Anyone else surprised by the amount of lecturing in humanities classes at T10 universities?

[Anonymous]

The amount of lecturing at these schools in the humanities seems quite bad though I realize that this has been known for a while. There are a few bright spots. I will, for example, give Duke some credit for offering a surprising number of seminar courses to even freshman, including, surprisingly, in their lit department, which is perennially filled with celebrity hotshot professors. Columbia has their core curriculum, which I believe is delivered in seminar format. But overall, the situation is far from ideal. Harvard has always been known for having this problem, but I was surprised by the extent to which Yale seems intent on delivering humanities classes in the form of an old professor droning on and on (perhaps with a weekly section led by a TF). Is this a recent development or was this always the case?

[Anonymous]

Why do you think ageism is acceptable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do you think ageism is acceptable?

It's not, when the professor is lively and engaging.

[Anonymous]

I'd rather a professor who delivers information over a "discussion" which is often one or two 18 year olds who think they have a LOT of really interesting ideas and can drone on and on about that one excerpt of that one book they read by that one author that one time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do you think ageism is acceptable?

Because it's good. End the gerontocracy!

[Anonymous]

Do you think it’s better to restrict access to hotshot professors with small classes? So only a few people get to attend their lectures?

A well-planned lecture can be lots of fun for the attendees.

[Anonymous]

OP did you go to a T10?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP did you go to a T10?

No. Why, am I missing something?

[Anonymous]

I think methods of teaching and learning in K-12 have changed significantly over the last 50 years to being all about student engagement, short attention spans, immediate gratification, pats on the back, active learning, everyone's a winner etc.

However many in post secondary feel that the current style of post secondary better prepares students for life after school and they aren't keen to move to the student led K-12 system. Many feel that lectures have worked well at preparing students for decades and that they don't want to change what isn't broken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think methods of teaching and learning in K-12 have changed significantly over the last 50 years to being all about student engagement, short attention spans, immediate gratification, pats on the back, active learning, everyone's a winner etc.

However many in post secondary feel that the current style of post secondary better prepares students for life after school and they aren't keen to move to the student led K-12 system. Many feel that lectures have worked well at preparing students for decades and that they don't want to change what isn't broken.

Does anyone actually believe that "lectures have worked well at preparing students for decades"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think methods of teaching and learning in K-12 have changed significantly over the last 50 years to being all about student engagement, short attention spans, immediate gratification, pats on the back, active learning, everyone's a winner etc.

However many in post secondary feel that the current style of post secondary better prepares students for life after school and they aren't keen to move to the student led K-12 system. Many feel that lectures have worked well at preparing students for decades and that they don't want to change what isn't broken.

Does anyone actually believe that "lectures have worked well at preparing students for decades"?

Sure. Society has worked fine in past decades with graduates who were lectured. Many very successful people learned via lectures.

[Anonymous]

Some of my best professors were lecturers (in lit!) and some of the worst classes I attended were the ones where students (mostly male) mansplained during discussions and would shout down alternative ideas. Both formats have their strengths and weaknesses. In my lit classes, we read some fantastic books and I was able to get my ideas across in my writing (as well as have conversations with my professors about contrasting ideas).

[Anonymous]

I'm a faculty member. If you don't lecture and give students the slides, they will complain you didn't cover the content they needed to know /in the format they can access it in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think methods of teaching and learning in K-12 have changed significantly over the last 50 years to being all about student engagement, short attention spans, immediate gratification, pats on the back, active learning, everyone's a winner etc.

However many in post secondary feel that the current style of post secondary better prepares students for life after school and they aren't keen to move to the student led K-12 system. Many feel that lectures have worked well at preparing students for decades and that they don't want to change what isn't broken.

Does anyone actually believe that "lectures have worked well at preparing students for decades"?

Sure. Society has worked fine in past decades with graduates who were lectured. Many very successful people learned via lectures.

You could argue that this is in spite of their education, not because of their education.

[Anonymous]

A great lecturer is an incredible teacher. Seminars are usually reserved for upperclassmen who presumably know enough to have a useful discussion.