[Sharri5]

I watched lectures online and they were so boring they damn near put me to sleep. Why do the lecturers suck? It's like they were pulled from the grave to teach.

[thomaskurian89]

Because you don't go to Oxbridge.

[poohat]

The quality of lecturers should be roughly identical across all good universities since lecturers are mainly hired based on their research rather than teaching abilities. The advantages of Oxbridge come from the fact that more material gets covered in lectures (since having more academically capable students means that the classes can move faster), the signalling effect, and the general benefits of being surrounded by really smart and hard working people. Not because the lecturers are any better at lecturing.

[HarveyCanis]

Fishing for neg rep so I'll do the opposite.

[Sharri5]

(Original post by thomaskurian89)
Because you don't go to Oxbridge.

you don't go to Oxbridge

[Sharri5]

(Original post by HarveyCanis)
Fishing for neg rep so I'll do the opposite.

nope Sherlock, you're fishing for negs. I'm fishing for answers as to why the Oxbridge lectures suck. Please read b4 you answer a question.

[SunderX]

(Original post by Sharri5)
nope Sherlock, you're fishing for negs. I'm fishing for answers as to why the Oxbridge lectures suck. Please read b4 you answer a question.

Nope, it honestly does sound you're fishing for negs, otherwise you'd have phrased the question in a much less confrontational and obviously superlative manner. e.g.:

Spoiler:

Show

Hi, I was checking out some of Oxbridge's online content recently and was pretty disappointed by the quality of some of the stuff. Can anybody explain why this is the case?

And to answer: yes, some of the lectures I have attended have been dire, as in literally not worth going to. And some of them have been excellent, riveting and truly insightful. Most are in between somewhere. And like previous posters, I do agree that lecturers are generally hired on the basis of research instead of teaching skill, and TA-type positions are rare.

We accept as a matter of course some lectures are going to be ****, but the supervision system really does provide an excellent second layer of teaching that helps cover any deficiencies in lectures.

Of course, it actually does depend on the content of the lecture itself. I actually have fallen asleep in some 9AM Maths ones before.

[mirin?]

The quality of being at Oxbridge is that you're directly taught by some of the best researchers in the country and you're well placed to gain a lot from that.

[Banishingboredom]

(Original post by SunderX)
Nope, it honestly does sound you're fishing for negs, otherwise you'd have phrased the question in a much less confrontational and obviously superlative manner. e.g.:

Spoiler:

Show

Hi, I was checking out some of Oxbridge's online content recently and was pretty disappointed by the quality of some of the stuff. Can anybody explain why this is the case?

And to answer: yes, some of the lectures I have attended have been dire, as in literally not worth going to. And some of them have been excellent, riveting and truly insightful. Most are in between somewhere. And like previous posters, I do agree that lecturers are generally hired on the basis of research instead of teaching skill, and TA-type positions are rare.

We accept as a matter of course some lectures are going to be ****, but the supervision system really does provide an excellent second layer of teaching that helps cover any deficiencies in lectures.

Of course, it actually does depend on the content of the lecture itself. I actually have fallen asleep in some 9AM Maths ones before.

Gonna try and hijack the thread away from this obvious attempt at trolling.

I've been lucky to have had some truly inspirational teachers in my time and I always assumed that professors at Oxford were just as good.

But is it the case that they are just the experts in their subject and are there to do further research, not to teach undergrads? Unlike at school students can learn independently and so is being a communicator and teacher less relevant?

[poohat]

(Original post by Banishingboredom)
I've been lucky to have had some truly inspirational teachers in my time and I always assumed that professors at Oxford were just as good.

But is it the case that they are just the experts in their subject and are there to do further research, not to teach undergrads? Unlike at school students can learn independently and so is being a communicator and teacher less relevant?

In the sciences at least, people mainly go into academia because they want to do research rather than because they want to teach. Some will really enjoy (and put more effort into) undergrad teaching, while others will find it a burden - its totally variable and really depends on the person. As an undergraduate, its usually quite obvious when a lecturer has put effort into their teaching, and when theyre just going through the motions.

Hiring at top universities in the sciences is mainly based on research ability, although there is a basic minimum of lecturing ability required (you cant be completely terrible). So the quality of lecturers at Oxbridge wont necessarily be better than elsewhere, other than in the general sense that people who are very good at one thing tend to be good at everything (anecdotally, good researchers tend to be good lecturers*, although there are many exception). However, being at a university which is strong in research can be a big advantage when it comes to (eg) undergraduate projects, and getting letters of references for postgraduate study. Also at Oxbridge, as distinct from other top universities, there is the tutorial system which means that undergraduates have contact with academic staff in a small group setting, outside of lectures.


* In general the relationship between research ability and lecturing ability is complex and hard to quantify. Roughly speaking, if someone is teaching a subject that they know inside out (due to doing research in it) then they are perhaps less likely to be satisfied with a standard textbook treatment and might be more inclined to create their own notes instead, possibly incorporating some of their own work, and so on. And if someone is just really insanely clever Richard Feynman-style, they will often have a different/deeper perspective compared to even a typical top university academic.

[Banishingboredom]

(Original post by poohat)
In the sciences at least, people mainly go into academia because they want to do research rather than because they want to teach. Some will really enjoy (and put more effort into) undergrad teaching, while others will find it a burden - its totally variable and really depends on the person. As an undergraduate, its usually quite obvious when a lecturer has put effort into their teaching, and when theyre just going through the motions.

