TakeruK wrote:This is a tough question to answer, since everyone has their own methods and preferences for studying. But if I had to study for the GRE or similar test again, this is what I'd find useful for myself:
Format: I think the third option, a how-to guide to solve questions, would be the least useful. There are already a lot of solutions out there for the five released PGREs. Some might say that means there are "only" 500 questions (and some are repeated or very similar) but 500 is a lot of questions. I did not get a stellar score (690/53rd%) from practicing only from ~300 questions but most people I knew just studied these questions extensively and did really well (850+). I wish I had known the 2008 exam was released though (when I registered, the practice booklet provided by ETS was the 2001 exam. Anyways, there are at least 2 sources of free, fully worked out online solutions sets, and they include hints on how to do some questions faster (e.g. note that this one can be done by dimensional analysis, checking units, etc.).
I think the second option, basically a training regimen for the PGRE, may be too restrictive, or too difficult to write generally enough that it will fit everyone's study style. It would be really useful for those who have the same study techniques though. For depth, I think you should assume your audience has the first 3 years of undergrad physics completed, but assume that was 5 years ago. In other words, the reader knows all of the concepts already, but does not remember the details, so you just need to decide what is necessary for the PGRE, based on the 5 official tests, and then summarize it all up. I think, if, for example, you are covering the shape of the wave function in different potentials, you should just go ahead and show diagrams of what they look like, with some descriptive words, for cases like: V=0 (sines/cosines), E < V (decaying exp.), etc. but you don't have to go ahead and solve the equations/derive them. I don't think we generally had to do this in the GRE?
I think the first option is the best choice. The ideal way to study for the PGRE is to re-read your freshman physics text, make summary notes of each chapter etc. and learn it all again. But that takes a lot of time and is very tedious. People who do this and get a great score totally deserve it though. So the first format you suggest would basically do this summarizing work for readers so that we just need to study your summaries of GRE physics instead of reading the textbook. Obviously, readers would benefit a great deal more if they read and summarized themselves, but your work would still be more helpful than being overwhelmed at all the physics and giving up.
Depth: I decided to address this slightly separately. In addition to my notes above about depth of explanations, I think you should also set a target audience for your work. Are you helping the reader score a 990? 850? 700? etc. Not everyone has the same goals -- I knew from the start it was not realistic for me to aim for 990. If someone simply wants to score a 850, they don't need to be distracted by the smaller details in their studying and you don't have to go as deep. On the test, if they get to a question deeper than they studied and they don't know it, they can just skip.
Medium: If you do videos, then only cover stuff like test taking strategies, etc. You might want to walk the audience through exactly what to expect when they arrive at the testing centre. Maybe you can even get some helpers and re-enact it but that might not be super useful. I would avoid solving physics problems on video though.
Mr Magnetic Monopole wrote:Feel free to completely ignore this suggestion, but I've been through this wringer in a couple of ways. I'm prepping for the PGRE now, so I feel the pain. Along with that, I'm going back to school... I'm a physics/math undergrad who eventually went to Law School (long story)... and I've gone through the LSAT/GRE/Bar Exam/Patent Bar Exam prep stuff...
Anyway, a Bar Exam is a lot like the PGRE. You're trying to cram several years' worth of information into a test. I took the Barbri Review for my Bar Exam and I liked their organization (some folks didn't, but then again, everyone learns slightly differently).
Barbri used an approach that touched on all relevant topics and pointed out the specifics of what you MUST know, just to pass. For example, we're guaranteed to see something on the PGRE related to simple circuits (computing equivalent capacitance, resistance, etc.- but certainly something...). So they would cover the topic broadly. Then the lecture would then digress to something that you were likely, but maybe not guaranteed, to see (maybe a Wheatstone Bridge or a delta-to-wye conversion- they're fair game, but I wouldn't say common). From there the lecture would mention topics that have been covered in the past, but sparingly. So these items aren't likely to be on the PGRE, but if you're looking for the nuances (the things that separate the top percentiles), then you should know them. These topics were left to the student to weed out.
So the overall goal was (1) to ensure the test preparation gave enough information to pass (and I know "pass" has a different meaning in this context); (2) to guide the preparation so as to enable the test taker to score well; and (3) point out nuances to assist the test taker in separating themselves from others (who didn't prepare in as much detail).
So my suggestion would be- as an example- a general review topic on Classical Mechanics, with lectures/reviews on Linear Motion, Rotational Motion... maybe pick a couple of other broad topics... you can dig deeper from there. Add the Lagrangian in as a next layer...
Like I said, feel free to completely ignore this suggestion, but this approach has worked for me on multiple "entrance type" exams... maybe it will work here as well. I think it's extremely important to point out to the test taker what the "must know" items are, versus the "should know" and the "it's nice to know" (because there are differences).
Just my two cents...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests