How can we improve our chances of getting into prestigious programs?

[hadsed]

twofish I have a sneaking suspicion that you went to Caltech. Regardless, that seems to be a great philosophy, one that I personally have adopted. I get so frustrated in some classes that are taught so.. easily! People can get A's without truly knowing the material. It's maddening, so I always try to learn concepts fully (also brings me greater satisfaction and accomplishment in my courses).

Maybe this is where people get the idea that learning concepts versus the class material will get you a B instead of an A.. thing about that is that you have to do both. You have to know the stuff you're doing because everything else you do is going to be using those first/second year classes as foundation. If making top grades is important then you've got to pay attention to things the professor says and go to office hours, just to have a chat with the guy. If you ask him how you can be successful in the class, the professor just might tell you what sort of problems to study, what to look for, what is important and what is not so important. If it doesn't work, what have you lost?

Now you may call this 'cheating' and in some regard you may not be so far off, but it's one way. The other way is to study A LOT. I think most people who study so hard and don't enjoy the material they study really don't make high grades consistently. That's the great thing about college, you're likely to enjoy most of the things you study since you've picked your major and all. If you're truly dedicated to getting high marks, then carry around your physics/mathematics books around like you're reading a novel. If you're truly interested in it, then high grades shouldn't be a problem. I always carry around my clipboard and either a math or physics book so if I get a free moment I'll head off to the library or just sit on a bench/under a tree and just do some problems and read. It's fun to me, and you probably shouldn't be majoring in what you're majoring in if you don't enjoy the material.

Anyway, that's my take on it. Everyone is different you have to remember, so what works for me may not work for you. You just have to figure out what works best for the way you learn. Some people have very abstract minds, some have very visual-based minds, and there are many combinations in between and many more *-based minds. If you can learn from reading the textbook then doing problems, then do it. If not, then try watching a video lecture after you've started reading and then see if you can do problems, maybe try taking notes in class. Whatever works for you.

 

[mal4mac]

Here is the thing that I noticed in most Physics and Mathematics courses, I noticed that no matter how poor our professor is, no matter how poorly written the textbook is, and no matter how everyone studies 24/7, somehow, for just some reason, everyone always scores the mean, in other words, no one even gets an A. While there is always this one or two people that always scores above the mean, like getting 97% to 99% on a midterm while everyone gets like 70%.

I was that "one or two" quite often. If the textbook and the teacher are bad then find another textbook, or several other textbooks. Make sure, however bad the professor is, to take complete notes and *concentrate* totally on what he is saying, don't let your attention drift.

As soon as possible after the lesson take your notes and textbooks to the nearest study area and redo the notes until you fully understand the material. Make sure to do all the problems the teacher sets you, and all problems in the set textbook (even if you need other textbooks to help you do the problems...) While I was doing this the average scoring kids were shooting pool and griping about the bad professor in the student common room. And you ask why they get average marks?

I read books on how to revise (Tony Buzan is good) and started my revision process immediately after the "note rewrite" and continued it throughout the year using "expanding rehearsal", "hierarchical organisation" and other memory techniques. I also resolved all the problems repeatedly throughout the year until i could do them as easily as the 2 times table. I did all the past exam papers as far back as they were viable until I could also do those problems as easily as the 2 times table.

As the exams approached I repeatedly refined my notes and problem sets, leaving out material I knew backwards & problems I could do easily, so I was left with a page of the really hard stuff at the end - and I read that while waiting to go into the exam room (focuses the mind and keeps you from getting nervous...)

All-in-all, I really enjoyed this process. I just love learning. Guess I'm just wired that way.

If you find you really hate this kind of total immersion in the learning process then you should settle for average scores, and do what you like the rest of the time. Life's too short to force yourself to do things you hate. Getting those 99%s didn't help me get any further than many of the average guys by the normal parameters of success, in fact many have done better than me (if you consider job prestige, money, dating important...) But I don't mind that 'cause I love learning more than these other things - getting 99% is simply feedback on the learning process, an indication that I'm doing things right, part of the fun (I also used to love exams! I could never work out why others became so angst ridden...)

 

[Monocles]

One thing that I forgot. Before I take a test, the primary way that I study is by looking up exams from other schools online and taking those. I'll cruise around MIT OCW and Google and find exams from equivalent classes, find all the questions that cover material that I've learned, and do those. I find this to be very effective, since the subset of questions that are appropriate to ask in a limited amount of time (such as on an exam) is often surprisingly small. More than once I've ran into a question on a test that I basically solved the night before by taking a test that came from another school.

The most helpful tip of all, though, is to listen to Manowar on your way to take the test ;)

 

[gretun]

Guys, thank you for all your "studying advices" and all, but the thing is everyone knows them and everyone does it. We all study 24/7 like crazy, we all read ahead before lecture, we all do our homework when it is immediately assigned, we go to office hours when we need to, everyone in the class does it. We all even tried to understand the concepts, but for just some reasons, our instructor never ask questions like we have it in the textbook even though he tells the class that he will use questions similar to the book, but he instead will word it in a really confusing way to confuse you. Hence only one person in the class always gets that 98%+ while all of us ends up with a C+ to B-

EDIT: To just clarify, I don't mean I am complaining because he uses difficult questions, I am complaining because he uses questions that aren't in the book. Like he would ask you a question that's not covered in the book but it is the same topic. Let's say I am teaching a Pre-Calculus class and then the topic was exponential graphs and then suddenly I threw in a logistic problem at them (without the derivatives and differential stuff, just the equations).

 

[xcvxcvvc]

Guys, thank you for all your "studying advices" and all, but the thing is everyone knows them and everyone does it. We all study 24/7 like crazy, we all read ahead before lecture, we all do our homework when it is immediately assigned, we go to office hours when we need to, everyone in the class does it. We all even tried to understand the concepts, but for just some reasons, our instructor never ask questions like we have it in the textbook even though he tells the class that he will use questions similar to the book, but he instead will word it in a really confusing way to confuse you. Hence only one person in the class always gets that 98%+ while all of us ends up with a C+ to B-

EDIT: To just clarify, I don't mean I am complaining because he uses difficult questions, I am complaining because he uses questions that aren't in the book. Like he would ask you a question that's not covered in the book but it is the same topic. Let's say I am teaching a Pre-Calculus class and then the topic was exponential graphs and then suddenly I threw in a logistic problem at them (without the derivatives and differential stuff, just the equations).

So basically you're admitting you memorized a routine solution and cannot apply the information to new things, meaning you don't actually understand it.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Guys, thank you for all your "studying advices" and all, but the thing is everyone knows them and everyone does it. We all study 24/7 like crazy, we all read ahead before lecture, we all do our homework when it is immediately assigned, we go to office hours when we need to, everyone in the class does it. We all even tried to understand the concepts, but for just some reasons, our instructor never ask questions like we have it in the textbook even though he tells the class that he will use questions similar to the book, but he instead will word it in a really confusing way to confuse you. Hence only one person in the class always gets that 98%+ while all of us ends up with a C+ to B-

EDIT: To just clarify, I don't mean I am complaining because he uses difficult questions, I am complaining because he uses questions that aren't in the book. Like he would ask you a question that's not covered in the book but it is the same topic. Let's say I am teaching a Pre-Calculus class and then the topic was exponential graphs and then suddenly I threw in a logistic problem at them (without the derivatives and differential stuff, just the equations).

Sounds like the kind of professor that prepares you for the real world. At some point you will be thrown a problem you are not prepared for yet it is expected that you solve it, because your job depends on it. Instead of worrying about it, use that energy to find useful information or figure out what to do. From experience, I can tell you your attitude will not get you far; focus on things you can control and forget about what is out of your control.

 

[hadsed]

Well then you can just say it comes down to raw intelligence, since that's what you sound like you're getting at. If you study hard enough and understand it, then you understand it. If you don't you don't and if you aren't resourceful enough to figure something out then I guess you're just not smart enough. Is that what you want to hear?

I mean honestly I don't know what else to say..

 

[Choppy]

Guys, thank you for all your "studying advices" and all, but the thing is everyone knows them and everyone does it. We all study 24/7 like crazy, we all read ahead before lecture, we all do our homework when it is immediately assigned, we go to office hours when we need to, everyone in the class does it. We all even tried to understand the concepts, but for just some reasons, our instructor never ask questions like we have it in the textbook even though he tells the class that he will use questions similar to the book, but he instead will word it in a really confusing way to confuse you. Hence only one person in the class always gets that 98%+ while all of us ends up with a C+ to B-

EDIT: To just clarify, I don't mean I am complaining because he uses difficult questions, I am complaining because he uses questions that aren't in the book. Like he would ask you a question that's not covered in the book but it is the same topic. Let's say I am teaching a Pre-Calculus class and then the topic was exponential graphs and then suddenly I threw in a logistic problem at them (without the derivatives and differential stuff, just the equations).

This is what university is all about.

Testing to make sure that you can regurgitate solutions to problems covered in class is something that's done in high school and community colleges.

The higher level of understanding is tested by designing problems that require the student to draw on concepts learned in class, but in an approach that has not been covered. Further, to the frustration of many students, on occasion the problems will also require the student to draw on concepts were NOT covered in the lectures or labs, but that are relevant to the field. This is what separates the students who really dive into the subject from those who simply review the lecture notes and highlight the passages covered in the textbook.

I remember taking an elective humanities class once where the mid-term was multiple choice. (Which in my opinion all universities should do away with - for the amount of money students pay for classes, they have a right to have their own words evaluated.) Anyhow, the professor knew the class had a reputation for being a bird, so she designed that mid-term to test a higher level of understanding of the subject. At the following class a number of the students had the nerve to stand up and complain that the test was not a simple MC regurgitation test and that they took the course simply to raise their GPAs. The professor simply reminded them they were in university, not the seventh grade.

 

[Animastryfe]

I live in Canada...are there any equivalents?

Yes, Canada has similar programs. I do not remember their names, but you should easily find out just by asking around. Although I think it's harder in Canada's big universities, you definitely can find research, or at least summer research, as a freshman. My friend goes to the University of Toronto (bioengineering, or something similar), and this summer he found research work at UoT and, I think, UBC.

 

[xcvxcvvc]

This is what university is all about.

Testing to make sure that you can regurgitate solutions to problems covered in class is something that's done in high school and community colleges.

The higher level of understanding is tested by designing problems that require the student to draw on concepts learned in class, but in an approach that has not been covered. Further, to the frustration of many students, on occasion the problems will also require the student to draw on concepts were NOT covered in the lectures or labs, but that are relevant to the field. This is what separates the students who really dive into the subject from those who simply review the lecture notes and highlight the passages covered in the textbook.

I remember taking an elective humanities class once where the mid-term was multiple choice. (Which in my opinion all universities should do away with - for the amount of money students pay for classes, they have a right to have their own words evaluated.) Anyhow, the professor knew the class had a reputation for being a bird, so she designed that mid-term to test a higher level of understanding of the subject. At the following class a number of the students had the nerve to stand up and complain that the test was not a simple MC regurgitation test and that they took the course simply to raise their GPAs. The professor simply reminded them they were in university, not the seventh grade.

hahaha that story is awesome! What was the teacher's name and the college's name? I want to look this legend up on ratemyprofessor.com.

 

[Animastryfe]

Gretun, try http://calnewport.com/blog/about/" .

 

[MATLABdude]

[...]Everyone goes to graduate school[...]

[...]So I am just wondering, what happens to the rest of us? The 99% mean scored people? What can we do to shoot for prestige programs?

Second crack at this since PhysicsForums ate my first response. First off, not everybody goes to grad school. That's not the case in Canada or the US, and (I'd presume) in Europe or Asia (neglecting that whole 3 year Bachelor's and 1 year Master's thing that some of the universities over there have adopted). I'd guesstimate (based on my observations) that in the Sciences and Engineering, something like 10% go into graduate school after finishing their undergraduate degrees. The program I graduated from (Engineering Physics) was considered the grad school prep program for our faculty of engineering, and even there, only something like 90% of the 30 people in my graduating class went on to grad school.

Irrespective of intelligence or ability, there are those that opt not to go onto graduate school for whatever reason. Given the numbers above, I guess it follows that the great majority don't. Of those that do go on to graduate school, not all of them are cut out for research. Graduate school helps you figure out whether or not you can do research (and in a Ph.D., you're supposed to actually contribute something). I don't know if it's a sardonic comment on the part of those who've told it to me or not, but a Post-doc or few help you figure out whether or not you can put up with research in the University system.

TO ANSWER ONE OF YOUR OTHER QUESTIONS... In the science and engineering faculties of my university, undergrads (at the time, with a B or higher average) were allowed to partake in various research opportunities with willing profs over the course of the school year. They also got a (very) small stipend for it (which is probably why they introduced the minimum grade requirement), just to give some people a first taste of research. I believe that this is probably the case throughout most of the Universities in Canada.

More definitively, the various tri-councils (NSERC, CIHR, SSHRC) offer summer research funding for undergrads throughout Canada. These fund your salary while you work full-time doing research for Faculty at the University. They're fairly competitive, but also pay you quite well for the duration of the summer. I know that NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council) also offers an Industrial variant of this which tops off your pay for work in research-related work in industry. Additionally, the NRC (National Research Council) has various facilities in nearly all the provinces doing research into various facets of different sciences--and they usually take on quite a few undergrads during the summer.

Sometimes the better-funded profs will pay you out of their grants to work for them for the summer, even if you don't have tri-councils funding (assuming they think you're a good hire for them). Or, you can do as I did one summer and, without an NSERC, just volunteer for a prof (it wasn't the greatest, but I got a cool username out of the bargain, and almost a paper!) But you have to figure out what your opportunity cost is in doing that, and whether the experience or opportunity are worth it.

If you manage to distinguish yourself in these research opportunities, you can end up doing some pretty cool stuff. Distinguish yourself AND do good (or better) mark-wise and you could end up going to one of these more 'prestigious' universities for graduate school (I've TA'd and known classmates that've ended up at nearly all the Ivies, and most of the 'big-name' universities abroad). However, I couch that by echoing what seems to be the common consensus on these boards and say that the research you do in graduate school is more important than the school you go to.

Since you're Canadian, I'll drop into a hockey metaphor. There are millions of Canadian hockey players, male and female. When I was growing up, a lot of them admired the likes of Gretzky, Lemieux, and Roy. A few of them get drafted by various teams in the league. A few of those manage to actually make it into the NHL (and a few more go play overseas in the pro leagues in say, Germany or even Japan). Precious few end up playing on a regular basis, fewer become stars, and once or twice a generation, you end up with a Gretzky or Crosby. However, should the fact that you're unlikely to end up as a Crosby (or heck, even a 4th line energy guy) mean that you shouldn't bother to play?

I'd argue no! To rip off Gretzky, "You don't score on 100% of the shots you don't take" (unless someone's obliging enough to bank it in off their own goaltender or some such). Sometimes, you discover you have the talent, and inclination for it, and sometimes you realize you don't. Now where the metaphor breaks down is that (IMO) hockey, at which ever (amateur) level, is usually fun. Grad school isn't always. Then again, sports at a pro (and even semi-pro) level probably isn't always fun either.

As others have said here, undergrad marks don't always translate into grad school research. So it is with Junior production, and going pro (think Patrik Stefan or Alexander Daigle). On the flip side of the coin, sometimes, you end up with a 7th round prospect (like Henrik Zetterberg) that puts in his lumps, does good, and ends up as an All-Star a few years down the road (but that's an outlier)

All the above are just opportunities to do great (or even good) things. It's up to you (and often, a little luck, and sometimes being the right person in the right place at the right time) to make that happen. And if you are still in high school, don't sweat it yet, and get yourself all worked up about what you're doing at the next, next level of education (not to say that you shouldn't aspire, or inquire into it, just don't go overboard!)

 

[twofish-quant]

We all even tried to understand the concepts, but for just some reasons, our instructor never ask questions like we have it in the textbook even though he tells the class that he will use questions similar to the book, but he instead will word it in a really confusing way to confuse you.

In that case, I think that you may have a good professor that's trying to push you. If all the professor was doing was repeating the textbook, there wouldn't be much need for the professor.

Hence only one person in the class always gets that 98%+ while all of us ends up with a C+ to B-

So he is smarter than you.

I am complaining because he uses questions that aren't in the book. Like he would ask you a question that's not covered in the book but it is the same topic.

Which is a perfectly reasonable thing for him to do. The rules for college tests are very, very different from those in high school, and putting material on the test that isn't directly covered in the text is generally considered a *good* thing that you will need to get used to.

Let's say I am teaching a Pre-Calculus class and then the topic was exponential graphs and then suddenly I threw in a logistic problem at them (without the derivatives and differential stuff, just the equations).

Again the rules are very different in college than in high school.

 

[deRham]

"We all even tried to understand the concepts, but for just some reasons, our instructor never ask questions like we have it in the textbook even though he tells the class that he will use questions similar to the book, but he instead will word it in a really confusing way to confuse you."

"I am complaining because he uses questions that aren't in the book. Like he would ask you a question that's not covered in the book but it is the same topic."

These two complaints are different. The first is something I sympathize with - there is NO reason to make questions very strangely worded or confusing to ask for understanding of the concepts. There is a big difference between testing understanding and testing the ability to spot tricks. Some people are better at the latter, but I am not sure that is an exceptionally valuable skill in the real world - it tends to distinguish those who are better at taking tests.

