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

[gretun]

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?

 

[TMFKAN64]

In my experience, the top students haven't necessarily seen the material before, they are just very quick at picking it up.

The good news if you aren't one of these top students is that graduate admissions also depend on research aptitude, which is a different skill than doing well in classes. So if you aren't killing in class, get involved in a research program and kill there.

 

[gretun]

In my experience, the top students haven't necessarily seen the material before, they are just very quick at picking it up.

The good news if you aren't one of these top students is that graduate admissions also depend on research aptitude, which is a different skill than doing well in classes. So if you aren't killing in class, get involved in a research program and kill there.

When should one apply or even find research? During freshman years? Or sophomore? Do profs have the right to refuse you a position in the research?

 

[TMFKAN64]

When should one apply or even find research? During freshman years? Or sophomore? Do profs have the right to refuse you a position in the research?

Professors are under no obligation whatsoever to accept you into their research program. Some will flatly refuse undergraduates, and will only work with graduate students.

You should probably start asking around as soon as possible, but keep in mind that the earlier you are in your studies, the less likely you are to be accepted. Finding a position as a freshman is relatively rare, but it doesn't hurt to express your interest.

 

[gretun]

Professors are under no obligation whatsoever to accept you into their research program. Some will flatly refuse undergraduates, and will only work with graduate students.

You should probably start asking around as soon as possible, but keep in mind that the earlier you are in your studies, the less likely you are to be accepted. Finding a position as a freshman is relatively rare, but it doesn't hurt to express your interest.

Wait, then how are you suppose to apply if they are just going to refuse you even if you are a senior?

 

[chickenwing71]

Wait, then how are you suppose to apply if they are just going to refuse you even if you are a senior?

Some will refuse you. Probably, most will refuse you, but there might be someone willing to give you a chance. In the US, there are also summer research programs designed for giving research experience to undergraduates (REU), which you can apply for at research universities and even government labs, though they're often limited to US citizens.

 

[gretun]

Some will refuse you. Probably, most will refuse you, but there might be someone willing to give you a chance. In the US, there are also summer research programs designed for giving research experience to undergraduates (REU), which you can apply for at research universities and even government labs, though they're often limited to US citizens.

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

 

[chickenwing71]

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

I don't know much about Canada, but there definitely are programs in the US that accept international students. I have a friend from Toronto who was accepted into an REU in the US this summer. Email some professors and see if they have advice.

 

[marcusl]

Most of us have been in your shoes and survived through hard work and perserverence. Keep in mind that GPA is always used to filter applicants. Study hard, seek out the smart kids for help (and they are smart, don't let anyone tell you otherwise), use the TA's and prof's office hours, and build a solid record of B's and an occasional A in your core classes. Augment it with A's in non-core classes. REU's won't salvage poor grades.

 

[TMFKAN64]

Wait, then how are you suppose to apply if they are just going to refuse you even if you are a senior?

Well, you have to ask around... some professors are interested in working with undergraduates, some aren't. You need to find the ones that accept undergraduates and are working on something you are interested in.

"Apply" is probably the wrong word for the most part... summer REU programs have a formal application, but other than that it's a matter of just finding someone willing to take you on. (It does happen... I know one professor who is known for recruiting research students from his freshman physics courses!)

I also want to agree with marcusl... research experience won't salvage poor grades. It will make good grades look a lot better though.

 

[gretun]

Well, you have to ask around... some professors are interested in working with undergraduates, some aren't. You need to find the ones that accept undergraduates and are working on something you are interested in.

"Apply" is probably the wrong word for the most part... summer REU programs have a formal application, but other than that it's a matter of just finding someone willing to take you on. (It does happen... I know one professor who is known for recruiting research students from his freshman physics courses!)

I also want to agree with marcusl... research experience won't salvage poor grades. It will make good grades look a lot better though.

I am still a foreigner, do I have to go to an American university for research?

 

[TMFKAN64]

I am still a foreigner, do I have to go to an American university for research?

Research is research no matter where it is done. At the end of the day, you would like to have a publication in a known journal, or at the very least a glowing letter from the professor you worked with.

 

[gretun]

Umm okay, but can you guys actually address the topic in my first post?

 

[Choppy]

I am still a foreigner, do I have to go to an American university for research?

There are lots of great research opportunities for undergraduates in Canada. You simply have to ask around. Some universities have formal programs, or summer research awards, others just have professors with projects available for undergraduates. These aren't always advertised either.

 

[Choppy]

As to the original question - the answer is obvious: get better marks.

If your current system of learning (or test-taking) is giving you average results, that's likely what you're stuck with until you change it. There is no universal rule that will get an average student into that top 1%. You have to experiment and figure out what works. In what classes have you done better? What's been different between those and the ones you just managed to drag yourself through?

 

[TMFKAN64]

Umm okay, but can you guys actually address the topic in my first post?

Sorry, I thought I was. I'll be more explicit.

I am just wondering, how do those people do it?

They work smarter and they work harder than you.

So I am just wondering, what happens to the rest of us? The 99% mean scored people?

Most people don't go to graduate school at all. Many go to less prestigious programs.

What can we do to shoot for prestige programs?

Claw your way into the 1%, either in class or in a research setting.

 

[Mathnomalous]

I am just wondering, how do those people do it?

Maybe they are luckier, smarter, or study effectively; perhaps they cheat, know the test beforehand, the professor favors them; it could be that they are repeating the course, learned the material before, obtained private tutoring; it may be all, a combination, or none of the previous factors.

Observe what they do and adapt it to your life. Ask them.

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?

You may do what the "star" students are doing; you may offer sexual favors to admissions committees; you may get luckier during the admissions process; you may call those prestige programs and ask them what are the entry requirements; etc; etc; etc;

Whatever you do, stop obsessing about it. It's a waste of energy.

Umm okay, but can you guys actually address the topic in my first post?

One of the things you will notice on these forums is that open-ended, subjective questions will receive open-ended, subjective answers; questions from certain types of posters will sometimes be ignored; in certain cases, some jerks will try to discourage you.

Overall, there are many helpful people around here provided you ask precise, reasonable questions. You are better off doing some research before you post your questions; self-sufficiency seems to be appreciated around here.

 

[jtbell]

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,

Um... according to your other threads, you've just finished high school and haven't even started university yet! I think you're stressing out way too much about your future prospects at the moment.

 

[gretun]

Um... according to your other threads, you've just finished high school and haven't even started university yet! I think you're stressing out way too much about your future prospects at the moment.

Reason being that I feel like it doesn't matter anymore, it's all the numbers, no one cares (by "one" i mean grad school) if you are the next einstein unless you have that 4.0GPA

 

[Mathnomalous]

If it makes you feel better, no "one" cared about Einstein before 1905.

 

[gretun]

If it makes you feel better, no "one" cared about Einstein before 1905.

That actually makes me felt worst...because I know I am not the next Einstein.

 

[gretun]

They work smarter and they work harder than you.

No no no, the thing is, we work equally as hard, everyone does and that is a fact. But how much does being a little smarter means? Really

Most people don't go to graduate school at all. Many go to less prestigious programs.

Everyone goes to graduate school

Claw your way into the 1%, either in class or in a research setting.

Easier said than done, ever read the thread "Should i still do math if i am not the next Euler? "

 

[Mathnomalous]

That actually makes me felt worst...because I know I am not the next Einstein.

You will have a better chance of success at being yourself. Focus on learning and you will be fine.

