FAQ

Sheer efficiency. My unique selling point is being the tutor who gets the biggest improvements in the fewest sessions.

I’m always thrilled by how rapidly my students seem to grow (provided they do the work), and I pride myself on consistently beating the industry standard in this regard. Most prep courses and private tutoring programs require 30-60 hours of instruction time alone (before accounting for time spent completing homework and taking practice tests).

By contrast, my typical student sees significant gains within 8 - 12 hours of tutoring. While taking practice tests on a regular basis and completing homework diligently are still mandatory, I pride myself on eliminating as much of the mindless “busy work” as possible from my already-overworked students’ lives.

The results speak for themselves. Overall, my average student gains:

• 5 - 9 points on the ACT (versus the industry standard of 1 - 4 points)

• 150 - 300 points on the SAT (versus the industry standard of 60 - 120 points)

• 9 - 20 points on the GRE (versus the industry standard of 5 - 8 points)

I have been a full-time tutor specializing in standardized test prep for 19+ years. My experience includes working for some of the most well-known boutique tutoring companies in NJ & NY (two very academically competitive states), where I taught classes, led workshops, conducted private lessons, trained teachers, & wrote curriculum.

In addition, I have a dual background in both STEM and in Literature/Writing, thus providing me with a strong foundation to teach the Verbal AND the Mathematical aspects of each exam for which I provide coaching. Most importantly, however, I have a track record that consistently exceeds the industry standard by a wide margin (see answer to “What sets you apart from other tutors or test prep options?”)

For much more detailed information on my background and qualifications, please visit the About Me page.

A big problem with many test prep tutors and companies (though certainly not all) is that they tend to err on the side of one of two extremes:

(a) Being Overly Academic - that is, they simply cover the tested material (i.e. facts, rules, formulas, procedures) in a very traditional or “textbook” fashion that does not honor the rather unique way in which standardized tests require students to apply that material. In other words, the student learns the facts, but does not does understand the material at the deep intuitive level that would allow them to apply it strategically or use it in critical thinking tasks (which is what the tests are really about).

(b) Being Overly “Gimmicky” - that is, their approach is overly focused on what might be marketed as clever “hacks, cheat codes, tips, and tricks”, many of which are either:

• too broad to cover all cases

• too vague or general to be usefully applied

• too case-specific, only applying to one question-type which could easily be (& frequently is) changed or varied by the test-makers

• just rephrasings of common sense advice.

By contrast, my approach is:

• Process-Oriented, with a strong emphasis on teaching point-by-point decision-making frameworks over merely reciting facts or general principles & conducting sessions to focus on “learning by doing” rather than following a formal lesson structure.

• Content-centered (rather than “tips-and-tricks” centered) BUT with a teaching style that seeks to (A) instill intuitive understanding of concepts for better use in critical reasoning as well as (B) present the concepts in forms that make it easy to apply them strategically and more efficiently than is possible using a more academic or theoretical presentation.

My results justify the departure from the norm: my students typically improve 5-9 points on the ACT, 150-300 points on the SAT, and 9-20 points on the GRE. These results far outstrip the industry standard.