the contrary, that can be a very sensible strategy for creators of practice materials. However, my methods rely on a rich collection of problems that are different enough from one another that the student can come to generate underlying principles that apply broadly to many different kinds of problems.

Those methods of mine are undermined by problems that closely mimic other problems in the training corpus.

Therefore, I have to reject PR tests, because they follow a strategy that undermines mine.

(Alas, poor Yorick.)