[Sharri5]

Oxbridge must change their online education approach if they want to move into the 21st century

[martinix]

Are there really any full Oxbridge lectures available on the Internet? All I could find were some bits of Philosophy lectures by Prof. Millican.

[fluteflute]

(Original post by martinix)
Are there really any full Oxbridge lectures available on the Internet? All I could find were some bits of Philosophy lectures by Prof. Millican.

I believe the General philosophy lectures are the full thing, as delivered to 1st year Philosophy students: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...9&feature=plcp

There are some other lectures available from the university, I'm not sure how many of them are lectures as actually received regularly by students on undergraduate courses: https://www.youtube.com/user/oxford/videos?view=1

I suspect the Quantum Mechanics ones are: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...9&feature=plcp

[martinix]

Thank you very much, fluteflute. Especially the physics lectures might help me a lot, I only wish that Cambridge would also be so generous

[Observatory]

Lectures are generally bad everywhere, and Oxbridge lecturers are there for research interests, not to teach. They're unlikely to be different to anywhere else.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by Sharri5)
Oxbridge must change their online education approach if they want to move into the 21st century

You get access to a university-wide education network when you are a member of the university, with vast amounts of resources and access even to some courses you aren't taking.

Really, you shouldn't judge our education system unless you have been a part of it.

[kka25]

(Original post by Observatory)
Lectures are generally bad everywhere, and Oxbridge lecturers are there for research interests, not to teach. They're unlikely to be different to anywhere else.

Nice generalization.

[Observatory]

(Original post by kka25)
Nice generalization.

Was it the word "generally" that gave it away?

To be clear - do you think that lectures as a teaching method are generally good (a matter of opinion, but from personal experience I don't think they are even necessary for a university education), or that Oxbridge lecturers are generally better at teaching than lecturers elsewhere (a pretty obviously false hypothesis if you know anything about how and why lecturers are hired)?

[kka25]

(Original post by Observatory)
Was it the word "generally" that gave it away?

(Original post by Observatory)
Lectures are generally bad everywhere, and Oxbridge lecturers are there for research interests, not to teach. They're unlikely to be different to anywhere else.

Obvious...

To be clear - do you think that lectures as a teaching method are generally good (a matter of opinion, but from personal experience I don't think they are even necessary for a university education), or that Oxbridge lecturers are generally better at teaching than lecturers elsewhere (a pretty obviously false hypothesis if you know anything about how and why lecturers are hired)?

Why are you asking me this? You made the claim; go prove it yourself, then comeback and show it to us.

Some strong claim you have on the bolded part; have you done any teaching before? Do you hold a PhD that qualifies you to give that sort of opinion? Even I were a student, I wouldn't even say such things; where's the evidence to reject the hypothesis?

[Observatory]

(Original post by kka25)
Obvious...



Why are you asking me this? You made the claim; go prove it yourself, then comeback and show it to us.

I made two different claims. You apparently had a problem with at least one. I am asking which one, if any. I am not asking you to prove or disprove anything.

Some strong claim you have on the bolded part; have you done any teaching before? Do you hold a PhD that qualifies you to give that sort of opinion? Even I were a student, I wouldn't even say such things; where's the evidence to reject the hypothesis?

idk why you think having conducted independent and original research would make me more expert on the job market for lecturers. Anecdotally, maybe, but no more than that. Before we go on, do you seriously think Oxbridge lecturers are hired for their teaching quality rather than their publication records and ability to win grants?

[kka25]

(Original post by Observatory)
I made two different claims. You apparently had a problem with at least one. I am asking which one, if any. I am not asking you to prove or disprove anything.


idk why you think having conducted independent and original research would make me more expert on the job market for lecturers. Anecdotally, maybe, but no more than that. Before we go on, do you seriously think Oxbridge lecturers are hired for their teaching quality rather than their publication records and ability to win grants?

I have no idea what you're rambling really.

I see from here you're still a student; finish your degree first and go have some experience teaching; at least read up some academic papers on education specifically on University education - there are some good ones on ACM, then come back and we could continue the discussion. Other then that, I've no interest anymore; I'm very tired reading pointless rambles such as the above.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by Observatory)
I made two different claims. You apparently had a problem with at least one. I am asking which one, if any. I am not asking you to prove or disprove anything.


idk why you think having conducted independent and original research would make me more expert on the job market for lecturers. Anecdotally, maybe, but no more than that. Before we go on, do you seriously think Oxbridge lecturers are hired for their teaching quality rather than their publication records and ability to win grants?

I think you're misrepresenting the research segment of universities. ALL universities hire researchers who do lectures. Cambridge ones are just more prominent academics, they have no tendency to be better or worse lecturers. I know all of my lecturers for first year medicine were researchers, and there were only a few that weren't great speakers.

