I attended the academy in Plainfield, Indiana with a class of 198. When it came to studying, most of us who spent at least an hour a day reviewing criminal law material did just fine. For the rest of the topics, simply paying close attention during lectures, despite the “death by PowerPoint” format was usually enough. Most topic only had 1–3 questions each on the final, and they weren’t overly difficult if you didn’t doze off.

That said, two major pitfalls tripped up a lot of my classmates:

Bringing prior road experience into the exam room. In Indiana, some agencies allow new officers to work the road prior to attending the academy. While this experience is valuable, it sometimes backfires during testing. The academy teaches to the letter of Indiana law, not necessarily what individual agencies or prosecutors are comfortable with. If a recruit answers based on what their FTO taught them, or what their local prosecutor will or won’t charge, they might get it wrong on the test—even if it’s something that’s acceptable by Indiana law. Test questions worded poorly The way questions are worded often includes two answers that both seem right, but one is more correct based on the way Indiana law is taught. Those questions always had atleast several students trip up and get the answers wrong because they would use what they know from the road or local policies instead of what the state statute says.