By Molly McGouran

While conducting research into the University of Toronto Tutor Training Program (UT3), I found myself caught in a web of questions and answers that seemed to lead me in circles.  The more fieldwork I did, the more it felt like trying to solve a puzzle where every piece connected to another in ways I did not expect.  The cyclical nature of the intentions and outcomes of the UT3 program led me to theorize what I call The Tutoring Loop – a paradox created by the complexities and ethical implications of academic aid services at UofT.  

Throughout my fieldwork, I looked to answer the question of how the UT3 program came to be, and most of the initial answers I was given focused on it being a solution to the unmet need for additional academic aid services.  Looking into the existing academic aid services, it was apparent that for the size of UofT, the amount of subject-specific academic aid is severely lacking.  With over 700 programs being offered at the St. George campus, subject-specific help is only offered for eight programs.  And with over 60 000 students, the number of hours is insufficient. This deficit has led to students seeking outside assistance from private tutoring services, which do not uphold the academic integrity standards of the university.  From here emerges the UT3 program.

To address the unmet needs of students, the Centre for Learning Strategy Support (CLSS) created the UT3 program, which trains “institutionally certified tutors,” who can then list classes they can tutor, their availability, and their price on the UofT Tutor Directory.  The tutor directory aims to relieve pressure on the existing academic aid resources while ensuring that tutors uphold UofT’s reputation.  But this solution comes with a catch.

The UT3 program solves the unmet needs of students by creating a market relationship.  In interviewing the creator of the UT3 program, I found out that the wording of all material related to the program had to be vetted by the UofT legal department to ensure that the aims of the program were clear.  It is not a work-study, tutors are not employees, and the CLSS and UofT are not responsible for “something going wrong.” This market relationship is solidified by the CLSS needing to remove itself from financial transactions in order to remove liability from the university.  This market dynamic then limits the relationship that is created between tutors and other students.  

Tutors are told in the UT3 training sessions that they cannot do everything.  If their rates are too high, students can only afford one hour, or if the student is too far behind, the tutor may not offer enough hours to help them.  If a student needs more help than the tutor can provide, the tutor must direct them back to the already over-stretched academic resources. And so, the cycle begins again.  

The UT3 program reveals a deeper tension within the university’s approach to academic support.  On one hand, it provides more academic resources for students.  On the other, it costs students additional money on top of their tuition and may still lead them back to the existing resources.  By creating a market relationship between students, the program places responsibility – and, at times, burden – on those it is trying to help. 

Through my research, one thing is clear: the loop of tutoring and academic aid at UofT is more than just a puzzle.  It reflects the challenges faced by Student Life as they navigate the balance between supporting students and managing their own limitations.