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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP did you go to a T10?

obviously not, because they don't understand why you attend a top school -- to get access and learn from the best in the field (and hope that, if recognized as having talent), those premier authorities help and write letters if recommendation to the next stage of career development. That's why colleges and universities put so much emphasis on "publish or perish" because they hope to hire and retain only the best to educate their students

[Anonymous]

I went to a Jesuit college with fantastic professors. They mostly lectured and I learned so much from them and from going to talk to them during office hours.

In grad school at a very different college, only one professor lectured. The rest assigned readings and then put us in groups in every single class. We had to create a poster and then present it to the class or sometimes we did gallery walks. I can't believe how much tuition I wasted. It was basically independent study. Ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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).

OMG the discussions filled with mansplaining and/or the kiss-ass striver trying to let everyone but mostly the prof know how well they know the material. Ill take the curmudgeon lecture with 200 anyday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

You forgot to mention tax-sheltered hedge funds..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP did you go to a T10?

obviously not, because they don't understand why you attend a top school -- to get access and learn from the best in the field (and hope that, if recognized as having talent), those premier authorities help and write letters if recommendation to the next stage of career development. That's why colleges and universities put so much emphasis on "publish or perish" because they hope to hire and retain only the best to educate their students

This is so idiotic that I have to think you're a troll.

[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?

OP, please stop lecturing us !

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Good point!

[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"?

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.

Ah yes, Oxbridge—you know, the schools with the famed 2-student tutorial system. I'm sure it's the lecture part that attracts people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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"?

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.

Ah yes, Oxbridge—you know, the schools with the famed 2-student tutorial system. I'm sure it's the lecture part that attracts people.

Well, obviously Oxbridge should switch to an entirely lecture-based system since, as we've learned in this thread, lectures are clearly pedagogically superior and preferred by most students.

[Anonymous]

People aren’t paying big bucks for their kids to learn from other overconfident 18 year olds.

[Anonymous]

I've never heard a smart person say they like lectures. There is a mismatch between the academic quality of the students at T10 schools and the methods used to educate them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've never heard a smart person say they like lectures. There is a mismatch between the academic quality of the students at T10 schools and the methods used to educate them.

I know many an MD who prefers lectures. I took more than one seminar every semester from freshman to senior year, and it’s only very helpful if you go above and beyond to truly understand the topic. Otherwise, it’s a bunch of kids just talking about life

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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).

OMG the discussions filled with mansplaining and/or the kiss-ass striver trying to let everyone but mostly the prof know how well they know the material. Ill take the curmudgeon lecture with 200 anyday.

This. Most kids would benefit more from a lecture than a sophomoric (pun intended) decision with a bunch of kids who don't know the underlying material well enough to add anything meaningful. I'm a very firm believer that 100 and 200 level humanities courses are about absorbing enough information to be able to intelligently engage in upper level classes

[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 don't understand your first sentence. How would you teach humanities other than lecture? Didn't realize this was a "known issue".

[Anonymous]

I'm a humanities prof. I don't have any choice: I _have_ to lecture because students won't prep for discussion by reading in advance. Even when I scaffold activities to get to discussions, the students literally let one another down. I wish they were climbing all over one another to express any opinion at all (even one that is off-topic), but they are unwilling to take the risk. It's really sad.