Which is better?
To prepare for any type of paper that may come or just one situation where you expect that certain questions, certain number of repeats come from certain books?
Remember that the more predictable it gets, the more number of competitors will be there to take away your rank.
.png)
Most of the times maximum number of students prepare with such a fragile approach that their performance depends upon just one type of situation, with their luck and fate hanging by a loose thread. A few questions here and there and they are gone. A few questions asked in a different format, they are annihilated.
That's what happened in AIPG 2015. Students prepared for one type of situation. This was an extremely fragile approach. And in the paper - the deviation was not small; it was big, really big, which left a lot of them unhappy; many depressed.
Could this have been avoided? Yes. Very easily.
Point in your favor - No new subjects. You have studied these subjects for 5 years. Then 1-2 years of entrance preparation. So in total about 6 to 7 years invested in these subjects. (Never say that you studied for 1 or 2 years. Add the earlier 5 years too.) Last 1 to 2 years purely from entrance point of view. So there should have been no "shock element".
You should have prepared to face any eventuality and consolidated your foundation. In IIT and IIM papers or any tough maths exam they prepare for 'solving' the paper. There you find that the 'application skills' and 'problem solving speeds' are improving every year. In short, analytical 'capabilities' are improving every year.
Unfortunately only in dentistry it is not improving. Here it's a different story.
Here it's all about
- 150 questions repeat.
- about 80 questions from these 5 books.
- these many questions are direct picks.
- these many are controversial.
- these are wrong but still you have to answer wrong because they are direct picks from this book.
- this state exam usually comes from this book so focus more on that.
- this year's paper would be easy cos last year was tough. So if you revise this one book it's enough.
- no need to go in depth.
- no need to study from textbooks.
- these are the 100 odd questions where authors gave different answers.
The whole exercise seems to be working around these points. Too much of risk. Too little assurance. So if you combine all these points it becomes one hell of a fragile approach that may collapse anytime.
And it happened so - once upon a time - in Jan 2015.
To prepare for any type of paper that may come or just one situation where you expect that certain questions, certain number of repeats come from certain books?
Remember that the more predictable it gets, the more number of competitors will be there to take away your rank.
That's what happened in AIPG 2015. Students prepared for one type of situation. This was an extremely fragile approach. And in the paper - the deviation was not small; it was big, really big, which left a lot of them unhappy; many depressed.
Could this have been avoided? Yes. Very easily.
Point in your favor - No new subjects. You have studied these subjects for 5 years. Then 1-2 years of entrance preparation. So in total about 6 to 7 years invested in these subjects. (Never say that you studied for 1 or 2 years. Add the earlier 5 years too.) Last 1 to 2 years purely from entrance point of view. So there should have been no "shock element".
You should have prepared to face any eventuality and consolidated your foundation. In IIT and IIM papers or any tough maths exam they prepare for 'solving' the paper. There you find that the 'application skills' and 'problem solving speeds' are improving every year. In short, analytical 'capabilities' are improving every year.
Unfortunately only in dentistry it is not improving. Here it's a different story.
Here it's all about
- 150 questions repeat.
- about 80 questions from these 5 books.
- these many questions are direct picks.
- these many are controversial.
- these are wrong but still you have to answer wrong because they are direct picks from this book.
- this state exam usually comes from this book so focus more on that.
- this year's paper would be easy cos last year was tough. So if you revise this one book it's enough.
- no need to go in depth.
- no need to study from textbooks.
- these are the 100 odd questions where authors gave different answers.
The whole exercise seems to be working around these points. Too much of risk. Too little assurance. So if you combine all these points it becomes one hell of a fragile approach that may collapse anytime.
And it happened so - once upon a time - in Jan 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment