<p>
</p>
<p>No, I am arguing the point as to whether it is more impressive to self-study and whether it is a good idea or not. I am saying that to self-study an exam when a class is offered is not a good idea since you may not get all of the methods involved in solving a problem that a teacher would present. You seemed to have missed the point of that argument.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, first, going more in-depth doesn’t make you any more prepared in college? Really? I find that very hard to believe. When you self-study you focus only on what is presented on the AP exam, which most certainly does not cover everything you should know to master the topic. So you are telling me that a person who takes a class and gets the full understanding of how Chemistry works (with labs and all) is no more prepared for college than the person who spends their time self-studying only what is necessary for the exam? I find that absurd. Also, the idea that a person will forget everything by college is a very pessimistic statement. How do you know if the person will? Learning is a process where we keep adding information to our pre-existing knowledge. Going over a certain topic may spark these “forgotten” concepts that could otherwise not be gained through independent studying. The idea of piling up work on top of your courseload really presents an argument against self-studying. Is it really a good idea to overextend yourself? No, and therefore this extra work that is really not necessary does not make sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, sometimes, and why is this? This is because the students have a more in-depth and clearer understanding of the other information. A “self-studier” simply has the general idea of the concepts that may not be as concrete as the others. This is where the whole idea of quantity vs. quality comes in. What is better, to have all the concepts learned but with a basic understanding, or to have not all (but almost all of them) mastered with a solid understanding? While the first may be better for the AP test, the latter is much better for the future. People forget the things that are not deeply rooted in their brains.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does it though? Does having this discipline automatically make it more impressive? I don’t find it more impressive when it comes with a lower understanding. This doesn’t mean that any self-studier is going to not have as solid of understanding, but the guidance of an instructor will make it more worth your time.</p>
<p>For example, this is not a subject, but it is the same concept. Suppose you are trying to learn the Cello on your own (in other words you are self-studying). You don’t really know where to start, so you get a book to guide you. You are very motivated, but that motivation lasts for the amount of time it takes you to realize the work involved. You tell yourself you will practice for 1 hour each day to hone your skills. So you continue with this under the guidance of your “Basic Method in Cello” guide. Soon, you will lose concentration easier and become distracted very easily. I don’t care who it is, that is what will happen eventually. You have no teacher to tell you to focus and keep you in line for where you should be in your lessons. It is much the same with a person self-studying a class. That is why so many self-studiers find themselves rushing to get in the last chapters near the end. Not because they have been going so much more in-depth, but because they have been distracted and neglecting their studies. It is not their fault, that is just what humans do. We have self-discipline to a certain level. Also, what if the cello player after 3 years of self-teaching decides to see a cello teacher just to make sure they are progressing correctly? Then when they get there they find that their fingering is all wrong and they must relearn because of all of the bad habits developed. The same can happen with a self-studier. I am arguing that there is no reason self-studying should be considered more impressive or should even be recommended.</p>
<p>Sure, a person can still get a 5 on the AP test, but that’s in the short run. The long run may not be as bright.</p>