How many hours a week should you study at university? (Dr Jarek Kriukow)

University study time targets like “40–60 hours a week” and formulas that multiply lecture hours by three are doing more harm than good. The central message is that rigid, one-size-fits-all guidelines create guilt and inferiority—especially for students who are working, learning at different speeds, or studying in different program structures—while ignoring the real drivers of academic success.

Instead of chasing a universal number, the advice centers on being systematic: staying on top of homework, readings, and deadlines in a consistent routine. That approach, the argument goes, matters far more than weekly totals because learning efficiency varies widely. Two students can spend radically different amounts of time and still end up with different outcomes, depending on how quickly they read, how they process material, and how their program is structured (undergraduate vs. master’s vs. PhD; full-time vs. part-time; different assessment styles). Comparing hours with classmates becomes a distraction rather than a strategy.

The critique begins with the online “guidelines” themselves. Common claims treat university like a full-time job, implying students should study 40, 50, or 60 hours weekly. Other posts circulate equations—such as taking the hours spent in lectures and workshops and multiplying by three—to estimate how many hours to spend on self-learning at home. The transcript calls these approaches “very wrong,” not because extra study is inherently bad, but because the calculations are generic and flatten critical differences between learners and programs.

Personal experience is used to ground the alternative. The speaker describes not being a natural “top student.” During the first attempt at undergraduate study, they dropped out and returned a year later. Motivation shifted when intrinsic interest developed—specifically around teaching English—after which a daily system replaced vague pressure to “do more.” The routine was straightforward: after school, complete homework first and ensure readings were done for upcoming weeks, even if assignments weren’t due immediately. Over time, catching up became easier, and the daily study load averaged about one to one-and-a-half hours. At times, when there was nothing urgent, they still read ahead to maintain the learning mindset.

For the master’s, the approach stayed similar. Despite missing some classes due to commuting time and the fact that certain lectures were essentially slide reading, they kept up by quickly reading the material at home and using that time to stay ahead. The average weekly study time was around 10 hours, sometimes up to 15, even while raising children and working full-time in a restaurant.

The PhD required more intensity but still didn’t match the “full-time job” numbers. The workload rose to roughly 20–something hours per week, with about four hours on weekdays, while weekends were not treated as study days. Eventually, the PhD became intense enough to pause work and later put the program on hold, but the takeaway remains consistent: success depends on systematic planning and staying on top of tasks, not on hitting a predetermined weekly hour quota.