Is going to lecture a huge waste of time?

[Jokerhelper]

just let us know where you open your practice so we do not wind up as your patients, mr self educated med student guy.

you are a perfect example of why teachers should not be blamed for the failure of their students. some people just cannot be helped.

i wish i were in a class where everyone had that attitude. then i would be the only one in lecture, and i could ask all my own questions.

I don't understand the need for comments like these. If the OP is getting more bang for his or her buck by watching video lectures rather than attending in person, what's the big deal? Would it bother you if some of your students found ways to be successful other than attending your lectures?

 

[sweetpotato]

I don't think the issue is whether attending lectures is necessary for good grades. Obviously several posters have found they got good grades without attending lectures. The point is that face-to-face lectures give the student something he/she cannot get in other ways. IMO there is some indefinable benefit to hearing a real live person explaining something, even if they are a poor lecturer. Plus, lectures give you a chance to see your classmates and ask the professor (or other students) questions. In some cases professors give out pop quizzes to check attendance, if you miss lecture you will miss those. I have found the best way to learn something is to learn about it in many different ways: through lecture, through reading a book, through an online video, through a website or a forum. Plus, when it comes time to ask professors for a letter of recommendation, who do you think they will be more willing to write it for, the student they have never even seen face to face or the student that always came to class and asked good questions?

I admit that almost everyone will get professors that are so poor at lecturing that going to their lectures may in fact be little more than a waste of time, but there is no need to generalize that ALL lectures are a waste. I bet that out of, say, 5 classes a student takes a semester, only 1 professor is so bad that you get nothing out of going to lectures.

 

[deRham]

The purpose of school is to gain the most amount of knowledge possible in your area of study while developing the skills necessary to be successful in whatever you plan to do in life. I get far, far more out of reading the textbook than I do out of attending lectures. This archaic idea of attending a meeting where a bunch of people mindlessly write down what another person says/writes needs to go.

What you described is not an accurate description of all lectures, just some. A good lecture will be one where you far from mindlessly write down some key ideas and form a useful reference for yourself.

There are professors who take notes on each others' lectures, depending on what the individual has to say. These professors, I would be willing to bet, are far more efficient at learning things, far quicker minded, and far more productive than either of us, without knowing who you are. They wouldn't be doing it if there can't be value to lectures.

 

[Moonbear]

I will just note that some students do learn better by just reading the book than attending lectures. It's not a lot of students, but certainly some. Our faculty have had that discussion, and our view is that by the time they are in med school, they know what works for themselves. We don't require attendance in lectures (I do require it in my undergrad class, because they're still learning to study, and I have evidence from the days I gave them a recorded lecture, only because I knew they wouldn't pay attention anyway due to another test right after lecture, that they do not do as well on exam questions if they only get a recorded lecture...though it's better than when they show up for lecture and don't pay any attention while studying for the other test). However, I also get annoyed when someone sends me an email asking a very basic question or demanding something be labeled differently in my lecture if they were not in class. I got one of those today, complaining they were disoriented by my illustrations and asking for more labels on them. They got an unsatisfactory answer, I'm sure, because they were directed to the atlas the figures came from. If that person was in lecture, he wouldn't have been confused, because while slides of arm muscles were up, I was pointing to the location on my own arm. I also refuse to be tethered to a podium and mouse while lecturing, so will point to things with my fingers, or otherwise gesture at directions while moving around the room. If for some reason a student in the lecture is still confused, I'm happy to answer their questions in lecture. So far, the students showing up have been asking very thoughtful questions. But if you don't show up, don't complain if you are confused when you could have attended and asked a question.

Our first quiz is coming up, so now is the time when I like to mess with the students who don't show up (I don't like having to wake up early enough for an 8 AM lecture any more than they do). I turn off the microphone, prep the students in class for the joke, then turn it back on while tapping on the mic for maximum crackle effect as I say something like, "and that's what I'll be covering on the exam" followed by applause from the crowd. Someone usually let's them off the hook and squeals that it was a joke.

In our course, we're not worried about those who do well even without showing up; we're concerned with those who don't do well and don't show up. One of their deans even drops in from time to time to see if they are attending class if they're struggling. Showing up for them can be the difference between being given a chance to remediate and being thrown out of school.

 

[mathwonk]

Apparently it did not it ever occur to some students that teachers spend an enormous amount of time preparing the lectures, and that it is supportive of them and courteous to show up and listen to them. Not to mention that the lectures are designed to benefit the students, and that it is foolish to refuse to partake of an experience that was prepared for their benefit.

I have been writing notes for my classes for 10 to 20 years, but these notes have never been an adequate substitute for being in class for any of my students so far. Indeed those students who seem to get the most out of the notes also attend class faithfully.

I posted a few of those notes on my website and they are free to all, still I get regular questions here from students about exactly the same things that are explained in detail in my freely available notes. Apparently asking specific questions about what bothers you is a more popular way of learning than reading notes.

Once I rode down in the elevator with Hironaka (a Fields medalist) after his lecture and he said something to me that made it seem obvious why resolution of singularities should be true. One can never have that experience reading notes.

I admit that as a rebellious young student I had an "us versus them" attitude toward teachers and thought they were out to get me on tests. I had no idea they were people and I could make friends with them and actually learn personally from them. I thought tests cores measured how smart I was and how well I had done in class. I did not realize there is an infinite amount to be learned and I needed to use every tool available.

I did not know about auditory, as well as visual, and motor learning. If you too are as clueless as I was, and think everything can be learned by reading and measured by test scores, try to get over that attitude as soon as possible. It will make a world of difference.

By all means read and learn as much as you can on your own, and then expose yourself to the presence of your teacher and see what else there is to learn once you have qualified yourself to appreciate his deeper help.

 

[coreluccio]

Apparently it did not it ever occur to some students that teachers spend an enormous amount of time preparing the lectures, and that it is supportive of them and courteous to show up and listen to them. Not to mention that the lectures are designed to benefit the students, and that it is foolish to refuse to partake of an experience that was prepared for their benefit.

I have been writing notes for my classes for 10 to 20 years, but these notes have never been an adequate substitute for being in class for any of my students so far. Indeed those students who seem to get the most out of the notes also attend class faithfully.

I posted a few of those notes on my website and they are free to all, still I get regular questions here from students about exactly the same things that are explained in detail in my freely available notes. Apparently asking specific questions about what bothers you is a more popular way of learning than reading notes.

Once I rode down in the elevator with Hironaka (a Fields medalist) after his lecture and he said something to me that made it seem obvious why resolution of singularities should be true. One can never have that experience reading notes.

I admit that as a rebellious young student I had an "us versus them" attitude toward teachers and thought they were out to get me on tests. I had no idea they were people and I could make friends with them and actually learn personally from them. I thought tests cores measured how smart I was and how well I had done in class. I did not realize there is an infinite amount to be learned and I needed to use every tool available.

I did not know about auditory, as well as visual, and motor learning. If you too are as clueless as I was, and think everything can be learned by reading and measured by test scores, try to get over that attitude as soon as possible. It will make a world of difference.

By all means read and learn as much as you can on your own, and then expose yourself to the presence of your teacher and see what else there is to learn once you have qualified yourself to appreciate his deeper help.

Eh. But you have to understand that from the student's point of view, their goal should be to make the most efficient use of their time so that they can learn as much as is possible. For me, and I think many others, lectures are a very passive way of learning. A well-written textbook trumps a lecture every single time. That is of course if the lecture is just a rendition of the textbook, and most of the time it is. I realized pretty quickly into my university career that I was not getting much from lectures, and that I should focus on textbook reading (which has always been the way I learn best.) In the engineering school I attend, most if not all of the students that came in are perfectly capable of doing the work, perfectly able to perform at a high level, and for the most part many of them do work quite hard. The problem is, most people don't do very well. But are they really working efficiently? Does attending lectures all day and then going home with a very limited and shallow understanding of the material really benefit them? Most don't read the textbook in addition to attending every lecture, because quite simply with the shear number of lecture hours and assignments each week, there really isn't time. Working inefficiently is I think reflected in exam averages. In the courses I took last term, exam averages hovered in the mid/high 50s. Average course GPAs were around 2.7. I tend to wonder what those statistics would look like if everyone else studied the way I do; by simply skipping every lecture and reading thoroughly every single textbook passage instead. But there in lies the dilemma. Most of these students are straight out of high school and have parents that are paying hefty tuition costs. I don't think the parents of these students would be too thrilled if their children stopped attending lectures. Most students in turn obviously will probably never stop attending. It's fairly sad to me that in this day and age we rely on something to medieval as our primary mode of learning.

 

[deRham]

For me, and I think many others, lectures are a very passive way of learning. A well-written textbook trumps a lecture every single time. That is of course if the lecture is just a rendition of the textbook, and most of the time it is.

Care to explain why a lecture is passive as compared to a well-written textbook?

There is one major difference between a lecture and a textbook, which is that the person writing the book is much more tied to formality. The person giving the lecture is someone you can actually watch think.

This doesn't really matter with really basic ideas, where the lecture is just summarizing things and working a few examples. But realistically, when you're listening to a lecture on an advanced topic from a person who could have written or did write the book you're reading, you'll often find watching them think and present the stuff, and seeing what they choose to focus on, will serve you better.

On an advanced topic, the ideal strategy tends to be to read some background from a book AND go to the lecture to absorb how the person thinks. Why? Because if you didn't read the book, you'd be sitting clueless, because that person thinks faster than you.

attending lectures all day and then going home with a very limited and shallow understanding of the material really benefit them?

You are talking of people attending lectures instead of reading the book. What about those who read the book first, are a step ahead of the game, and go to the lecture to understand how an expert on the topic thinks?

All your claims seem to apply only to situations where the lecture is just a summary of the book dumbed down for kids who won't read the book. There ARE courses like this.

But when arguing with someone like mathwonk, who probably teaches lots of advanced math classes, I don't think you should assume that all classes being discussed are going to be like that.

Most of these students are straight out of high school and have parents that are paying hefty tuition costs. I don't think the parents of these students would be too thrilled if their children stopped attending lectures. Most students in turn obviously will probably never stop attending. It's fairly sad to me that in this day and age we rely on something to medieval as our primary mode of learning.

You hit the heart of the matter. You're talking about classes "straight out of high school."

Sometimes, advanced classes don't even have textbooks, and at times, the reason is the professor can present the material better than any book on the subject can, because he's read all of them and is improving on them in his research.

You'll find that eventually, those poor chaps you speak of who don't read the book will flunk out of the hard subjects. Reading the book is the bare minimum to surviving the hard stuff, and realistically you have to use every resource you've got to get anywhere.

 

[clope023]

Eh. But you have to understand that from the student's point of view, their goal should be to make the most efficient use of their time so that they can learn as much as is possible. For me, and I think many others, lectures are a very passive way of learning. A well-written textbook trumps a lecture every single time. That is of course if the lecture is just a rendition of the textbook, and most of the time it is. I realized pretty quickly into my university career that I was not getting much from lectures, and that I should focus on textbook reading (which has always been the way I learn best.) In the engineering school I attend, most if not all of the students that came in are perfectly capable of doing the work, perfectly able to perform at a high level, and for the most part many of them do work quite hard. The problem is, most people don't do very well. But are they really working efficiently? Does attending lectures all day and then going home with a very limited and shallow understanding of the material really benefit them? Most don't read the textbook in addition to attending every lecture, because quite simply with the shear number of lecture hours and assignments each week, there really isn't time. Working inefficiently is I think reflected in exam averages. In the courses I took last term, exam averages hovered in the mid/high 50s. Average course GPAs were around 2.7. I tend to wonder what those statistics would look like if everyone else studied the way I do; by simply skipping every lecture and reading thoroughly every single textbook passage instead. But there in lies the dilemma. Most of these students are straight out of high school and have parents that are paying hefty tuition costs. I don't think the parents of these students would be too thrilled if their children stopped attending lectures. Most students in turn obviously will probably never stop attending. It's fairly sad to me that in this day and age we rely on something to medieval as our primary mode of learning.

I disagree, I'll get more out of a good lecture vs a good textbook. I do, however, scour the internet for good textbooks and references but that's only because I want to be able to make good notes out of them. Most books have useless tidbits and read on and on without getting to the heart of the matter, so lectures and notes are more efficient to getting to the big picture more quickly.
Mathwonk tends to forget that not every teacher is like him, I have a professor or two just like him; who practice the material in preparation for the lectures but some guys just walk in and read off power points and think they've done their jobs as teachers for the day. The only real value in a lecture like that is knowing specifically what material to go over.

 

[kylem]

Does attending lectures all day and then going home with a very limited and shallow understanding of the material really benefit them? Most don't read the textbook in addition to attending every lecture, because quite simply with the shear number of lecture hours and assignments each week, there really isn't time.

I attended nearly every lecture for every class I've taken over the last year (I could count the number of absences on my fingers) and never read a textbook except to supplement the lectures. Not once have I ever sat down and read an entire chapter out of a textbook. Often I did not read the textbook at all.

I have been the top student, or among the top students, in literally every class I have taken over this time period.

I don't say that to brag, but rather point out that some students really do get a lot out of lectures. I'd also like to thank all the professors out there for helping us students learn, especially the hard-working ones that really take educating the future bright minds of our society seriously.

 

[EngCommand]

Care to explain why a lecture is passive as compared to a well-written textbook?

There is one major difference between a lecture and a textbook, which is that the person writing the book is much more tied to formality. The person giving the lecture is someone you can actually watch think.

This doesn't really matter with really basic ideas, where the lecture is just summarizing things and working a few examples. But realistically, when you're listening to a lecture on an advanced topic from a person who could have written or did write the book you're reading, you'll often find watching them think and present the stuff, and seeing what they choose to focus on, will serve you better.

On an advanced topic, the ideal strategy tends to be to read some background from a book AND go to the lecture to absorb how the person thinks. Why? Because if you didn't read the book, you'd be sitting clueless, because that person thinks faster than you.



You are talking of people attending lectures instead of reading the book. What about those who read the book first, are a step ahead of the game, and go to the lecture to understand how an expert on the topic thinks?

All your claims seem to apply only to situations where the lecture is just a summary of the book dumbed down for kids who won't read the book. There ARE courses like this.

But when arguing with someone like mathwonk, who probably teaches lots of advanced math classes, I don't think you should assume that all classes being discussed are going to be like that.



You hit the heart of the matter. You're talking about classes "straight out of high school."

Sometimes, advanced classes don't even have textbooks, and at times, the reason is the professor can present the material better than any book on the subject can, because he's read all of them and is improving on them in his research.

You'll find that eventually, those poor chaps you speak of who don't read the book will flunk out of the hard subjects. Reading the book is the bare minimum to surviving the hard stuff, and realistically you have to use every resource you've got to get anywhere.

The fact of the matter is, universities are filled with professors that can't teach. That's the real problem, and that's why many students, myself included, prefer a good textbook. Professors that are good teachers are few and far between.


I myself prefer a textbook over a teacher.

 

[EngCommand]

I attended nearly every lecture for every class I've taken over the last year (I could count the number of absences on my fingers) and never read a textbook except to supplement the lectures. Not once have I ever sat down and read an entire chapter out of a textbook. Often I did not read the textbook at all.

I have been the top student, or among the top students, in literally every class I have taken over this time period.

I don't say that to brag, but rather point out that some students really do get a lot out of lectures. I'd also like to thank all the professors out there for helping us students learn, especially the hard-working ones that really take educating the future bright minds of our society seriously.

Getting good grades doesn't mean much.

 

[deRham]

@ EngCommand: what do they do wrong? Professors give lectures as part of their career, even to nonstudents. They seem perfectly able to communicate.

Nobody says don't read the book. I myself learn more easily via books. That does not mean there aren't benefits that are unique to hearing someone explain something on the spot. If it is regurgitating the book in a muffled voice, do not go. But that should not be the case in most advanced classes.

 

[kylem]

Getting good grades doesn't mean much.

When did I mention grades?

 

[EngCommand]

When did I mention grades?

You said you came top of your class which implies good grades.

 

[EngCommand]

@ EngCommand: what do they do wrong? Professors give lectures as part of their career, even to nonstudents. They seem perfectly able to communicate.

Nobody says don't read the book. I myself learn more easily via books. That does not mean there aren't benefits that are unique to hearing someone explain something on the spot. If it is regurgitating the book in a muffled voice, do not go. But that should not be the case in most advanced classes.

It was the case at my university. TBH, even if it wasn't the case, I still wouldn't have bothered to get out of bed in the morning to go to a lecture at 9.00 am.

 

[Moonbear]

I disagree, I'll get more out of a good lecture vs a good textbook. I do, however, scour the internet for good textbooks and references but that's only because I want to be able to make good notes out of them. Most books have useless tidbits and read on and on without getting to the heart of the matter, so lectures and notes are more efficient to getting to the big picture more quickly.

From the perspective of being a lecturer, I agree that one purpose of lecture is to help guide students to the most salient points in the text, and to explain the major concepts and overarching themes that can get lost in the details of the textbook. It doesn't bypass reading portions of the book, but makes the book more useful as an efficient reference for looking up the details.

Mathwonk tends to forget that not every teacher is like him, I have a professor or two just like him; who practice the material in preparation for the lectures but some guys just walk in and read off power points and think they've done their jobs as teachers for the day. The only real value in a lecture like that is knowing specifically what material to go over.

This is one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't aspects of lecturing. There are a lot of students who want or expect to have the book read to them and summarized in powerpoint bullets. If you don't do that, they complain that they had to teach themselves by reading the book *gasp*, but if you do that, then another group of students complains the book was a waste of money and you didn't teach anything they couldn't just read in a book. It takes a good deal of experience to find the right balance.

As for the perception that lecture is a passive learning experience, how would you know if you don't attend? The biggest challenge I encounter is just getting students to show up after they've gotten that idea set in mind from previous courses so they see that my lectures are not passive experiences. I don't just read slides to my students. I presented them with some case studies this week that are not in their books. The slide had the signs and symptoms, and a probable diagnosis...those reading from home could get that much from a text, but what they wouldn't get was the next slide with additional patient history, and being told the probable diagnosis is wrong, then exploring through discussion why the initial information wasn't sufficient for a diagnosis, and how to think about and apply other things they'd learned so far to recognize the need for more information, and which information to ask for, and ultimately come up with the correct diagnosis.

What they also won't get from home is seeing me perform movements that still photos can't demonstrate. I put up a slide with two illustrations from their textbook and ask what's different about them. The answer is nothing. Yet, they illustrate, supposedly, two different movements. It's very difficult to illustrate a movement in a single photograph, or adequately describe what it involves for someone who has never seen it. Not only do I perform the movements, I ask the students to do it too. If they do it with me as I demonstrate, they're more likely to remember it later. Next week, they're going to learn why I disagree with the standard definitions of origins and insertions of muscles (I don't use those terms, I just call them attachments). To do this, they're going to have to stand up and do a little stretching with me. At the same time, this should get the correct definitions of foot flexion and extension to stick, because they often mix those up (it's exactly the opposite of what seems intuitive). My med student lecture will be a bit like Romper Room next week (for those who remember that show)...flex, extend, and reach for the stars...or something like that.

 

[Choppy]

I wonder who's writing all of these wonderful textbooks?

 

[EngCommand]

I wonder who's writing all of these wonderful textbooks?

Researchers?

The same researchers who see teaching as a burden.

What is your point?

 

[GregJ]

Researchers?

The same researchers who see teaching as a burden.

What is your point?

Most general textbooks that I have come across are written by lecturers. Only very specialised ones seem to be written by researchers.

I am only basing this on what I have seen

 

[turbo]

Things could have changed a lot in ~40 years, but most of my textbooks in engineering were written by people with no talent in teaching. The presentation was uniformly awful. If you didn't bother attending lectures, you'd have little chance of grasping the portions of the texts that your profs wanted to accent and amplify. Skipping lectures wasn't an option back then, anyway. Even in large lecture halls, many courses required assigned seating, and proctors recorded your absences.

 

[EngCommand]

Most general textbooks that I have come across are written by lecturers. Only very specialised ones seem to be written by researchers.

I am only basing this on what I have seen

Lecturers are researchers. Their primary job is to research, not to teach, at least that's how it is here in the UK.

 

[Choppy]

Ah, so we're in agreement then that the source of information is the same. It's simply the delivery technique that's in question.

 

[deRham]

It was the case at my university

Then you should agree that we both should advise people to avoid such schools, and go somewhere an abundance of professors lecturing on things in a way that exposes you to the thought process of an expert and enthusiast, as opposed to regurgitating a book, is the norm.

If the researchers who seem to consider writing those books that help you learn can do an adequate job at that, it would only make sense that MANY could explain those things in a well defined lecture period in an enlightening way. A lecture forces the lecturer to not just keep going and going, but to choose well defined chunks to go into each day the class meets. Books are pure text, so they don't contain a lot of the side remarks, clarifications and analogies drawn that a good lecturer will provide. I myself believe in books that are very close to conveying all that intuition. But having attempted to write short reports explaining certain things, I find it is simply easier to include a lot of helpful remarks in a conversation or lecture that are awkward to stuff into a book.

I am not saying there aren't many cases where the lecture is a waste. But the point I make is that there are truly benefits that should be sought out!

 

[deRham]

Perhaps the easiest way to say it is that lectures are good at highlighting "what is important and how to approach it", while books make for a great reference to get all the info and loose ends together.

