Talk:Hagwon

Wishlist

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)

Comment to anon

• Basic information from personal experience is not a good basis for an article. Please read WP:V. Information in an article needs to be verifiable from reliable sources... anything that cannot be sourced should be removed.--Isotope23 12:37, 13 September 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)

• Regardless, It still needs to be verified in a published source. Someone's opinion or advise that has not been published elsewhere in a reliable source is not appropriate information for a Wikipedia article. This is an encyclopedia, not an advise column.--Isotope23 14:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Pluralization

I think we'll need a cite on that. Google search for the following words:

• hagwon 30,300 [1]
• hagwons 68,000 [2]
• hagwan 18,500 [3] note google also tries to correct this to hagwon and it makes no sense if you think about the Korean letters
• hagwans 1,980 [4]
• hogwon 13,500 [5] google also tries to this one to hagwon
• hogwons 6,580 [6]
• hakwon 30,900 [7]
• hakwons 46,900 [8]

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 opposing to the naming change which is against not only the naming convention, but also changes the meaning of the word. The random google search is skewed because "Hogwon" is a popular Korean given name and I can see that from the result. I'm not sure why you want to move the article to the plural. If hagwon becomes an English word, then your concern would have a merit, but it is not. I think you better consult this with editors working on Korean language articles.--Caspian blue 15:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually meant to say I was going to change the usage to hagwon in the article, just at typo on that, I was typing multiple spellings and doing google searches and inserted the wrong one in my comment. I was talking about the old text in the article that was talking about the proper way to "pluralize" the word and alternate spellings. There was old text in the article [9] claiming The word is properly the same in singular and plural, but English speakers may also pluralize it as hagwans.--Crossmr (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(I know this is orignal "research") English-language newspapers use the same form for plural and singular, but native speakers of English in Korea use, to the best of my memory, the =s form in speaking. www.asia-pacific-connections.com/hakwon_franchises.html and www.koreadaily.com/news/read.asp?art_id=837475 (apparently a Korean-American publication), and an article in the scholarly journal 'Changing English' (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a727305581&db=all) use an -s spelling for the plural. Kdammers (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

soksem name

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)

I've removed both of these. 입시 is specifically referring to hagwons for the college entrance exam. 속셈 refers only to speed counting. These aren't names for general hagwons that cater to students of certain ages.--Crossmr (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hagwon, Hagwan, Hakwon, or Hakwan?

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)

Yeah, romanization isn't consistent, as shown by the searches above.--Crossmr (talk) 13:12, 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)

It doesn't matter how it's pronounced, it matters how reliable sources are spelling it. If you see the google searches in the section above, you'll note that some alternative spellings are in heavy use. If a term is frequently spelled in other manners, we often include those as alternative names and redirects to ensure people know what we're talking about. When I did the searches above for example, Hakwon actually returned more results than Hagwon.--Crossmr (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I got it. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hagwon chains

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)

Without a citation we can't really include that kind of info.--Crossmr (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

YBM어학원/YBM-ECC • 파고다외국어학원 • Wall Street Institute Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not a citation for the claim that 70% of hagwons are chains. Thats a citation that that those 4 hagwon chains exist and nothing more. 70% of all hagwons would be around 49,000. So unless those 4 chains total up to 49000 individual locations it doesn't cut it.--Crossmr (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Negative tone

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)

All statements are cited and where counter views are present, they are presented and cited as well. There are only 2 'criticisms' in the intro paragraph, the first of which is presented with a counter balance point of view. That is hardly "so many". The second of which is tied into the first. There is nothing in WP:NPOV that says we have to present a rosy picture of everything. It says we have to represent significant points of view. If you do a news search, which I've done, you'll find a lot of press on the hagwons to be negative, or simply discussing the restrictions the government is putting on them.--Crossmr (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Continual insertion of phrase built around weasel words

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)

This is in reply to a request to WP:3O. I agree with Crossmr that the sentence should not belong in the article in this form. First, it is unverified (WP:V), and whoever wants to add it has to source it (WP:BURDEN). Second, the statement ("some are...") is so unspecific as to be meaningless. What would be useful would be a sourced, quantified statement about the chain status of hagwons, but not this sentence.  Sandstein  22:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I spent about an hour last night trying various korean keywords to try and get a story about Hagwon franchises but unfortunately wasn't getting the right combination to give me anything obvious. Even the hagwon association doesn't seem to display any publicly available stats on the make-up of their members. They might be listed on a government site somewhere though.--Crossmr (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

References were removed more than once by Crossmr. And I disagree that "some" is meaningless.Kdammers (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Your references did not support the claim you were making. You've had that explained to you, in detail. User_talk:Kdammers#Unsourced_claims.--Crossmr (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Countries

