The article by Lorraine Hawick, Alan Thomson, and Jennifer Cleland critiques a study by Zeeman et al. that evaluates students' predictions of their academic time use and compares it to their actual logged time. The authors argue that the study's premise of quantifying and measuring time as an objective resource is problematic. They highlight four key aspects: 1. **Surveillance and Control**: The study's data collection process is seen as a form of workforce surveillance, aiming to ensure students spend adequate time on academic activities. This raises concerns about student autonomy and the potential for self-regulation and resistance. 2. **Subjectivity of Time**: Time is often experienced subjectively and socially, influenced by individual and cultural factors. The "Carnegie rule" of two hours of independent work for every hour of faculty contact time is both objective and subjective, and its effectiveness is questionable. 3. **Efficacy of Time-Based Education**: Studies show that time spent studying does not linearly equate to better grades. A more learner-centered approach should focus on how students' qualitative use of time relates to academic outcomes. 4. **Stakeholder Perspectives**: Different stakeholders have different motivations for time-based education. Medical schools may prioritize productivity and efficiency, but this approach can neglect the broader benefits of university life, such as personal development and social connections. In conclusion, the authors advocate for a shift from quantity measures (time spent) to quality measures (engagement and process) in evaluating student learning. They emphasize that time should not be measured purely by minutes and seconds but by its qualitative impact on students' experiences and outcomes.The article by Lorraine Hawick, Alan Thomson, and Jennifer Cleland critiques a study by Zeeman et al. that evaluates students' predictions of their academic time use and compares it to their actual logged time. The authors argue that the study's premise of quantifying and measuring time as an objective resource is problematic. They highlight four key aspects: 1. **Surveillance and Control**: The study's data collection process is seen as a form of workforce surveillance, aiming to ensure students spend adequate time on academic activities. This raises concerns about student autonomy and the potential for self-regulation and resistance. 2. **Subjectivity of Time**: Time is often experienced subjectively and socially, influenced by individual and cultural factors. The "Carnegie rule" of two hours of independent work for every hour of faculty contact time is both objective and subjective, and its effectiveness is questionable. 3. **Efficacy of Time-Based Education**: Studies show that time spent studying does not linearly equate to better grades. A more learner-centered approach should focus on how students' qualitative use of time relates to academic outcomes. 4. **Stakeholder Perspectives**: Different stakeholders have different motivations for time-based education. Medical schools may prioritize productivity and efficiency, but this approach can neglect the broader benefits of university life, such as personal development and social connections. In conclusion, the authors advocate for a shift from quantity measures (time spent) to quality measures (engagement and process) in evaluating student learning. They emphasize that time should not be measured purely by minutes and seconds but by its qualitative impact on students' experiences and outcomes.