Firstly I entirely agree that having access to a video of a lecture is much better in many ways than attending live. I have a terrible attention span and I remember sitting in classes paying attention then having my mind slowly drift away for just a few seconds, by the time I'd snapped by I'd sometimes completely lose the context of the example the professor was explaining and it was really hard to mentally catch up, sometimes I couldn't and I'd just end up with a set of half comprehensible notes to revise from.
Of course your not going to raise your hand and say "sorry I wasn't paying attention could you please repeat", but a video does not judge you like that. Pause it or rewind and get yourself a coffee , look up something you didn't quite understand on wikipedia for an alternative explanation then return to the video.
Of course there is no reason for lectures to be an hour long either, simply break it into 2 half house sessions with space for questions in between which could be done via a chatroom which the lecturer answers when they return.
I'm sure I would have got much better grades at university had I had access to all of the lectures via video, whenever I want to brush up any CS I just watch youtube videos from MIT , Berkeley etc and I learn so much more per hour than I did from my "traditional" education.
Another point.
This part raised a question to me:
"Presumably the idea is that if you can't get through a course in the 12-to-13 week semester then you deserve to fail, regardless of whatever is going on in your life and whether you could have learned everything over a longer time span, or with more help, or whatever. "
How much of your university degree is there to prove what you know and how much is there to prove your capacity for learning?
I've often struggled with some concepts that others have found easy and sometimes vice versa, but I can get a bloodymindedness that I will get to grips with something even if it takes me 10x the time.
How much should learning speed be represented vs sheer determination? Sometimes in the real world you will run into situations where you need to learn something very quickly because there simply isn't the time.
Should someone who takes 5 years to get a degree be considered lesser than someone else who does the same degree in 2? Assuming they get the same marks awarded.
> Should someone who takes 5 years to get a degree be considered lesser than someone else who does the same degree in 2? Assuming they get the same marks awarded.
To be honest, I think they should (unless they are taking the degree part time).
If it takes you over twice as long to learn something, that means we can probably expect you to take twice as long to learn new things?
In practice, I have never seen a student who took 5 years (and therefore repeated 2 years on a 3 year degree) who ended up getting a good final grade (although I am sure there exist exceptions somewhere).
2) Should speed be considered when measuring a graduate?
3) Is a faster graduate better?
My answer would be no, yes, and it depends. I want grades to be on coursework, not character. I think speed can be inferred (from enrollment dates, additional minors/majors/projects/clubs/association/etc.). I don't think speed is everything (determination means a lot), but I don't ignore it either.
Comments
Interesting piece.
A few points.
Firstly I entirely agree that having access to a video of a lecture is much better in many ways than attending live. I have a terrible attention span and I remember sitting in classes paying attention then having my mind slowly drift away for just a few seconds, by the time I'd snapped by I'd sometimes completely lose the context of the example the professor was explaining and it was really hard to mentally catch up, sometimes I couldn't and I'd just end up with a set of half comprehensible notes to revise from.
Of course your not going to raise your hand and say "sorry I wasn't paying attention could you please repeat", but a video does not judge you like that. Pause it or rewind and get yourself a coffee , look up something you didn't quite understand on wikipedia for an alternative explanation then return to the video.
Of course there is no reason for lectures to be an hour long either, simply break it into 2 half house sessions with space for questions in between which could be done via a chatroom which the lecturer answers when they return.
I'm sure I would have got much better grades at university had I had access to all of the lectures via video, whenever I want to brush up any CS I just watch youtube videos from MIT , Berkeley etc and I learn so much more per hour than I did from my "traditional" education.
Another point.
This part raised a question to me:
"Presumably the idea is that if you can't get through a course in the 12-to-13 week semester then you deserve to fail, regardless of whatever is going on in your life and whether you could have learned everything over a longer time span, or with more help, or whatever. "
How much of your university degree is there to prove what you know and how much is there to prove your capacity for learning?
I've often struggled with some concepts that others have found easy and sometimes vice versa, but I can get a bloodymindedness that I will get to grips with something even if it takes me 10x the time.
How much should learning speed be represented vs sheer determination? Sometimes in the real world you will run into situations where you need to learn something very quickly because there simply isn't the time.
Should someone who takes 5 years to get a degree be considered lesser than someone else who does the same degree in 2? Assuming they get the same marks awarded.
> Should someone who takes 5 years to get a degree be considered lesser than someone else who does the same degree in 2? Assuming they get the same marks awarded.
To be honest, I think they should (unless they are taking the degree part time).
If it takes you over twice as long to learn something, that means we can probably expect you to take twice as long to learn new things?
In practice, I have never seen a student who took 5 years (and therefore repeated 2 years on a 3 year degree) who ended up getting a good final grade (although I am sure there exist exceptions somewhere).
Your asking different questions.
1) Should speed be in the grade?
2) Should speed be considered when measuring a graduate?
3) Is a faster graduate better?
My answer would be no, yes, and it depends. I want grades to be on coursework, not character. I think speed can be inferred (from enrollment dates, additional minors/majors/projects/clubs/association/etc.). I don't think speed is everything (determination means a lot), but I don't ignore it either.