![]() | Hagwon received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wish list: history of hagwons, current levels of spending and tuition, citations of pro and con opinions, photos of "hagwon row" districts -- Visviva 05:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that verification is important. But when it comes to matters that are less "objective" (ie. not numbers, years, names), a source could plainly be someone else's opinion or advise. That would thus just be lip-service to the sourcing code. 65.210.107.101 04:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we'll need a cite on that. Google search for the following words:
I'm going to change the usage t hagwan in the article as its clearly predominate but I'd need an academic source on the pluralization as it seems hagwons clearly outstrips hagwon in use which seems to make it standard usage in English. Maybe some academic/reliable sources using it as "hagwon" in a plural meaning.-- Crossmr ( talk) 15:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm having trouble sourcing this name. The only reliable source I can find on it, is this book: [10] which uses it to mean speed counting. I did find a couple of random teacher's personal pages which mention working at soksem hagwons, but there isn't much detail on what it is. The other sources I found were copies of this wiki. The korean wiki page doesn't mention this school at all. This korean school mentions the word: [11] but in the context of their "math" page and it also talks about 보습 boseup which can translate to tutoring school.-- Crossmr ( talk) 03:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, reserached on the Internet and also some sources that the official name is hagwon, but the pronounciation is hakwon. (Which I should know since I'm a South Korean). The Hegemarch ( talk) 11:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Hegemarch and Crossmr. I utterly disagree about hakwon as the pronunciation, *especially* if you are Korean. Due to Korean clustering (받침), it is never pronounced hakwon (hak+won), but hagweon (ha+gweon). The k slides and joins the weo. As another example, 북래 is spelled Buk rae, but pronounced Bungnae. No sensible person walks about the country saying Buk+rae. Hence, hakwon is misleading if not incorrect and a constantly propagating error. Snowfalcon cu ( talk) 01:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, okay, I got it. Snowfalcon cu ( talk) 23:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Living in Korea, you would realize that there are many 'Hagwon chains', especially Language institutions. Hagwon chain is nothing special. It's like a fast food chain, but in case it's hagwon. So basically, one large company is operating many 'branches' in various locations. Actually, more than 70% of hagwons in Korea are hagwon chains, so it is worth being mentioned in this article, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjl0523 ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Does seem to me this article reads like a critical indictment of Hagwons rather than an encyclopaedic article. Certainly it is not appropriate for so many criticisms of Hagwons to feature in the intro paragraph. I will at some stage reorganise the article a little so that the information comes across as more descriptive and objective.-- Tomsega ( talk) 12:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the insertion of the phrase Some hagwons are independent establishments, and others are parts of small or large chains.. I'm opposing it's insertion because it's really a phrase that says nothing at all. "Some are, and some aren't" really doesn't tell us anything about a subject. Were this kind of phrase to contain some useful information, like "30% of all hagwons are part of large or small chains and 70% of hagwons are independent" (example, no idea if this is true), we might have some useful information being conveyed with this sentence. After this talk message [12], I cannot help but question the motive for it's insertion, there certainly is no cover up in asking that content that is being inserted into articles actually provide some useful context and information. The only basis for it's inclusion is that it's a "fact", which I accept to be true, but so are all kinds of pointless things in the same style. Some hagwons have windows, some don't. Some have blue doors, some don't. You could sit here all day making up hundreds or thousands of these kinds of "facts" that would say just as little about hagwons. All of which undoubedtedly true, but all of which that tell us nothing at all about hagwons.-- Crossmr ( talk) 08:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The article currently names countries English teachers must be from. This is not supported in the single reference cited, which, as far as I can see (the reference is to an entire URL) only specifies: "Natives of the country whose mother language is the one they are teaching." I don't know what the definition of "mother language is, but as a rough approximation, one might consider "official" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_where_English_is_an_official_language). The percentage of people whose mother tongue is English is (I would guess) higher on the Bahamas than in the U.S. I'm not saying that these means ROK accepts nationals of the Bahamas as teachers of English, just that our article does not seem to cite a legitimate source legitimately to preclude them. 211.225.30.91 ( talk) 03:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
