What if we did do all the reading?

320,000 words. Yes, 320,000 words. That's the number of words which I am supposed to read for just this week, and I'm not an English major, nor a history major, I'm a politics major. Is there something wrong with this picture?

The human eye makes about 100,000 saccadic eye movements per day, each "saccade" being one of those tiny little jerk-like eye movements which you might notice yourself making when reading. You also make those same kinds of eye movements when you're not reading, throughout every minute of everyday activities such as scouting the scenery or scanning the items on a supermarket shelf — hence the large 100,000 daily figure.

But wait: this week's combined reading assignments total 320,000 words, which correspond to about 107,000 saccades since we actually take in about three words per saccade. This means the amount of reading that I am supposed to do for just one week here at Princeton is about equal to the combined number of eye movements the average person makes in an entire day of viewing the world around him. The last ocular fact that I'll throw at you is that the amount of time it takes to complete a group of reading saccades is about twice as long as the amount of time it takes to perform "everyday" saccades, due to the metabolic requirements of the eyes. So, the final analysis is that one would have to read about two days straight (not including sleep time) without breaks to complete all the reading that I have for just this week. Is this humanly possible? It might be, but I contend that it is not scholarly viable.

Yes, if you do the math, it certainly can be done. But, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Here's an analogy: Recall how the recipient of your high school's "Never was Absent a Single Day" award defied your concept of the impossible. But did you admire him? I would contend not, for reasons made obvious by a simple rereading of the title of the award.

Even though we as Princeton students could physically complete each week's required reading — and of course, the non-humanities students need not include themselves in this line of reasoning — to do so does not indicate nor predict any sort of high accomplishment. Forget about the fact that in order to complete the 320,000 words assigned to me for this week, I would need to abstain from many activities integral for the kind of balanced life that the ancient Greeks so rightly esteemed (which is certainly true). It's even worse than that.

I actually think that it is counterproductive for assignments to be so voluminous. Sure, it sounds great on paper to say that you "went through" Bronte's Jane Eyre, two very long chapters of Evolutionary Biology and the Koran all in one week, but the laundry list of works you have "gone through" will only take you as far as earning cocktail conversation points and perhaps some undeserved respect in some esoteric precept. Real learning comes from focused analysis of great works, and making connections both within those texts and with your own thought. This involves studying texts, perhaps at a slower pace, as a student of ideas rather than an automaton of words.

After all, we do know that very tenable intellectual memories are composed when we use our own thought process to compose and combine ideas, even if those ideas originate in others' texts. This efficient learning process is best fostered when the brain is not flooded with tides of information and when the fresh minds of ambitious students are not burdened with an undue pressure to complete unmanageable tasks.

So, professors of this great institution, please keep in mind that you might be increasing the scholarly-ness of your classes by decreasing the reading loads. There is no need for a dire rush to get us students through all the great works and thinkers in the few years we spend here as undergraduates. We have our whole lives ahead of us to read the great works. Our main objective here should be to make connections with texts, you professors, and our own concepts in a slower, more meaningful manner.

In fact, I propose that the Princeton faculty not only reduce the course load, but also offer refresher courses, perhaps just one or two optional summary lectures for every course given in the past year. This, though completely contrary to current tides of academic idealistic over-ambition, would offer students the chance to solidify their knowledge and understanding of academic material. It would also ensure that their new individual concepts that they have formed from the raw ideas taught to them in the previous year have not gone completely astray from their original meanings. This will not lead to a simpler student, but instead a deeper and more nuanced thinker. So, professors please take this into account when forming your next syllabi If you are a student, get back to work, since you've just increased your workload by about 900 words, or 300 saccades.

Steven Kamara is a politics major from Manhasset Hills, N.Y.