Homework

<p>Much of it depends on the courses one takes. S, a 2nd year, has three courses (O-Chem, Mandarin, & East Civ.) and spends over 20 hours per week. The Friday and Saturday info is accurate.</p>

<p>One thing he said was that it is not so much the actual study time, but that he seldom stops thinking about the courses, the material, their extensions and wider applications, where the info fits with what he has learned before, etc. He said this is often more important to understanding the material than simple study time.</p>

<p>My roommate is in hume media aesthetics, 130s calc, and sign language and he almost never has any work (I am guessing <2 hours a week on average). Someone else I know is in 160s, a new language (japanese I believe), hume, and sosc and they have insane workloads (easily over 25 a week), but that is also probably the most intensive possible courseload your first quarter of your first year.</p>

<p>yeah, the amount of homework you have is largely depent on a) the type of person you are, and b) your workload and your profs. I would say that most people, assuming they're not behind and not negligent (which does happen) spend between 2-6 hours a day working on a weekday. The weekends are harder to quantify, because people either get their work done on Friday and relax Saturday and Sunday, or the opposite, or work a little bit on each day.</p>

<p>In short, expect the workload to be more than you're used to, but not so much you want to kill everything you see.</p>

<p>So if you take 4 classes, how many times do u take each class each week, and for how many hours each time? If it depends on the class, what is the most number of hours per meeting and per week, and what is the least number of hours per meeting and per week? I heard that the general rule of thumb at University of Chicago is two hours of homework for each hour of class, but as you guys have already shown that is not necessarily true.</p>

<p>What is the most number of hours that you guys have heard of for someone to study in a week, on average, not for finals week?</p>

<p>By the way, thanks for all the replies; you guys have been unbelievably helpful.</p>

<p>These questions are getting pointless man. Look calc 160s does not have the much actual class time, but has quite a bit of time consuming work. If you were to take calc 130s, you would have much less work, but have more time spent in class. Applying formulas of 2 hrs per 1 hour of class and other things just doesn't work out because few actually distribute their workloads evenly. If you never have a night where you blow off most of your work, kudos to you, but I haven't met anybody who has done that and I have met people with over a 3.8 and well into their major.</p>

<p>Most I have ever heard of? Who knows man... geez. You will see when you get here. Nobody here knows how good your study habits are, how fast of a reader you are, the knowledge of the subjects that you already have, have efficient your studying is, your ability to memorize, write, heck type, etc.</p>

<p>I've gotta say: I got back my calc midterm today, which I thought I aced, and was a little upset when I found I had not. I spoke with my friend, who is taking another section, same level. He got a 56% and an A-. </p>

<p>He has been sitting in on my calc problem sessions for the fun of it, and he told me what a difference there is between our two classes: my class has students who work very,very hard, and my class is going at a much faster pace than his is, as we have covered about twice the amount of material. Shows how different two courses can be, although they are the same level. The teacher and students make all the difference.</p>

<p>My own D probably spends 30+ hours a week on homework, even as a third year now. But then again, she started a new language her first year (= lots of work), honors chem, AP5 Bio (tested out of Calc!) and continued with language, soc and honors O chem her 2nd year. Of course she's never gotten less than an A- and has a very high GPA, at least by U of C standards.</p>

<p>IMHO, if you are willing to settle for a lower GPA, say just making deans list, you can get by with a moderate amount of work, especially if you pick the easier courses, and they do exist at U of C just like anywhere else. </p>

<p>But, if you want a high GPA and want to take more challenging, interesting courses, you may need to give up a bit of social life.</p>

<p>And now you see the other side of the spectrum. You have to find the balance that works for you. The guy with the 2nd highest GPA in the graduating class not long ago was on the xc/track teams and he partied relatively hard and didn't do much more work than anybody else. It all depends on you and how you operate.</p>

<p>davan,</p>

<p>I've noticed folks over the years who <strong>claim</strong> to never study because the work is inconsistent with their image, but actually do so when others don't notice. So I would not rely on second hand reports of what someone who knew someone....you get the idea.</p>

<p>BTW, since when does U. Chi publish GPA stats? How do you know this person had the "2nd highest GPA in the graduating class"? And, what WAS that GPA, in actual numbers?</p>

<p>Poli-sci major and had a 3.87 or so I believe (.01 in either direction). When do they publish it? Not sure, but when people other than undergrads confirm it, there <em>could</em> be some credibility.</p>

<p>Also, nobody said someone wasn't studying. It was that they were not doing much more than the average student. What classes he took most likely had something to do with it as well.</p>

<p>davan, </p>

<p>So a 3.87 would be the 2nd highest GPA in a class? How would one know that?</p>

<p>I actually have seen, I believe it was in speeches, some of this mentioned by the university (I believe in one of the speeches at graduation they noted the highest gpa of the graduating class), so I don't find it too odd that some people would know this. Again, this is what I have heard from a sizeable number of people, both undergrads and otherwise, who have no reason to make this up.</p>

<p>"Sharon Greene, AB’00, recalls hearing that only a handful of the University’s undergraduates ever leave with a 4.0 GPA. Hard-pressed students—and alumni wary of grade inflation—may be comforted to know that the story is generally true. Indeed, 4.0 grads are rare, says Associate Registrar Andy Hannah. This year the highest GPA was a 3.98; in 2003 only two students were graduated with the coveted 4.0."</p>

<p>First result I found on a search through the alumni magazine. This is from <2004.</p>

<p>davan, I've seen the reference ou quoted. But, there's a big gap between a 4.0, or a 3.98 and a 3.87+-0.01!</p>

<p>That's the part I wonder about.</p>

<p>how often do most classes meet? sorry if there's no way to accurately answer this.</p>

<p>andrew, go here: <a href="http://timeschedules.uchicago.edu/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://timeschedules.uchicago.edu/&lt;/a> to see for yourself.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I've gotta say: I got back my calc midterm today, which I thought I aced, and was a little upset when I found I had not. I spoke with my friend, who is taking another section, same level. He got a 56% and an A-.

[/quote]

Welcome to college! I took organic chem my freshman year, and I was stunned to find after the exam that an A was set at 70...out of 150 points. When an A creeped up to 90/150, the professor declared that the curve was getting "too easy" and made the final exam correspondingly difficult.</p>

<p>BTW, the number of hours spent on homework seems very comparable to homework here. It would be more difficult to compare difficulty, I think.</p>

<p>Warblersrule86,
Yes, my mother, who attended the U. of C., warned me about this, though I thought things had loosened up a bit since the '70's. I guess not. </p>

<p>Obviously my friend's and my sections are not comparable, as I received a much higher percentage correct than he did. Of course, my class was told afterwards by the instructor that this was the "easy" test, and things will only get worse.</p>