Is going to lecture a huge waste of time?

[Choppy]

Its worth-while I think to see the professors approach to the subject. For example in my complex Analysis class the professor often presents the material in a way that intuitively seems a bit odd to me. However more than once doing homework I've been stuck and thought "how would professor X look at this" and was able to do the problem.

Yes, but ultimately Professor X can always solve his problems by sending in Wolverine.

 

[Choppy]

Maybe I'm arguing something different than everyone else. I'm saying classes in general suck. As far as I know, MIT, Harvard, Reed and St. John's all have classes in the same general way (lecturer gives a lecture while 10-300 people sit and listen).

Perhaps for you. But the argument that's being made is that surely there is some university that approaches teaching in a manner that doesn't 'suck' quite so much. What about open universities or on-line or correspondence courses? What about reading courses? There are plenty of other options out there - particularly for the more common undergraduate courses.

The general teaching methods we have right now are heavily influenced by history. For hundreds of years lectures have been the most efficient way to convey complex intellectual information. They seem to have worked pretty well for students throughout history.

The only thing that's special about the current generation is easier access to information. We may now have the technological means to challenge the efficiency of the lecture hall teaching method, but that doesn't negate any value it has. It's a baseline that works. If you can improve on it - great. I think as educators we should be exploring that.

 

[hadsed]

Right, in that case what I was talking about fits. I was arguing against the classical lecture-style classes. I fully agree with doing directed reading courses with teachers and other alternatives. What I'm confused about is Vanadium seems to think that the value of going to college is contingent upon how much you get out of the [literal] classroom.

 

[symbolipoint]

Students should attend lecture because they, being humans, are social and intelligent animals.

 

[chiro]

Students should attend lecture because they, being humans, are social and intelligent animals.

The natural education system is set up with a classroom, social style focus, and as such most of us are used to the idea of going into a classroom, being taught by some authority figure (teacher) and then using that medium for interaction in education.

Chances are that if this was not the case, then we probably wouldn't be in this mindset. There are people who do not learn a majority of their knowledge/experience in this environment and still manage to be good at what they do. Not many people are like this, but they do exist and some particular industries have a bias for these kinds of people.

Also I think you'll find that people who have an inclination to learn by themselves have the advantage that they do not "require" coursework to learn something. They do not have the mindset that in order to learn, they must take a formal class on something to actually learn it and this is a very powerful advantage over someone else who is so used to the social system, that they think that learning and social interaction are both prerequisites for each other.

 

[Vanadium 50]

As far as I know, MIT, Harvard, Reed and St. John's all have classes in the same general way (lecturer gives a lecture while 10-300 people sit and listen).

Well, you're just wrong about that.

 

[Vanadium 50]

What I'm confused about is Vanadium seems to think that the value of going to college is contingent upon how much you get out of the [literal] classroom.

I said no such thing.

Tell you what - you argue your points and let me argue my points.

 

[hadsed]

Well, you're just wrong about that.

--

I said no such thing.

Tell you what - you argue your points and let me argue my points.

Sorry... I wrote up a well-sized reply explaining what I was talking about in my first reply to your earlier post. Your posts are these little one-liners that don't tell anyone about what you're trying to say. Maybe you should try and explain a little bit what your points really are instead of leaving it up to others to try and guess at it.

 

[ashnek]

Well for example in my university i can say its almost a waste of time to go to class, the professors they just mind their work, some don't even bother to answer your questions because they just come to university when they give class, they don't really teach you something that isn't in the book so i would rather just read the book.

Now i think this is actually a good thing, not that the class is worthless but the fact that you have to study by the book because it forces you to learn how to absorb and generate knowledge, some people are too used to ask someone else as soon as they get a doubt, at least i used to but as the time went by i got better at clearing doubts by myself, so i barely now need a teacher to ask something for. If you think about it when you need to generate knowledge by research or something else in something new you won't have a teacher for that, at some point you have to do it by yourself so its better to learn soon.

So if class was a time of the day for the professor to tell you something he had gained by his experience in the field and not something that you are capable of learning by the book it would all be great, but it generally isn't like that. Also i would say its good if they would teach you how to '' read a book'' in the sense of to be critical about what you are absorbing and think about it and make conclusions about it, then i think it would be worth it (im no exactly sure how that would be possible i guess you learn it by watching your teacher deduce things from given info).
In change of that we get an education that every semester turns easier making most of the students lazier, which in turn makes professors care less about students and it just makes a vicious circle.

I can say in all my undergraduate time as ME i only had a good professor, he was the one that i had from Calc II-III-IV-complex analysis-numerical analysis and it wasn't because his class were great i mean he tried but he had to teach a lot from the book and didn't have time for lots of insight but when i asked him stuff outside the class he answered in such an analytic way of thinking, not the ''ok i solve your problem this way'' but he would really give meaning to what he was doing and i just really appreciate him for that.

PS English is not my language so i hope the idea is understood

 

[sandy.bridge]

If you present to me a good lecturer that can speak fluent english and can convey concepts in a way that I can understand then yes, I will go. However, this is not always the case. Most of the time I get more from skipping my classes and reading the textbook...

 

[johng23]

Well, I missed a huge fraction of my lectures in undergrad - and mine weren't recorded.
I found that most classes were either boring and too slow, or too fast so that all I could manage to do was scribble down the notes without understanding. Later I would be studying, but my handwriting is bad and I didn't like looking at my notes, so I would always read the book instead, and usually that was enough to complete the problem sets. In fact, piecing together some sparse information in the notes was usually much more challenging than looking at a full description in a textbook. So you see where that kind of experience can lead. Then you just get in the habit of skipping classes even though you probably would have gained at least a few tidbits from going.

I think I would have been able to benefit a lot more if I didn't have to write down notes, but it's hard to sit there without writing anything down if you know it's material you're responsible for.

Also if I would have read through the chapter a bit before coming to a class I'm sure I would have gotten a lot more out of it, but I could never manage to keep ahead like that.

I can't tell you how many times I got in a tough situation studying for an exam or completing an assignment, where I knew it would have been far easier if I had been to class. Ah well, it worked and I got into graduate school, and now I skip classes for the much more noble reason
of being in the lab.

 

[SophusLies]

I would say if I read ahead of schedule and maybe even worked problems before the upcoming lecture I would almost always get something out of it. If I was behind, then it was next to worthless because the lecture was too fast to follow without knowing anything beforehand.

One thing I would always try to do was to think before the professor. If there was a concept being written on the board I would try to think of an analogy for it. Or if there was a problem, try to solve it faster than the professor writes. Doing these things kept me interested and challenged during a lecture. I am a strong believer that only listening to someone talk about something will teach you next to nothing. The best method for me was to take info in, process it, then teach it to myself (by explaining it out loud) or to someone else.

 

[coreluccio]

I'm in first year engineering. For the first 1 1/2 weeks at the beginning of this term I went to all my lectures. I haven't attended a single one since. I learn best through self-study, through thoroughly reading the textbook and doing problems. Now I only go to my labs. So far I've been getting along quite well. I've had one midterm so far, in Chem, and did considerably better than the class average.

Lectures may benefit some, but they certainly are of no help to me. All of the profs I have just go through powerpoint presentations with stuff taken directly from the textbook. I honestly think lectures are more for people who are too lazy to actually read the book themselves and hope for just enough of an understanding of the course material to get by with a passing mark.

The way I see it is that lectures are free to attend. Literally anyone off the street can go, buy the book, attend the lectures, and learn as much or more than anyone actually enrolled in any given class. The difference is they can't write the exams, attain the diploma, etc. You're paying for that opportunity. The lectures are optional.

 

[coreluccio]

Yes, but you're getting paid at work. In college, it's the other way. If someone thinks sitting in lecture is a waste of time, why in heaven are they paying for it?

