The article discusses a study by Zeeman and colleagues that aimed to evaluate students' predictions of their academic time use and compare them with their actual logged time. The study's underlying assumption that time is a quantifiable and objective resource raises concerns about control and surveillance in education. The authors argue that the study's data collection process can be seen as a form of surveillance, used to monitor and control students' academic activities. They question whether students had a choice in participating in this process, highlighting the potential for control over student behavior. The article also explores the dual nature of time—objective and subjective. While objective time is structured and measurable, subjective time is influenced by individual and cultural factors. The "Carnegie rule" of two hours of independent study per hour of faculty contact time is presented as both objective and subjective, a social construct that may not effectively enhance learning. The authors caution against using time-based metrics to evaluate student learning, suggesting a shift towards quality measures based on student engagement. The article highlights the tension between different stakeholders in medical education, including faculty and students, regarding the value of time and productivity. While some see increased productivity as beneficial, others express concerns about the pressure on students to rush through their studies. The authors conclude by advocating for a focus on quality over quantity in education, emphasizing the importance of student-centered learning and the need to consider the broader aspects of university life beyond academic credits.The article discusses a study by Zeeman and colleagues that aimed to evaluate students' predictions of their academic time use and compare them with their actual logged time. The study's underlying assumption that time is a quantifiable and objective resource raises concerns about control and surveillance in education. The authors argue that the study's data collection process can be seen as a form of surveillance, used to monitor and control students' academic activities. They question whether students had a choice in participating in this process, highlighting the potential for control over student behavior. The article also explores the dual nature of time—objective and subjective. While objective time is structured and measurable, subjective time is influenced by individual and cultural factors. The "Carnegie rule" of two hours of independent study per hour of faculty contact time is presented as both objective and subjective, a social construct that may not effectively enhance learning. The authors caution against using time-based metrics to evaluate student learning, suggesting a shift towards quality measures based on student engagement. The article highlights the tension between different stakeholders in medical education, including faculty and students, regarding the value of time and productivity. While some see increased productivity as beneficial, others express concerns about the pressure on students to rush through their studies. The authors conclude by advocating for a focus on quality over quantity in education, emphasizing the importance of student-centered learning and the need to consider the broader aspects of university life beyond academic credits.