At my university, standard normalisation was taught in the "databases" course. OLAP was mentioned as part of the "advanced databases" course.
The database course at that time blew about half its time on building PHP applications to talk to the database. I hate to second guess my professors, but I can't help but feel that a more productive use of the time would have been to teach normalised OLTP in the first half, and dimensionally modelled OLAP in the second half. Better yet, to divide them into two courses and spend some time talking about database history ("here's why network and hierarchical databases sucked") and maybe some introduction to how query planners work.
It's a bit old, but still pretty good.
Edit: actually, maybe not Date. It's up to you. It's good, but it's controversial because he's not a fan of SQL and so he uses his own language.
The one I used in uni was Ramakrishnan & Gehrke's Database Management. It was OK but there's a certain amount of at-the-time trendy bullshit that to me detracts from a focus on relational databases for their own sake.
Edit 2: and Joe Celko's SQL for Smarties contains good oil on the relational paradigm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_modeling http://www.amazon.com/Data-Warehouse-Toolkit-Complete-Dimens...
Redshift is indeed a solid product but all these comparisons against Hive are surprising, as that's not the right tool in the first place. Infobright, greenplum, aster, vertica, etc are the products which Redshift seeks to disrupt.