The degree with your name on it which allows you a better quality of life.

 

[Vanadium 50]

You can get a degree from 1000's of places. If you are not happy with the quality bof instruction where you are, why not vote with your feet?

 

[Choppy]

I honestly think lectures are more for people who are too lazy to actually read the book themselves and hope for just enough of an understanding of the course material to get by with a passing mark.

This comes across as a little arrogant to me. People learn in different ways. And lots of people, if not most BOTH attend lectures and read the text.

Based on a single mid-term you've found a system that works for you. That's great. But why would you call someone lazy who learns in a different way?

The way I see it is that lectures are free to attend. Literally anyone off the street can go, buy the book, attend the lectures, and learn as much or more than anyone actually enrolled in any given class. The difference is they can't write the exams, attain the diploma, etc. You're paying for that opportunity. The lectures are optional.

You're equating "probably won't be escourted out by security" with "free to attend."

 

[Dembadon]

I'm in first year engineering. ...

Lectures may benefit some, but they certainly are of no help to me. All of the profs I have just go through powerpoint presentations with stuff taken directly from the textbook. I honestly think lectures are more for people who are too lazy to actually read the book themselves and hope for just enough of an understanding of the course material to get by with a passing mark.

...

Wow, you must be extremely intelligent; you're only in your first year and you've already figured out that lectures are of no use to you. You have also found some way of knowing that all of your future professors and classes will be the same as the ones you're in right now. Incredible! Have you ever considered dropping the whole engineering thing and going straight for the Nobel?

 

[Number Nine]

I honestly think lectures are more for people who are too lazy to actually read the book themselves and hope for just enough of an understanding of the course material to get by with a passing mark

You must have some very unqualified instructors.
Nothing compares to learning from an expert in the field; all of the most rewarding experiences in my academic life have involved interacting with my professors, either during classes/seminars, or in the lab itself.

 

[Haborix]

Well, this is all very interesting. I reconcile high tuition costs by considering what I gain from lectures. There is one driving reason that keeps me going to lecture. Here it is...

Every professor is different and comes from a different place/background. More than likely they see something in a way that is unique. They see a concept from a point of view that most don't, and all professors have their own little jewel. AND! All you have to do is go to lecture to gain access to the their view of things. If I sit in a class an entire semester and only get ONE unique point of view or idea then IT WAS WORTH IT. Each professor can offer you something that no other can.

Feynman always talked about seeing things from a different point of view. Now, maybe you have a different goal with your education, but if you want to do any research or solve any new problems you need to see things from all possible angles, even ones you don't know exist... yet!

Best of Luck,
Eric

 

[Mépris]

You must have some very unqualified instructors.
Nothing compares to learning from an expert in the field; all of the most rewarding experiences in my academic life have involved interacting with my professors, either during classes/seminars, or in the lab itself.

What makes an instructor qualified? A PhD? If yes, then you're probably wrong. If "good teaching skills/aptitude"? Then YMMV.

What works for you won't work for somebody else. I was watching a lecture on YouTube on multivariable calc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxCxlsl_YwY") and I didn't like it at all. Curiously, many of the comments for the video are positive and it's the first result that's returned on YT when one enters the words "multivariable calculus" in the search field. The cool thing with YouTube is you can close that tab and go view Berkeley's multivariable calculus lecture (I like this one better). It really sucks if you're spending bucket loads of money to attend an institution where the majority of your lecturers are not lecturing in a style that's not appropriate for you. Note: I'm not saying anyone is rubbish.

If I can't convince the admissions committee of US colleges A, B & C that I'm worth the money they're going to spend on me, I'm going *elsewhere*. Where it's dirt cheap, comfortable enough to live and where I can still get a good maths/physics education. At the end of the 3-4 years, I'll still be getting out of the program with something that says BS Physics, so what does it matter anyway.

