- #1
Simfish
Gold Member
- 823
- 2
Of course, as with everything else, I've felt that studying for a test often yields diminishing marginal utility. I sometimes get really frustrated when I talk to students who are obsessed with trying to get 4.0s (and who aren't happy with grades in the 3.6-3.7 range, even though these grades are good enough for most decent grad schools and since that range is also around the level where returns start to saturate with each additional hour of studying. )
But I'm just wondering if others feel that way too (it's possible others may have counterarguments too - it could work differently for different people, of course). Personally, I feel that *most* of the time, the number of hours needed to raise a grade point by 0.1 is much higher on the 3.8-3.9 range than on the 3.3-3.4 range. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/01/19/science.1199327.abstract does show that test-taking is actually the best way to learn. Of course, you should still study for tests by taking practice tests. But for most classes, there are really only a finite number of practice tests, and then beyond that, additional gains are possible, but come with diminishing returns with time (time that can be better used for research, self-study, or anything you want). Furthermore, the midterm you take will be useful for learning too. But you're not going to learn much out of it if you're already going to get 100% on it.
That's not to say that tests should be used as homework problems. Many people end up solidifying their foundations on all of the topics in class if they take tests rather than do take-home exams, since they have to study for everything they do want to take a test. But they can pretty much do that through practice tests as well. (if the class as a decent supply of practice tests to begin with, of course)
But I'm just wondering if others feel that way too (it's possible others may have counterarguments too - it could work differently for different people, of course). Personally, I feel that *most* of the time, the number of hours needed to raise a grade point by 0.1 is much higher on the 3.8-3.9 range than on the 3.3-3.4 range. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/01/19/science.1199327.abstract does show that test-taking is actually the best way to learn. Of course, you should still study for tests by taking practice tests. But for most classes, there are really only a finite number of practice tests, and then beyond that, additional gains are possible, but come with diminishing returns with time (time that can be better used for research, self-study, or anything you want). Furthermore, the midterm you take will be useful for learning too. But you're not going to learn much out of it if you're already going to get 100% on it.
That's not to say that tests should be used as homework problems. Many people end up solidifying their foundations on all of the topics in class if they take tests rather than do take-home exams, since they have to study for everything they do want to take a test. But they can pretty much do that through practice tests as well. (if the class as a decent supply of practice tests to begin with, of course)
Last edited: