What is the smartest way of preparing for competitive exams? – to take help of analytics. Tracking analytics is easy these days, esp. when your study partner (for example TCYonline), offers tools to analyse and evaluate your preparation. Its precise measurements and metrics can provide invaluable, scientifically tested information crucial to fine-tuning your efforts.
Centuries ago, Lord Kelvin stated that if we cannot use numbers to describe something, we probably DO NOT really understand that thing. Thus simple response to queries about how your preparation is progressing, that it is going fine or it is smooth sailing, are not enough anymore. You need to develop the vocabulary and syntax to make sharp well-defined comments on various facets of your preparation, beyond the generic talk.
There is no need to take recourse to a dim haze of confusing lexicon, a bewildering amount of metrics, or complexities that surpass even many so-called specialists. Analytics is all about the numbers and their visual graphical representation. This allows measurement of performance and trends, on a micro level, not merely gross macro one. Accordingly comes the accompanying prowess to refine performance.
Let’s say the chart of your question attempting is:
| Question |
Your Response |
Right or Not |
| 1 |
A |
 |
| 2 |
C |
 |
| 3 |
B |
|
| 4 |
B |
|
| 5 |
D |
|
| 6 |
C |
|
| 7 |
A |
|
Now most students focus only on questions 2 and 5, because only they are wrong. And this is the end of the analysis. These students would move on to another test. But this is what is criminal. Has the test with 7 questions been FULLY evaluated? This is where analytics help develop deeper insights about the level of the preparation.
The Time Angle
The time taken on the questions could have been as follows:
| Question |
Your Response |
Right or Not |
Time Taken |
| 1 |
A |
|
79 seconds |
| 2 |
C |
|
17 seconds |
| 3 |
B |
|
53 seconds |
| 4 |
B |
|
119 seconds |
| 5 |
D |
|
78 seconds |
| 6 |
C |
|
36 seconds |
| 7 |
A |
|
14 seconds |
Let us assume the average time per question ought to be 60 seconds. Qn 1 seems to have been done quick enough, though it can be improved. Qn 2 was done too quickly, was this the reason it went wrong…a pointer that maybe the student must restrain impulsive mad rush thinking. Possibly a little extra thought would have saved the student from committing a mistake. Qn 3 went fine. Qn 4 was done correctly, but in almost twice the time – is that worth it? Qn 5, the student spent lots of time also and ended up doing it wrong too – a double whammy, no? Qn 6 is the best one, attempted correctly and fast enough in 36 seconds. Qn 7 also is done correctly, but it was done in haste, merely 14 seconds. Shouldn’t this approach be changed, else Qn 7 too could have gone wrong the Qn 2 way!
See, looking at the time taken throws observations which require careful scrutiny of the approach.
The Changing of Responses
Many a times, the student marks a choice, but then gets in doubt and changes the response marked. Analytics help see the pattern in this habit. Let us say the same 7 questions went through this attempt history:
| Question |
Your Response |
Right or Not |
Marking History |
Correct Response |
| 1 |
A |
|
marked A |
A |
| 2 |
C |
|
marked B, changed to C |
B |
| 3 |
B |
|
marked B |
B |
| 4 |
B |
|
marked B, changed to D, again changed to B |
B |
| 5 |
D |
|
marked D |
C |
| 6 |
C |
|
marked C |
C |
| 7 |
A |
|
marked C, changed to A |
A |
We see that the student was very decisive in Qn 1, 3, 5 and 6, of which he got 3 correct. Again it is apparent, in Qn 2, 4, 7 he went through self-doubt. Of these, his first gut response was actually correct in two cases, which he changed to wrong choice later, somehow again changing back in one question. It is recommended to this candidate to have MORE belief in his first attempt, and not fall prey to self-doubts, unless he finds specific reason to not go with 1st attempt. Such analysis would help the student be more decisive next time onwards.
…..continued in Part 02
