The error-log method for SQE mocks

Most people mark a mock, wince at the score, and move on to the next practice set. That's the single biggest waste of a mock exam. The mistakes are the most useful thing you produced that day, and skimming past them throws away exactly the information you need to study smarter.

An error log fixes that. It's a simple running record of every question you got wrong, why you got it wrong, and what you'll do differently next time. It takes a few extra minutes per mock and changes what revision actually targets: not "more questions," but the specific gaps a marked script just showed you.

Why reviewing mistakes works better than doing more questions

There's a reflex in exam prep to treat volume as the goal: more questions, more mocks, more hours. Volume matters, but it's not the same as targeted practice, and research on memory points at why.

Retrieval practice, the act of pulling an answer out of memory rather than re-reading it, is one of the most consistently replicated findings in learning science. Roediger and Karpicke's 2006 studies found that students who tested themselves on material retained it substantially better a week later than students who simply reread the same material, even though the rereading group felt more confident at the time. Testing yourself beats rereading, and that's one reason mocks are worth doing at all.

But a mock only delivers that benefit the moment you attempt it. The bigger gain shows up afterwards, when you find out which retrieval attempts failed and why. That's a second, distinct kind of learning: not testing yourself, but analysing the test.

Cognitive scientists sometimes call effortful, mistake-revealing practice a "desirable difficulty," a term from Robert Bjork's research on how learning that feels harder in the moment can produce stronger long-term retention than practice that feels smooth and easy. A wrong answer is uncomfortable, but it's also a precise signal, far more specific than "study more." The catch is that the signal only helps if you capture it, and most people let the pattern of errors evaporate within a day or two of marking a mock. An error log is a way of not losing that information.

What an error log actually is

An error log is a running list, one row per wrong answer, that captures four things:

1. The question or topic you got wrong.
2. What you answered, and what the correct answer was.
3. Why you got it wrong (a reasoning gap, a misread question, a knowledge gap, running out of time).
4. What you'll do about it before the next mock.

That's it. It can live in a spreadsheet, a notebook, or a simple table. The format matters less than the habit of filling it in every time, not just after a bad mock.

A single row might look like this:

Topic: [subject area] | My answer: B | Correct answer: D | Why: misread the question stem, missed a qualifying word | Fix: slow down on stems with "except" or "unless"

Over several mocks, the log stops being a list of one-off mistakes and starts showing patterns. That's the actual payoff.

The four reasons you get a question wrong

Not all wrong answers come from the same place, and lumping them together is why "just do more questions" often doesn't fix a weak score. It's worth sorting every mistake into one of four buckets.

Knowledge gaps. You didn't know the material, full stop. No exam technique fixes this; it needs more study time on that specific topic.

Reasoning errors. You knew the relevant material but applied it wrongly, or made a logical slip under pressure. This needs practice applying knowledge to new scenarios, not just reviewing notes.

Misreads. You knew the answer but the question tricked you: a qualifying word buried mid-sentence, a scenario that looked familiar but had one detail changed. This needs a different fix again (slowing down, rereading stems, flagging trap words).

Time pressure. You got it wrong, or didn't finish, because you were rushing. This points at pacing practice, not content review.

The fix for each bucket is different, which is why sorting matters. Someone whose ten wrong answers are mostly misreads under time pressure wastes study hours rereading notes instead. Someone whose ten wrong answers are mostly knowledge gaps in one topic has found their next study session before opening a textbook.

This kind of self-assessment, working out why you got something wrong rather than just that you did, is sometimes called metacognitive monitoring in the learning-science literature. An error log is a low-effort way to practise it after every mock, rather than relying on a vague gut feeling about "the topics I'm bad at."

Turning the log into a revision list

An error log only pays off if it changes what you study next. After a handful of mocks, look back through the entries and ask two questions.

Which topics show up more than once? A single wrong answer on a topic might be a fluke, a bad guess, an unlucky question. The same topic appearing three or four times across different mocks is a genuine gap, not noise.

Which error type dominates? If most entries are misreads, more content revision won't move your score much. If most are knowledge gaps clustered in one or two areas, that's exactly where the next study block should go.

From there, the log becomes a short, prioritised revision list rather than a vague sense of "I should review everything." A free SQE study planner can hold that list alongside your sitting date and turn it into scheduled sessions, so flagged topics get revision time before the next mock instead of staying a good intention on a spreadsheet.

A few habits that make the method stick

• Fill in the log the same day you mark the mock, while the reasoning is still fresh. A week later, you'll remember the score but not why you picked the wrong option.
• Be specific about the "why." "Didn't know it" and "misread the question" need different fixes, so don't lump them together.
• Review the log before your next mock, not just after it. Skimming your last mistakes for two minutes primes you to watch for the same traps.
• Log right answers you guessed, too. A correct guess on a topic you didn't understand is a gap wearing a disguise.
• Keep it short. A four-column table beats an elaborate system you abandon after two mocks.

None of this replaces doing the mocks in the first place, or working through the syllabus properly; a study system with structured mocks and topic tracking still does the heavy lifting. What an error log adds is the review step most people skip: turning a marked script into a short, honest list of exactly what to fix next, instead of a score you glance at and forget.

Frequently asked questions

What is an error log for exam revision? A running record of every question you get wrong in practice or mock exams: what you answered, the correct answer, why you got it wrong, and what you'll do differently. It turns scattered mistakes into a pattern you can study against.

Why is reviewing mistakes better than just doing more practice questions? Practice questions test you, but reviewing your mistakes is where the specific learning happens. Testing yourself aids retention more than rereading, and analysing why an answer was wrong is a more targeted signal than simply attempting more questions.

How do I know if I got a question wrong because of a knowledge gap or a careless mistake? Sort each wrong answer into one of four categories: knowledge gap, reasoning error, misread question, or time pressure. The category tells you the fix, since knowledge gaps need more study time, misreads need slower reading, and time pressure needs pacing practice.

How often should I update my error log? Ideally the same day you mark a mock, while you still remember your reasoning. Reviewing the log briefly before your next mock also helps, since it primes you to watch for the same traps again.

Does an error log work for SQE1 as well as SQE2? Yes, though what you log will differ. For SQE1's multiple-choice format, most entries fall into the four error-type buckets above. For SQE2's skills-based stations, the "why" column tends to capture technique gaps, like structure or timing, alongside knowledge gaps.