High level understanding is usually best tested with high level assignments which get at the core and heart of the material. However, teaching a course at a low level and then expecting high level understanding is a flaw. That is, if the problems are really not doable for most people in the course, then perhaps the level of the course is not high enough - the instructor needs to make the level of the lectures really intense, so that figuring them out preps you well for the level of what you need to perform at.

"Again the rules are very different in college than in high school."

This I agree with, but sometimes in college, instructors just throw stuff out of the blue at people, and this tends not to test understanding of the material as well. See above, I guess.

"This is what separates the students who really dive into the subject from those who simply review the lecture notes and highlight the passages covered in the textbook."

I think this is often the thing - I feel if the instructor expects a high level, it's his responsibility to make sure that level is what he makes students dive into daily in lecture, assignments, etc. Expecting students to do this totally by themselves and find better books/references is great and dandy, but not ideal. In research, you have to dive into stuff yourself, but in a course, I think it's fair to say one of the points of even taking it is for the instructor to show you the right path to getting a higher level understanding. And who the top students are should be the ones who work smart and use the tools given, not two odd folk who happen to do things right. On the flip side, I don't know your classroom, and maybe those two are the only ones who are using the tools given properly.

 

[Klockan3]

There is a big difference between testing understanding and testing the ability to spot tricks. Some people are better at the latter, but I am not sure that is an exceptionally valuable skill in the real world - it tends to distinguish those who are better at taking tests.

What!? Being able to understand what things actually says is one of the most important skills to have for any human on the planet! And you can't say that someone got a firm grasp of the subject if they can't cope with different wordings than they are used to.

I think this is often the thing - I feel if the instructor expects a high level, it's his responsibility to make sure that level is what he makes students dive into daily in lecture, assignments, etc. Expecting students to do this totally by themselves and find better books/references is great and dandy, but not ideal. In research, you have to dive into stuff yourself, but in a course, I think it's fair to say one of the points of even taking it is for the instructor to show you the right path to getting a higher level understanding. And who the top students are should be the ones who work smart and use the tools given, not two odd folk who happen to do things right. On the flip side, I don't know your classroom, and maybe those two are the only ones who are using the tools given properly.

To me it seems like the prof just asks them to apply what they have learned to solve problems they haven't seen before. If they had a firm grasp at what they did this wouldn't be much of a problem, but most don't so the scores get really bad like the OP complains about.

@OP can you give a concrete example of a problem he have given and what the test should have tested?

 

[ibnsos]

Guys, thank you for all your "studying advices" and all, but the thing is everyone knows them and everyone does it. We all study 24/7 like crazy, we all read ahead before lecture, we all do our homework when it is immediately assigned, we go to office hours when we need to, everyone in the class does it. We all even tried to understand the concepts, but for just some reasons, our instructor never ask questions like we have it in the textbook even though he tells the class that he will use questions similar to the book, but he instead will word it in a really confusing way to confuse you. Hence only one person in the class always gets that 98%+ while all of us ends up with a C+ to B-

EDIT: To just clarify, I don't mean I am complaining because he uses difficult questions, I am complaining because he uses questions that aren't in the book. Like he would ask you a question that's not covered in the book but it is the same topic. Let's say I am teaching a Pre-Calculus class and then the topic was exponential graphs and then suddenly I threw in a logistic problem at them (without the derivatives and differential stuff, just the equations).

I find it very hard to believe that even half the class does these things. I hear from classmates all the time about how hard they study and how they do all the right study methods, usually right before a test as they are cramming.
Take an honest assesment of your study habits; are you watching tv or in a distracting environment when studying; are you socializing while studying; are you working through practice problems; are you reading all the material before the class that covers it and then again after class; are you doing just the bare minimum of homework sets; are you looking up the answers to homework and copying them without fully understanding them; before a test are you reworking problems from homework sets that gave you problems and those you think you understand already; are you doing homework the same day its assigned; have you brought up the issues you have with your instructor during his office hours; have you spent much time in any free tutoring or help centers offered at your school; do you even know if there is free tutoring or help centers at your school; do you sit next to or near that one or two that are getting A's and asked them for help?

I had a math instructor last quarter that almost everyone in the class complained about. They all claimed to study like crazy and it was all his fault they weren't understanding the concepts. Oddly enough, the only time I ever saw any of them taking advantage of office hours and/or free help at our Math Learning Center (MLC) was the day before a test. When I did run across them in the MLC they tended to group together and spend most of their time chatting, trying to learn through osmosis or copying answers from someone else without learning to work through the problems themselves. Even more scary, a few of them had already taken the course twice before.