 

[xcvxcvvc]

I make 100% on most tests. You just have to study until you can basically derive solutions to new problems that use the material (i.e. understand the material as opposed to memorizing a set solution to a specialized application)

another big factor is you have to have solid past knowledge. if you're taking calculus when your algebra skills are lacking (perhaps, you made a c- in algebra II and in precalculus), i have no idea how you expect to jump to an A+ with 100% on the tests. you need to journey back to the basics and review them to a level of understanding that could earn you an A+ if you were to take the course again. Of course, not all classes are important in this regard. You have to focus in on classes that are relevant to your degree. For engineering, for example, I'd argue the main courses to focus in on are math, and that's about it. (maybe you can do some studying about physics, but meh) If you are an A+ math student, any kind of engineering courses just seem to be really easy As. (assuming you have an A+ knowledge of any engineering courses that are prerequisites to the course you're taking)

Another thing I can recommend is actually reading the book slowly and completely. I know so many people who skim the book. Though they claim this is enough, they obviously don't have high standards since they aren't the ones making 100%s on the tests. Read the entire book that is assigned! Do ALL the hw. If you still don't understand it to where it is EASY (not just doable SOMETIMES), do more problems than are assigned. by the time you're ready for the test, you should be able to glance and HW problems and state in your mind the general process that will lead to the answer as well to the general form the solution. Then, you can check the solution's manual to see if you were right. I do this often instead of wasting my time doing calculations. For example, I recently learned about the z-transform. I would often look at forms and say "this will be partial fraction decomposition - that will be repeated roots, i'll use this precise formula to find them [and state the formula in complete detail in your mind, looking it up if you're not sure], then the inverse z-transform will be of the form of a discrete time ramp plus a unit sequence" Then, i'll check the solutions manual to verify my predictions. This is of course only possible for the repeated, rudimentary problems. As for tougher problems, you know you're ready when you can simply do them!

if the subject is fact based like history or psychology, i just sit there and read the chapters at least twice - very slowly. every page or so, i'll reflect on previous pages, trying to recall every single date and every single fact on all pages prior. if i cannot do this without error and without missing any facts, i then reread the pages for which i missed facts or made an error.

 

[gretun]

I make 100% on most tests. You just have to study until you can basically derive solutions to new problems that use the material (i.e. understand the material as opposed to memorizing a set solution to a specialized application)

another big factor is you have to have solid past knowledge. if you're taking calculus when your algebra skills are lacking (perhaps, you made a c- in algebra II and in precalculus), i have no idea how you expect to jump to an A+ with 100% on the tests. you need to journey back to the basics and review them to a level of understanding that could earn you an A+ if you were to take the course again. Of course, not all classes are important in this regard. You have to focus in on classes that are relevant to your degree. For engineering, for example, I'd argue the main courses to focus in on are math, and that's about it. (maybe you can do some studying about physics, but meh) If you are an A+ math student, any kind of engineering courses just seem to be really easy As. (assuming you have an A+ knowledge of any engineering courses that are prerequisites to the course you're taking)

Another thing I can recommend is actually reading the book slowly and completely. I know so many people who skim the book. Though they claim this is enough, they obviously don't have high standards since they aren't the ones making 100%s on the tests. Read the entire book that is assigned! Do ALL the hw. If you still don't understand it to where it is EASY (not just doable SOMETIMES), do more problems than are assigned.

No the thing is, that's what all these 4.0GPA tell you, "understanding the concepts", but I learned that this is never the case. It is sometimes, but to really get that A, you really have to memorize instead of understanding it because of the insane pace the course covers.

People who try to understand the concepts lags behind everyone else. Then as soon as this person does understand the concepts his grades are falling like crazy because it is already on the next topic.

Tips they give you are flashcards, read ahead etc... but all of these are just memorizing and not understanding. All applications without theory

 

[TMFKAN64]

No the thing is, that's what all these 4.0GPA tell you, "understanding the concepts", but I learned that this is never the case.

You are totally wrong here.

But if you are unwilling to listen, I'd think I'd like to go back and revise my answer.

There is nothing that you can do to get into a prestigious program.

