I apply that technique everywhere. For example, when working the bug list, I'll solve the easy problems first, and the toughest last. That also maximizes the score, as the bug submitter's only care is if the bug is fixed, not how hard it is to fix.

(If the reports come in faster than they can be fixed, of course one can never catch up regardless of the algorithm.)

I remember something similar on the LSAT. Odious practice; if you get a wicked problem in a professional context, you don't have the option of just blowing it off. Of course, you could say it's about learning to prioritize with limited resources, but that's meta-gaming the applicants and selecting for corner-cutters. There's a place for corner cutting; in emergency situations it's sometimes the right thing to do. The problem is that selecting for corner cutters also incentivizes exploiting the system for less noble motives.

It filters people into:

- those who don't manage time efficiently by investing too much energy on a problem.

- those who did cut the corner and as a result got an edge with a few more questions solved

- the genius ones, who solved everything, in whatever order

If the objective of a test is classifying candidates and time management is one of the metric considered, then this kind of testing pattern absolutely makes sense.

I was one of those who never cut corners and just focused on the problem at hand until failure, and now that I am working and need to get things done I wished my teachers trained me that skill.

People spent ages trying to find their mistake. I was one of the first to finish because I quickly concluded I wasn't going to find the mistake (after checking a mere 3 times).

Why?

Because he self-identifies with some definition of iq.