Anecdotally, most large college classes I attended but didn't pay attention. I think more than half of them were useless: they were generic dull lectures, and I could read what was being covered much faster and remembered it better (despite "learning styles" being allegedly debunked, I seem to learn much better from reading than listening).
Most high-level university professors are hired based on their research, not teaching, so I expect most Harvard classes are also the same kind of ineffective lecture. And for some students, skipping this lecture actually improves their grade, because they can spend that time learning the same material more effectively.
However:
- Some of my lecturers were incredible teachers. Some just had enthusiasm, jokes, interesting real-world anecdotes, generally higher-quality notes and slides. Others managed to include in-class interaction despite the large class size, e.g. live code walks on each group's semester-long group project (one group per class). They were clearly going above and beyond out of genuine passion for the subject and teaching, and I am forever grateful for them.
- Some of my classes were much smaller "seminar-style". This type of class has interactive in-class activities which are part of your final grade, so you have to attend and pay attention, but they're also much more interesting and effective. I'm sure Harvard has these too, and the students getting high grades aren't skipping them.
This article feels all over the map to me, is it about the educational system there / getting kids to go to class? Or is it about getting them to talk to each other?
All of these seem 100% within the professor's ability to enforce....
Or is it about talking about ideology?
>That means many students graduate without having benefited from talking very much with their teachers and peers, and they stay stuck in ideological bubbles, unwilling or unable to engage with challenging ideas.
As far as that goes I'd argue that's the same thing everywhere ... who WANTS to talk about anything like that?
On social media we live in a time of "I don't think this housing policy is effective." results in accusations of racism and assumptions that nobody can be talked down from ... so yeah who wants to do that?
Even decades ago I didn't want to talk about such things in college without really knowing who I was talking about ... that's not strange.
Anecdotally, most large college classes I attended but didn't pay attention. I think more than half of them were useless: they were generic dull lectures, and I could read what was being covered much faster and remembered it better (despite "learning styles" being allegedly debunked, I seem to learn much better from reading than listening).
Most high-level university professors are hired based on their research, not teaching, so I expect most Harvard classes are also the same kind of ineffective lecture. And for some students, skipping this lecture actually improves their grade, because they can spend that time learning the same material more effectively.
However:
- Some of my lecturers were incredible teachers. Some just had enthusiasm, jokes, interesting real-world anecdotes, generally higher-quality notes and slides. Others managed to include in-class interaction despite the large class size, e.g. live code walks on each group's semester-long group project (one group per class). They were clearly going above and beyond out of genuine passion for the subject and teaching, and I am forever grateful for them.
- Some of my classes were much smaller "seminar-style". This type of class has interactive in-class activities which are part of your final grade, so you have to attend and pay attention, but they're also much more interesting and effective. I'm sure Harvard has these too, and the students getting high grades aren't skipping them.
This article feels all over the map to me, is it about the educational system there / getting kids to go to class? Or is it about getting them to talk to each other?
All of these seem 100% within the professor's ability to enforce....
Or is it about talking about ideology?
>That means many students graduate without having benefited from talking very much with their teachers and peers, and they stay stuck in ideological bubbles, unwilling or unable to engage with challenging ideas.
As far as that goes I'd argue that's the same thing everywhere ... who WANTS to talk about anything like that?
On social media we live in a time of "I don't think this housing policy is effective." results in accusations of racism and assumptions that nobody can be talked down from ... so yeah who wants to do that?
Even decades ago I didn't want to talk about such things in college without really knowing who I was talking about ... that's not strange.