If neither the instructor, the book or my attempts at working through a problem seem to be giving me a clear understanding I find a few other people that already have the understanding to help me understand the problem. Most of the time there's just some small little issue that I'm missing that I will see in the different methods used by different people that clears the whole issue up for me.

Also, it may just be a case of not really having the fundamentals down from previous courses and you may need to seek remidial help in those areas concurrently with trying to learn the new material. Blame past easy teachers or take it as a learning experience to really learn the material the first time regardless of the grade you recieve.

With the high degree of stress on grades you seem to be putting yourself under it sounds like you may be sabotaging your success. Grades arn't everything. If you look at all those presigious institutes, not all of their students are 4.0. Other things come into play, like research. Like everything else after HS, things arn't going to be handed to you and you will have to work your butt off to get and succeed in research along with course work. You may want to talk to a school counselor about the stress, they are there to help and its foolish not to take advantage of all the programs available to you while in school.

EDT:
Keep in mind, if everyone is doing everything they can, and your all at the average except for a few outliers, why would you expect anything higher than a C? An A grade implies being well above the average, so it would stand to reason that not many would be achieving such a grade.

 

[deRham]

"What!? Being able to understand what things actually says is one of the most important skills to have for any human on the planet! And you can't say that someone got a firm grasp of the subject if they can't cope with different wordings than they are used to."

You might have misread my wording. I said the ability to spot strange tricks in tests is not that important, while understanding things properly is definitely valuable. I think with good understanding, one can spot tricky situations given time, but I was saying some qualities intrinsically tested by exams as opposed to other measures of understanding could be annoying, and not necessary to deal with.

"
To me it seems like the prof just asks them to apply what they have learned to solve problems they haven't seen before. If they had a firm grasp at what they did this wouldn't be much of a problem, but most don't so the scores get really bad like the OP complains about."

Yeah, if the instructor is encouraging them to understand things properly, he's doing a good thing. But this is not to be confused with making tricky test questions designed to trip people up - some people are good at avoiding these things, but doing so is not what I consider that valuable a skill. However, certainly being able to solve problems based on understanding is.

 

[Quark_Chowder]

Here is the thing that I noticed in most Physics and Mathematics courses, I noticed that no matter how poor our professor is, no matter how poorly written the textbook is, and no matter how everyone studies 24/7, somehow, for just some reason, everyone always scores the mean, in other words, no one even gets an A. While there is always this one or two people that always scores above the mean, like getting 97% to 99% on a midterm while everyone gets like 70%. Since there is that one person that scored so high, the professor cannot scale the exam.

I am just wondering, how do those people do it? People tell me it isn't because they are smart, it's because they've done it before, in other words they probably took Linear Algebra when they were in the 7th grade with a private instructor. Some people tell me it's because they are really good at role-learning while the rest of us tries to grasp the concepts that will never appear on the exam. Some people just tell me they know what will be on the exam.

So I am just wondering, what happens to the rest of us? The 99% mean scored people? What can we do to shoot for prestige programs?

Honestly, some people are just gifted. My husband is one of them.

My husband (though not myself, unfortunately ) was one of those people. In fact, during one of his engineering classes (he studied both engineering and physics as an undergrad), his professor sat down behind him during the midterms to make sure he wasn't cheating...that is, my husband's scores were always so much higher than everyone else's that the prof's [erroneous] assumption was that he had to be cheating somehow! Lo and behold! Hubby really was that smart.

Another anecdote (this one told to me by my husband's former professor/my former advisor): This prof (classical mechanics) was very impressed with my husband while teaching him (like, when everyone else was scoring 40-60% on the midterms, Hubby was still scoring high 90s) and decided to create a super hard final just to see if it were possible for my husband get to less than 90% on it. So, the prof refers to some graduate texts for inspiration for the final and creates THE hardest undergrad final he could come up with. Test day: husband got an 89% and no one else scored above 40%.

Minimal studying, but had zero trouble maintaining a 4.0. Some folks are just lucky like that.

 

[Animastryfe]

The OP should take a look at http://calnewport.com/blog/2010/04/01/i-got-a-c-on-my-orgo-exam-what-should-i-do/" , and in particular the study that it cites. In summary, students with 'growth' mindsets, meaning students who think that intelligence and ability can be developed and improved, scored higher grades in the general chemistry course they were in and were more likely to 'recover from a bad midterm grade' than students with a 'fixed mindset.