Timeline for Why has the time spent studying declined so sharply in the United States over the the past few decades?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
38 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 10, 2020 at 14:12 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jan 14, 2016 at 6:01 | comment | added | Chloe | @DanielR.Collins You should know to take Wikipedia statements with a grain of salt. The Washington Post and the New York Time are rather liberal and tend to conflate libertarian with conservative. However, looking directly at the first hand source, aei.org/about "The American Enterprise Institute is a community of scholars and supporters committed to expanding liberty, increasing individual opportunity and strengthening free enterprise." Those are most definitely libertarian principals. | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 23:23 | comment | added | user28174 | You have to answer the question: what is higher ed for? If the answer has changed in 60 years from something like: to be a professional, to something like: to not slave at a minimum wage job, then the society either needs to make minimum wage a living wage, or it needs to provide adequate education to the people willing and able to do better than a min wage job. It is that simple. We get what we support as a society, and not something else. | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 20:21 | comment | added | clueless | From the abstract of a possibly related publication: "One drink per day of the cheapest brand of spirits required 0.29% of U.S. mean per capita disposable income in 2011 as compared to 1.02% in 1980, 2.24% in 1970, 3.61% in 1960, and 4.46% in 1950." | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 14:48 | comment | added | eykanal | Please take extended discussion to Academia Chat. | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 13:48 | comment | added | If you do not know- just GIS | I think part of their issue may be the full time definition has changed over time as well. completecollege.org/pdfs/2013-10-14-how-full-time.pdf They study should really compare per hour in-class to per hour out of class and even this is not perfect due to advances in technology (not accounted for either). I do not see any error bars in this publication or even mention of the likely error. I am sure they are respected academics but I hope this would not pass peer-review. No funding mention either and this is published by a conservative think tank. I am skeptical of these findings. | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 13:35 | comment | added | Raphael | @SlippD.Thompson If my observation generalises, this is less the case today. Which would fall under "lower standards" or maybe "higher teaching standards" (i.e. teachers should do more; I don't think that's necessarily better), I guess. If there's little to no independent (literature) research to be done, technological impact on efficiency in that arena is less important. | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 12:37 | comment | added | Slipp D. Thompson | @Raphael And in my experience, actual research was essential for doing well in a number of my mid-to-high-level courses, and especially so for my senior year where my CS courses were only independent study projects. | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 11:37 | comment | added | Raphael | @SlippD.Thompson As soon as you have to access material not provided in pre-digested form by the teacher, there is no argument that IT and the internet have increased efficiency manifold. (Or has it? You find lots of crap, too, so you have to sift through stuff and filter; you have lots of distractions; ...) My point is that that is rarely necessary, for passing the course at least (in my experience). | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 10:01 | comment | added | Slipp D. Thompson | @Raphael Hmm… maybe. I was a CS major & art minor. Even 9-13 years ago (class of 2007), being able to just search for relevant text and see a snippet before heading to the stacks to grab the book was invaluable. My ADD + no text-search would've ='d hours upon hours of reading all kinds of interesting stuff in old books and not actually getting the assignments done. | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 10:00 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | The conclusion seems to be oversimplifying things. This looks like a chicken-and-egg problem. Do the students study less because the standards have fallen, or have the standards fallen because the students study less and professors can't flunk 90% of them? | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 9:58 | comment | added | Raphael | Does "study time" include lectures, exercise sessions, etc or is it just independent study? | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 9:53 | comment | added | Raphael | @SlippD.Thompson The way lectures are typically held (at least within my frame of reference), neither is necessary. It may be different for humanities. | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 9:14 | answer | added | Kevin Keane | timeline score: -1 | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 5:45 | comment | added | Daniel R. Collins | @Chloe: "conservative think tank" is the description used at Wikipedia, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. See reference links [2] and [3]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 4:59 | comment | added | Chloe | @DanielR.Collins AEI is a libertarian think tank, not a conservative think tank. | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 23:21 | history | edited | ff524 |
Removed "study" because it's a *terribly* inconsistent tag; added working-time
|
|
| Jan 10, 2016 at 22:45 | answer | added | Chan-Ho Suh | timeline score: 25 | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 22:28 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jan 11, 2016 at 3:05 | |||||
| Jan 10, 2016 at 21:23 | history | protected | ff524 | ||
| Jan 10, 2016 at 18:09 | comment | added | Franck Dernoncourt | @DanielR.Collins I agree, but it looks like the trend was echoed in some other sources. If the statistics was purely wrong, i.e., the actually trend is the reverse (= the time spent studying has increased in the United States over the the past few decades), you're welcome to post as answer and I'd be happy to upvote and accept. | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 13:43 | comment | added | Slipp D. Thompson | “Evidence that declines in study time result from improvements in education technology is slim.” Riiight. Computers & the Internet haven't made information that used to take hours of digging in book any easier to find. Nope, not at all. Haven't helped a bit. I call bullshit on that hypothesis. | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 13:39 | history | edited | Wrzlprmft♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 10, 2016 at 13:16 | answer | added | emory | timeline score: 10 | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 10:26 | comment | added | ruakh |
@BenVoigt: Nah -- it's very obvious that the "authors" mentioned in the in-image footnote are not the OP, just as the "authors" mentioned in the OP's own commentary are not the OP. There is zero risk of misunderstanding. (That said, it would make sense to put the image itself inside a > blockquote.)
|
|
| Jan 10, 2016 at 9:29 | comment | added | Chris Cirefice | I'll add that the paragraph: The decline is not explained by changes over time in student work status, parental education, major choice, or the type of institution students attended. - is entirely incorrect. Student work status has unfortunately necessitated change (more work done), parents seem to be worse at showing their children the importance of education, major choice is extremely important in terms of in-school employment and thus affecting hours spent studying, and the institution can double between schools; financial responsibility is absolutely a factor. | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 9:24 | comment | added | Chris Cirefice | It's not Facebook or Instagram or the rest of the plethora of social web services available today. Perhaps that's part of it, but from experience I would say the most significant factor is necessity to work and limited government financial assistance. Please see my anecdotal answer as reference to my claim, which seems to be very prominent amongst middle-class Americans, and the financial responsibility is shifted almost entirely on the students, which limits their ability to spend time on academics: rather, they work to pay for school. | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 9:12 | answer | added | Chris Cirefice | timeline score: 44 | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 5:59 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackAcademia/status/686064821767397376 | ||
| Jan 10, 2016 at 4:19 | answer | added | jakebeal | timeline score: 87 | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 3:43 | comment | added | Daniel R. Collins | One caveat: The linked article, including charts ("Source: Authors' calculations") and quotes is from the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank -- not a peer-reviewed article. | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 2:21 | answer | added | Daniel R. Collins | timeline score: 14 | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 1:47 | comment | added | Nate Eldredge | Summary: "Kids these days, I tell ya". | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 0:47 | answer | added | DetlevCM | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 0:25 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | Note that it is misleading to include the footnote verbatim when reproducing that figure. In the original context it may have been accurate; now it certainly is not. Please crop or rewrite the footnote giving credit to the actual source, not yourself. | |
| Jan 9, 2016 at 21:01 | answer | added | Alexander Woo | timeline score: 66 | |
| Jan 9, 2016 at 20:48 | comment | added | Massimo Ortolano | Given that Facebook was launched in 2004, had they made the comparison a few years laters, they'd have observed an even larger drop in the study time :-) | |
| Jan 9, 2016 at 20:30 | history | asked | Franck Dernoncourt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |