Is going to lecture a huge waste of time?

[EngCommand]

Most general textbooks that I have come across are written by lecturers. Only very specialised ones seem to be written by researchers.

I am only basing this on what I have seen

Lecturers are researchers. Their primary job is to research, not to teach, at least that's how it is here in the UK.

 

[Choppy]

Ah, so we're in agreement then that the source of information is the same. It's simply the delivery technique that's in question.

 

[deRham]

It was the case at my university

Then you should agree that we both should advise people to avoid such schools, and go somewhere an abundance of professors lecturing on things in a way that exposes you to the thought process of an expert and enthusiast, as opposed to regurgitating a book, is the norm.

If the researchers who seem to consider writing those books that help you learn can do an adequate job at that, it would only make sense that MANY could explain those things in a well defined lecture period in an enlightening way. A lecture forces the lecturer to not just keep going and going, but to choose well defined chunks to go into each day the class meets. Books are pure text, so they don't contain a lot of the side remarks, clarifications and analogies drawn that a good lecturer will provide. I myself believe in books that are very close to conveying all that intuition. But having attempted to write short reports explaining certain things, I find it is simply easier to include a lot of helpful remarks in a conversation or lecture that are awkward to stuff into a book.

I am not saying there aren't many cases where the lecture is a waste. But the point I make is that there are truly benefits that should be sought out!

 

[deRham]

Perhaps the easiest way to say it is that lectures are good at highlighting "what is important and how to approach it", while books make for a great reference to get all the info and loose ends together.

In a less advanced class, thus, sometimes the purpose of the lecture can get diminished, but I think even in calculus or basic physics, it can be pretty useful.

 

[Moonbear]

Lecturers are researchers. Their primary job is to research, not to teach, at least that's how it is here in the UK.

Oh, I could turn this into an entire thread by itself! This is a relatively recent notion, and one I strongly disagree with. My view is that tenured faculty should be good at BOTH research and teaching. If you only want to do research, stay out of academia. Academia means working at universities, and universities wouldn't exist without students, so that means the priority should be teaching. I have no respect for the prima donnas who want to do research only and refuse to teach and refuse to improve their teaching. People who want to primarily do research belong in industry or research institutes. The point of researchers teaching is to provide an education beyond what you can get from a textbook alone. In fact, I think my greatest teaching accomplishment this year...and ever...was starting to provide journal articles as supplementary material for sophomores. I presented them with material that directly contradicted their textbook and told them about new discoveries that happened in their own lifetime. If they learned nothing else, I wanted them to learn that they need to keep learning throughout their entire careers, and that some of what they are learning now might be wrong. We do the best we can with the knowledge we have now, but as new discoveries are made, treatments and standard of care change.

 

[deRham]

^ I like it lots, and heartily agree. The fact of the matter is that a lot of professors' jobs exist because there is a university to fund them. I think putting some effort into teaching is a small price to pay to have such a wonderful career. Sure there are those who say there are drawbacks to that career choice like any, but it's pretty awesome a career by most measures.

 

[EngCommand]

Oh, I could turn this into an entire thread by itself! This is a relatively recent notion, and one I strongly disagree with. My view is that tenured faculty should be good at BOTH research and teaching. If you only want to do research, stay out of academia. Academia means working at universities, and universities wouldn't exist without students, so that means the priority should be teaching. I have no respect for the prima donnas who want to do research only and refuse to teach and refuse to improve their teaching. People who want to primarily do research belong in industry or research institutes. The point of researchers teaching is to provide an education beyond what you can get from a textbook alone. In fact, I think my greatest teaching accomplishment this year...and ever...was starting to provide journal articles as supplementary material for sophomores. I presented them with material that directly contradicted their textbook and told them about new discoveries that happened in their own lifetime. If they learned nothing else, I wanted them to learn that they need to keep learning throughout their entire careers, and that some of what they are learning now might be wrong. We do the best we can with the knowledge we have now, but as new discoveries are made, treatments and standard of care change.

Ask all the staff @ my uni department, I guarantee that >95% will tell you how much they hate teaching.

 

[IRobot]

As a student that has been exploring subjects on his own before taking the classes, I would say that I always learned something from the lectures, even on subjects I was sufficiently familiar to solve textbook problems, it cleared my picture. Plus, when the teacher is interesting, vivid and makes references to further readings, it gives you a boost of motivation you can lack when you're just reading books on your side.

