[bcaine]

I'd be curious how the study measured 40 pages of reading each week. My guess is that most, if not all of my classes (Computer Engineering student) have > 40 pages of reading associated with the topics taught each week, but for many of them the reading is never assigned, nor is it ever performed.

In my experience, reading only really is necessary when you are really confused on a topic from lecture, miss class, or have a terrible professor.

I'd assume its similar across a lot of STEM disciplines (with respect to not actually reading textbooks much).

[Swizec]

I don't know anyone who doesn't read the textbooks or at least the "condensed" slides version with some 500+ slides per class. Not in STEM not anywhere else. It is simply impossible to retain that much information just from going to class, you have to re-read it all before exams. Which is when the reading happens, nobody actually does the reading every week. That's just silly.

Man, I wish I went to uni in the US. Every time I hear anything about the US college experience it just sounds like a piece of cake.

[gajomi]

>I don't know anyone who doesn't read the textbooks >Not in STEM not anywhere else

I would almost never "read" (though I would occasionally reference, page by page) the textbooks in core STEM classes when I was in college. The most important thing was always the notes and making sure you could work through exercises. And this only became more true at advanced levels, when oftentimes there isn't any textbook available. At least in the physicsy/mathy realms I belonged to, the information density of your typical lecture was such that a semester should be easily compressible to a dozen pages of typed notes. But that isn't to say, I don't think, that it wasn't difficult!

>Man, I wish I went to uni in the US. Every time I hear anything about the US college experience it just sounds like a piece of cake.

There is some truth behind what you are hearing, but it is quite far from the whole truth. In contrast to many European university systems (at least the ones I am familiar with) there is a lot of time purposefully built in to take courses in different areas and build up "perspective". So if you want to take it easy you can take some bullshit classes and just coast. Or you can take interesting classes which might be challenging. The variation in student experience can be quite large. If you go to a top school, however, you can expect to be surrounded by a bunch of competitive types who are quite good at what they do, and making good in this environment would certainly not be a piece of cake.

[nmrm]

> the information density of your typical lecture was such that a semester should be easily compressible to a dozen pages of typed notes. But that isn't to say, I don't think, that it wasn't difficult!

Oh how true!

> Or you can take interesting classes which might be challenging.

Yes. With flexibility comes the possibility of abuse. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

I had quite a large humanities load in undergrad (majored in STEM fields, but with a BA), and purposefully took in-major, junior and senior level courses in art, English and history. There were pre-reqs but most instructors would waive them because the classes never filled. Others decided to take 100-level communications and business electives to fill the same elective slots. Even after taking graduate-level STEM courses, a junior-level art history course remains the most difficult course I've ever taken. The way the course was taught was a pretty intense combination of "right" and "left" brain thinking.

In retrospect, forcing students to choose to challenge themselves (or not) is probably the single best way to prepare students for the "real world", and probably not a bad predictor at success either.

[jmspring]

Funny, for the classes I took (and I was often taking 50%+ more than the "average load"), taking notes and listening usually managed to allow me to retain 70+% of the material (across math, physics, chemistry, computer sci/eng classes). The only exception was O-Chem which really did require a lot of extra time outside of the class room.

Languages, lit, and polisci were less about retaining specifics and more about interpretation and discourse. But, hell, grad level Dickens class was a lot of reading.

[mjfl]

I'll be the exception. The physics texts by Griffiths, namely Electrodynamics and Quantum Mechanics, can and should be read cover to cover. We would however, spend a whole semester on one book, so I doubt we would qualify for the >40 pages.

[Spooky23]

I dual majored in Computer Science and History. For history classes the reading workload was very heavy unless you blew off the class -- but you'd never do better than a "B", because you couldn't participate in discussions.

For CS classes, you may not have "read" the textbook like you would a literary work, but I certainly referenced books or reference materials at least as much while completing daily assignments.

[watwut]

I took notes during class and used those to learn from later on. My own notes were way more effective then the slides version which often miss a lot of hints. They were also way shorter then books which contains a lot of noise.

But I agree that reading and real learning usually happen when you study for exam, not the week it was mentioned by the professor.