Hiring at top universities in the sciences is mainly based on research ability, although there is a basic minimum of lecturing ability required (you cant be completely terrible). So the quality of lecturers at Oxbridge wont necessarily be better than elsewhere, other than in the general sense that people who are very good at one thing tend to be good at everything (anecdotally, good researchers tend to be good lecturers*, although there are many exception). However, being at a university which is strong in research can be a big advantage when it comes to (eg) undergraduate projects, and getting letters of references for postgraduate study. Also at Oxbridge, as distinct from other top universities, there is the tutorial system which means that undergraduates have contact with academic staff in a small group setting, outside of lectures.


* In general the relationship between research ability and lecturing ability is complex and hard to quantify. Roughly speaking, if someone is teaching a subject that they know inside out (due to doing research in it) then they are perhaps less likely to be satisfied with a standard textbook treatment and might be more inclined to create their own notes instead, possibly incorporating some of their own work, and so on. And if someone is just really insanely clever Richard Feynman-style, they will often have a different/deeper perspective compared to even a typical top university academic.

Great answer, thanks very much

[Angela_Beth]

For me: most are fairly average, some are brilliant, and a small number have been really bad. People, as you say, who are probably a lot better at researching than they are at teaching. But I've really found them quite rare.

Overall - with supervisions, seminars and lectures in mind - I honestly can't complain about the quality of teaching I've received. I always have help when I need it, I've had a handful of supervisors who have been genuinely inspiring, and I've never been taught by someone I thought wasn't up to it.

Maybe you found the lecture boring because of the course? If you were watching quite an advanced lecture for something you've never studied, it's not surprising you didn't enjoy it!

[Hypocrism]

We have good lectures when the subject is interesting, bad lectures when the subject is boring.

My theory was always that the interesting, and therefore typically "good" lecturers, get involved in interesting things and do good lectures, and the boring ones, the boring subjects, and give bad lectures.

[Architecture-er]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
We have good lectures when the subject is interesting, bad lectures when the subject is boring.

My theory was always that the interesting, and therefore typically "good" lecturers, get involved in interesting things and do good lectures, and the boring ones, the boring subjects, and give bad lectures.

But what if you only find a subject boring because it's being taught badly?

[Architecture-er]

(Original post by Sharri5)
I watched lectures online and they were so boring they damn near put me to sleep. Why do the lecturers suck? It's like they were pulled from the grave to teach.

So who were these boring online lectures taught by, and on what subjects?

Links please, partly because I doubt you watched any, and partly because I would like to if you truly had.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by Architecture-er)
But what if you only find a subject boring because it's being taught badly?

I have to study it myself afterwards, and I don't really learn that well from any lecture process anyway (despite learning via sound mostly, damn unpredictable memorizing patterns!). The subjects I don't like learning on my own correlate very well to the ones with bad lecturers.

[abdiz12]

Because they expect you to know everything.

[kka25]

(Original post by poohat)
The quality of lecturers should be roughly identical across all good universities since lecturers are mainly hired based on their research rather than teaching abilities. The advantages of Oxbridge come from the fact that more material gets covered in lectures (since having more academically capable students means that the classes can move faster), the signalling effect, and the general benefits of being surrounded by really smart and hard working people. Not because the lecturers are any better at lecturing.

Then why pay them if they can't teach properly? Why assess the lecturer if the Uni thinks that they are not aiming for better quality in education but more for research? Here's the thing; you'd be utterly naive if you think most UG students will benefit from the lecturers' research. UG students are there to learn fundamental things from their degree; not something brand new that's out of this world. Therefore, if these educators can't even deliver basic content, then the question becomes, why pay them in the first place if all you do is study it yourself? Moreover, if you actually read research papers in education, universities basically provide a service - just like your nearest shopping mall. You pay these Unis to teach you something; and if you don't like it, or think it's utterly pitiful, then you have the right to ask for a better service, hence a better educator. That's why they have the quality assurance board.

There are various academic papers out there that are trying to improve education in University; even for the Sciences. Your reasoning is based on high school or your peers dogma where ;"I'm at Uni, doesn't matter if the lecturer is bad or not, I should learn by my own - 110%" - ineffective and basically you've been ripped-off.

(Original post by poohat)
In the sciences at least, people mainly go into academia because they want to do research rather than because they want to teach.

Opinion or fact? Evidence?

Hiring at top universities in the sciences is mainly based on research ability, although there is a basic minimum of lecturing ability required (you cant be completely terrible).

Opinion or fact? Evidence?

I think you'd be one of those people that would read slides or just skim through it if you were to be an educator in Uni. Better skip your class.

(Original post by Banishingboredom)
Gonna try and hijack the thread away from this obvious attempt at trolling.

I've been lucky to have had some truly inspirational teachers in my time and I always assumed that professors at Oxford were just as good.

But is it the case that they are just the experts in their subject and are there to do further research, not to teach undergrads? Unlike at school students can learn independently and so is being a communicator and teacher less relevant?

They are there to teach students. Not only to do research. You can complain if you don't like the lecturer(s) way of teaching.

[concubine]

(Original post by Architecture-er)
So who were these boring online lectures taught by, and on what subjects?

Links please, partly because I doubt you watched any, and partly because I would like to if you truly had.

I really don't see what's so unbelievable about someone watching lectures online when they're increasingly accessible. That, or given how much students seem to love bitching, that someone would find the lectures they saw boring (even though I bet they weren't).

[kka25]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
I have to study it myself afterwards, and I don't really learn that well from any lecture process anyway (despite learning via sound mostly, damn unpredictable memorizing patterns!). The subjects I don't like learning on my own correlate very well to the ones with bad lecturers.

Exactly. To this day, I'm still pissed off by the fact that I'm a bit weak on certain topics because of poor teaching style/teaching attitude/lack of consultation time and most of the time, I ended up self-studying it 100% on my own in the cafe - and that's really effective isn't it?