 

[EngCommand]

As a student that has been exploring subjects on his own before taking the classes, I would say that I always learned something from the lectures, even on subjects I was sufficiently familiar to solve textbook problems, it cleared my picture. Plus, when the teacher is interesting, vivid and makes references to further readings, it gives you a boost of motivation you can lack when you're just reading books on your side.

OK, but is their teaching worth $100,000 of debt?

 

[mathwonk]

apparently there are many bad lecturers out there. but in my experience it takes 3 or more hours to recreate the content of a one hour lecture. moreover, it makes no sense to skip a lecture you have paid for. by skipping lectures you are thus wasting both money and time.

if you really are able to learn more by reading than going to lecture, then either you are a very poor listener, or you are wasting your tuition at an extremely poor college. change one of those things.

and i guarantee you that most professors in my dept enjoy their teaching. of course it is tempting to conjecture that would change if most students were unwilling even to attend classes they have prepared. a most rewarding experience is watching a reluctant or insecure student grow in confidence and knowledge as they realize that with effort they can indeed master the ideas.

let me put it this way: there is nothing as valuable as personal contact with a good teacher. if you have not chosen a good teacher, what are you doing there? stop bragging about how superior you are to your pitiful school, turn around and get out of there as soon as possible, and go directly to a good school or a good teacher and start going to class and to office hours.

do it now. it is your life, if you are a sincere student, you deserve good teachers, insist on them. I guarantee you they are also looking for good students.

 

[mathwonk]

i know i am being hard on you but i am trying to help you. [please forgive me this self righteous BS.] at some schools they only give the good professors to those students who seem to deserve them. when i was an undergrad at harvard my sat scores placed me into the best classes as a first semester freshman, but i lost out on those classes when my poor study skills (read poor attendance) began to evidence themselves. many years later, as a dedicated student and postdoc, i had the world's best teachers, fields medalists and ICM speakers. the difference was my behavior. forgive if my advice is wrong for you. i am just giving you the result of a lifelong progression, from screwup to hard nosed dedicated professional.

i admit i was skipping good lectures, even great ones, whereas you think you are skipping bad ones. i am skeptical that your lectures are as bad as you think. and if they really are, then get into a better class. helloooo.

 

[mathwonk]

in fact when i was a freshman we had a poor lecturer in introductory (non honors) physics the first semester who was replaced by an excellent lecturer the second semester. I heard that some of the students had complained about the first semester guy and apparently were listened to. The same thing has happened at my university when the head receives credible complaints about the quality of instruction. So you may have more ability to influence these things than you think.

 

[deRham]

Even if a bad listener, it is possible to improve those skills. I admit that some years ago, I found lectures were tough to benefit from. It got a lot better when I figured out what I want from each lecture I go to (no longer being passive).

I cannot contradict personal experience saying teachers at a given school are bad and hate teaching, but I do pity it. Even at a large research school, there are often plenty of star researchers who take their educating roles seriously.

I can understand even if a postdoc hates teaching, being under the gun to produce good research primarily. But the rest have little excuse.

The primary benefit is what mathwonk says: the 3 hour to one conversion is very true when you have a good lecturer and a student with well developed listening skills.

 

[coreluccio]

apparently there are many bad lecturers out there. but in my experience it takes 3 or more hours to recreate the content of a one hour lecture. moreover, it makes no sense to skip a lecture you have paid for. by skipping lectures you are thus wasting both money and time.

if you really are able to learn more by reading than going to lecture, then either you are a very poor listener, or you are wasting your tuition at an extremely poor college. change one of those things.

and i guarantee you that most professors in my dept enjoy their teaching. of course it is tempting to conjecture that would change if most students were unwilling even to attend classes they have prepared. a most rewarding experience is watching a reluctant or insecure student grow in confidence and knowledge as they realize that with effort they can indeed master the ideas.

let me put it this way: there is nothing as valuable as personal contact with a good teacher. if you have not chosen a good teacher, what are you doing there? stop bragging about how superior you are to your pitiful school, turn around and get out of there as soon as possible, and go directly to a good school or a good teacher and start going to class and to office hours.

do it now. it is your life, if you are a sincere student, you deserve good teachers, insist on them. I guarantee you they are also looking for good students.

Tuition is a sunk cost. Rationality dictates choosing the avenue of learning which will give you the greatest benefit for the least cost. The benefit I receive from lectures has a an opportunity cost of textbook reading that is greater than the cost of lectures associated with textbook reading. For me, anyway. I'm trying to understand the material as best I can in the finite amount of time I have, and do as well as I can on exams. You are paying for the ability to write the exams and receive the degree, nothing more.

 

[Jorriss]

Ask all the staff @ my uni department, I guarantee that >95% will tell you how much they hate teaching.

At my university, almost all professors seem to enjoy teaching. At least, they sure give off the impression of enjoying themselves during lecture.

 

[Choppy]

You are paying for the ability to write the exams and receive the degree, nothing more.

So why not just find the cheapest university out there?

 

[Choppy]

OK, but is their teaching worth $100,000 of debt?

If you're taking on a $100k debt load, I would suggest either reading some different books or attending some different lectures.

 

[coreluccio]

So why not just find the cheapest university out there?

Because unfortunately degrees from different schools carry with them different levels of prestige. If I could get an engineering degree from some online school and have it mean the same thing as one from a reputable school, I would. In an ideal world, degrees wouldn't be granted from universities but from government. You pay a small fee to sit an exam set up by the provincial/state/etc. government and once you have all the courses you need you can attain the degree. Unfortunately we live in a world where we have to be shaken down by unnecessary middlemen known as universities. The sprawling campuses and large lecture theaters are just a front.

 

[Choppy]

Because unfortunately degrees from different schools carry with them different levels of prestige. If I could get an engineering degree from some online school and have it mean the same thing as one from a reputable school, I would.

What exactly determines the different levels of prestige?

 

[mathwonk]

boy what a cynic. you seem to be spending too much time isolated in your own company. going to class can cause incidental meetings with smarter and more elevated thinkers, which can be quite beneficial. It happened to me when I got cynical about my uni. I had a lab partner who actually wanted to understand the stuff. It did me good.

 

[GregJ]

Unfortunately we live in a world where we have to be shaken down by unnecessary middlemen known as universities. The sprawling campuses and large lecture theaters are just a front.

Universities also happen to have a lot of useful (and expensive) equipment. Quite important for some subjects...

 

[EngCommand]

Universities also happen to have a lot of useful (and expensive) equipment. Quite important for some subjects...

Eugh.

Postgraduate students benefit most from the equitment.

Undergraduate students do not. They slave away in the labs for free (working on their undergraduate research)...and they have to pay to do it too!

 

[EngCommand]

So why not just find the cheapest university out there?

I agree with this. That's what I did for my undergraduate 3-year degree here in the UK. It didn't stop me getting into one of the best universities in the entire world to study for my PhD chemical engineering.

Come to think of it, I was much less pressured/stressed than my friends who went to much more prestigious universities, and I definitely had more time to learn @ my own pace and cover certain topics that I found interesting in more depth.

If I had went to one of the higher-end universities, I would of had to stick to a much, much tighter work schedule and balance a much, much higher workload, which I don't think I would have benefited from.

Anyone agree with my thinking?

 

[deRham]

Maybe it works differently in the UK, but I think it is perfectly possible to have a flexible schedule at a high end university. Aren't some courses in Cambridge structured to offer maximal flexibility till the exam at the end, so you can learn at your pace and style till then?

Cheap universities could be full of busy work.

 

[lisab]

I think you're kidding yourself if you think $$ = quality of instruction, at least in my experience. Some of the best instructors/lecturers I've had were at community colleges! After community college, I did graduate from what is considered to be a good school for physics (University of Washington) and many of the lecturers there were not so great.

Meh, I think prestige is over-rated.

Re the OP: no, lecture is not a waste of time, given the way most people learn. The best way to learn something, I think, is a bit of reading, a bit of hearing (lecture), a lot of working the problems, topped off with a question and answer session.

In the best of all worlds, you'd have a great book, a great professor, lots of time to work problems, and a TA who is on top of things. In reality, we rarely get all those things in a nice package. But in general, it's good to hear an expert explain something.

 

[IRobot]

OK, but is their teaching worth $100,000 of debt?

I studied in France so it's question I never had to ask myself (free instruction because my parents were quite poor). Indeed, in your case I would think twice about going to college.

 

[EngCommand]

Maybe it works differently in the UK, but I think it is perfectly possible to have a flexible schedule at a high end university. Aren't some courses in Cambridge structured to offer maximal flexibility till the exam at the end, so you can learn at your pace and style till then?

Cheap universities could be full of busy work.

Yes, maybe.

But I think it's less likely.

 

[deRham]

Then your country certainly must have a different system. At a top ranked school in the US, students have immense flexibility, often more so than at lower schools, in terms of when they add courses and drop them, what they take, etc. The range of things offered is greater.

The classes, while often more rigorous in material at top ranked schools, will not be more harshly graded on average than at a lower ranked but still good school.

The top schools which force an inordinate number of requirements down a student's throat as compared to the average school are slim in number in the US. A school like Caltech forces students to take a lot of hard classes outside their majors, but that is something students going there opt for, and that is a pretty incredibly small school. Most schools are not like that. You get a lot of flexibility.

Can you explain what makes it less likely in the UK?

 

[EngCommand]

Then your country certainly must have a different system. At a top ranked school in the US, students have immense flexibility, often more so than at lower schools, in terms of when they add courses and drop them, what they take, etc. The range of things offered is greater.

The classes, while often more rigorous in material at top ranked schools, will not be more harshly graded on average than at a lower ranked but still good school.

The top schools which force an inordinate number of requirements down a student's throat as compared to the average school are slim in number in the US. A school like Caltech forces students to take a lot of hard classes outside their majors, but that is something students going there opt for, and that is a pretty incredibly small school. Most schools are not like that. You get a lot of flexibility.

Can you explain what makes it less likely in the UK?

Generally in the UK if you study science or engineering at university you have absolutely no say in what modules you take for the first two years. Only in third year do you get a very limited choice of what to study (i.e you might have control over 1/3 of your modules in 3rd year if you're lucky).

The situation is completely different if you study arts where you have almost total flexibility throughout your entire degree.

 

[deRham]

Ah yes, I should have known. That is true in some other countries following a similar system.

The US schools often basically let you do whatever you want, to the point where you could do a first year requirement (something intended as first year foundational material) in your last year. You are required to do a few core subjects, but often over 60 percent of your undergrad is left for experimenting.

Some engineering subjects are a bit less free, though. A subject like math or physics offers you tons of freedom for sure.

 

[Moonbear]

I don't think it's the school that makes students more stressed. I think it's self-selection. The students who are so neurotic about grades to get stressed about them also apply to and attend the expensive schools they perceive as essential to advancing their career in some way. The more relaxed students don't fret about that and will happily attend a more affordable school. I also agree with Lisab that research reputation is not necessarily an indicator of quality of undergraduate instruction. I think the middle ground is best, actually. A school where there are faculty active in research who actually embrace and enjoy teaching, and are allowed the time to teach well, is good for the students and the faculty. Too much research and too few who want to teach means you're often taught by inexperienced TAs, not the hot shot researcher you're paying for. On the other hand, too many teaching faculty without enough research means they can get stale and outdated.

 

[Moonbear]

OK, but is their teaching worth $100,000 of debt?

I can't understand why anyone would go into that much debt for an undergrad degree. There are so many more affordable options, but people want the designer label even if the generic state university provides the same or better education. It makes no sense to me.

If you're attending a prestigious university for the sake of getting a better job, you really better attend lectures. What makes them prestigious isn't that you'll learn more, but the classmates you meet who are from wealthy families that can get you a job through connections rather than qualifications.

 

[deRham]

^ Unfortunately, some foolishly think that a simple word "Harvard" next to their name will get them awesome jobs immediately. It just doesn't work that way of course.

That's quite a good point about actually using the networking options availble in brand-name universities.

 

[GregJ]

The $100,000.00 debt may be referring to the new UK university price increase (£9,000.00 per year for students starting in 2012, which excludes accommodation, books, food, etc.). So by the end of a 3 year degree you have £27,000.00 (around $42,000.00) debt just for tuition fees alone. As anyone knows, living costs and food quickly add up (especially if you live in a big city).

This price is at 90% of the universities in the UK unfortunately. Only a select few are cheaper. So it is not a matter of prestige or designer label :/

 

[EngCommand]

The $100,000.00 debt may be referring to the new UK university price increase (£9,000.00 per year for students starting in 2012, which excludes accommodation, books, food, etc.). So by the end of a 3 year degree you have £27,000.00 (around $42,000.00) debt just for tuition fees alone. As anyone knows, living costs and food quickly add up (especially if you live in a big city).

This price is at 90% of the universities in the UK unfortunately. Only a select few are cheaper. So it is not a matter of prestige or designer label :/

Indeed. The living costs for each year are at least equivalent to the tuition fee (£9000), and can be much higher, especially if you go to a universitiy in a city like London.

I was fortunate in graduating before the tuition fee increase. My yearly tuition fees were £3400. That's in huge contrast to my European (French, German, Italian) PhD colleagues who paid <£300 in tuition per year!

I'd also like to add, that a large fraction of students in the UK opt for 4-year science/engineering degrees e.g. MChem (Masters in Chemistry), MEng (Masters in Engineering), MPhys (Masters in Physics), meaning the costs can be even higher than $100,000!