Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Overmars)
    Well, I think most are in agreement there.




    The 'resistance' is because you seemed to say poor teaching implies academically crap university, which is just silly. Surely factors like quality of research would be better indicators.

    'Good teaching = spoon-feeding' wasn't really the point I was making. I'm saying that if you're able to do well with poor teaching, that'll generally signal you're a higher calibre student. Why? Because if you're able to perform to the same level being relatively disadvantaged, you can't be any worse off by the end of it. But you seemed to laugh off the idea that it could be an advantage, so I'm curious to know what's so wrong with my line of thinking.

    And with teaching, I don't think it's great but, as I've said, I think it's quite hit-and-miss...maybe I've been lucky. One thing's for sure we are in complete agreement with the lack of contact time and the no. of grad TA's. I don't take much notice with the complaints from fellow LSE students...those that do well usually don't have many complaints, and those that don't might need someone to blame (obviously there would be exceptions...)
    I can see where you're coming from here really - not that I'm a student at LSE (yet), but it's equivalent to the whole 'should a state school BBB be the same as a private school AAA?' - like you say, more raw intelligence than 'spoon-fed' absorption.

    But anyway on a wider scale, there are always going to be teachers who are better or worse than others. At school now, I can think of certain teachers with whom I worry that we'd be well prepared for exams and such and thus sometimes have to take it into my own hands. Like you say, sometimes this could be a personally beneficial thing.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Overmars)
    'Good teaching = spoon-feeding' wasn't really the point I was making. I'm saying that if you're able to do well with poor teaching, that'll generally signal you're a higher calibre student. Why? Because if you're able to perform to the same level being relatively disadvantaged, you can't be any worse off by the end of it. But you seemed to laugh off the idea that it could be an advantage, so I'm curious to know what's so wrong with my line of thinking.
    Because imagine you're industrious and independent, AND your classes are really engaging and give you an excellent overview of the course material (ignoring for the moment whether or not that is actually the case at LSE). Isn't that better (Pareto superior even) to just being industrious and independent? To say that bad teaching is actually a superior didactic method just sounds like beautification to me...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigFudamental)
    Because imagine you're industrious and independent, AND your classes are really engaging and give you an excellent overview of the course material (ignoring for the moment whether or not that is actually the case at LSE). Isn't that better (Pareto superior even) to just being industrious and independent? To say that bad teaching is actually a superior didactic method just sounds like beautification to me...
    That will improve your experience, for sure...meaning, your uni experience will be a lot smoother since you won't be trawling through the textbooks to figure out wtf your teacher was talking about. But I'm working under the assumption that you end up at the same level of knowledge and understanding after the 'poor teaching' and 'good teaching'. If exams are supposed to test your overall mastery of the material you're learning, then I think it's quite a reasonable assumption.

    Bad teaching is not really desirable for most students (including myself -- if someone offered me the choice of good teaching or bad teaching 3 years ago, I would've taken the good teaching because I wouldn't have fancied struggling and risking doing badly). And that's why I'm not about to claim that LSE is better off keeping the standard of teaching poor (if it is considered poor). But at the end of it, as I've said, IF you're able to do just as well with bad teaching, then you would've gained the knowledge and understanding from independent work (head buried in textbooks or otherwise) and you would've developed the ability (to whatever extent) of working independently.

    Maybe if I truly had the benefit of great teaching I'd be able to see the extra benefits.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Overmars)
    That will improve your experience, for sure...meaning, your uni experience will be a lot smoother since you won't be trawling through the textbooks to figure out wtf your teacher was talking about. But I'm working under the assumption that you end up at the same level of knowledge and understanding after the 'poor teaching' and 'good teaching'. If exams are supposed to test your overall mastery of the material you're learning, then I think it's quite a reasonable assumption.
    Hm, I do see your point, and maybe it's just my subconscious rebelling against the notion that bad teaching could actually be beneficial, but I find it hard to accept that I would not have come out of LSE happier (as you say) and also better educated with a slightly more expansive teaching structure in place. Not to mention that I don't really believe that exams are very good tests of ability. In the end it's possible to cram past papers in the summer term and do quite well even without gaining much of a grasp of your subject.

    I should probably add that I did actually enjoy my time at LSE and am probably coming off a bit too negatively here, but the "negative things heard" by the OP certainly have a fair bit of truth in them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Just out of interest, what subjects do/did you take?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    most econ modules dont have past papers (with solutions) to cram.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    most econ modules dont have past papers (with solutions) to cram.
    well yea...you just do them anyway to learn derivations and so on. It's more about hammering in the material than necessarily getting a right answer.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigFudamental)
    Academically it's crap, socially it's ok but still worse than most other places (not because the people are so bad, but because the facilities are). Good entry point into investment banking though, and good research in some departments (though that will benefit you zilch). That's about it.
    Fail.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zürich)
    Fail.
    sigh...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's ok, not really my calibar. I only applied 'cause my father insisted I had a backup incase Cambridge rejected me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CapitalismRocks)
    It's ok, not really my calibar. I only applied 'cause my father insisted I had a backup incase Cambridge rejected me.
    Wasn't your Cambridge offer AAA yesterday?

    and also, LSEs offer is AAAE for L101.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jinru)
    Wasn't your Cambridge offer AAA yesterday?

    and also, LSEs offer is AAAE for L101.
    I'm not listing the E, and yes I thought it was AAA, not my mistake, I don't check track myself.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CapitalismRocks)
    I'm not listing the E, and yes I thought it was AAA, not my mistake, I don't check track myself.
    are you sil3nt_cha0s?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jinru)
    are you sil3nt_cha0s?
    Who? and no.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CapitalismRocks)
    It's ok, not really my calibar. I only applied 'cause my father insisted I had a backup incase Cambridge rejected me.
    And how proud he must be.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CapitalismRocks)
    It's ok, not really my calibar. I only applied 'cause my father insisted I had a backup incase Cambridge rejected me.
    Get out, troll.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CapitalismRocks)
    It's ok, not really my calibar. I only applied 'cause my father insisted I had a backup incase Cambridge rejected me.
    Don't you mean 'calibre'? Fail.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I went back to LSE over the weekend and I have to say the place certainly does have atmosphere. It was definitely an exciting place to be an undergrad, even if I didn't like all my teachers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xrxyxaxnx)
    Don't you mean 'calibre'? Fail.
    In his face.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If LSE is crap academically then every University in the UK apart from Oxbridge is crap. Since LSE is 3rd in the RAE after Oxbridge, and #1 for all the social sciences.

    For pure experience you would probably have a better one at somewhere like UCL, but if you want to work in a competitive field like IB then LSE is the best.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: April 19, 2010
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.