Unpopular opinion: I found "Effective Notetaking" a tad shallow
I got this book two hours ago, zoomed through and finished reading. There are some good bits here, for sure: I will certainly pay more attention to headings in my notes. Also, for the intended audience of that book---students who must study for a test, and need to learn that material---it is likely useful and a good read. I might even recommend it to a high schooler.
That said, my note's title is from the perspective of what utility I perceived for me. The advice seemed pat, too cut-and-dried, proclaimed with a finality that stuck the wrong cord in me. When I read the bibliography, I found something very curious for a book from 2018: the references by decade are: 7 from 2010s, 39 from 2000s, 62 from 1990s, 50 from 1980s, 18 from 1970s. Nothing wrong with old references: I have cited 19th century books often enough and once a 17th century book in a paper in computer science, but the relative balance caught my eye. These 80s/90s skew is curious, although a tad more explained by the original date of publication (2007). Surely more ink has been spilled on this topic this decade, some refining the cited works, others casting grave doubt on some other cited works? FWIW, I have a Ph.D. in Cognitive Science and am quite familiar with some lines of research here and which I find rather dubious (won't name names, sorry).
So, some good stuff here, no doubt about it, great material for a longish blog post, but the hefty 250+ pages that it is is a stretch.
I normally don't write bad reviews, preferring to keep my mouth shut. But this has been strongly recommended here---enough for me to purchase this---so I felt obliged to add a counter argument. Just my 2¢.