 

[johng23]

I honestly think lectures are more for people who are too lazy to actually read the book themselves and hope for just enough of an understanding of the course material to get by with a passing mark.

This comment seemed to draw a lot of criticism, but I have absolutely experienced this. I have met multiple people who wouldn't think of reading the book chapters. I studied the chapters front to back. Reading a book by yourself requires you to think harder - those who wouldn't read it are the same people who just go to office hours to drag all the information they can out of the apathetic TA. I have been to office hours about twice in my life, and I was amazed at the sort of information the TA was just freely giving out.

 

[Edin_Dzeko]

Arrogance and learning don't mix.

 

[Choppy]

This comment seemed to draw a lot of criticism, but I have absolutely experienced this. I have met multiple people who wouldn't think of reading the book chapters. I studied the chapters front to back. Reading a book by yourself requires you to think harder - those who wouldn't read it are the same people who just go to office hours to drag all the information they can out of the apathetic TA. I have been to office hours about twice in my life, and I was amazed at the sort of information the TA was just freely giving out.

I think you're missing the point of the criticism.

Obviously there are lazy people out there. I've met them. I've taught them (or at least tried to).

But Coreluccio's argument was that lectures are for people too lazy to read the course material - and this appears to imply that if you go to lectures, you're being lazy and not learning the material for yourself. While there will be cases where this is true, it most certainly does not apply gobally.

 

[ashnek]

Well i understood Coreluccio's argument in another way, it sounded like most classes were made so that their purpose was to give the material so you wouldn't have to look it up in the book aka for lazy people, it doesn't imply that you are lazy if you go its just the way its done.
Im not saying all teachers do that, sadly most of the ones i had were like that but the bad classes i attended were pure recitation of the book

 

[Dembadon]

...
But Coreluccio's argument was that lectures are for people too lazy to read the course material - and this appears to imply that if you go to lectures, you're being lazy and not learning the material for yourself. ...

Not only that, but he's deduced this while only in his first year of an engineering program.

 

[coreluccio]

Most students don't read the textbook. I've seen it first hand. I didn't go to a single Chem lecture and smoked the class average by 30%. I read the book, fully understood the material, did problems, and the test was a joke for me. In contrast, most of the class just went to class, attempted the problem sets from the book that the prof assigned, and maybe reviewed the lecture notes. Not everyone operates like this, but the majority seem to.

 

[romsofia]

Most students don't read the textbook. I've seen it first hand. I didn't go to a single Chem lecture and smoked the class average by 30%. I read the book, fully understood the material, did problems, and the test was a joke for me. In contrast, most of the class just went to class, attempted the problem sets from the book that the prof assigned, and maybe reviewed the lecture notes. Not everyone operates like this, but the majority seem to.

Did you get 100% on this test?
If not, this test obviously wasn't a joke, and a few people who went to the lecture got equal/higher scores than you.

This discussion is clear: For some people the lecture is a waste of time, while for others it isn't.

 

[johng23]

Most students don't read the textbook. I've seen it first hand. I didn't go to a single Chem lecture and smoked the class average by 30%. I read the book, fully understood the material, did problems, and the test was a joke for me. In contrast, most of the class just went to class, attempted the problem sets from the book that the prof assigned, and maybe reviewed the lecture notes. Not everyone operates like this, but the majority seem to.

What you're saying is that it's possible to do well without going to any lectures. I doubt anyone would deny that. That doesn't necessarily imply that lectures are a waste of time.

 

[GregJ]

Most students don't read the textbook.

1st year hmm? This will change soon enough

 

[coreluccio]

Just thought I'd update on my progress. Finished up my 1st term of engineering and now have all my grades back. I got a 3.8/4.0 GPA and was one bombed midterm (got a bad night's sleep, unfortunately) from a perfect 4.0. I didn't attend a single lecture after the first week of school. Lectures, at least for me, are a waste of time.

 

[mathwonk]

please don't let me get you as a doctor (engineer, architect, lawyer...) , if you think the purpose of school is just to get decent grades. did it ever dawn on you that attending class might have taught you something valuable by listening to the carefully prepared lectures of someone who knows more than you do? If you attend school at any reasonable school at all, and do not attend every class when you are not sick, you are... I cannot say this politely so I leave it to your imagination, but it rhymes with *****.

If you are indeed correct in your behavior, then why are you paying to attend a school where the lectures are not useful? Are you a talented student who has accepted a bribe to attend a school for imbeciles? Do you realize how you will be regarded when you exit such a school?

My apologies but obviously I regard this as one of the most clueless threads I have ever seen here.

 

[deRham]

I don't think classes / lectures in general are terrible. It's probably more ideal to have someone record the lectures for the giant classes that teach an introductory subject to a bunch of students.

The major value of classes as opposed to purely individual instruction is that they present material at one time in the format and with the choice of material of someone who supposedly has a perspective you may want to hear. A perspective that really crystallizes how to think about something, which may not be immediately present in all the books.

Chances are, by looking up 10 different books and researching various notes written by various people, you can figure out a reasonably good perspective on a topic. But if an expert already is there to tell you about that stuff, why not?

It was said you can leave the school if it's not offering what you want. I ask: well, why even the school? One can leave the class. Take a different one!

Independent studying is great too. A lot of things have to be learned that way. But it simply doesn't make sense to me why a professor can't present a ton of stuff in an organized fashion in a single class that a student really wants to understand well.

There are a LOT of poor classes conducted out there, which I myself would skip if I had to take them. But that's the point -- I usually wouldn't have to take them, and indeed, I wouldn't have chosen to.

 

[deRham]

Now if it happens that there are lectures with information that can't be obtained in any book, then fine I will put in the effort to listen. I expect this to happen in my graduate studies and at conferences. I won't be happy about it though...

I feel it's not even necessarily information. It's often perspective.

If a lecture is basically delivering the material of a text without much clarification or perspective that is helping, sometimes it might just be the wrong lecture for you. If I had to go through such a requirement, I'd definitely stick to the book and occasional office hours.

I also learn better by style from books or research articles or one on one conversation, but I can gain a lot from a lecture/conference by resolving to jot down the ideas and think about them by myself using ample resources later.

Also, in small lectures, particularly when a professor is lecturing to peers, it is often more like a friendly but also serious dialogue where one guy is put on the spot than anything else.

 

[deRham]

I honestly think lectures are more for people who are too lazy to actually read the book themselves and hope for just enough of an understanding of the course material to get by with a passing mark.

People learn in different ways. And lots of people, if not most BOTH attend lectures and read the text.

Based on a single mid-term you've found a system that works for you. That's great. But why would you call someone lazy who learns in a different way?

I get where he's coming from, because sometimes the lectures just cover less than the book, and if they're just going through powerpoints, often it's just summarizing material. I honestly have used lectures as a way to do less work if I needed to get through a requirement that was simply not what I felt like spending time on at that time - one can often pass by learning just the lecture material, and needs to read the book for further detail.

That said, I don't agree that lectures are for the lazy primarily. What they are intended for is to be a useful thing to combine with a book, or even a stand-alone source.

In a lot of advanced classes, there is no book. You'll just have lectures by an expert.

And I can bet you those lectures go many times faster than almost any book, if not every book, you'll find on the same subject.

Don't conclude anything too soon :)

 

[genericusrnme]

Most of the time for me I've already learned the material covered in lectures
That's because I spent almost 2 years studying non stop before I applied for university and I'm guessing as long as I keep up this rate of studying I should be ahead all the way..

I don't think my case is that normal however
Also, during my pre-enrollment studying I would have killed to have been able to talk to someone who knew the material I was trying to learn at times, a lot of books are very poorly written.

If I wasn't in that situation however I'd say lectures are pretty important (at least after your first year)