[Observatory]

(Original post by kka25)
I have no idea what you're rambling really.

I see from here you're still a student; finish your degree first and go have some experience teaching; at least read up some academic papers on education specifically on University education - there are some good ones on ACM, then come back and we could continue the discussion. Other then that, I've no interest anymore; I'm very tired talking pointless rambles such as the above.

I have already finished my degree - it actually says that in the thread you linked. From counter-stalking, it seems you're a mature student who has not yet completed an unfunded PhD, hardly the lofty vantage point you seem to think it is.

But this is all irrelevant. Knowing the criteria for hiring lecturers does not require that someone completed a PhD, like how you don't need to have completed medical school to understand the system used to employ doctors.

[Observatory]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
I think you're misrepresenting the research segment of universities. ALL universities hire researchers who do lectures. Cambridge ones are just more prominent academics, they have no tendency to be better or worse lecturers. I know all of my lecturers for first year medicine were researchers, and there were only a few that weren't great speakers.

I didn't say Oxbridge were particularly worse than other universities; I said that "They're unlikely to be different to anywhere else.".

Cambridge ones aren't even necessarily more prominent academics. The undergrad strict hierarchy of prestige doesn't persist into academia to nearly the same extent.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

id say most of my lecturers are average. i really like one of my lectures, hes a pretty cool guy and he tries different ways to make the material stick, its a shame i only found out until the end of first year

[kka25]

(Original post by Observatory)
I have already finished my degree - it actually says that in the thread you linked. From counter-stalking, it seems you're a mature student who has not yet completed an unfunded PhD, hardly the lofty vantage point you seem to think it is.

But this is all irrelevant. Knowing the criteria for hiring lecturers does not require that someone completed a PhD, like how you don't need to have completed medical school to understand the system used to employ doctors.

I don't know whether you're a troll, a liar or just plain <some not so nice words>. Go back and read your own post. It seems you don't even know what you've written. Well, I have finished mine, graduated and now doing some grad work and have done some actual teaching for some years; at least I am in the position to say something about it rather then you, who doesn't even have a scroll yet.

Knowing? What do you know? You only know the university you went to, and even that we don't know whether you know correctly or not. To make it more of a big slap to the forehead, you generalize ALL universities are what YOU say they are; who the heck do you think you are?

I'm done with you.

[Observatory]

(Original post by kka25)
I don't know whether you're a troll, a liar or just plain <some not so nice words>. Go back and read your own post. It seems you don't even know what you've written. Well, I have finished mine, graduated and now doing some grad work and have done some actual teaching for some years; at least I am in the position to say something about it rather then you, who doesn't even have a scroll yet.

Knowing? What do you know? You only know the university you went to, and even that we don't know whether you know correctly or not. To make it more of a big slap to the forehead, you generalize ALL universities are what YOU say they are; who the heck do you think you are?

I'm done with you.

If you don't have a PhD it's very unlikely you've worked as a lecturer at Oxbridge or a comparable university, which is the only possibly relevant experience here. Your relevant experience - being accepted to an unfunded PhD that you haven't finished - is effectively no greater than mine. Pretty much anyone can be accepted to a PhD that they are paying for, even at the top universities, but you've further indicated that you're not at one of those. And I stress again that this argument has nothing to do with experience! Knowing about the process of being hired as a lecturer has nothing to do with actually doing research.

[Brit_Miller]

(Original post by raheem94)
Have a look at MIT lectures, they are very interesting.

I don't know about the quality of oxbridge lectures, but MIT ones are really good.

They're brilliant - I've checked out a fair few.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by Observatory)
I didn't say Oxbridge were particularly worse than other universities; I said that "They're unlikely to be different to anywhere else.".

Cambridge ones aren't even necessarily more prominent academics. The undergrad strict hierarchy of prestige doesn't persist into academia to nearly the same extent.

We get lectured on the cell cycle by the man who discovered apoptosis.

I think Oxbridge attracts prominent academics.

[Observatory]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
We get lectured on the cell cycle by the man who discovered apoptosis.

I think Oxbridge attracts prominent academics.

I didn't say they weren't prominent; I said they weren't necessarily more prominent. For instance, the man who originated string theory was a professor at QMUL at the time, even though QMUL doesn't have that amazing an undergrad reputation for physics. It varies more on the basis of departments than universities at that level, where certain key people who attract the best students and post-docs are, which universities are attached to big experiments, and how the grants are allocated. Some departments are Cambridge will be genuinely the best in the country, or possibly even in the world. But so will some departments at 'mediocre' universities.