Case Interview Practice Log Template

Case Practice Log: [Your name, recruiting season]

A log for consulting case practice: one row per case, a six-criterion scoring rubric, partner feedback, and computed progress (weighted score, moving average and trend) with Excel formulas. It is for MBA students preparing for case interviews who want to practise deliberately rather than count cases. Source basis: research on deliberate practice (Ericsson, Krampe and Tesch-Römer 1993) and on effective learning techniques (Dunlosky et al. 2013), written in our own words. Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked Example. This is a preparation aid; no firm uses or endorses this rubric.

Document control

1. Why log deliberately

Ericsson, Krampe and Tesch-Römer (1993) found that expert performance grows with deliberate practice: tasks chosen to stretch a specific weakness, immediate feedback and repetition, rather than with the sheer amount of routine experience or play. Dunlosky et al. (2013) rate practice testing and distributed (spaced) practice as the most useful learning techniques across many studies. A case log puts both into a routine: every case is a test, the rubric gives specific feedback, and the review spaces the work on each weakness over several weeks.

The common failure is the opposite: doing many cases with friendly partners, feeling busy, and repeating the same mistakes. The log makes that visible.

2. Scoring rubric

Score each criterion from 1 to 5. Weights reflect how much each skill usually decides a case; adjust them for the formats your target firms use (for example, raise "Data" for interviewer-led cases with several exhibits).

The weighted score is $\text{Score} = \sum_{k} w_k s_k$ where $s_k$ is the score on criterion $k$ and the weights $w_k$ sum to 1.

Spreadsheet layout used by every formula in this log. Column A holds the case number (1, 2, 3 and so on), column B the case ID, columns C to H the scores Def, Str, Hyp, Math, Data and Syn, and column I the weighted score. The weights sit in C3:H3 and the cases start in row 5. The weighted score for the first case is =SUMPRODUCT(C5:H5,$C$3:$H$3), copied down.

3. Case log

Feedback notes (one block per case)

4. Progress (computed)

From the eight Example cases above (recomputed from the rubric weights):

Average score by criterion

Reading: synthesis has improved but remains the weakest criterion over all cases, tied with hypothesis and data in the last three. With a 20% weight it is the best next focus. The weekly review would assign synthesis drills and an exhibit-heavy interviewer-led case.

Three-case moving averages for cases 3 to 8: 2.55, 2.88, 3.17, 3.42, 3.60, 3.87 (=AVERAGE(I5:I7) copied down).

5. Weekly review routine

1. Update the progress table and the chart.
2. Identify the weakest criterion over the last three cases, weighted by importance.
3. Choose two drills for it and one case type that exercises it.
4. Plan the partners: mix classmates, second-years and coaches so scores are calibrated.
5. Space your practice: alternate case types (interleaving) rather than doing five profitability cases in a row.

6. Self-test

1. Compute the weighted score for scores Def 4, Str 3, Hyp 4, Math 5, Data 3, Syn 4 with the weights in section 2.
2. What Excel function returns the trend per case, and what are its arguments?
3. Why choose one focus per case rather than working on everything?
4. Your scores are high with friends and low with coaches. What does that suggest?
5. Name two learning techniques Dunlosky et al. (2013) rated highly that this log uses.

Sources and further reading

• Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., and Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363-406.
• Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., and Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4-58.
• Related templates: mba/mba-case-interview-prep, mba/mba-market-sizing-drills.

Answer key

1. 3.85: =SUMPRODUCT({4,3,4,5,3,4},{0.1,0.2,0.15,0.2,0.15,0.2}).
2. =SLOPE(known_y's, known_x's): the weighted scores as y and the case numbers as x.
3. Deliberate practice needs a specific goal and feedback on it; spreading attention across six criteria dilutes both.
4. Scoring is not calibrated across partners; friends may score generously. Weight the trend with coach scores and agree the rubric anchors with every partner.
5. Practice testing (each case is a test) and distributed practice (spaced work on each weakness), the two techniques Dunlosky et al. rated high utility. Interleaving case types, rated moderate utility, is a third the log uses.

Revision history

Standard and licence note

Based on research on deliberate practice and effective learning techniques. The rubric, example log and numbers are original and fictional; no firm uses or endorses this rubric, and this template is not affiliated with any firm or school. Template licence: MIT.