In a less advanced class, thus, sometimes the purpose of the lecture can get diminished, but I think even in calculus or basic physics, it can be pretty useful.

 

[Moonbear]

Lecturers are researchers. Their primary job is to research, not to teach, at least that's how it is here in the UK.

Oh, I could turn this into an entire thread by itself! This is a relatively recent notion, and one I strongly disagree with. My view is that tenured faculty should be good at BOTH research and teaching. If you only want to do research, stay out of academia. Academia means working at universities, and universities wouldn't exist without students, so that means the priority should be teaching. I have no respect for the prima donnas who want to do research only and refuse to teach and refuse to improve their teaching. People who want to primarily do research belong in industry or research institutes. The point of researchers teaching is to provide an education beyond what you can get from a textbook alone. In fact, I think my greatest teaching accomplishment this year...and ever...was starting to provide journal articles as supplementary material for sophomores. I presented them with material that directly contradicted their textbook and told them about new discoveries that happened in their own lifetime. If they learned nothing else, I wanted them to learn that they need to keep learning throughout their entire careers, and that some of what they are learning now might be wrong. We do the best we can with the knowledge we have now, but as new discoveries are made, treatments and standard of care change.

 

[deRham]

^ I like it lots, and heartily agree. The fact of the matter is that a lot of professors' jobs exist because there is a university to fund them. I think putting some effort into teaching is a small price to pay to have such a wonderful career. Sure there are those who say there are drawbacks to that career choice like any, but it's pretty awesome a career by most measures.

 

[EngCommand]

Oh, I could turn this into an entire thread by itself! This is a relatively recent notion, and one I strongly disagree with. My view is that tenured faculty should be good at BOTH research and teaching. If you only want to do research, stay out of academia. Academia means working at universities, and universities wouldn't exist without students, so that means the priority should be teaching. I have no respect for the prima donnas who want to do research only and refuse to teach and refuse to improve their teaching. People who want to primarily do research belong in industry or research institutes. The point of researchers teaching is to provide an education beyond what you can get from a textbook alone. In fact, I think my greatest teaching accomplishment this year...and ever...was starting to provide journal articles as supplementary material for sophomores. I presented them with material that directly contradicted their textbook and told them about new discoveries that happened in their own lifetime. If they learned nothing else, I wanted them to learn that they need to keep learning throughout their entire careers, and that some of what they are learning now might be wrong. We do the best we can with the knowledge we have now, but as new discoveries are made, treatments and standard of care change.

Ask all the staff @ my uni department, I guarantee that >95% will tell you how much they hate teaching.

 

[IRobot]

As a student that has been exploring subjects on his own before taking the classes, I would say that I always learned something from the lectures, even on subjects I was sufficiently familiar to solve textbook problems, it cleared my picture. Plus, when the teacher is interesting, vivid and makes references to further readings, it gives you a boost of motivation you can lack when you're just reading books on your side.

 

[EngCommand]

As a student that has been exploring subjects on his own before taking the classes, I would say that I always learned something from the lectures, even on subjects I was sufficiently familiar to solve textbook problems, it cleared my picture. Plus, when the teacher is interesting, vivid and makes references to further readings, it gives you a boost of motivation you can lack when you're just reading books on your side.

OK, but is their teaching worth $100,000 of debt?

 

[mathwonk]

apparently there are many bad lecturers out there. but in my experience it takes 3 or more hours to recreate the content of a one hour lecture. moreover, it makes no sense to skip a lecture you have paid for. by skipping lectures you are thus wasting both money and time.

if you really are able to learn more by reading than going to lecture, then either you are a very poor listener, or you are wasting your tuition at an extremely poor college. change one of those things.

and i guarantee you that most professors in my dept enjoy their teaching. of course it is tempting to conjecture that would change if most students were unwilling even to attend classes they have prepared. a most rewarding experience is watching a reluctant or insecure student grow in confidence and knowledge as they realize that with effort they can indeed master the ideas.

let me put it this way: there is nothing as valuable as personal contact with a good teacher. if you have not chosen a good teacher, what are you doing there? stop bragging about how superior you are to your pitiful school, turn around and get out of there as soon as possible, and go directly to a good school or a good teacher and start going to class and to office hours.

do it now. it is your life, if you are a sincere student, you deserve good teachers, insist on them. I guarantee you they are also looking for good students.