Jana S.

Jana S.

£18 - £20 /hr

Economics and Management (Bachelors) - Kings, London University

MyTutor guarantee

New to the site and yet to acquire customer reviews. We personally interview all our tutors so if you’re not satisfied, let us know within 48 hours and we’ll refund you.

This tutor is also part of our Schools Programme. They are trusted by teachers to deliver high-quality 1:1 tuition that complements the school curriculum.

About me

Hello! I am a passionate Economics and Management Undergraduate student, who keeps up with current affairs and is fascinated how both, basic, and advanced principles of Economics apply in everyday life. I enjoy doing athletics, especially high jump, and at university I am a member of the Economics and Finance Society and a student consulting project.


Ultimately, each one of us has something concerning Economics in our lives, be it getting to a good university or just getting a good job.


Therefore, I believe that Economics is best taught by applying real-life situations, which students can easily recall when it comes to stressful exam period, as it was indeed the case with me when I came to do the exams. Although History is not part of my degree, I did it at the highest level in secondary school and I still benefit from the way of thinking and the organized and concise essay writing skills this subject has given me.


History and Economics inevitably complement each other and therefore it would be my pleasure to teach them in an interactive way, which would not only increase the student's interest in the subject, but would ultimately, and most importantly, leave them with excellent knowledge and exam skills for both subjects.

Hello! I am a passionate Economics and Management Undergraduate student, who keeps up with current affairs and is fascinated how both, basic, and advanced principles of Economics apply in everyday life. I enjoy doing athletics, especially high jump, and at university I am a member of the Economics and Finance Society and a student consulting project.


Ultimately, each one of us has something concerning Economics in our lives, be it getting to a good university or just getting a good job.


Therefore, I believe that Economics is best taught by applying real-life situations, which students can easily recall when it comes to stressful exam period, as it was indeed the case with me when I came to do the exams. Although History is not part of my degree, I did it at the highest level in secondary school and I still benefit from the way of thinking and the organized and concise essay writing skills this subject has given me.


History and Economics inevitably complement each other and therefore it would be my pleasure to teach them in an interactive way, which would not only increase the student's interest in the subject, but would ultimately, and most importantly, leave them with excellent knowledge and exam skills for both subjects.

Show more

About my sessions

The focus of my sessions would be predominantly to suit the need of each and every student, so they would be asked which areas they are struggling with and these would then be the central topic of each session. Next, a broader overview of the topic would follow as often, a clearer understanding of the basics makes the learning process easier. Only after the basics have been fully understood,would we move to higher level content.

It is essential to progress step by step and to improve problematic areas one by one, otherwise there is a risk that no area will be mastered effectively. The pace of progress, however, differs from student to student and I would adjust my pace to theirs.

At the end of each session, a little essay or question plan would be set as homework to review student's understanding after the session.However, given the amount of homework the students already face, it would be just a plan, which would however still be a good reflection of their understanding of the topic. Especially towards my exam preparation, I would only write essay plans and I found this method extremely helpful, since I knew how I would approach the question and I managed to practice much more than if I had written the essays out.

The focus of my sessions would be predominantly to suit the need of each and every student, so they would be asked which areas they are struggling with and these would then be the central topic of each session. Next, a broader overview of the topic would follow as often, a clearer understanding of the basics makes the learning process easier. Only after the basics have been fully understood,would we move to higher level content.

It is essential to progress step by step and to improve problematic areas one by one, otherwise there is a risk that no area will be mastered effectively. The pace of progress, however, differs from student to student and I would adjust my pace to theirs.

At the end of each session, a little essay or question plan would be set as homework to review student's understanding after the session.However, given the amount of homework the students already face, it would be just a plan, which would however still be a good reflection of their understanding of the topic. Especially towards my exam preparation, I would only write essay plans and I found this method extremely helpful, since I knew how I would approach the question and I managed to practice much more than if I had written the essays out.

Show more

Personally interviewed by MyTutor

We only take tutor applications from candidates who are studying at the UK’s leading universities. Candidates who fulfil our grade criteria then pass to the interview stage, where a member of the MyTutor team will personally assess them for subject knowledge, communication skills and general tutoring approach. About 1 in 7 becomes a tutor on our site.

