<p>I'm probably the only kid who cares about these things (I seem to wonder about this more than anyone else I know). To all the 3.9-4.0 kids out there... what's your study method? How many new/applicable things do you learn per hour? How many hours do you study? How focused are you within those hours? </p>
<p>When I study I'm pretty slow... I can't just accept facts without knowing the physics behind it (knowing the physics helps solidify facts into memory). I aim for 6 hours a day. My mind drifts pretty often. Takes me an hour to digest 10 pages of engineering stuff. I usually learn about 1 thing useful every 30 minutes and the rest of time is spent making sure I understand all the angles. Sifting through the math slows down the process a lot and I find even though I'll understand the math eventually, I can't replicate it or remember it the day after (I'll recognize it though if it's mentioned in class, just can't prove start proving anything out of the blue). </p>
<p>I know a guy who's outrageously quick. He just picks up info fast. He says he has no idea what he's doing but he seems to learn EXACTLY what he needs to solve problems and applies them very quickly. How do I become more like this :(</p>
<p>FYI, I'm a Junior in EE and learning still scares me.</p>
<p>Six hours a day? Is that studying + homework or just studying? I can usually get away with studying 1 or 2 hours a night. Then again I never miss class, pay attention and take notes during class, and homework tends to help me for studying.</p>
<p>Yea some people are genetically gifted in intelligence/memory</p>
<p>I have to study about 4 hours a day for my current classes</p>
<p>For Physics Calc and diff eq I usually just crammed info the week of the exams, but the amount of information in the classes in the junior/senior years seems to grow exponentially</p>
<p>Some people do spend extra hours than others due to problems like stress. I recommend studying and doing plenty of exercises, but not continuously. I believe you had times when you had to scratch your head many times. If that were to happen, then take a walk or do something else for 10 minutes before continuing your studies. Taking more time does not mean that you're less inteligent than the quick people. It's just your method of studying is not suitable for you. Take it easy and don't overthink. I usually try to turn my studies in a way that looks so logical that I can understand them faster.</p>
<p>hey hasuchObe your learning style is pretty similar to mine... I feel I waste too much time learning all the background info. Its engineering, after all, and not natural sciences.
I usually spend 2-4 hours studying per day, and an additional 2 hours or so of studying, but thats freshman year. I tend to sleep/daydream through class and not take notes though so maybe I'll be able to improve this.
Don't worry too much about the guy who just "gets things." Different people are good at different things, you just have to find yours. I tend to be much better than most people at problem solving, but on the downside I'm also much slower.</p>
<p>I like to study until I start to get things backwards and forwards. I want whatever I learn to become second nature. That's the only way I'll ace the exams.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I like to study until I start to get things backwards and forwards. I want whatever I learn to become second nature. That's the only way I'll ace the exams.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's me too. I take every exam with the intent of getting 100%. Usually that garauntees me at least a 90+%. This works for most classes (except engineering). You learn several test taking strategies during freshman year. One of them is remaining calm when the test is not what you expect. After taking my first few (hard) engineering exams, I've learned to use that method to an extreme.</p>
<p>
[quote]
hey hasuchObe your learning style is pretty similar to mine... I feel I waste too much time learning all the background info.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm always debating whether I should do my homework first or read first. I'm thinking homework first this week :)</p>
<p>6 hours a day is pretty brutal. I admire that. I try to take in as much information as possible during lectures. I then review the lecture right after class, then again a few hours later. I then review the material right before the next session of the class plus take a sneak peak at what the next lecture will be covering.</p>
<p>You just sorta run into walls constantly. And there's no telling how long it might take you to overcome each wall, could be 2 seconds or eternity. This is why it helps to study in groups, a technique that our Eastern brothers have taken to heart.</p>
<p>I spend most of my time understanding the implications of what I read and understanding what I'm supposed to see in circuit diagrams. Remembering is fine once I can make logical sense of everything.</p>
<p>I pay attention during lecture but solidify my understanding of the concepts when I read the chapter. Reading the chapter is mostly a review/filling in the fuzzy areas. Of course, I do the homework problems as well. Doing good in math and science requires you to practice. It molds your thought processes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
6 hours a day is pretty brutal. I admire that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really? Do you really think you're going to turn eighty, look back on your life and say, "Man, I'm really glad I frittered away six hours every day during the best years of my life poring over a bunch of math I forgot fifty-five years ago"?</p>
