4 ms·
> > 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
by 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.