Why Stop With Descartes' Second Mediation?

Here's a topic that I'll flesh out more fully in a fuller-length piece in my Medium site, hopefully later on this week - something that came first as a complete surprise to me, and then transformed into understandable dismay:  apparently, it is quite common for philosophy instructors to assign and teach only the first two of Rene Descartes' six Meditations on First Philosophy.

I discovered this when posting my recently released core concept videos focused on that very work.  People made comments that I thought were rather strange on the videos themselves and in the social media where I posted those videos.  Comments that sounded almost as if the people making them were familiar with Descartes' methodological doubt, the idea of the evil demon deceiving us, and the notion of the human being as thinking substance - but had no idea about all the other key ideas, arguments, distinctions that followed in the work.

When you stop short at that point in the work, then Descartes appears as a super-skeptic, or at the very least a skeptical idealist.  What ends up getting left out are: discussions about where our ideas come from, and whether we could be their unwitting source; an interesting argument for God's existence (and very much the "philosopher's God"); the invocation of clear and distinct ideas or conceptions as an epistemological criterion; consideration of how ideas can be true or false and where in the use of faculties falsity arises; an ethics of the use of the mind; exploration of the stock of innate ideas we have at our disposal; another, ontological argument for God's existence; reconstruction of the entire external world of extended substances. . .  and a few other things.

Why would a philosophy instructor who is good enough to their students to assign Descartes' Meditations only have them read the first two?  Surely it can't be because that instructor only read that far when they were a student, right?  Is it because they are uncomfortable with the "God-talk" that features heavily in Meditations 3 and 4?  It's not as if there isn't already a good bit of that in the earlier meditations.  Can it be that they think there is some legitimate pedagogical purpose served by reading just the start of a work then ignoring where the rest of that work goes, how the conclusions differ from the starting points, whether the problems raised find some resolutions?  That's hard to fathom as well

This bears more reflection on my part, which I hope to get to later this week.  I'll likely ask instructors who do teach just Meditations 1 and 2 in my social media whether they can provide some illumination on this matter as well.