<p>I mean, get the job done to get you where you want to go, but... I would just study until I understood the stuff. I know when I understand something and when I don't understand something, I can tell the difference. In class, I got a general overview of what I didn't know, and learned a lot of stuff. Often, I learned it so that I would gain a sufficient understanding of the subject. In problem sets, I grappled with what I didn't know, and I used resources to resolve the problems I ran into. I worked with other people, I talked to the profs, I read books, I did what needed to be done. When I knew the stuff, I moved on. When exam time showed up on the radar, I'd figure out whether or not I felt generally confident in my overall knowledge. Then, either several weeks before or just a few days before the exam, depending upon how I felt about what I'd learned, I would go through my books and my notes to refresh my memory on the things I <em>did</em> know, to remind myself of knowledge I still lacked, and the real "studying" would occur when I realized I didn't understand something that was going to be on the test. Then, I'd take the test. Sometimes it'd go well. Sometimes it'd go badly. Usually, though, if I hadn't screwed up in assessing what I knew, it'd go well.</p>
<p>What on earth do you study when you go through things for six hours a day? What real advancement of knowledge do you get when you study that long?</p>
<p>I'll refrain from trying to use the word "study" loosely, but I think when people say "study" they can mean a lot of things. Strictly speaking, I think that "studying" involves any action that contributes to learning. But sometimes this definition can get a little sketchy.</p>
<p>While I agree that 6 hours a day is over the top, I'm sure that most people have been in that situation. The problem is that "studying" 6 hours a day is sometimes an incorrect assessment of time because one "feels" like they studied for 6 hours though most of that time could have been wasted in a number of different ways that don't feel significant. If one really is able to study 6 hours STRAIGHT then I don't think there's any competing with that guy. I know myself... I can't study more than about an hour (intensively) and I need a break. And as the day progresses that "hour" gets shorter and shorter.</p>
<p>Regardless, the only times where I remember having to study like crazy was with problems (math, physics, EE) that I couldn't solve... or rather I hadn't a hoot about where to begin. These problems can take very very long if you don't change your approach (ie: consult someone else). So every now and then I feel massochistic enough to keep on hitting my head against the wall until something makes sense. This sometimes works.</p>
<p>In general, I don't tend to classify problem sets as study, but rather as homework. Unless I'm using/doing them to study. WIth that said, I don't think you need to "study" (as in learn) more than a couple of hours a day... I usually did less. Homework can be an altogether different beast at times though... I suggest doing it in groups (duh...).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Really? Do you really think you're going to turn eighty, look back on your life and say, "Man, I'm really glad I frittered away six hours every day during the best years of my life poring over a bunch of math I forgot fifty-five years ago"?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think its not an altogether bad thing, depending on who you are. Some of the best minds in history probably spent much more than 6 hours a day "poring over a bunch of math" but these guys weren't your typical engineers. They thrived on this stuff and understood it in ways some of us can only dream of. And some of them were probably more than just glad about having pored over all that math.</p>
<p>But yea, I couldn't do it and in general its not a good idea.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Really? Do you really think you're going to turn eighty, look back on your life and say, "Man, I'm really glad I frittered away six hours every day during the best years of my life poring over a bunch of math I forgot fifty-five years ago"?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't remember how many hours/day I studied as an undergrad, although it is possible that I spent six hours/day for homework, lab, etc. combined. During my first year of grad school, on days when I did not have classes, I spent most of some mornings working problems. I also did that for a class I took at Stanford while working.</p>
<p>As far as the particulars of studying, I was mostly concerned with my ability to solve problems that were representative of what might show up on quizzes, midterms, finals, etc. Depending on the class, it was not always the case that the material presented in lectures or even textbooks was representative of what was tested. In classes where tests comprised a large % of the grade, this was problematic. I usually understood the material as presented, but could not always solve the problems on tests to the level that I would get the grades I wanted. I studied with other people, asked profs for help, etc., but things didn't always pan out the way I wanted.</p>
<p>Stop trying to get such a "deep" understanding of the material. At the end of the day, our "flawed" education system does not care what you understand, but rather only how well you can perform on your test. </p>
<p>An important skill you need for survival in college is to learn what's important and what's not. Otherwise, you are going to make life hard for yourself, and get bad grades.</p>