Should i stop doing methods revision?

[cranberry]

Got our trial exam marks back today for methods (it was Kilbaha 2011 - exam 2) and i got 35% (27/ 58 for extended, 1/22 for multi-choice!  has anyone done it??!)....
Im thinking of stopping methods now - revision-wise - and doing more legal practice instead, cause its so easy to revise for legal (remembering things etc)...I know methods goes up, and im on an A+ for SACS (in top 15 of about 60), but i find methods so hard to revise for that i havent really started exam revision apart from cut n pasting stuf into my notebook.

So im thinking methods will be my bottom two? Anyone got any thoughts on whether i should grind through/keep doing meth (just because it gets marked up heaps)?

ty

[Greatness]

1 bad trial exam result isnt wont affect your study score, if anything it should motivate you!
Have you done any other practice exams yet? If not maybe do a few more and see if you improve, it will be worth it if you can manage to to a score that scales 40+!!

[onur369]

Cant judge your performance by one trial, especially a commercial trial since they can be harder.  Try doing the VCAA papers than you can see where your heading and whether to keep studying or study more for Legal instead.

Personally, I would spam trials for methods instead of legal.

[nbhindi]

If you're not doing so good at it then its more of a reason for you to try harder 

[REBORN]

For the exam - if you actually have no idea about any of the MCQs then it's best to put all C - pretty much guaranteed 5marks.

[tony3272]

Yeah about ssNake's point; If you're guessing multiple choice then pick one letter and use it all the way down, don't change. The probability of getting more correct that way is much more than random guessing.

[tony3272]

In regards to your actual dilemma, I wouldn't give up on methods. After scaling, a 38 raw in legal (low A+) pretty much the same as 30-31 raw in methods (C+).

You have only done that one trial exam so far so it's not really indicative of your end of year performance. Kilbaha usually make some challenging papers, so it may just have been that.

For the time being you should force yourself to do some more trial papers. Start with some VCAA exam 1 papers. They're generally easier and also much shorter. This would get you used to exam style questions, and then eventually move onto the analysis type questions in exam 2 once you've got the fundamentals down.

Also, if you're having trouble on how to approach a question (as exam 2 can confuse you with wording), just think back to the basic techniques you've learnt and try those. Every question uses the same basic technique, just some are not so obvious.

[nacho]

na dude dont give up
that was a kilbaha exam as well, try a heff and see how u fair

[shinny]

Yeah about ssNake's point; If you're guessing multiple choice then pick one letter and use it all the way down, don't change. The probability of getting more correct that way is much more than random guessing.

I question that. You're both assuming that the division between the five answers A-E is roughly equal, with the answers obviously mixed up in some random pattern. So you say therefore, put the same letter in each one and you're bound to get 20% correct. Look at it on the flip side though; you're essentially saying to intentionally put the wrong answer in 80% of the questions and guarantee that you'll lose these marks. While I do agree that it seems like this strategy works in practice, in theory I don't think the odds are any different. If you randomly guessed each question, you're still sitting on a 20% hit rate really. Difference though I guess is that in practice, nothing goes to how it's meant to in theory, meaning that if they follow your strategy, they're BOUND to get 20% correct (assuming that there definitely is an even split between the 5 letters). I guess for those who are more on the gambling side though, by randomly putting in answers, your chances of it varying either side of 20% are equal, meaning you could potentially gain more marks But no, I wouldn't say your probability is 'way more'. Probability's never been my strong point though (it's what cost me my 50) so feel free to challenge.

EDIT: Sorry for being off-topic but I thought I might as well bring it up given probability's part of methods anyway. To put it back on topic before this ends up being a probability debate, basically you've said you've gotten A+ on all your SACs which doesn't correlate well with that exam score. So basically:
1. If you need methods for a pre-req, well I guess you don't have much of a choice.
2. If your school's being too lenient and you're actually not that great at methods, could consider bombing out on it intentionally into the bottom two and concentrating on Legal.
3. If you're actually decent at methods but Kilbaha is just retarded (often is the case), then perhaps revise a bit more and aim to do well in Methods.

