Johnny Chung Lee to donate $5k for Khan-style linear algebra lectures
procrastineering.blogspot.com
procrastineering.blogspot.com
Khan is great but he cannot teach everything. Programming, history, literature, graphic design, etc. all deserve similar treatment.
The lectures are available on iTunes University too.
You may find his style slow though, I used to watch his lectures at about 1.5x speed using Quicktime (opt+ff). You can use vlc too on Windows.
I clicked into some of the other courses and was disappointed to see that video lectures weren't available for all the courses. We really need to get to a point where all the math, comp sci, etc is available in high quality format. Another thing we need is redundancy. I think G. Strang is an excellent lecturer but we need variety for different learning styles. Still I am impressed with what MIT is doing and hope to see more of this in the future.
These lectures were recorded long ago (1999), recent lectures (on calculus and another course) by Strang have higher video quality.
I have experienced mono audio on some too, you might be able to fix it with your video player though. ( If you are watching on iPhone/iPad, there is a mono setting in settings-accessibility btw.)
Check out http://www-math.mit.edu/~gs/ for the other lectures by Strang. Also in this paper: "too much calculus" http://www-math.mit.edu/~gs/papers/essay.pdf he discusses why linear algebra should be emphasized more (and calculus less) in the digital age.
I also think this is the reason everybody uses doubles and floats for doing financial apps. It makes so much more sense to use integers and talk about "how many" pennies one has rather than "how much" money one has. Floats and doubles were designed to estimate continuous quantities not exact figures.
it definitely doesn't pass the 10 minute video lecture requirement though. Strang talks about SVD for almost 45 minutes.
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-06-linear-algebra-...
It's a very insulting offer rather that inspiring as he no doubt hopes. $100 for an instructional video is nothing. $100,000 per video might get you some nice PBS style ones. In between is the realm of hope to get something good. Wanting custom lectures tailored to your private needs though, and payment is contingent on if he feels like it? Sheesh.
I suggest instead depositing the $5000 prize money in trust, establishing clear criteria for winning, and then empanel impartial and qualified judges to choose winners according to the established criteria. For the 10 best videos there will be a $500 prize each, and maybe an extra $1000 for the top one overall. The prize must be awarded no matter what, even if they only get 10 videos total that are not as great as they would hope. The credibility that comes from actually awarding the prizes will improve the quality of entries of the next round.
As it is, the terms are so wishy washy that most likely the $5000 will never be awarded and a lot of people will waste a lot of time and then be frustrated to find a whiney person explain why nothing was really worthy of his precious prize money.
Another way to structure it would be to award grants of production equipment and software for video and virtual blackboard work to assist talented teachers in producing videos. These could be granted to the most promising 20 videos, with the hope that they would come back to enter phase 2 of the competition where they produce things with their new pedagogic gear.