To counter your professor opinion. The amount of extra time available as a student that I had to pursue things of interest was in the negative. All academic time was spent getting course content accomplished.
I am a naturally curious individual but time limitations prevent further exploration in most circumstances. Additionally there is a relevancy factor weighed on top of it. If something looks curious I have to pre-determine if I think the time spent pursuing that rabbit hole has any value to it. Granted you never know the outcome - it is alway a gamble.
Well good luck then, in my experience the most free time I've ever had in my life was during college. I squandered massive amounts of that time doing things completely unrelated to education, and I definitely don't regret doing that. College isn't just about book learning after all. But still, BY FAR, college is the time of my life when I had the most free time to do whatever I wanted.
Yeah I hardcore disagree with this. Partly my fault for saying yes too much, partly my work schedule, partly being in a weed out program that really worked you to the bone.
Some semesters I was doing like 70-80 hours a week on average, split between managing clubs, homework, attending class, working part time jobs, studying. One week I remember being busy from 7am to 2am for 6 days straight. a few semesters I had a lot of free time, like second semester of senior year, and first semester of freshman year, but mainly it was the gaps - after midterms, during breaks, where I had obscene amounts of free time.
Interesting. I had a very different experience. Double major, working in two labs simultaneously, active member of local ACM, interned with local startup during the school year, volunteered at a local soup kitchen. All that together was about 50 hours/week. Academics (including homework, studying, etc) was only 25 hrs/week on average. But I was very fortunate to have the advantage of not needing to work, which gave me the freedom to scale back my hours on a particularly busy week.
I learned a lot from my CS classes, but I actually felt like most of the value from the degree came from overhearing random chitchat between professors or other students and the reading more about those ideas and experimenting with them in my free time.
I had quite a lot of free time when in college, but I still feel like I had less time to pursue my interests. Reason being that the course itself was intellectually demanding while also being quite prescribed about what you had to learn. Meaning I ended up using all my mental capacity grinding through a bunch of stuff that my professors wanted me to learn, leaving me with much less time to go off and learn what interested me.
Both before and since I've had more free capacity to pursue learning for it's own sake.
Middle and high school is where a lot of students learn to stop being curious due to a lack of time. College demands far fewer hours per day, but it can be hard to forget what was taught previously.
I have to agree with you. So many of my professors have been vocally disappointed with their students for their lack of intellectual curiosity after it had been beaten out of them through the overstuffed schedules and pointless busy work of K–12.
If you are someone who is on the cusp of a better grade at university then
any
curiosity time is better invested in restudying the past exam papers. I think PhD has more of a curiosity culture
at least in the first year but I
never did one.
Also hard subjects at uni - there is only so much deep thinking you can do per day
It depends on your courseload that semester. When I was taking organic chemistry I would spend a good 8 hours in the library a day monday-thursday on top of class, which would open the weekend up for partying. Wake up at 10 for class at 11, then straight to the library with the occasional break for meals or other classes until 11pm or so, whenever I got too tired to continue. By my senior year when I was just taking interesting electives, I was totally coasting, probably throwing in 2 hours a week in the library in total.
My sense is that your program at school had a light work load - so a difference in experience. My peak workload so far in my life was at college - I had over 40 hours of class time a week which you then have to add on homework, projects and exams. It was a grind.
Since then workload has been intense of course but never comparable. I've had much more time to be able to explore personal interests since college.
Yeah, I wish I'd had "free time" in college. 60-70 hour work weeks were normal - 20 hours a week in class and then a full-time load of courseworks / readings / labs etc. I couldn't afford to take time off on weekends for the first 3.5 years. It was horrendous.
Once I started full-time work it was like a revelation - finally I don't have to work on evenings and weekends! I actually get free time to myself! I can have hobbies!
Where did you study? I was working full time while doing the university... It was HARD... but I was nowhere nearly 40Hs of class a week... unless you do the whole university in 2 years?!
That’s impressive. Between work (30 hours a week) and classes (full time credit load), I’ve never had less free time than when I was in college. And I’m speaking now as someone with 2 young kids and a full time job. Something tells me your experience is not commensurate with the standard college experience. Perhaps you didn’t have a full time job or only took part time credits?
> Something tells me your experience is not commensurate with the standard college experience.
I know very few university students with significant work commitments.
In the US, the stereotypical college student is not also holding down any kind of job. Maybe 5-7 hours of "work study" (light work running the reference desk at the library or working in the dining hall).
Frankly, I doubt the majority could do learn a lot and also work a significant number of job hours.
At a community college, it would be very different - most students also holding down jobs, I would guess. At a flagship state university, I would be very suprised.
Evidence in [1]... about 30% of full time students are working 20+ hours/week. Also apparently I was wrong about the low hours being typical; less than 10% are working but < 10 hours/week.
Yeah, this. I don't have any data to support this, but when I was in school, MOST people didn't have close to full-time jobs. I had a job where I probably worked 10 hours during the week at night and some full 8 hour shifts on the weekends. Most of the people I went to school with (and I would assume, maybe wrongly, that most people in better schools than I went to) didn't work AT ALL while they were in school, it was just those of us less than wealthy folk who actually had to work to have spending money and money to pay for books etc. I don't think my work load was overly demanding, but I was a Comp Sci major, fwiw.
Sounds like you weren’t in a competitive program that constantly tried to get people to drop from college altogether.
I was. Didn’t have anywhere near the free time and the lack of stress I do post-college. Helps that I also make a good chunk of change rather than living off a relatively small stipend in one of the most expensive cities in the world.
This was true for my undergrad, but my graduate program demands almost all of my free time, including weekends. Although, this may mostly be due to a drastic change in field of study from the two (social science to computer science) where I probably have to dedicate more time than those that already have knowledge/experience in this field.
I worked 10-15 hours a week (and somewhat more in the Summer) for about three years of college and can confirm, still the most free time and lowest stress ever. Worst, by a mile, was high school, and I even had a pretty good experience there. Far worse than working a full time job while having multiple young kids, even. Worse than before we had kids but when we made very little money and struggled to pay the bills every month. High school is terrible.
Did you happen to attend a prestigious school? I find that the level of rigor (and corresponding freedom) varies tremendously from program to program.
I did my undergrad at a state school with a middling engineering program, where I had ample free time to explore topics in depth, pursue extracurriculars that taught me far more than my classes, and have a thriving social life.
Contrast that experience to what I saw as a teaching assistant at Georgia Tech: undergrads who are so full of classwork that they're punting on the least-valuable graded assignments, never mind extracurriculars. The level of rigor in courses is much higher, but it presses out freedom to explore independently.
Another datapoint: I competed against GT extracurricular teams during my undergrad years, and we beat them handily almost every time because their students couldn't justify high effort for work that wasn't graded. I once saw a GT team arrive a day late to a competition, work on a robot for three hours at the adjacent table, realize their robot did not work, and drive home without competing.
Nope, nope and nope again. I refute this utterly, as a teaching academic.
Contact hours at most universities are around 2-4 hours per week per 15-credit module. To gain a degree, you have to take 120 credits a year, typically two terms of 4 x 15 credit modules, or 8-16 hours of contact per week maximum with the entire summer off.
You therefore have at least 24 hours a week to study on your own to bring your working week up to 40 hours. Maybe you're working, fair enough. But if you don't have time to study subjects in depth then you need to reduce your working hours. If you can't, then by definition you are not a full-time student.
This is not a personal attack on you. Perhaps you were genuinely studious and spent all your time poring over the coursework. It is a commentary on the whole academic sector where we repeatedly see students do nothing for most of the time and spend the last 2 weeks cramming and putting in substandard assessments, then blame the course material/their lecturers/their anxiety etc. for their poor results. And of course the leadership teams lap it up and tell us to make our courses easier.
No personal attack taken but your experience and points fail to win me over.
The difference probably belies in the rigor of the program. It sounds like you are working in a non-engineering based program. In our engineering programs we had 40 hours of class time + lab time per week.
I had a concurrent arts degree at the same time which is was, in comparison, incredibly light workload - though concurrently it took time away.
The only time that I will say was much lighter was in the final year of undergrad - the course load finally lightened up.
N.B. this whole conversation clearly excludes summer.
> The difference probably belies in the rigor of the program.
This is anecdata of course, but my experience with a top-3 US undergrad aerospace engineering program in the late-90s, early 2000s was around 15-16 hours of class time per week, sometimes increasing to 18-19 or so with labs. Work outside of class was 3x this or maybe 4x around midterms or finals.
You posted this elsewhere in the thread, where I replied that this is not normal in the U.S. Can I ask what university and degree program it is where students have 40 hours of class and lab time per week?
They mentioned engineering programs in their comment.
40 hours isn't normal even for engineering programs. Every engineering program I've looked at has higher course hour and credits required. Obviously I haven't looked at every single engineering program at every engineering school, so there probably exists some counter example showing it's no different than arts or science..
Where I studied, we had one semester with 40.5 hours of lecture, lab, and tutorials. One other semester was around 38 or 39 hours. The rest were in the mid-twenties for lecture, lab, tutorial. My program wasn't the typical engineering program, but all of the other engineering schools where I went (Western Canada) did require more credits and more class hours than science and arts and business programs. There may have been some exceptions with honors programs (meaning they have to take 132 credits vs 120 credits and write a thesis) in arts and science that put them closer to engineering programs, but these have limited enrollment.
Where do you teach? Where I have gone, 1 credit meant 1 hr of lecture and an expected 2 hr of study outside of lecture. Therefore 15 credits means 45 hours a week of study before you get curious about your field.
For example here is Purdue's handbook on credit guidelines:
I see lots of concurring and dissenting opinions here, and will add one more:
For context, I double majored in two adjacent subjects, physics and math. I went to a state school that has a very strong physics program. I also worked in physics lab for the last ~2 years, and graduated a semester early. While I did OK academically, I had no desire to run the gauntlet again in grad school, and left to work in tech.
I have never, ever, been as a busy as I was in college, nor do I ever want to be. I think that's a good thing! I have much more time to explore things that don't pan out, to do things I know are not "productive" (i.e, play video games), and am generally happier.
Apart from quality of life improvements, I think there are additional financial and intellectual benefits to not being overly burdened -- the time to explore topics that were not immediately adjacent to my field of study results in extremely useful skill development and better cross-pollination of ideas.
> The amount of extra time available as a student that I had to pursue things of interest was in the negative. All academic time was spent getting course content accomplished.
Did you go to a "good" school?
I went to a mediocre one for undergrad and a top school for grad. The one glaring difference I saw between the two: The top school's undergrad program gave students way, way too much busy work. All that work didn't give any insights, and was merely used to artificially distinguish students for grades. Their grad program was nothing like this.
Really glad I went to a mediocre school. Still learned everything, but had plenty of time to explore.
You must have been a very sincere and disciplined student. :)
In my case, when I was studying, I had all the time in the world. During that time, I did try to learn many things but I didn't go deep or weren't consistent. I mostly wasted times in goofing around. Looking back, the amount of time I wasted during college years has become a biggest pain of my current life when I don't have any skill or time to learn those skills.
I think this inclination to be curious can still be apparent even when someone doesn't have the time to pursue that inclination. It will be more subtle, but I think it's something rather fundamental that applies in broad ways across our lives.
I am a naturally curious individual but time limitations prevent further exploration in most circumstances. Additionally there is a relevancy factor weighed on top of it. If something looks curious I have to pre-determine if I think the time spent pursuing that rabbit hole has any value to it. Granted you never know the outcome - it is alway a gamble.