I'm embarrassed to say it, but I shopped 11 courses my first week this semester. I spent numerous hours in several classes that I eventually decided not to take. Much of my free time disappeared, and I found myself with barely enough hours in my schedule to unpack my belongings and set up my room.This made my first week fairly unpleasant, to say the least. But what if college were always like this? What if we always had to spend this much time in class per week? Apparently, in 1961, this was exactly the case. A recent study performed by Philip Babock and Mindy Marks, two economics professors at the University of California, finds that students in our generation spend 10 fewer hours in class every week than did students in 1961.

The study claims that the reason students are spending less time in class has to do with "market pressures." Simply put, the current market empowers students with technology and endless amounts of television and has caused them to desire more time for leisure. Thus, universities have had to accommodate for this trend by cutting down on class time and increasing the budget for student activities.

The professors conclude that students in the current generation are simply lazier than students of the past. We do not take academics as seriously, and we view college as a mere vacation.

Needless to say, the conclusion is quite troubling. Why have these professors decided that our generation is lazier than their own? If you ask me, the college students of 1961 were just as guilty as we are. While they may have technically spent more time in class, this does not mean that they actually were less lazy than we are.

I'm certain that students of the '60s wrote papers the night before they were due. I'm sure that the culture 50 years ago allowed for plenty of time to blow off steam. An adolescent student's psyche will always be the same. Kids will be kids. Yes, they may have spent more time in class. But this does not make the institutions of old any better than those of today. This does not mean that our parents and grandparents actually learned more than we did.

Nonetheless, it is still valid to explore why our generation is spending less time in the classroom. As Raphael Pope Sussman, editor of the editorial page of The Columbia Daily Spectator notes, one possible reason is that given the current job market, students need more time outside of class to explore career options and develop themselves as people. If we do not have as much time in class, we are more able to pursue other interests, whether they are extra curricular or pre-professional.

We go to college to learn. But we also go to college because we need a diploma for any stable job that we want to get after we graduate. Simply put, spending hours in a classroom may make us better people, but it is not the sole goal of higher education.

The current model may even be better than that of the 1960s. I know plenty of Brandeisians who pursue myriad interests outside the classroom, all of which would be impossible if they were taking 10 extra hours of class every week. These pursuits are integral parts of the undergraduate education and are essential components to ensure success in life and a career.

The classroom does not teach us how to work with people. Most of the time, it only teaches us how to work with ourselves. This is a vital skill to learn in college, but not any more valuable than pursuing interests outside of the classroom.

I strongly disagree with Babock and Marks. Personally, having experienced what it is like to have 10 extra hours of class in a week, I know that I would be no more educated if this were the norm.

Our generation has inherited an educational system that is very different from that of half a century ago. Like most things, schooling has changed significantly in the past 50 years. Our job is to embrace this change and make the best of it. Take Sussman's advice. Use those 10 hours a week for something else, something to enrich your life or your career.