To think 8hrs of study a day is unnecessary

[sillistudi]

School newsletter says year 13s study for forthcoming a-levels should be aiming for 8 hours of study a day over the Easter holidays. Really???! Seems excessive to me! My DC are a couple years off a-levels but I can't see how that is necessary... so I'm interested, those with dc at that stage or just through it, is that level of study really needed?

I think I did 9-9 with a break for lunch.

My child’s school have said every day in the holidays should be treated schedule wise, as a school day and revision should be happening as though they were at school learning - so starting at 8.30/9 am revising all day with usual morning and lunch breaks, finish at 15.30. I think it’s completely ludicrous tbh.

That’s for GCSEs btw. Not A-levels.

Given about 30 hours of home study a week is a suggestion for many uni courses, alongside on campus lectures etc., I'd have thought it's maybe to get them used to it in the transition to possible uni?

Without a doubt, the smuggest post I have ever read on this forum 😁

All the people saying that it's the same as a full time job are missing the point. They do full days when they are in school, with homework etc factored in. This is supposed to be a holiday. Even people in work take annual leave sometimes.

If you work for too long without taking proper breaks, the chances are that your productivity will dip. It's good for them to have a break.

Science A levels don’t need so much revision though, and the answers are either right or wrong. Many of my friends did science A levels (and are now medics) and their workload at school was considerably less generally. I always liked maths because you don’t really need to revise for it.

Saying that - at uni, a guy in my college who came top of the year in his STEM subject did nothing but work all day and all evening, including holidays (for which he stayed at uni). He’s now a professor for obvious reasons.

@BethDuttonsTwin 🤣🤣

Great post from a teacher. It fits with my view as a parent (and I have had kids who have done extremely well without a rigid stipulated number of hours of A Level revision).

Not really. Describes an over-achiever headed for life as a workaholic and burnout.

Lots of people comparing it with a school
day. School days are different. Breaks with friends, active teaching, answering teachers’ questions, PE, assembly etc. Very different to sitting at home studying alone, and a different technique is needed. Also worlds apart from a job, where it is unlikely you spend your time memorising facts, writing essays and doing practice papers.

For some people ten hours straight will work. For other kids, six hours with regular breaks is needed. Some may need a full day off to recharge. It’s silly to give blanket goals.

My daughter was repeatedly told by her teachers not to work too hard and to shut her books by 1900 as she had a tendency to worry and do too much. An individualised approach to advice from teachers who know the kids seems far more sensible.

In reality many hard workers don’t end up as either workaholics or burned out. They just end up in fulfilling careers.

Whatever school recommends, they'll do half of that.

School recommend 8 in the hope that kids do 4. I think that's about right tbh in the run up to important exams, with a couple of days off each week.

Depends on the school, some recommend 8 because otherwise students will try to do 12.

That sounds more than reasonable.

This.

Youngest dsis does that. Around two hours per subject.

As someone who has never needed to to revision I don't understand this...

If they don't know the subject well enough already, this close before the exam, what's the point of revising full-time? Surely that means that the teacher has failed to do their job?

I used to study for 7 to 8 h everyday in the period leading to my A-Levels as I was a very anxious student and wanted to do very well. I did but it cost me.

How is that the teacher's fault? At this level, a lot is down to how much the student is willing to read /research in their own time. The teacher is guiding them but can't control how much a student's input will be!

There is hard working, and there is work addiction. You were just bragging about your child working 10hrs a day for 6 days a week from age 16 for A levels- 60hr weeks. No one can keep up that kind of work schedule for fifty years without burning out. They may be ‘busy and fulfilled’ now, but give it a decade or two. It’s not the kind of work-life balance that gets you a good family life or keeps you physically healthy long term.

It’s f all to do with the teacher. They’re not in charge of individual students’ study.

Boys in particular are bad at revising, leave it all until the last minute and then when they get Mock results it gives them the motivation to put some real effort in. Just make sure they get food, sleep and some fresh air and exercise at least once a day and that most of the time they are revising, not gaming or chatting to their friends online.

I work in school, I know.

Or in an early grave…
”The World Health Organisation, together with the International Labour Organisation, estimates nearly 400,000 people died from stroke and nearly 350,000 from heart disease in 2016 as a result of working 55 hours or more per week, and that, between 2000 and 2016, the number of deaths from heart disease due to working long hours increased by 42%, and from stroke by 19%.”

Keep in mind, the poster was saying her child works “at least 10hrs a day” six a week. That’s a minimum of 60hrs per week.