No DBS Icon

No DBS Check

Ratings & Reviews

0 no reviews yet

Qualifications

SubjectQualificationGrade
HistoryInternational Baccalaureate (IB) (HL)7
English Language and LiteratureInternational Baccalaureate (IB) (SL)7
EconomicsInternational Baccalaureate (IB) (HL)7
BiologyInternational Baccalaureate (IB) (HL)7
SpanishInternational Baccalaureate (IB) (SL)7
MathsInternational Baccalaureate (IB) (SL)6

General Availability

MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
Pre 12pm
12 - 5pm
After 5pm

Pre 12pm

12 - 5pm

After 5pm
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun

Subjects offered

SubjectQualificationPrices
EconomicsGCSE£18 /hr
EconomicsIB£20 /hr

Questions Jana has answered

Analyse the circumstances that helped one right-wing leader to become the ruler of a single party state

It can be argued that Adolf Hitler became a single party ruler thanks to political instability and constitution , economic crises and his personality and propaganda. In post-war Germany, there was a huge resentment over the humiliating Treaty of Versailles, which created a desire for a greater Germany. Politicians failed to improve such sentiment, and the matters got worse with the Wall Street Crash of 1929 which brought about inflation and unemployment. In a seemingly unsolvable situation, Hilter’s appeal was irresistible to many, who did not experience any benefits from democracy. Therefore, the most important factor to Hitler’s rise to power arguably was the economic crisis, which worsened the political instability and enabled him to implement his ideology.Political instability was ubiquitous in the German society since the creation of the Weimar Republic and therefore this long-term factor must be considered crucial in Hitler’s rise to power. Political decisions such as the passive resistance towards the occupation of Ruhr in 1924 were viewed very critically by the Germans. It showed the weakness and humiliation of a once strong and prestigious country. However, the politicians were bound by the international agreements and were in a climate, where they could not possibly realize the ambitious aims the Germans desired, because they lacked international support. Indeed, Germany relied upon the US loans for their reparation payments. Reparations as well, were detested by many Germans, as so was Stresemann’s effort to negotiate the final sum of the reparations. It is clear that the role the Weimar politicians had was very challenging, however that was not the only cause of political instability. Between 1921 and 1926 there were 6 coalition governments, as compromise was not in reach. This was possible thanks to the system of proportional representation which later enabled Hitler to enter the Reichstag. Moreover, the Article 48, which enabled the Chancellor to, for example dissolve the Reichstag, was being used frequently, especially by Brunning. The political chaos sharply worsened after the Wall Street Crash in 1929, as unemployment reached 6 million in 1932. Muller, the chancellor, decided to raise taxes and cut government spending in order to aid recovery, however, these policies were viewed as unpopular. However, this is a credible approach of reducing the impact of the crisis, so similarly to the demands of the Treaty of Versialles, there was not much more the government could have done. Even though some of the political instability was caused by external factors, such as the Treaty of Versailles, which could not have been affected by the Weimar Politicians, this was not a justification for the people, who ultimately lost their faith in democracy and leaned towards extremists, which gave rise to Hitler.Economic crises and their detrimental impact, were vital in Hitler’s rise to power. Weimar’s economic problems began straight-after the end of WW1 and apart from unemployment and a decrease in living standards it resulted in hyperinflation in 1923. Even though Stresseman managed to deal with hyperinflation by introducing the Rentmark, this experience still remained in people’s minds in 1929 during the Wall Street Crash. With hindsight, the Germans knew what to expect and they were determined to never let it happen again. It is clear that this was a watershed moment, because from Hitler’s 12 seats in 1928, he gained 107 in the parliament in 1930. People we willing to give up on democracy as long as it would have prevented them from suffering. However, this did not guarantee Hitler’s victory, because the crisis favoured all extremists, including the communists. In the 1928 election, the KDP indeed had more support than Hitler and it was up to other factors, such as Hitler’s personality, that finally determined Hitler’s rise. Therefore, the economic crises were a significant cause of rise o extremism, however it must be acknowledged that they favoured the Communists as well.Hitler’s personality and the propaganda perfectly satisfied the dissatisfied German sentiment, therefore they are of great importance in his rise to power. Hitler was a cunning politician, as well as a passionate nationalist, which strongly appealed to his vote base. His ideology included resentment towards the Treaty of Versailles, condemnation of the Jews and the aim to make Germany great again. His Beer Hall Speeches and his patriotic defence at the trial after the Munich Putsch gained him a great popularity. Moreover, his tactical change to the system of legality in 1924 ultimately paved him the way to Reichstag. Therefore, Hitler’s personality was significant mainly as a short-run cause, but was limited by other domestic factors, particularly the economic crises. It can be argued that Adolf Hitler became a single party ruler thanks to political instability and constitution , economic crises and his personality and propaganda. In post-war Germany, there was a huge resentment over the humiliating Treaty of Versailles, which created a desire for a greater Germany. Politicians failed to improve such sentiment, and the matters got worse with the Wall Street Crash of 1929 which brought about inflation and unemployment. In a seemingly unsolvable situation, Hilter’s appeal was irresistible to many, who did not experience any benefits from democracy. Therefore, the most important factor to Hitler’s rise to power arguably was the economic crisis, which worsened the political instability and enabled him to implement his ideology.Political instability was ubiquitous in the German society since the creation of the Weimar Republic and therefore this long-term factor must be considered crucial in Hitler’s rise to power. Political decisions such as the passive resistance towards the occupation of Ruhr in 1924 were viewed very critically by the Germans. It showed the weakness and humiliation of a once strong and prestigious country. However, the politicians were bound by the international agreements and were in a climate, where they could not possibly realize the ambitious aims the Germans desired, because they lacked international support. Indeed, Germany relied upon the US loans for their reparation payments. Reparations as well, were detested by many Germans, as so was Stresemann’s effort to negotiate the final sum of the reparations. It is clear that the role the Weimar politicians had was very challenging, however that was not the only cause of political instability. Between 1921 and 1926 there were 6 coalition governments, as compromise was not in reach. This was possible thanks to the system of proportional representation which later enabled Hitler to enter the Reichstag. Moreover, the Article 48, which enabled the Chancellor to, for example dissolve the Reichstag, was being used frequently, especially by Brunning. The political chaos sharply worsened after the Wall Street Crash in 1929, as unemployment reached 6 million in 1932. Muller, the chancellor, decided to raise taxes and cut government spending in order to aid recovery, however, these policies were viewed as unpopular. However, this is a credible approach of reducing the impact of the crisis, so similarly to the demands of the Treaty of Versialles, there was not much more the government could have done. Even though some of the political instability was caused by external factors, such as the Treaty of Versailles, which could not have been affected by the Weimar Politicians, this was not a justification for the people, who ultimately lost their faith in democracy and leaned towards extremists, which gave rise to Hitler.Economic crises and their detrimental impact, were vital in Hitler’s rise to power. Weimar’s economic problems began straight-after the end of WW1 and apart from unemployment and a decrease in living standards it resulted in hyperinflation in 1923. Even though Stresseman managed to deal with hyperinflation by introducing the Rentmark, this experience still remained in people’s minds in 1929 during the Wall Street Crash. With hindsight, the Germans knew what to expect and they were determined to never let it happen again. It is clear that this was a watershed moment, because from Hitler’s 12 seats in 1928, he gained 107 in the parliament in 1930. People we willing to give up on democracy as long as it would have prevented them from suffering. However, this did not guarantee Hitler’s victory, because the crisis favoured all extremists, including the communists. In the 1928 election, the KDP indeed had more support than Hitler and it was up to other factors, such as Hitler’s personality, that finally determined Hitler’s rise. Therefore, the economic crises were a significant cause of rise o extremism, however it must be acknowledged that they favoured the Communists as well.Hitler’s personality and the propaganda perfectly satisfied the dissatisfied German sentiment, therefore they are of great importance in his rise to power. Hitler was a cunning politician, as well as a passionate nationalist, which strongly appealed to his vote base. His ideology included resentment towards the Treaty of Versailles, condemnation of the Jews and the aim to make Germany great again. His Beer Hall Speeches and his patriotic defence at the trial after the Munich Putsch gained him a great popularity. Moreover, his tactical change to the system of legality in 1924 ultimately paved him the way to Reichstag. Therefore, Hitler’s personality was significant mainly as a short-run cause, but was limited by other domestic factors, particularly the economic crises.

