There are two kinds of student: those with ability, and those who need lectures. | Hacker News Reader

There are two kinds of student: those with ability, and those who need lectures.

groups.google.com

Well I'm not sure if I have any ability but I definitely didn't spend a lot of time on the campus. In the age of the internet when all the lecture notes and resources are available online going to lectures was sort of pointless. Instead, I got a full time job as a programmer while finishing my degree. I still did fine on the exams. Those extra 2 years of experience on graduation compared to the 0 years of my mates at uni was quite a big help.

So it's true. It's common knowledge, among people who look into it, that universities are utterly perverse and quite doomed.

The original idea of university wasn't some form of training camp for a profession, it was the idea of coming together to do scientific research on a given topic. I think it would stand them quite well to get back to the roots.

Actually, they were originally started as legal institutions designed to give autonomy to masters and students from state and church interference in the training process. They were more like guilds than places to do scientific research.

The shift of focus toward science happened some time after the original universities were set up. Besides which, most of the important research done before Newton into what we would today think of as science happened outside of universities, which were (and for the most part still are, at least when it comes to science) _very_ conservative centers of thought.

But I agree with the idea that universities serve a better function when they focus less on commercial interests and professional training. When universities are commercially driven, they become conservative and narrow and, I think, do more harm than good.

If all the teacher is doing is repeating the book, then sure, a lecture is just a terrible way of republishing the book.

A real lecturer, however, should be able to tailor the lesson to the level of the students, fill in holes in the assumed knowledge, and bring their personal experience to the the material.

There are people who need lectures? I found out around grade 9 that all a lecture is, is the teacher reading out loud what's in a book,

I do not know what needs to be changed... actually I do. During this final year of Criminal Law, the "lectures" were not lectures, it was a sort of discussion about principles, scenarios, questions. I quite loved it, I was however puzzled that some people felt threatened by this "change" and outspokenly opposed it. They felt scared that they would not have traditional lectures, someone with a powerpoint saying what is already in the book. Seriously, these people should not be in uni.

My tort lectures were also interesting as the lecturer is a solicitor and had just started lecturing so he would give real world examples and less of traditional rehashing.

Compare this with psychology. The lectures were in a massive lecture theatre, about 100 to 200 people in. I asked a question once, are psychopaths born or made, the lecturer could not hear it, so I had to repeat myself 15 times, until the whole students in the lecture room started repeating it with me. Having this kind of experience puts you well off because you are supposed to make the question and move the spot light back to the lecturer straight away, not have all eyes on yourself and hold the room for long.

At least that was an event, something to remember and the lecturer appreciated my question, the rest of the year however was a rehashing of the book chapters in a powerpoint with a dummy and high tech "stick". To be honest, if I want the content in audio, I'll just read it out loud myself.

Those people who need lectures should not be in university, this will allow universities to have the resources to actually teach through inquisitive inquiry, not make their students sit there listening to what you already just read for two hours, which starts to become torture after 30 mins.

I find it idiotic - to use the Greek word - that although the method of teaching in Oxbridge is considered to be the best, the other universities do not copy them. Neither of those two universities has lectures, the theme is rather tutoring, which is afterall why one would go to university, to challenge his intellect, not to have some person say aloud what you just read.

Yes, its not lectures which are the problem. You just don't need lectures for technical courses, you need books and practice and someone competent to discuss difficulties with.

For non-technical courses, lectures aren't (or shouldn't be) simply rehashing of the content of books. The best (non-technical) lectures I have been to drew on readings done but consisted of drawing links between them, exposing subtle points, guided discussion and exposition of unpublished research by the lecturer.

I think the helpful way of looking at lectures is to see them as a medium amongst many. When is a lecture / presentation the right choice to get the point across?

Having to have stuff explained to you does not make you stupid.

This entire thesis is crap.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com