# 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.

<!--
Guidance: How to use this template
- Log every live case within 15 minutes of finishing, while your partner's feedback is fresh.
- Score with the rubric in section 2, then pick one focus for the next case. One focus at a time works better than six.
- Review the progress section every week and choose drills from mba/mba-market-sizing-drills or section 7 of mba/mba-case-interview-prep for the weakest criterion.
- Related templates: mba/mba-case-interview-prep, mba/mba-market-sizing-drills, mba/mba-fit-stories, mba/mba-recruiting-plan, mba/mba-error-log, mba/mba-learning-journal
-->

## Document control

<!-- Guidance: One log per season. Keep partner names so you can ask the same people to re-test a weakness. -->

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Document ID | [CPL-2026] |
| Candidate | [Your name] |
| Season and target firms | [Season, Firm 1, Firm 2] |
| First interview date (T) | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Target weighted score before T | [4.0 average over the last three cases] |
| Reviewed by | [Case coach or second-year mentor] |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |

## 1. Why log deliberately

<!-- Guidance: The log exists to choose the next practice focus, not to record a number of cases. -->

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

<!-- Guidance: Agree the rubric with your partners before you start, so scores mean the same across partners. Score 3 means "acceptable in a first round", not "average". -->

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).

| Criterion | Weight | 1 (weak) | 3 (acceptable) | 5 (strong) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Def: problem definition | 10% | Starts without restating the objective | Restates objective and asks basic questions | Pins down objective, measure, time frame and constraints |
| Str: structure | 20% | Generic list, overlaps | MECE but standard | Tailored, MECE, prioritised, client-ready |
| Hyp: hypothesis and prioritisation | 15% | No hypothesis | States one but does not update | States, tests and revises a hypothesis openly |
| Math: quantitative work | 20% | Errors, silent arithmetic | Correct with prompting | Set up aloud, correct, units and sanity check |
| Data: charts and exhibits | 15% | Misreads units or axes | Reads correctly, finds a fact | Finds the insight and links it to the hypothesis |
| Syn: synthesis and communication | 20% | Recaps the analysis | Gives an answer with some support | Answer first, numbers, risks, next steps, in 60 seconds |

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

<!-- Guidance: Write the case in your own words; never copy a firm's published case into a shared document. Mark the source as "partner", "casebook (title)" or "own". -->

| Case ID | Date | Partner | Case type and industry | Format | Def | Str | Hyp | Math | Data | Syn | Weighted | One focus for next case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CPL-001 *(Example)* | 2026-08-25 | Amara O. | Profitability, retail | Candidate-led | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2.30 | Tailor the structure to the question |
| CPL-002 *(Example)* | 2026-08-27 | Jonas W. | Market entry, robotics | Interviewer-led | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2.45 | State a hypothesis after the structure |
| CPL-003 *(Example)* | 2026-08-30 | Priya S. | Operations, hospital | Candidate-led | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2.90 | Synthesis: answer first |
| CPL-004 *(Example)* | 2026-09-02 | Amara O. | Pricing, consumer goods | Interviewer-led | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3.30 | Read exhibit units aloud |
| CPL-005 *(Example)* | 2026-09-05 | Diego R. | M&A, industrial | Candidate-led | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3.30 | Percent math under time |
| CPL-006 *(Example)* | 2026-09-08 | Jonas W. | Growth strategy, software | Interviewer-led | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3.65 | Revise hypothesis when data disagree |
| CPL-007 *(Example)* | 2026-09-11 | Second-year coach | Cost reduction, airline | Candidate-led | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3.85 | Link each exhibit to the hypothesis |
| CPL-008 *(Example)* | 2026-09-14 | Second-year coach | New product, healthcare | Interviewer-led | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4.10 | Keep pace: finish in 30 minutes |
| [CPL-009] | YYYY-MM-DD | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |

**Feedback notes (one block per case)**

| Case ID | What went well | What to change | Exact moment it went wrong | Drill assigned |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CPL-003 *(Example)* | Clear patient-flow structure | Synthesis listed findings in order | Final minute: started with "So first we looked at" | Three 60-second syntheses a day for a week |
| [CPL-009] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |

## 4. Progress (computed)

<!-- Guidance: Read the trend and the weakest criterion, not single scores. A partner who scores harshly can make one case look worse than it was. -->

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

| Measure | Value | Excel (layout in section 2, cases in rows 5 to 12) |
|---|---|---|
| Average of the first three cases | 2.55 | `=AVERAGE(I5:I7)` |
| Average of the last three cases | 3.87 | `=AVERAGE(I10:I12)` |
| Change | +1.32 | `=AVERAGE(I10:I12)-AVERAGE(I5:I7)` |
| Trend per case (least-squares slope) | +0.26 | `=SLOPE(I5:I12,A5:A12)` |
| Three-case moving average, latest | 3.87 | `=AVERAGE(I10:I12)` |
| Target met (4.0 over the last three cases)? | Not yet | `=IF(AVERAGE(I10:I12)>=4,"Met","Not yet")` |

**Average score by criterion**

| Criterion | All eight cases | Last three cases | Excel (all cases) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Def | 3.88 | 4.33 | `=AVERAGE(C5:C12)` |
| Str | 3.38 | 4.00 | `=AVERAGE(D5:D12)` |
| Hyp | 3.00 | 3.67 | `=AVERAGE(E5:E12)` |
| Math | 3.38 | 4.00 | `=AVERAGE(F5:F12)` |
| Data | 3.13 | 3.67 | `=AVERAGE(G5:G12)` |
| Syn | 2.88 | 3.67 | `=AVERAGE(H5:H12)` |

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).

```vega-lite
{
  "$schema": "https://vega.github.io/schema/vega-lite/v5.json",
  "description": "Weighted case score per practice case with three-case moving average (fictional example log)",
  "width": "container",
  "height": 220,
  "data": {
    "values": [
      {"case": 1, "series": "Weighted score", "score": 2.30},
      {"case": 2, "series": "Weighted score", "score": 2.45},
      {"case": 3, "series": "Weighted score", "score": 2.90},
      {"case": 4, "series": "Weighted score", "score": 3.30},
      {"case": 5, "series": "Weighted score", "score": 3.30},
      {"case": 6, "series": "Weighted score", "score": 3.65},
      {"case": 7, "series": "Weighted score", "score": 3.85},
      {"case": 8, "series": "Weighted score", "score": 4.10},
      {"case": 3, "series": "Three-case moving average", "score": 2.55},
      {"case": 4, "series": "Three-case moving average", "score": 2.88},
      {"case": 5, "series": "Three-case moving average", "score": 3.17},
      {"case": 6, "series": "Three-case moving average", "score": 3.42},
      {"case": 7, "series": "Three-case moving average", "score": 3.60},
      {"case": 8, "series": "Three-case moving average", "score": 3.87}
    ]
  },
  "mark": {"type": "line", "point": true},
  "encoding": {
    "x": {"field": "case", "type": "ordinal", "title": "Practice case"},
    "y": {"field": "score", "type": "quantitative", "title": "Score (1 to 5)", "scale": {"domain": [1, 5]}},
    "color": {"field": "series", "type": "nominal", "title": null}
  }
}
```

## 5. Weekly review routine

<!-- Guidance: Fifteen minutes every week, same day. Skip it and the log turns into a diary. -->

```mermaid
flowchart LR
  A["Log each case with rubric scores"] --> B["Weekly: compute averages and trend"]
  B --> C["Pick the weakest weighted criterion"]
  C --> D["Assign drills and a matching case type"]
  D --> E["Ask a partner to test that criterion"]
  E --> A
```

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

<!-- Guidance: Answer, then check the answer key. -->

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

<!-- Guidance: The rubric is original; adapt it, but keep criteria stable within a season so scores are comparable. -->

- 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

<!-- Guidance: Check your arithmetic with the Excel formula. -->

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

<!-- Guidance: Add a row when you change weights or criteria, because scores before and after are not comparable. -->

| Version | Date | Author | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [Name] | First version from template |
| [0.2] | YYYY-MM-DD | [Name] | [Weights adjusted for interviewer-led formats] |

## 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.