 

[Feldoh]

No the thing is, that's what all these 4.0GPA tell you, "understanding the concepts", but I learned that this is never the case. It is sometimes, but to really get that A, you really have to memorize instead of understanding it because of the insane pace the course covers.

People who try to understand the concepts lags behind everyone else. Then as soon as this person does understand the concepts his grades are falling like crazy because it is already on the next topic.

Tips they give you are flashcards, read ahead etc... but all of these are just memorizing and not understanding. All applications without theory

Huh? I feel like you think that it's some big conspiracy -- it's not.

Flashcards don't really apply however EVERYONE should read ahead in a class. Reading ahead is not memorization. Studies show that repetition of concepts help reinforce what you all ready know and also help you grasp the more profound ideas.

Consider it. If you read ahead of a lecture you have at least a basic understanding of the subject and if you don't you need to learn to study smarter, not harder -- which I'll cover next. However now that you have a basic grasp on the concepts when you're listening to your professor lecture you will be hearing a lot of the same information however there are some differences.

1.) You prof could describe the physics in a different way than you see it was is very very helpful.

2.) You will most likely understand what the prof is saying at a much deeper level since you all ready understand the concepts and can now focus in class on the more advanced topics of the lecture.

Yes the trick *is* to understand the concepts. Why do you think this is not so? I've noticed over the past two year that when a lot of my classmates go to read the class text they are actually just reading words without stopping to understand what they read. To them they *think* that they understand.

You really have to be honest with yourself when you're studying. After every paragraph stop and ask yourself: "What did I just read? Do I understand what I just read? Does EVERY WORD in that paragraph make sense to me?" You need to ask yourself questions like this, it's imperative.

Also for me personally I'm able to pick out test questions after I have a legitimate understanding of a particular concept. Once you understand a concept you can go back and focus on the main points and those are the type of questions that will be asked.

Also, attend lectures because professors usually spend more time one the things they want their class to know. This goes back to reading ahead of time. If you're not trying on grasping the very basics in class you can focus elsewhere such as on what the professor is spending a lot of time doing.

If I had to say, the most important part of the education process is self-preparation. You need to read and re-read and re-read over and over and over and over again and again and again.

 

[PieceOfPi]

I agree with xcvxcvvc, although I am by no means someone who gets 100% on almost every exam or the top 1% of the class.

If you ever have a chance to take upper-division math courses like real analysis or abstract algebra, you'll find it amazing how fast your class moves. There will be so many definitions and theorems (and their proofs!) that you have to understand in so little time available. So how do you do it? Well, you need to read your textbook as early as possible. By reading, I don't mean skimming. You need to read it carefully so that you can follow what the author is saying. Part of the proof on your text is not clear? Grab a pencil and a piece of paper, and see if you can make it clearer. You don't remember that theorem that book refers to? Go back to that theorem, and read it again! It requires a lot of hard work, and I find it hard to do this as well sometimes (which is probably why I don't have 100% on every exam). But really, understanding something difficult like math or science often requires a lot of hard work. I learned this at the end of my this year... in a hard way.

You somehow think there are these smart people who can understand concepts without working hard. I don't like to sound suspicious, but are you sure that they don't work hard? Unless you are stalking these people, you would never know how much they study. They might be studying really hard when you're not looking at them.

Of course, there are people who can understand concepts really quick, and with less amount of work than yours. In this case, the only thing you can do is to hate them, and forget about them. Once you did that, go back and hit the book again.

 

[Monocles]

I also typically make 100% on every test. My opinion is that there is some raw talent involved, but having good study habits has more of an effect. What I typically do for, say, a math class is to start reading the textbook a couple of weeks before the semester starts. I don't endeavor to understand every detail, but I try to get a feel of the material that we'll cover in the first month or so of class. Then, before each lecture, I'll review the material that will be covered in the lecture. So, by the time I learn anything in the classroom, I've already seen it twice, and have spent a few weeks digesting it and developing intuition! Compare this to most of my classmates who are seeing the material for the first time and have had no time to develop any intuition.

