Out of curosity, do you think all nighters for exams actually work?

[NBAplayoffs2001]

I've pulled only 3 allnighters in my 4 years of college. Two of them produced two really good grades on the class's finals while the last one produced a so-so mark.

I have pulled at least 2 allnighters for papers though.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Better than studying properly? No. Better than nothing - of course.

[Jailblazers7]

Better than studying properly? No. Better than nothing - of course.

This. Study normally and get a good night's sleep.

[sundizz]

Depends on the type of test.

Some stuff you just need to know by muscle memory (e.g., doing hwk over a few week period of time). Other stuff you just need to be able to learn the concept and apply it creatively to different situations. If it is the latter - then yeah a whole night of studying can definitely get you a decent grade on exams. If the former, then no...ur usually screwed because you just can't remember how to do the problem.

[Jailblazers7]

Depends on the type of test.

Some stuff you just need to know by muscle memory (e.g., doing hwk over a few week period of time). Other stuff you just need to be able to learn the concept and apply it creatively to different situations. If it is the latter - then yeah a whole night of studying can definitely get you a decent grade on exams. If the former, then no...ur usually screwed because you just can't remember how to do the problem.

I disagree. Muscle memory is not the same as learning terms.

[fiddy]

They work, especially in combination with proper supplementation, but are not better than regularly studying, especially if you are looking for long term results from the study.

[imnew09]

If you haven't learned sh** you better pull an all nighter :lol :lol

But all nighter is really bad, because you will forget the stuff you learned after the exam. Yes, i'm giving back all my fken knowledge to college :facepalm

[GimmeThat]

I disagree. Muscle memory is not the same as learning terms.

Well, on an exam, people get the same credits from arriving to the conclusion whether in one sentence or a whole paragraph.

I did struggle quite a bit in statistics in the matters of proof though

[JohnnySic]

I never once pulled an all nighter in college or grad school. Why would anyone put themselves in that position? :confusedshrug:

[Velocirap31]

My last exam of university was an all-night study. I had 6 in 8 days and couldn't prepare properly for it. I had no sleep and took a 5 hour energy beforehand. My hands shook and my heart wouldn't slow down and I felt sick through the entire test. I couldn't think straight and did very badly. I failed that test badly, but the professor passed me as he wasn't going to ruin my graduation with his technical elective course, although that's what I deserved.

[fiddy]

I never once pulled an all nighter in college or grad school. Why would anyone put themselves in that position? :confusedshrug:
procrastination

[GimmeThat]

I never once pulled an all nighter in college or grad school. Why would anyone put themselves in that position? :confusedshrug:



something about our greatest fear being subjects that of interest

[Dresta]

Well yeah, but likely only because University exams have become so easy. I mean, I learnt an entire 3rd year module in a day and a night (worth a 6th of the year), took codeine and caffeine to the exam, and got 66 (70 is a first, most students only bother aiming for a 2:1).

Graduating with a 2:1 has just become ludicrously easy. Being at University was largely like being on holiday, yet many still consider their degree classifications as impressive achievements, or signs of their intelligence. Honestly, i've seen the old General Cert papers (what they gave people before the A-level), and they are far harder than most University courses; the current level of academic rigour is simply woeful. UK education has been gutted by the dogma of egalitarianism: selective grammar schools were abolished, and a complete overhaul of examination system necessitated, as the new schools couldn't produce students capable of passing the old exams. Formerly top-level grammar schools had a requirement that all their dons (teachers) needed to have a first from Oxbridge or they could not teach there. Now any old schmo with a 2:2 can teach, and if you get a good and inspiring teacher, count yourself as being very lucky. Thus rather than teaching being an honourable profession for the learned, it becomes what you do if you fail at university - to not think this is going to trickle down and undermine the effectiveness of education you would have to be incredibly foolish.

Just remember that this mode of study is pretty useless if you actually want to learn stuff and improve your knowledge of something, as it is forgotten very quickly (putting off sleep effectively means you're working mostly off of short-term memory).

[DeuceWallaces]

Better than studying properly? No. Better than nothing - of course.

Yes X 1000

Don't believe I've stayed up all night studying. Maybe working on a paper or something if I had to work the day before but never studying for a test.

Sleep deprivation + test = bad idea

[fiddy]

Yes X 1000

Don't believe I've stayed up all night studying. Maybe working on a paper or something if I had to work the day before but never studying for a test.

