3 ms·
> One of my strategies in college was to really study on the first exam Why did you really have to study if it was so easy? Right, because you didn't know it.
by lostcolony 5y ago
> One of my strategies in college was to really study on the first exam
Why did you really have to study if it was so easy? Right, because you didn't know it. For others who came in knowing it, they didn't have to 'really study'. And this still holds true for every successive test.
I feel like that kinda negates your negation.
To speak of specifics, I took calc 1 twice. First time was due to inconsistencies in the teacher's grading, but whatever; the second time I took it, I was very familiar with the concepts, and made an easy A. Others struggled. It's fair to say I should have gotten the A at the end because I knew the material, and it's fair to say the people who got an A on every test (those 'easy' first ones you mention being included) should receive an A, but was it fair to say others, who by the end had the same understanding I and the other A students did, should have gotten a B even if they aced a cumulative final, because they struggled with the concepts initially and did less well on the earlier tests?
- Clubber 5y ago> > For example, students who come into a course with little prior knowledge earn lower grades at the start, which means they get a lower final average, even if they ultimately master the material. >For others who came in knowing it, they didn't have to 'really study'. And this still holds true for every successive test. Ya I see your point. The first test was the easiest and the most likely to get an A assuming I didn't know it. Of course if you study for the first test and get an A because it's the easiest and someone who already knows the material doesn't study and gets an A, then one isn't lower than the other. In other words, this gap only seems to apply if both groups (familiar and unfamiliar) don't study much or at all on the first test.