« on: January 08, 2009, 12:12:54 PM »
Every test is different, and I'm pretty sure that if you score a 0 on any of the first three categories then you will get poor grades. I got a B or B+ in every class this semester, and I'm wondering what separates the 3.6ers from the 3.2ers.
Intelligence may have a lot to do with it on some tests, but none of my teachers mark down for dumb stuff, they just gave positive points for positive logic. Seems to me like a combination of memory and typing speed could possibly make up for an intelligence problem.
Hard work is really important in any endeavor, but in my experience, the Final exam only hits on about 10%-25% of the information presented in the course.
On my torts exam (an "analyze all possible claims and defenses" format) nobody I talked to even came close to putting down everything they had because they ran out of time. I'm a fast typist, and I still could have gone on for another 2 hours. In that situation, someone who knows 3 hours worth of good information will probably do just as well as someone who knows 6 hours of information.
On another exam, one of the three essay questions had to do with a topic we only spent two days on in class. One guy told me that he was totally unprepared on many subjects, but he just happened to have reviewed the material that came up on the test in detail the night before.
Lets say you have two students in civ pro: A, who studies civ pro 15 hours a week, and B, who studies 10 hours a week. Over a semester, that would give student A a 75 hour studying advantage. But if the test only covers 10% of the material, then that advantage is really only 7.5 hours. Sure, in theory it is more likely that the person who studies more would cast a wider net and catch more relevant material, but I doubt that is always the case.