Sleep deprivation + test = bad idea
modafinil says hi, piracetam work as well, from not-so-good substance adderall and ritalin work, too

[DeuceWallaces]

modafinil says hi, piracetam work as well, from not-so-good substance adderall and ritalin work, too

You can take black beauties and stay awake for days but it doesn't mean it's a good idea or safe.

[NoGunzJustSkillz]

Better than studying properly? No. Better than nothing - of course.
:applause:

[Joyner82reload]

Used to swear by them for memorization exams, i.e. Bio or general classes. Doesn't really work with my Chem classes. Had a 4.0 for a long time, at a 3.83 now. Although now I generally study for 6-8 hours a day, but that's because I actually enjoy the material and strive to learn as much as possible. I literally roflstomp exams these days where as I used to scrape by with a high B or low A.

During my freshman-1st semester junior year, I would say I pulled well over 100 all nighters. And many of those were staying up for 30+ hours popping addy's every 6 hours. But you can SERIOUSLY fvck up if you overestimate how much time you have and halfway dick around during that all nighter. That's how you end up making a 50 on an exam and having to drop a class.

[Overdrive]

Yes, they do work, but I once failed miserably.

[oarabbus]

Used to swear by them for memorization exams, i.e. Bio or general classes. Doesn't really work with my Chem classes. Had a 4.0 for a long time, at a 3.83 now. Although now I generally study for 6-8 hours a day, but that's because I actually enjoy the material and strive to learn as much as possible. I literally roflstomp exams these days where as I used to scrape by with a high B or low A.

During my freshman-1st semester junior year, I would say I pulled well over 100 all nighters. And many of those were staying up for 30+ hours popping addy's every 6 hours. But you can SERIOUSLY fvck up if you overestimate how much time you have and halfway dick around during that all nighter. That's how you end up making a 50 on an exam and having to drop a class.

The **** dude?

There are about 261 week days in the year and most schools have around 3 months of break all combined to ~180 school days.

If you pulled 100 all nighters for 180 school days you were doing it wrong

[GimmeThat]

why else would such a large population of the student body do it.?

[DeuceWallaces]

Used to swear by them for memorization exams, i.e. Bio or general classes. Doesn't really work with my Chem classes. Had a 4.0 for a long time, at a 3.83 now. Although now I generally study for 6-8 hours a day, but that's because I actually enjoy the material and strive to learn as much as possible. I literally roflstomp exams these days where as I used to scrape by with a high B or low A.

During my freshman-1st semester junior year, I would say I pulled well over 100 all nighters. And many of those were staying up for 30+ hours popping addy's every 6 hours. But you can SERIOUSLY fvck up if you overestimate how much time you have and halfway dick around during that all nighter. That's how you end up making a 50 on an exam and having to drop a class.

That's ****ing retarded. I'd rather be a C student if having an A average meant constant all nighters and copious amounts of amphetamines.

[NBAplayoffs2001]

The **** dude?

There are about 261 week days in the year and most schools have around 3 months of break all combined to ~180 school days.

If you pulled 100 all nighters for 180 school days you were doing it wrong

Just spat out my dinner :lol

[Demon Lizard]

They worked for me.

[Joyner82reload]

The **** dude?

There are about 261 week days in the year and most schools have around 3 months of break all combined to ~180 school days.

If you pulled 100 all nighters for 180 school days you were doing it wrong

Not sure if srs....:biggums:

4 classes a semester, 3 exams for each=12 nights
Writing lab reports=4-10 all nighters depending on the lab, Quantitative chemistry for instance is a BITCH. 20 page lab reports with detailed formulas/equations typed up took 5-8 hours easy.

*5 semesters..there you go

[Joyner82reload]

That's ****ing retarded. I'd rather be a C student if having an A average meant constant all nighters and copious amounts of amphetamines.

Well the only reason I had to stay up all nights is because I would NEVER study, other than doing homework once, prior to the night before an exam. It was my own fault, and in retrospect I wish I could have done what I do now. But I was too busy with fraternity/girls/partying to care about actually researching what I learn now.

At this point in my college career, I literally research scientific articles in detail to discover essentially every mechanism/process of what I'm studying.

It's actually fairly amusing because I generally know more than all of my lecturers about many of the specific subjects they're teaching. For instance I put my genetics/genomics professors to shame when it comes down to the mechanisms behind what they teach. Of course knowing stuff like the specific ATPases that form the subunits of the protein complexes responsible for chromatin condensation during Prophase is not his job. His job is to be able to explain in brief detail the purpose/general processes of mitosis. Well actually that's not his job either. His job is really to research, lectures are fcking stupid to begin with and pointless in most sciences. A giant waste of time that would be better spent studying on ones own, you can learn 2-3X the material in that span of time.

[DeuceWallaces]

Well the only reason I had to stay up all nights is because I would NEVER study, other than doing homework once, prior to the night before an exam. It was my own fault, and in retrospect I wish I could have done what I do now. But I was too busy with fraternity/girls/partying to care about actually researching what I learn now.

At this point in my college career, I literally research scientific articles in detail to discover essentially every mechanism/process of what I'm studying.

It's actually fairly amusing because I generally know more than all of my lecturers about many of the specific subjects they're teaching. For instance I put my genetics/genomics professors to shame when it comes down to the mechanisms behind what they teach. Of course knowing stuff like the specific ATPases that form the subunits of the protein complexes responsible for chromatin condensation during Prophase is not his job. His job is to be able to explain in brief detail the purpose/general processes of mitosis. Well actually that's not his job either. His job is really to research, lectures are fcking stupid to begin with and pointless in most sciences. A giant waste of time that would be better spent studying on ones own, you can learn 2-3X the material in that span of time.

No, that's retarded and you're clearly delusional. There is a 0% chance you know about any subject more than any professor teaching one of your classes. I repeat. 0%.

[Joyner82reload]

No, that's retarded and you're clearly delusional. There is a 0% chance you know about any subject more than any professor teaching one of your classes. I repeat. 0%.

Because Genetics=Biochemistry :rolleyes:

[ace23]

During my freshman-1st semester junior year, I would say I pulled well over 100 all nighters. And many of those were staying up for 30+ hours popping addy's every 6 hours.
:roll:

[Dresta]

No, that's retarded and you're clearly delusional. There is a 0% chance you know about any subject more than any professor teaching one of your classes. I repeat. 0%.
That's ****ing nonsense. I don't know the guy, and so can't comment in his case, but to say a student cannot know 'about any subject more than any professor teaching one of your classes' is patently idiotic. Just because you never put the time in to go well beyond the taught syllabus, doesn't mean others don't do otherwise. Moreover, many teachers teach stuff they really don't know that well, as they just needed to find someone for that particular module - they most definitely do not always teach their speciality, which is after all, what most of their time is spent on.

There are a few very intelligent students out there, and plenty of irredeemably unintelligent professors. Kingsley Amis, who was a very good and knowledgeable teacher and professor, said that any class that doesn't contain a student who makes the teacher a bit afraid due to his extensive knowledge of the subject, and intelligence, is a class that won't get the most out of the teacher.

[DeuceWallaces]

That's ****ing nonsense. I don't know the guy, and so can't comment in his case, but to say a student cannot know 'about any subject more than any professor teaching one of your classes' is patently idiotic. Just because you never put the time in to go well beyond the taught syllabus, doesn't mean others don't do otherwise. Moreover, many teachers teach stuff they really don't know that well, as they just needed to find someone for that particular module - they most definitely do not always teach their speciality, which is after all, what most of their time is spent on.

There are a few very intelligent students out there, and plenty of irredeemably unintelligent professors. Kingsley Amis, who was a very good and knowledgeable teacher and professor, said that any class that doesn't contain a student who makes the teacher a bit afraid due to his extensive knowledge of the subject, and intelligence, is a class that won't get the most out of the teacher.

You're an idiot if you believe that. Some kid 2 years into his/her bio degree knows nothing compared to someone who has a PhD and worked most likely a decade in the field.

[Joyner82reload]

You're an idiot if you believe that. Some kid 2 years into his/her bio degree knows nothing compared to someone who has a PhD and worked most likely a decade in the field.

First off, I'm a senior double majoring in Biochemistry and general Biology. Secondly, LOL @ you thinking every professor has infinite knowledge of the field they are teaching. There is a reason you have some professors teaching multiple courses within a discipline. It's because the University needs teachers to feel that criteria, not because they are all knowing in that department. Most universities are focused on research within the science department, they could give a flying fvck about how well they lecture as long as the grades fit gaussian distribution.

Then again, you believe it's superior to put in no effort and end up a C student than bust your ass and make A's. So I'm not surprised that your mind is blown by the knowledge possessed by your teachers.

[Overdrive]

You're an idiot if you believe that. Some kid 2 years into his/her bio degree knows nothing compared to someone who has a PhD and worked most likely a decade in the field.

That may apply in very specialized studies with specialized teachers. Put wide fields like biology/chemistry/physics use scientists who actually work on totally different long time projects, but hold certain lectures, because they're part of the teaching staff of a university.

We had some programming in our curriculum and the guy teaching it was a Dr.rer.nat, which is a title here for someone acquiring a DDr in natural sciences, in his case tech maths and some field of physics. He knew what he had to teach, but not much further computing background. A guy in our group was a total computing geek and he basically helped the prof explaining what's going on to the students.

[DeuceWallaces]

First off, I'm a senior double majoring in Biochemistry and general Biology. Secondly, LOL @ you thinking every professor has infinite knowledge of the field they are teaching. There is a reason you have some professors teaching multiple courses within a discipline. It's because the University needs teachers to feel that criteria, not because they are all knowing in that department. Most universities are focused on research within the science department, they could give a flying fvck about how well they lecture as long as the grades fit gaussian distribution.

Then again, you believe it's superior to put in no effort and end up a C student than bust your ass and make A's. So I'm not surprised that your mind is blown by the knowledge possessed by your teachers.

That doesn't mean shit. Any professor in their general field, teaching in their general field, makes you look retarded even if they're not teaching some 400 level class in their specific research area. The fact you think otherwise is ****ing hilarious. The first part of becoming a good scientist is admitting what you don't know.

If you ever get your shit together enough to make it through a MS and a PhD you'll look back in embarrassment at these posts. Although, it's more likely with your attitude that you'll never make it there to begin with.

[ace23]

What DW is saying is true for the most part, but there are obviously exceptions. Maybe Joyner is an exception. He's probably not, but who knows? There's no use in arguing over this. Lol

[Balla_Status]

Yes, but only if you haven't looked over all the material at least once before and you don't really pay too much attention in class.

Sometimes you just have too many tests/work the previous days that you have to do the all nighter (engineering major). Done it for physics and thermodynamics. I only lasted until 4 am for physics but saw the sunlight for my thermo exam.

Ended up getting Cs in both so I reckon it worked.

[Balla_Status]

I disagree. Muscle memory is not the same as learning terms.

Depends on the class bro. You're not learning terms when you're doing calculus/diff eq.

[Balla_Status]

What DW is saying is true for the most part, but there are obviously exceptions. Maybe Joyner is an exception. He's probably not, but who knows? There's no use in arguing over this. Lol

I think joyner may have included his drawing of paris as one of his all nighters.

[shlver]

What DW is saying is true for the most part, but there are obviously exceptions. Maybe Joyner is an exception. He's probably not, but who knows? There's no use in arguing over this. Lol
He's not. Joyner admits he never studied then makes the assertion he "generally knows more than all of his lecturers." Joyner sounds pretty delusional. Reciting the atpases involved in chromatin condensation is completely useless knowledge. Real knowledge is understanding the physical principles behind experimental design and being able to manipulate/troubleshoot the experiment.

[shlver]

No all nighters do not work. You learn through exposure, and it's obvious to know the material you should expose yourself to it multiple times. When you cram all night the information is not retained long term and you are operating on short term memory while sleep deprived. You also experience elevation of certain brain chemicals that cause oxidative stress from sleep deprivation.

You will perform much better studying properly by reviewing and consolidating your notes the same day of the lecture.

[Heilige]

No all nighters do not work. You learn through exposure, and it's obvious to know the material you should expose yourself to it multiple times. When you cram all night the information is not retained long term and you are operating on short term memory while sleep deprived. You also experience elevation of certain brain chemicals that cause oxidative stress from sleep deprivation.

You will perform much better studying properly by reviewing and consolidating your notes the same day of the lecture.


I see where you're coming from. How was Peyton Manning able to do this if all nighters do not work:


To understand where Manning is today, we have to go to the Colts practice facility on West 56th Street in Indianapolis in 1998. When Manning reports after being picked first in the draft, his position coach Bruce Arians sets up a video machine in Manning's hotel room. The night before Manning's first minicamp practice, Arians watches tape with Manning until 3 a.m. Finally, Arians goes to bed. Manning, apparently, does not. The next day at the practice facility, Manning steps in the huddle and knows every play. Doesn't even use a wristband.

"I don't know if he even slept that night," said Arians, who now is the head coach of the Cardinals. "When he stepped in the huddle and started calling everything, the rest of the guys just stopped. It was amazing."

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/91281874

[shlver]

I see where you're coming from. How was Peyton Manning able to do this if all nighters do not work:



http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/91281874
That example is completely irrelevant.

[Heilige]

That example is completely irrelevant.


How was Peyton able to do something like that though? I think it's impressive!

[Joyner82reload]

He's not. Joyner admits he never studied then makes the assertion he "generally knows more than all of his lecturers." Joyner sounds pretty delusional. Reciting the atpases involved in chromatin condensation is completely useless knowledge. Real knowledge is understanding the physical principles behind experimental design and being able to manipulate/troubleshoot the experiment.

You should probably thoroughly read my post. I stated that I used to pull all nighters, which was a consequence of my lack of studying up until that point. I generally put in 6-8 hours a day, 7 days a week at this point.

[shlver]

How was Peyton able to do something like that though? I think it's impressive!
Because he wants to show his team he has the motivation to win. He's a competitor and he leads by example by showing effort. I still don't see how that example has anything to do with the effectiveness of pulling an all nighter for an exam.

[Heilige]

Because he wants to show his team he has the motivation to win. He's a competitor and he leads by example by showing effort. I still don't see how that example has anything to do with the effectiveness of pulling an all nighter for an exam.


You said to know the material you should expose yourself to it multiple times. From my understanding Peyton Manning did not expose himself to the material he needed to learn multiple times. He was up all night going over the material and knew it well the next day.

[ace23]

You said to know the material you should expose yourself to it multiple times. From my understanding Peyton Manning did not expose himself to the material he needed to learn multiple times. He was up all night going over the material and knew it well the next day.
And he would have probably known it better had he gone over it several times over a period of a week...

...
...
...

[shlver]

You said to know the material you should expose yourself to it multiple times. From my understanding Peyton Manning did not expose himself to the material he needed to learn multiple times. He was up all night going over the material and knew it well the next day.
Nothing in the article would make someone assume peyton exposed himself to the information only that night. Pretty much a worthless debate so I'm going to stop responding to you on this example.

Does studying during an all nighter make you retain some information? Of course, but again your brain is performing under conditions that are definitely not ideal. So no in the context of effective study habits for exams, no, all nighters do not work(which wholly depends on your definition of "work"). It is clearly a case of bad study habits if a student finds it necessary to deprive themselves of sleep to study.

[shlver]

You should probably thoroughly read my post. I stated that I used to pull all nighters, which was a consequence of my lack of studying up until that point. I generally put in 6-8 hours a day, 7 days a week at this point.
I did read your post thoroughly. You come off as delusional and it is completely idiotic to think you put anyone's knowledge to shame because you know something they don't.

[Heilige]

Nothing in the article would make someone assume peyton exposed himself to the information only that night. Pretty much a worthless debate so I'm going to stop responding to you on this example.

Does studying during an all nighter make you retain some information? Of course, but again your brain is performing under conditions that are definitely not ideal. So no in the context of effective study habits for exams, no, all nighters do not work(which wholly depends on your definition of "work"). It is clearly a case of bad study habits if a student finds it necessary to deprive themselves of sleep to study.


ok, thanks for clarifying. How many hours a day should one study? I find it hard to study even two hours a day. Just two hours is mentally straining for me. I am lazy though and have a lot of issues.

[shlver]

ok, thanks for clarifying. How many hours a day should one study? I find it hard to study even two hours a day. Just two hours is mentally straining for me. I am lazy though and have a lot of issues.
It's different for every person. Personally, I did about 2 hrs/day the first years of medical school. Go to your student disability center and they will help you find good study habits that work for you.

[Dresta]

You're an idiot if you believe that. Some kid 2 years into his/her bio degree knows nothing compared to someone who has a PhD and worked most likely a decade in the field.
Jesus Christ, you are completely blind to the capacity of the human mind in so many individual instances, which can easily be verified historically, and also its ability to undertake mature study at a far earlier age than you apparently envisage. You seem to forget that many people used to attend University at the age of 14 (David Hume went @ 10, or 11), and by 23 he was writing what would show him to be perhaps the greatest student of human beings and human nature up to that point in time - it also provides the basis for a lot of modern neuroscience (e.g. this quote: “Reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them” - we can accept this now, but it was pretty unfathomable then).

This is only one example of what has been a recurrent theme historically, even today:

http://moneymorning.com/2012/06/19/these-teen-geniuses-are-on-a-path-to-change-the-world/

These kids have likely already studied the equivalent to a degree (or more) before they've even reached university. You can access lectures on all subjects from all over the world now (the only thing you won't have is access to is academic journals and the latest research - though if their parents are academics or scientists this wouldn't be a problem - there's always been copies of Nature and Cell and Science lying around when i was growing up for this reason). Though you are apparently a scientist, i would likely have been to more scientific meetings than you before i even went to University. Someone with my background, in fact, would not even need to be that intelligent (he would only require a keen interest in biochemistry), to gain more knowledge than an undergrad lecturer in one particular area (think of the resources and sheer time such a person would have access to - to pretend they could never be more knowledgable when it comes to a single thing than a middling lecturer is ****ing idiotic, and betrays your lack of imagination, your unwillingness to even acknowledge the existence of people superior to yourself). I regret rebelling against a scientific career when i was younger, as it would have made my life so much easier, and been an opportunity to do something impressive, but teenagers usually aren't ones for foresight, unfortunately. I would also say the culture surrounding teens these days does not help at all either, as it is pervaded by a juvenile kind of snobbish anti-intellectualism. Also, being patronised by mediocre academics with attitudes like yours probably doesn't lend much encouragement to the few with the real interest and passion for knowledge, either.

Worked a decade in 'the field'? PhD's only last that long in the US generally (or if you're slow), and that's not a sign of superior learning, more the exploitation of students by their supervisors, who find it advantageous to keep them around for longer. That's called being stunted, not simply extra years of experience. Before that, what? They may have taken a degree that was barely even related (you can move from Sports Science, to Brain & Cognitive Science, for example), and a two-year research masters that will be related, but certainly not an in-depth study of what is undertaken at PhD level. Moreover, many of the best researchers don't like teaching, so don't teach, or only take postgrads or final year undergrads, and you often get some teaching outside of their specialty as well (i've seen this first hand, and referred to me by the many people i know who work as academic staff at Universities).

Paul Samuelson still had everything wrong in his 70s. Basically, your worship of age and experience on its own is foolish and based on faulty logic, unsubstantiated by human experience. The way you are so awed by a PhD! As if that means anything! So many failed scientists have PhDs you know. As far back as I can remember both my parents were team leaders, running their own labs, but that doesn't make them infallible. They are human and susceptible to human weaknesses like everyone else. In fact, when it comes to the brain, my father often calls asking me for advice. So that poses a little conundrum for your foolish declaration, because he has 30+ years of experience.

edit: i should also add that you don't even need much knowledge of the natural sciences to question the epistemological basis of a lot of scientific findings, and also to contest many of the metaphysical/ethical assumptions that drive many scientific prescriptions, particularly when it comes to government policy (real science cannot make value judgements). All you need for that is a bit of logic and an ability to recognise inconsistencies.

[cuad]

It worked for me last semester many times, but I'm naturally smart as ****, so don't try it. You couldn't do it like I do it. Anyway, I hated it.

[DeuceWallaces]

[QUOTE=Dresta]Jesus Christ, you are completely blind to the capacity of the human mind in so many individual instances, which can easily be verified historically, and also its ability to undertake mature study at a far earlier age than you apparently envisage. You seem to forget that many people used to attend University at the age of 14 (David Hume went @ 10, or 11), and by 23 he was writing what would show him to be perhaps the greatest student of human beings and human nature up to that point in time - it also provides the basis for a lot of modern neuroscience (e.g. this quote:

[FKAri]

Better than studying properly? No. Better than nothing - of course.

This.

There was one course for which I hadn't seen 40% of the study material 24 hour before the final. I pulled an all nighter and ended up with a B. It was probably the most productive all night study session I've had.

[Practice?]

They clearly can work for passing a test, but generally have been shown to be bad for retaining info long term.