Comment by slaveofone copied from old blog.

“The lecture as a means to transfer information and ideas (as data) is inefficient and inconvenient, compared to print.”

I strongly and emphatically disagree. First, a lecture engages a whole different set of communication centers in the brain and mind. Reading is not the same as hearing. Some people learn better by hearing, some learn better by reading. Second, while a book is more like a repository of argument and information, a professor giving a lecture is more like a filter of argument and information. A book doesn’t care if its information uses up more time than you have, but a professor is limited to the hours of the class and will present things in a way that best enables students to learn what they need to learn in the time allotted. Rather than being less efficient, this is more efficient than a book. Third, the book doesn’t have any way to engage the reader in terms of their understanding of the material—like, for instance, to make sure they truly understand the details of an argument that the book is presenting—whereas a teacher does have this ability to gauge whether they are grasping concepts correctly and to pass on what they SHOULD have learned if they have not, in fact, learned that. Fourth, the structure of having a class which requires one to have a certain amount of material ready by that time, is for many people a necessity. It’s like working at home as opposed to going somewhere to work. Most people need to go somewhere to work because they get less done if they are home doing it. Same with having to show up at school and go to a class where you are expected to perform at a certain level in that class. Fifth, some people are very, very slow readers. I’m speaking of myself particularly. Reading is great, but it’s a long, long, laborious, hours-and-hours-consuming chore. Sitting in a lecture is not. I could go on.

The link you’ve used works fine :) The one that may not in the future is to another doimain, altogether.