<p>If we didn’t have exams, most would be happy learning their Physics from National Geographic.</p>
<p>The word ‘study’ is meaningless. It tells you that you need to review, but doesn’t translate into action. This results in added and unnecessary procrastination and rather useless work (“I’ll write my name and reward myself with twenty minutes of Facebook!”).</p>
<p>“Studying” is too broad and ambiguous. To get better at it, you need to change your thought process. Instead of, “Ugh, I’m off to the library for the whole afternoon,” tell yourself, “I’ll be working on my proofs from 2-3 p.m., and then I’ll create an outline for my philosophy paper from 3-4 p.m.” Once you’re done, you’re done.</p>
<p>I can’t stand when the teachers say to study. We either will study or we won’t. Can you “study” for a math test? No. Because there nothing to “study”, practice is the more appropriate word. Now I know you might say it the same but do you “study” for a football game (don’t give me the study table crap)? “Prepare for the test tomorrow!” is more active as it alert the students to ready up, if you haven’t been studying you’ll be cramming. Of course you’re going to say study for the exam a week before but the fact is that the student body know there is an exam and reminding them only cause more chaos.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is no more more true today than it was in 1960, yet 1960’s future came and went long ago. Undoubtedly that kind of learning would produce better results for a given student, but there are other motivations at play here, not least that of determining how education will be distributed in the first place.</p>
<p>EDIT: Am I crazy, or was the above quote deleted from this thread?</p>
<p>The problem with presentations and research papers is that they aren’t graded objectively at all, and thus doesn’t accurately depict a student’s knowledge of the subject.</p>
<p>The easiest solution to the question of how we can get students to actually want to learn the material rather than just get a good score is to stop encouraging college for everyone. College, at one point, was only for people who actually wanted to learn for the sake of learning. Now, it’s a necessity to get a good career, and by going to college, employers somehow expect graduates to be work-ready - so everybody, including people who don’t want to learn, goes to college, and colleges have to train and prepare students for the workforce rather than concentrate purely on learning.</p>
<p>tl;dr - There should be vocational schools for people who don’t want to go to college for the sake of learning.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But the subject of the discussion is studying, and you don’t study in the traditional sense for research papers and presentations. They are also often on topics not already covered in class and are thus not a review, but an extension of what was learned or a lead into something you wouldn’t have otherwise learned. </p>
<p>And although they are graded subjectively, I have always felt that I get more out of papers and presentations than I do with traditional exams - I remember more of the facts because they are usually topics within the course that are most meaningful to me. This should be the goal of a course, not a letter grade. Even if you’re in college strictly to train for a job, remembering and applying the material should be more important than memorizing and regurgitating it for a test and then moving on.</p>
<p>There are plenty of vocational/technical options for people who don’t want to go to a 4-year university (at least in my area). Community college, technical/trade schools, many high schools (especially technical ones) offer accelerated programs, and then there is the good ol’ fashioned way of getting an entry-level job during/after high school and just working your way up. I do agree that too many students go to college just because it is expected of them, and because their hearts are not in it they don’t get the outcomes they (or their family) had hoped.</p>
<p>I also want to add that I realize some people get more out of studying/cramming, and that is fine. That is why we should choose our courses as best we can to take them with professors who meet our style of learning, when possible. We can find this information via word of mouth, or by sites like Rate My Professor. Some colleges also vary in teaching style overall, such as large research universities v. small liberal arts colleges. If we do the right kind of research, we can find a good fit in at least most of our classes at the colleges/trade schools/whatever we choose.</p>
<p>@GregFields</p>
<p>I imagine they would put forth the effort because they enjoy learning.</p>
<p>Omega-3s are the answer to EVERYTHING. :)</p>
<p>“Rather than telling students to study for exams, we should be telling them to study for learning and understanding.”</p>
<p>And thus we see the quandary aspects of our educational systems and the arbitrary form of teaching, which begins the moment tests are used to separate some students from other students. I have friends who only study for the exams valuing the grade above learning, while others would study to learn and to understand, but did not always perform well on the tests.</p>
<p>My brother would begin studying for tests 2 weeks before the exams, and he averaged within the top 3% of his classes. </p>
<p>I on the other hand studied to learn, and actually had other classmates asking me to explain terminology and theories within our chosen field. However, what was odd is that these people performed better on the exams than I did. </p>
<p>Not only that, prestigious colleges now purposely create tests to manipulate bell curves. This creates an atmosphere where if you don’t study for exams, don’t plan on doing well in the class, especially if an exam is 30% of your grade. </p>
<p>I overall agree with the subject to study to learn and understand, however, unfortunately the atmosphere at prestigious colleges demands you study for exams, unless you are very gifted intelligently.</p>
<p>And if you don’t study for the exams and get good grades don’t plan on moving forward in your degree for graduate studies. I have friends who are unable to progress any further in their field of work because they scored below a 3.0 average. Unfortunately college has turned into not what you know, but how well you can beat the other student in your class.</p>
<p>Agreed. It’s inherently hypocritical for them to tell us to “learn for learning’s sake” while mercilessly pitting us against other students to “weed out”, and I myself was nearly “weeded out” in high school. My mantra in college is good grades, with a reasonable amount of work. </p>
<p>Although there is a level of devotion I’ll never reach, I understand that due to the nature of the system, getting a good grade is more important than learning. To me, getting into that Ivy League grad school has higher priority than “learning for learning’s sake” because after learning for learning’s sake in high school and not doing well, and others chastising me for being a grade grubber in college (yet if I took their advice I would be punished in another way: Going to a mediocre grad school and not maximizing my opportunities), I’m tired of this system that clearly doesn’t reward intellectual exploration and risk taking. I wish high-minded college professors would stop guilt-tripping me to do one thing and on the other hand make it totally impossible for me to do it.</p>
<p>@ Impero:</p>
<p>“I wish high-minded college professors would stop guilt-tripping me to do one thing and on the other hand make it totally impossible for me to do it.”</p>
<p>I believe we would become smarter and more intelligent as a people if our educational system truly focused on learning, rather than competing for opportunities. </p>
<p>I am currently going back to school for another Bachelors within a totally different field, and look back at my first college experience and wish I would have cared more about the grade than I did about learning.</p>
<p>Yet, at the same time, I look back and think it would have been better for me to go the route of my friend. He went to the same college I did. Had a horrible experience because he cared about learning and when he recognized how the teachers were only teaching to them who already understood the material. He left, went to a junior college, regained his desire for learning back, went to a lower grade University, a medium grade Masters program and then finished off at Texas A&M for his PHD. </p>
<p>It was an eye opener for me to see him progress and recognize that because he went to a non-prestigious junior college, non-prestigious college (But received good grades) he was eventually able to get into a prestigious graduate program at Texas A&M. The grades matter, thus those who do well in college are those who study for the exam, unless they are one of those who are gifted intelligently.</p>