Secondly, I typically start homework on the day it is assigned, and try very hard to do all of it alone. I think that starting it on the day it is assigned is important, because I have often found that if I am stuck on a problem then I can simply sleep for a day or two and then the solution will be obvious. The brain is good at solving problems while you sleep. If the homework is due in a couple of days and I still have not finished it then I will seek out help.

Finally, I try to teach everything that I learn. I am lucky in that I have a close friend who is also a math major, but who has complete divergent interests from me (I'm very into geometry and topology, and he is very into combinatorics and number theory). So, almost every night of the week, we try to teach each other things we are either confused about or found very interesting. Since we take none of the same classes, we are typically teaching something the other person has not seen before, and so we are forced to explain it well. Trying to explain something that you don't quite understand yourself to another person is a great way to learn the material. I'd that this is probably the most helpful study habit I have. We probably spend a total of around 4-5 hours each week teaching each other stuff, and I often grok more missed details during that time than I do in the rest of the week combined.

Developing these habits took some forced effort on my part at first. My study habits were non-existent before college. At first it was difficult to make myself do all of these things, but over time I came to enjoy doing it, and now it is effortless. The fall semester is starting in a little over a month, and I've already started reading the textbooks I'll be using in the math classes I'll be taking.

One last point that I want to emphasize. I don't spend any more time studying than anyone else - in fact, I've found that I spend less. It's not because I'm smart or something, its just that these study habits are far more effective than what most other people do, and so I can afford to spend less time studying.

 

[xcvxcvvc]

No the thing is, that's what all these 4.0GPA tell you, "understanding the concepts", but I learned that this is never the case. It is sometimes, but to really get that A, you really have to memorize instead of understanding it because of the insane pace the course covers.

People who try to understand the concepts lags behind everyone else. Then as soon as this person does understand the concepts his grades are falling like crazy because it is already on the next topic.

Tips they give you are flashcards, read ahead etc... but all of these are just memorizing and not understanding. All applications without theory

I've never used flashcards in my entire life. I sometimes read ahead before lectures, because it's very helpful in maximizing the utility of time with the professor. You learn so much more (as feldoh mentioned). You have to sit down with the material and study for as long as it takes until you understand it. It is essential that you begin studying early. Cramming is NOT going to work if you want 100s. You need time to digest the material in your sleep, and you need sometimes just a new day to reread what you had trouble with. After that, it clicks. Further, make sure you have decent sleep habits. If you get like 4 hours of sleep a night, you'll probably be miserable and hard-pressed to earn 100s. I'd also like to clarify that I only go to an average (maybe below average? who knows) engineering college. It's not like I'm making 100s at MIT :)

Monocles brought up a good point: I also teach the subject to reinforce my knowledge. As word gets out that I'm making the best grades, people seek me out to explain things, and I gladly accept since I think it helps me understand.

Another awful habit I notice, and this goes back to how necessary it is to read the entire chapter carefully, is that people sometimes claim, "Reading the chapter is worthless. I just listen to the professor." Well, are you or I making the 100s? Hah. Yeah, they may be passing or maybe even making decent marks, but the professor can only say so much in his tiny time allotted. You must do independent studying of the concepts by fully reading the book/lectures notes/whatever the class's reading is.

edit: last semester I didn't read before lectures, and every lecture was basically a boring waste of time. I didn't understand what the hell the professor was talking about! I just sat there listening to him say words. Then, I'd go home and do some intense reading, and often recollect, "oh, that's what he was talking about." It's crucial to read before lecture.

 

[twofish-quant]

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?

We just do the best we can with what we have...

One question that you have to ask yourself is why do you want to shoot for a prestige program, and what do you do if you can't get in?

