Maximizing Study Time: How Many Times Should You Review Material?

  • Thread starter Thread starter land_of_ice
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Classes Study
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on effective study techniques and the balance between reinforcing known material and learning new concepts. A common belief is that reviewing material six times aids in transferring information to long-term memory. The individual describes a systematic approach to studying, which includes taking lecture notes, transcribing them in detail, and highlighting challenging areas for focused review. This method allows for multiple reviews before tests, enhancing confidence and retention. However, the individual notes that this approach is not applied universally; for subjects of genuine interest, they may delay this structured method until encountering difficulties. This strategy has proven particularly beneficial in humanities courses that require memorization of various names, places, and concepts.
land_of_ice
Messages
136
Reaction score
0
When you are studying are you trying to learn what you don't really get, most of the studying time that you put in, or is that time for you more spent, re-enforcing things you already know?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I always heard that you have to go over something 6 times until it becomes stored in long-term memory. I usually take notes during a lecture, that evening I will transcribe them into a better format (in pen), filling in everything in a little more detail. The next day I will simple read them over highlighting the things I could not immediately remember. After that I will review only the highlighted material. Then I will re-review everything and type the notes up clear, compact, and concise. Before any major test I just scan over the notes, and I usually know everything, thus feel more confident on the tests.

That way I go over it at least 6 times before it's needed.

I don't do this for everything though. If it is a subject I am really interested in I won't start this method until I get stuck on something. It helped out a great deal in some of my humanaties courses where I was required to remember names/places/ideas/movements/artists that I really had no interest in.
 
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...

Similar threads

Back
Top