[tony3272]

Yeah about ssNake's point; If you're guessing multiple choice then pick one letter and use it all the way down, don't change. The probability of getting more correct that way is much more than random guessing.

I question that. You're both assuming that the division between the five answers A-E is roughly equal, with the answers obviously mixed up in some random pattern. So you say therefore, put the same letter in each one and you're bound to get 20% correct. Look at it on the flip side though; you're essentially saying to intentionally put the wrong answer in 80% of the questions and guarantee that you'll lose these marks. While I do agree that it seems like this strategy works in practice, in theory I don't think the odds are any different. If you randomly guessed each question, you're still sitting on a 20% hit rate really. Difference though I guess is that in practice, nothing goes to how it's meant to in theory, meaning that if they follow your strategy, they're BOUND to get 20% correct (assuming that there definitely is an even split between the 5 letters). I guess for those who are more on the gambling side though, by randomly putting in answers, your chances of it varying either side of 20% are equal, meaning you could potentially gain more marks But no, I wouldn't say your probability is 'way more'. Probability's never been my strong point though (it's what cost me my 50) so feel free to challenge.

EDIT: Sorry for being off-topic but I thought I might as well bring it up given probability's part of methods anyway. To put it back on topic before this ends up being a probability debate, basically you've said you've gotten A+ on all your SACs which doesn't correlate well with that exam score. So basically:
1. If you need methods for a pre-req, well I guess you don't have much of a choice.
2. If your school's being too lenient and you're actually not that great at methods, could consider bombing out on it intentionally into the bottom two and concentrating on Legal.
3. If you're actually decent at methods but Kilbaha is just retarded (often is the case), then perhaps revise a bit more and aim to do well in Methods.

Yeah i won't go any further than this about the probability thing, but i kinda just proved myself wrong. I just tested it on a random spesh exam.
Random guessing got me 4/22
Solely picking A yielded 4/22
B: 5/22
C: 4/22
D: 4/22
E: 5/22

It all comes down to luck i guess

[REBORN]

Re: Shinny

I didn't say "much more" or anything to do with probability (that was tony) - rather my point is to get the GUARANTEED marks rather then trying your luck. And if you want to get all old fashioned....the OP's luck is pretty bad (1/22!)

[99.96]

You can usually narrow down the multiple choice and make an educated guess...
Anyway, dont give up, kilbaha is sometimes insane.
Try out the Hefferen Exam

Or study enough to ensure a 25+

[cranberry]

You can usually narrow down the multiple choice and make an educated guess...
Anyway, dont give up, kilbaha is sometimes insane.
Try out the Hefferen Exam

Or study enough to ensure a 25+

Yeah...at the time i was sure i had an educated punt at all of em lol....

In regards to your actual dilemma, I wouldn't give up on methods. After scaling, a 38 raw in legal (low A+) pretty much the same as 30-31 raw in methods (C+).

Thanks for the thoughts - that really made me think about it! I reckon i could pull a mid 30s score if i tried enough - i just need to start of with some easier exams like VCAA 2009 (was it an easy one?) ->I just did exam 1 in an hour and lost only like 3 marks :S..

ty heaps

thanks.

[Greatness]

Do all the vcaa ones first or if youd rather do a few heffeernan ones first and see how you go, if youre still struggling then maybe it would be better to study more for a different subject

[justaccounting]

Got our trial exam marks back today for methods (it was Kilbaha 2011 - exam 2) and i got 35% (27/ 58 for extended, 1/22 for multi-choice!  has anyone done it??!)....
Im thinking of stopping methods now - revision-wise - and doing more legal practice instead, cause its so easy to revise for legal (remembering things etc)...I know methods goes up, and im on an A+ for SACS (in top 15 of about 60), but i find methods so hard to revise for that i havent really started exam revision apart from cut n pasting stuf into my notebook.

So im thinking methods will be my bottom two? Anyone got any thoughts on whether i should grind through/keep doing meth (just because it gets marked up heaps)?

ty

on another note...do you happen to have the solutions to that exam?