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

[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"?

I can still remember the philosophers taught by a prof who almost send the lecturn over during lecture because he was so into the material.

I can’t tell you much about the 3-hour discussion sections I had in my honors program.

Amazingly, one size doesn’t fit all.

[Anonymous]

Just watch political philosopher Michael Sandel's lectures for his Justice class at Harvard. He's brilliant and it's wonderful they're widely available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

I have two kids at different ivies and all humanities classes have been discussion based seminars and a couple of stem classes have had a lot of discussion too. Some taught by old, well known professors . There are lectures of course but the majority of class time is discussion for humanities, and they are small, even first year. They’ve had the same or more discussion based classes as their friends at W&L and Bowdoin

[Anonymous]

Do you think a Harvard or Yale chair professor is going to be doing seminars with 12 undergrads? If that's what you wanted, your kid should have chosen a SLAC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yep. I'm positive I learned more in my law school large-format lecture classes than I did in most seminars in law school or undergrad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you think a Harvard or Yale chair professor is going to be doing seminars with 12 undergrads? If that's what you wanted, your kid should have chosen a SLAC.

actually, plenty of them do!

[Anonymous]

For all the issues and concerns we may have when evaluating colleges…this isn’t remotely a concern.

[Anonymous]

Wait, since when is there something wrong with lectures?

[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"?

My T10 had lectures with no discussion some of which were the most memorable talks of my life, and classes that were a mix of lectures and discussion. My kid is at a different T10 and reports the same, a balanced mix of class types with amazing approachable professors even if the class is primarily lecture. Lectures are not bad, if the professor is good and IME the vast majority of mine were outstanding. Not sure where people went to school with “boring old drones”.

[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"?

My T10 had lectures with no discussion some of which were the most memorable talks of my life, and classes that were a mix of lectures and discussion. My kid is at a different T10 and reports the same, a balanced mix of class types with amazing approachable professors even if the class is primarily lecture. Lectures are not bad, if the professor is good and IME the vast majority of mine were outstanding. Not sure where people went to school with “boring old drones”.

I went to a SLAC that is not T10 and I had the same experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For all the issues and concerns we may have when evaluating colleges…this isn’t remotely a concern.

+ 1 million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait, since when is there something wrong with lectures?

No. They’re ideal. OP must be a lazy student.

[Anonymous]

Lectures are great for conveying a lot of information succinctly, especially if the lecturer is an expert who can provide special insights.

Discussions have a place in learning, but too many of them are worthless because the teacher ineffectively moderates and/or the students come unprepared to discuss.

[Anonymous]

Top 10 universities are hedge funds that teach classes so they can get government funding. What do you expect from them, a quality education. Investors, I mean parents, cause a fuss if their kid gets anything below an A-. Why do you think the average GPAs at these schools is 3.7 or 3.8.

[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"?

That's precisely why everyone wanted and still wants to go the Oxbridge. The cost of admission gave the student access to the best lecturers in the world.