These are divided between individual hagwons and chains or franchises. This sentence is a meaningless sentence. This is more or less obvious is just about any customer facing business. I have a hard time thinking of any, besides maybe seamstresses which aren't divided into individual businesses and chains or franchises in Korea. In addition to that, the reference is a user generated list of a handful of chain names. This is not a proper reference to even support such a statement in the first place. Looking at the history of the article it looks like this is some kind of long-term issue for kdammers as well as trying to insert this link to support statements that it doesn't really support as well as focusing on vague statements about hagwon chains. One has to wonder if there is a conflict of interest here.-- 114.205.84.126 ( talk) 23:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
In 2006, the government introduced a program of in-school after-school teaching using teachers and university students in an effort to reduce the financial burden on parents and to try to level the playing field between economically strapped and better off families. The results have been interpreted as being successful and as being unsuccessful based on two, semmingly conflicting surveys, both reported here: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/06/113_83567.html. Because of the conflicting information, I don't know how to incorporate the results into the article. Maybe some-one else can manage it. A few years after 2006, the government took additional measures against hagweons, but I don't have a source on that action. Some statistics, such as there being about 7,000 language hagweons, and the points about the impact of government policies, such as the 2015 test change, are presented at www.ideasarerandom.com "reading # 11". Unfortunately, the site's references, though given, are incomplete. But maybe some-body can track them down. Kdammers ( talk) 10:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The source of the statement of 75% of North American schools having affiliation with churches:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
" Most of the young children have been to a hagwon for piano or art lessons at least once. " What is the basis for this claim? There is no citation, and it certainly does not jibe with my experience in terms of rural children (specific discussion with middle-school teachers) and even at a non-Seoul university (class surveys of students with various majors). Kdammers ( talk) 05:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hagwon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Hagwon received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wish list: history of hagwons, current levels of spending and tuition, citations of pro and con opinions, photos of "hagwon row" districts -- Visviva 05:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that verification is important. But when it comes to matters that are less "objective" (ie. not numbers, years, names), a source could plainly be someone else's opinion or advise. That would thus just be lip-service to the sourcing code. 65.210.107.101 04:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we'll need a cite on that. Google search for the following words:
I'm going to change the usage t hagwan in the article as its clearly predominate but I'd need an academic source on the pluralization as it seems hagwons clearly outstrips hagwon in use which seems to make it standard usage in English. Maybe some academic/reliable sources using it as "hagwon" in a plural meaning.-- Crossmr ( talk) 15:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm having trouble sourcing this name. The only reliable source I can find on it, is this book: [10] which uses it to mean speed counting. I did find a couple of random teacher's personal pages which mention working at soksem hagwons, but there isn't much detail on what it is. The other sources I found were copies of this wiki. The korean wiki page doesn't mention this school at all. This korean school mentions the word: [11] but in the context of their "math" page and it also talks about 보습 boseup which can translate to tutoring school.-- Crossmr ( talk) 03:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, reserached on the Internet and also some sources that the official name is hagwon, but the pronounciation is hakwon. (Which I should know since I'm a South Korean). The Hegemarch ( talk) 11:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Hegemarch and Crossmr. I utterly disagree about hakwon as the pronunciation, *especially* if you are Korean. Due to Korean clustering (받침), it is never pronounced hakwon (hak+won), but hagweon (ha+gweon). The k slides and joins the weo. As another example, 북래 is spelled Buk rae, but pronounced Bungnae. No sensible person walks about the country saying Buk+rae. Hence, hakwon is misleading if not incorrect and a constantly propagating error. Snowfalcon cu ( talk) 01:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, okay, I got it. Snowfalcon cu ( talk) 23:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Living in Korea, you would realize that there are many 'Hagwon chains', especially Language institutions. Hagwon chain is nothing special. It's like a fast food chain, but in case it's hagwon. So basically, one large company is operating many 'branches' in various locations. Actually, more than 70% of hagwons in Korea are hagwon chains, so it is worth being mentioned in this article, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjl0523 ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Does seem to me this article reads like a critical indictment of Hagwons rather than an encyclopaedic article. Certainly it is not appropriate for so many criticisms of Hagwons to feature in the intro paragraph. I will at some stage reorganise the article a little so that the information comes across as more descriptive and objective.