Show more

4 months ago

1 view

Disucss the view that perfect competition is always a more desirable market structure than a monopoly

Perfect competition is a market structure, with a high concentration of firms in the market, who produce homogenous products and are price takers, such as the producers of strawberries. On the other hand, a monopoly is a market structure with just one firm, which faces a downward sloping demand curve hence is a price-maker. Arguably, perfect competition is a more efficient market structure, since due to the shape of the demand curve, which is perfectly elastic(as demonstrated in the diagram below), firms are allocativelly as well as productively efficient. Assuming that the goal of both firms is to profit maximise, we assume that they are producing at the level where MC=MR. Allocative efficiency is achieved at point where MC=AR, which is where all firms in the market are producing. At this level, scarce resources are being used in the best way, which is desirable especially for future sustainability of resources. However, it is clear that a monopoly is not producing at this level and therefore is not using its scarce resources in the best possible way. Furthermore, firms in perfect competition are also productively efficient, which means that they are producing at their lowest cost where MC=AC. However, this particular monopoly is once again not producing at this level and therefore lacks this kind of efficiency. Furthermore, due to the high concentration of firms in perfect competition and the price taking role, prices rarely rise too high in a market, which increases consumer surplus and makes the producers more efficient with managing their costs. This is not always the case with monopolists, who tend to exploit their price-making power.On the other hand however, it must be appreciated that there are ways in which a monopoly could be more efficient than a firm in perfect competition. The main reason here is the ability of a monopolist to make abnormal profits in the long-run, due to high barriers of entry to monopolistic markets, such as patents. Arguably, such profits can be invested in innovation of a product, which is ultimately more beneficial for all stakeholders in the market than the perfect competition model, which offers little prospect for innovation. Furthermore, monopolies can prove to be a good way of competition on international markets, which can bring significant revenues for the government. This would not be possible for small firms in a perfect competition. Overall, it is clear that there are both, positives and negatives to these two market structures and each one suits better different markets. However, it seems that there is more potential for a development of any market in a monopoly, provided, however, that it is regulated by the government.Perfect competition is a market structure, with a high concentration of firms in the market, who produce homogenous products and are price takers, such as the producers of strawberries. On the other hand, a monopoly is a market structure with just one firm, which faces a downward sloping demand curve hence is a price-maker. Arguably, perfect competition is a more efficient market structure, since due to the shape of the demand curve, which is perfectly elastic(as demonstrated in the diagram below), firms are allocativelly as well as productively efficient. Assuming that the goal of both firms is to profit maximise, we assume that they are producing at the level where MC=MR. Allocative efficiency is achieved at point where MC=AR, which is where all firms in the market are producing. At this level, scarce resources are being used in the best way, which is desirable especially for future sustainability of resources. However, it is clear that a monopoly is not producing at this level and therefore is not using its scarce resources in the best possible way. Furthermore, firms in perfect competition are also productively efficient, which means that they are producing at their lowest cost where MC=AC. However, this particular monopoly is once again not producing at this level and therefore lacks this kind of efficiency. Furthermore, due to the high concentration of firms in perfect competition and the price taking role, prices rarely rise too high in a market, which increases consumer surplus and makes the producers more efficient with managing their costs. This is not always the case with monopolists, who tend to exploit their price-making power.On the other hand however, it must be appreciated that there are ways in which a monopoly could be more efficient than a firm in perfect competition. The main reason here is the ability of a monopolist to make abnormal profits in the long-run, due to high barriers of entry to monopolistic markets, such as patents. Arguably, such profits can be invested in innovation of a product, which is ultimately more beneficial for all stakeholders in the market than the perfect competition model, which offers little prospect for innovation. Furthermore, monopolies can prove to be a good way of competition on international markets, which can bring significant revenues for the government. This would not be possible for small firms in a perfect competition. Overall, it is clear that there are both, positives and negatives to these two market structures and each one suits better different markets. However, it seems that there is more potential for a development of any market in a monopoly, provided, however, that it is regulated by the government.

Show more

4 months ago

3 views

Send Jana a message

A Free Video Meeting is a great next step. Just ask Jana below!


Send a message

How do we connect with a tutor?

Where are they based?

How much does tuition cost?

How do Online Lessons work?

mtw:mercury1:status:ok