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)

What is official is what Korean immigration says, and it isn't all the countries where English is considered official, it's the 7 listed in the article. At the time it was written the list was there, but they may have updated/changed the page. This is only for teaching English. For teaching any other language, the instructor just has to be a native speaker who took university in their native language. The E-2 visa is in fact not an English language teaching specific visa. Here is a recruiter which lists the specifics [13], I'll see if I can dig up a current government link that lists the countries.--Crossmr (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

In public schools, Indians can also teach English, provided they hold a teacher's license in English. http://epik.go.kr/contents.do?contentsNo=48&menuNo=275 Kdammers (talk) 03:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliable teacher link

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)

This is not meaningless. (Nor is "the sky is blue," which is not universally true, any-way.) Chains make up a significant part of the market, especially for foreigners, and the list simply supports that. As I have said before, if I go through the sources, such as this link, then my results will be blocked as original research. It is unfortunate that the Korean government doesn't have statistics (at least on their English-language page). There is no conflict of interest: I have no connection with hagweons, independent or chain; but I do have an interest in accuracy. By eliminating any reference to chains, we give a false impression of the actual situation. I have given various sources that verify that there are a large number of chains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdammers (talk • contribs)

The conflict of interest may lie in the fact that it seems you've spent over 2-3 years trying to insert the same link to the same user generated content on the same site. I really can't imagine anyone taking that much interest in such a poor source of information unless they had a vested interest in it. The list is user generated content, as they openly invite submisisons. At this point it is 57 companies. Some of which have 2 entries, Pagoda, TOPIA, YBM. Is 57 a "large" number of chains? It seems like you had this discussion above nearly 2 years ago. Whose opinion is it that 57 is a large number? Following the discussion to your talk page it seems a quoted number of hagwons was over 27,000 nearly 3 years ago. If we look at the first 5 hagwon franchises listed on that page, they average about 5 locations each. Not sure how the whole list works out, but that is around 250 hagwons. Out of 27,000. Do you think that is a "large" or "significant" number of hagwon franchises or that they seem to be remotely relevant to hagwons as a whole? As it is there is a mention about franchises in the article regarding the foreign owned one, so the fact that they exist is certainly established with a much better source than you gave. Back to the sentence you were including the content of it isn't exactly meaningless so much as it is blindingly obvious. It might be like saying Microsoft is a company made of men and women on the planet Earth. Yes, it is all true, very accurate, and you can probably source that, but it doesn't really say anything. To the source itself, assuming it met wikipedia's rules for being reliable, which I doubt that it does, it says nothing about individual hagwons nor anything about the make-up of the hagwon industry. You might as well link to something someone wrote down on a bar napkin. The language is slightly improved over what I see was discussed when another editor gave an opinion above, but basically amounts to the same thing as far as I can tell on the same poor source.--114.205.84.126 (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

According to this source (https://www.gone2korea.com/private-language-schools-korea/), 70% are parts of chains. Is this source reliable?Kdammers (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Specifically, it says "The following schools, when combined, constitute more than 70% of the private teaching sector in Korea. The remaining 30% is comprised of independent schools and smaller less known franchises." I repeat my question, is this source considered reliable in terms of using as a Wikipedia source (for this fact that some editors don't want put into this article)?Kdammers (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I am still waiting for an answer. If this IS a reliable source, then we have a significant , sourced, statement about the role of chains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdammers (talk • contribs)

No, I do not believe Gone2Korea.com to be reliable. It looks like a regular website. Regular websites and blogs fall under WP:SELFPUBLISH. Reliable sources are things like newspapers, books, and academic journals. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

"Recent" government efforts to reduce hagweon costs

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)

Source of statement from Alan Hirvela's book chaoter

The source of the statement of 75% of North American schools having affiliation with churches:

• Zhou & Kim, 2006 = Zhou, M., & Kim, S.S. (2006). Community forces, social capital, and educational achievement: The case of supplementary education in the Chinese and Korean immigrant communities. Harvard Education Review, 76 (1), 1-29.

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Unsupported claim.

" 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)

I have replaced it with a sourced statement to attendance in general. Kdammers (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319200946/http://news.hankooki.com/lpage/society/201103/h2011031102322921950.htm to http://news.hankooki.com/lpage/society/201103/h2011031102322921950.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webcitation.org/6OByah5sv
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610072824/http://100.nate.com/dicsearch/pentry.html?s=K&i=296120&v=43 to http://100.nate.com/dicsearch/pentry.html?s=K&i=296120&v=43

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)