-- Tomsega ( talk) 12:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the insertion of the phrase Some hagwons are independent establishments, and others are parts of small or large chains.. I'm opposing it's insertion because it's really a phrase that says nothing at all. "Some are, and some aren't" really doesn't tell us anything about a subject. Were this kind of phrase to contain some useful information, like "30% of all hagwons are part of large or small chains and 70% of hagwons are independent" (example, no idea if this is true), we might have some useful information being conveyed with this sentence. After this talk message [12], I cannot help but question the motive for it's insertion, there certainly is no cover up in asking that content that is being inserted into articles actually provide some useful context and information. The only basis for it's inclusion is that it's a "fact", which I accept to be true, but so are all kinds of pointless things in the same style. Some hagwons have windows, some don't. Some have blue doors, some don't. You could sit here all day making up hundreds or thousands of these kinds of "facts" that would say just as little about hagwons. All of which undoubedtedly true, but all of which that tell us nothing at all about hagwons.-- Crossmr ( talk) 08:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The article currently names countries English teachers must be from. This is not supported in the single reference cited, which, as far as I can see (the reference is to an entire URL) only specifies: "Natives of the country whose mother language is the one they are teaching." I don't know what the definition of "mother language is, but as a rough approximation, one might consider "official" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_where_English_is_an_official_language). The percentage of people whose mother tongue is English is (I would guess) higher on the Bahamas than in the U.S. I'm not saying that these means ROK accepts nationals of the Bahamas as teachers of English, just that our article does not seem to cite a legitimate source legitimately to preclude them. 211.225.30.91 ( talk) 03:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
These are divided between individual hagwons and chains or franchises. This sentence is a meaningless sentence. This is more or less obvious is just about any customer facing business. I have a hard time thinking of any, besides maybe seamstresses which aren't divided into individual businesses and chains or franchises in Korea. In addition to that, the reference is a user generated list of a handful of chain names. This is not a proper reference to even support such a statement in the first place. Looking at the history of the article it looks like this is some kind of long-term issue for kdammers as well as trying to insert this link to support statements that it doesn't really support as well as focusing on vague statements about hagwon chains. One has to wonder if there is a conflict of interest here.-- 114.205.84.126 ( talk) 23:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
In 2006, the government introduced a program of in-school after-school teaching using teachers and university students in an effort to reduce the financial burden on parents and to try to level the playing field between economically strapped and better off families. The results have been interpreted as being successful and as being unsuccessful based on two, semmingly conflicting surveys, both reported here: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/06/113_83567.html. Because of the conflicting information, I don't know how to incorporate the results into the article. Maybe some-one else can manage it. A few years after 2006, the government took additional measures against hagweons, but I don't have a source on that action. Some statistics, such as there being about 7,000 language hagweons, and the points about the impact of government policies, such as the 2015 test change, are presented at www.ideasarerandom.com "reading # 11". Unfortunately, the site's references, though given, are incomplete. But maybe some-body can track them down. Kdammers ( talk) 10:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The source of the statement of 75% of North American schools having affiliation with churches:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
" Most of the young children have been to a hagwon for piano or art lessons at least once. " What is the basis for this claim? There is no citation, and it certainly does not jibe with my experience in terms of rural children (specific discussion with middle-school teachers) and even at a non-Seoul university (class surveys of students with various majors). Kdammers ( talk) 05:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hagwon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)