Something that's happens a lot is that you have someone that is the smartest person in high school, and it's a shock to find out that you aren't the smartest person in the room. It's an even bigger shock to find out that you are actually the dumbest person in the room. It's pretty traumatic.

For me, I think physics is cool, and I figured out a while ago that if I can't get into the big-name schools, and it turns out that the only place that I can study physics is in the middle of the Gobi Desert, then I'll study physics in the middle of the Gobi Desert.

 

[twofish-quant]

Cramming is NOT going to work if you want 100s. You need time to digest the material in your sleep, and you need sometimes just a new day to reread what you had trouble with.

I was fortunate enough to go to a school in which no one made 100's on tests, and you were thankful to make 60's. If you did make 100's, then obviously the material was too easy, and to you got bumped to classes where you made 60's.

Part of the philosophy was that because it was impossible to make 100's, people really weren't that concerned about grades as long as you ended up with something decent. You had to fight like hell to get a B, so if you managed to make it through the class, you were thankful about it.

 

[twofish-quant]

No the thing is, that's what all these 4.0GPA tell you, "understanding the concepts", but I learned that this is never the case. It is sometimes, but to really get that A, you really have to memorize instead of understanding it because of the insane pace the course covers.

People who try to understand the concepts lags behind everyone else. Then as soon as this person does understand the concepts his grades are falling like crazy because it is already on the next topic.

Tips they give you are flashcards, read ahead etc... but all of these are just memorizing and not understanding. All applications without theory

All true. This was recognized by the people that designed the undergraduate physics curriculum at the school that I went to, and they did things to strongly discourage memorization. One thing that they did was to make it impossible to get anywhere near a 100 on the test no matter how hard you studied. What they would typically do is to include material that the professor didn't cover in the class at which point you were forced on the test to figure out things for yourself, and make up stuff on the fly. The logic of this is that if you really understood the concepts, you could figure out things that the prof didn't mention.

Something that is more important than the material that the covered in class, is the subtle or not-so subtle messages that the institution sends be grading. Memorization was considered a seriously bad thing where I went to school, and the grading and testing philosophy reflected that. One hard part of teaching is how to you teach students to go beyond their teachers. How do you teach people to figure out the answers to questions that the professor doesn't know the answers to? Also how to you teach people to challenge authority when necessary? What if the professor is just wrong?

 

[twofish-quant]

Reason being that I feel like it doesn't matter anymore, it's all the numbers, no one cares (by "one" i mean grad school) if you are the next einstein unless you have that 4.0GPA

That's not the important question. The important question is do you care? Suppose you get rejected by the top grad schools. Is what you are doing important enough to you that you'll find a way to keep doing it, even if it turns out that the world is against you?

Also grad schools care a lot less about GPA's than you think. The good news is that if you are in the United States and you have decent grades and preparation, you'll make it in somewhere if that's what you want. The question that you have to ask yourself is what do you want?

 

[twofish-quant]

No the thing is, that's what all these 4.0GPA tell you, "understanding the concepts", but I learned that this is never the case. It is sometimes, but to really get that A, you really have to memorize instead of understanding it because of the insane pace the course covers.

So forget about getting the A, and settle for a B.

I wouldn't obsess too much about getting into a top Ph.D. program. Suppose that you get into a top program, at that point you will start obsessing about getting into the top post-docs. Suppose you get into the top post-docs, at that point, you'll obsess about getting into top junior faculty positions. If you get into top junior faculty positions, then you obsess about getting tenure. If you get tenure, then you are always fighting against other universities for funding.

And then you die...

The whole thing is a treadmill, and at some point you are going to find that you are just not good enough or smart enough to make it to the next level. So at that point you just have to figure out what is important to you. Personally good grades and prestige aren't very high on my list of desires. One of the lessons I learned from my teachers and it's probably a more important lesson than any course work that they gave me is that if your grades are too high, then that's a bad thing, and prestige ain't important if you happen to be right.

 

[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?