5 ms·

I'm not an academic but I can find a lot wrong with this essay. > Nor would this student need to take very extensive notes since everything done in the lecture

I'm not an academic but I can find a lot wrong with this essay. > Nor would this student need to take very extensive notes since everything done in the lecture is better done in the textbooks. Strongly disagree. As an undergraduate I generally found my lecturers to give a more approachable / less bewildering account of mathematical topics than did textbooks. (This is mere anecdote, of course.) > The experienced observer will note that, though the general outlines of proofs are reasonably well done, the fine detail is often tackled inefficiently or vaguely with, for example, a four line proof where one line will do. It's teaching material, not a research mathematics publication. The proof should be optimised for approachability/intuitiveness, not density. > A lecture takes place in real time, so to speak, with 50 minutes of mathematics occupying 50 minutes of exposition whereas a chapter of a book that takes ten minutes to read may have taken as many days to compose Except it doesn't take ten minutes to read. It's just not the case that students can absorb new material five times faster through reading than through lectures. Again this seems confused about the target audience. It may be true that for a research mathematician brushing up on a topic they haven't seen in a few years, consulting a book is far more efficient that watching a lecture. That's not who we're talking about, though. I realise page 3 refutes these earlier points against lectures, but it seems to miss a lot of this. > We do not learn to play the violin by playing the violin or rock climbing by climbing rocks. We learn by watching experts doing these things and then imitating them. Not sure about the climbing example. I suspect there are plenty of skilled self-taught climbers. With all of that said it's an interesting read, and I do like the taxonomy of types of questions, in the final paragraphs.

iguy 6y ago
> > since everything done in the lecture is better done in the textbooks. > Strongly disagree. You are agreeing with the author. He is presenting his opponent's viewpoint, with humorous exaggeration. > It's just not the case that students can absorb new material five times faster That isn't his claim here. It's hard not to agree that books can be more polished. But his viewpoint is that "50 minutes of mathematics occupying 50 minutes of exposition" is actually a blessing, both because it limits the author's temptation to squeeze in one more thing, one more generalization. And because it puts the experienced speaker's thought process on show, not only the final tidied-up result. He does go into these points later but I'm lazy to find quotes.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  > You are agreeing with the author. He is presenting his opponent's viewpoint, with humorous exaggeration. You're right, page 3 winds that back as you say. > That isn't his claim here. It's hard not to agree that books can be more polished. Of course, but he presents the timings as 50 minutes as against 10. That's not reflective of how long it would take a student to understand the material. > it limits the author's temptation to squeeze in one more thing, one more generalization. And because it puts the experienced speaker's thought process on show, not only the final tidied up result. I agree on both points.
  - iguy 6y ago
    > he presents the timings as 50 minutes as against 10 Yes, but again this is his rhetorical strategy. You absolutely can skim an hour's material in 10 minutes. Many are tempted to try. But if it's new to you, you won't learn it. Not a very 2020s style of writing, I have to say. Would not work as a tweet storm.

iguy 6y ago

> > since everything done in the lecture is better done in the textbooks. > Strongly disagree. You are agreeing with the author. He is presenting his opponent's viewpoint, with humorous exaggeration. > It's just not the case that students can absorb new material five times faster That isn't his claim here. It's hard not to agree that books can be more polished. But his viewpoint is that "50 minutes of mathematics occupying 50 minutes of exposition" is actually a blessing, both because it limits the author's temptation to squeeze in one more thing, one more generalization. And because it puts the experienced speaker's thought process on show, not only the final tidied-up result. He does go into these points later but I'm lazy to find quotes.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
> You are agreeing with the author. He is presenting his opponent's viewpoint, with humorous exaggeration. You're right, page 3 winds that back as you say. > That isn't his claim here. It's hard not to agree that books can be more polished. Of course, but he presents the timings as 50 minutes as against 10. That's not reflective of how long it would take a student to understand the material. > it limits the author's temptation to squeeze in one more thing, one more generalization. And because it puts the experienced speaker's thought process on show, not only the final tidied up result. I agree on both points.
- iguy 6y ago
  > he presents the timings as 50 minutes as against 10 Yes, but again this is his rhetorical strategy. You absolutely can skim an hour's material in 10 minutes. Many are tempted to try. But if it's new to you, you won't learn it. Not a very 2020s style of writing, I have to say. Would not work as a tweet storm.