Really? IME, I've only had a couple of lecturers who are good researchers, and poor lecturers. They weren't that bad, they were just the guys who hated teachin

Really? IME, I've only had a couple of lecturers who are good researchers, and poor lecturers. They weren't that bad, they were just the guys who hated teaching and had no social skills. They were still pretty good at explaining things, even though they were dead boring and a little disorganised. The worst lecturers are the ones who don't understand the subject well enough. They become massive assholes, and say things like "If you don't get it, that's your fault." Look at Dijkstra's rules (excerpts that show he was not in any way an asshole): > If I use a word you don't recognize or a sentence you cannot attach a meaning to, it is your duty to ask for clarification. If I go too fast, it is your duty to slow me down. > Since first-class students can learn a lot from each other, I urge you to try to do the homework in little groups. (Now, I think assessments should be individual, but at least he recognises that students will cheat so why bother stopping the ones who follow the rules?) > At the end of the semester there is an oral examination for each of you, the principle being that, after having followed my thoughts for a full semester, you are entitled to two hours of my undivided attention. God he takes a lot of responsibility. He can take a lot of responsibility, because he's not an idiot who has to hide behind excuses like "it's not my job to make sure you understand the subject".