Jukka Larja (roskakori2006@gmail.com) on 10/14/09 wrote:
---------------------------
>AM (myname4rwt@jee.male) on 10/13/09 wrote:
>---------------------------
>
>> Even if _he_ thinks it's obvious,
>> it doesn't make it a fact or
>> obvious to others. The same
>> applies to you.
>
>And even if you think it isn't obvious, it doesn't mean you can act like the other guy is a liar or an idiot.

Indeed. That's why I prefer asking for sources rather than jump into a thread claiming someone doesn't get anything. That's the difference between us.

>>>> Don't you find it's actually much easier
>>>> to grasp things at your own pace rather
>>>> than one set by the lecturer?
>>>
>>> Sure, but the problem is that the
>>> text-book is going to collect dust on my
>>> table for most of the semester, until
>>> just before the exam I'm frantically
>>> trying to learn some useless bits of
>>> information to pass.
>>>
>>> Lectures are a bit like watching a
>>> documentary on TV. I could very well
>>> attent just for fun. If lectures don't
>>> suit you, then don't attent, but don't
>>> presume that your way of studying suits
>>> everyone.
>>
>> It's actually you who bases the argument
>> on assumptions rather than
>> clarifications (recalling how you
>> entered this discussion), so don't try
>> to assign your own imperfections to
>> others.
>
>I have already stated that if someone feels lectures are a waste of time, then
>he can simply not attent. I have no problem with that. That's how 99 % of lectures
>in my university work. But if that someone then says that there should be no lectures, there I disagree.

ISTR you said lectures are the cheapest way to teach, and here I respond to your hypocritic way of arguing (jump in claiming someone doesn't get anything, and then rant about misunderstanding etc.).

>> Besides, I simply fail to see what fun
>> can a classical lecture can provide
>> (and don't know anyone who really
>> enjoyed them).
>
>Well, that's your problem.

I don't think I have any problem there.

Many people fail to see what fun documentaries can provide
>yet still there are documentaries on TV every day. And its not like lectures have
>to be great fun or anything like that. More fun than reading a book alone is a good start.
>
>If you allow a little sidetrack, I have something you might want to think about.
>In Finland, university education is practically free (about 100 euros a year) and
>government even gives you some money for living (though not quite as much as being
>unemployed would net you). You can't get kicked out of university because of bad
>grades or slow advancement of studies, in practise not even if you don't advance at all.
>
>In that kind of environment, it takes a lot of discipline to study by yourself
>for an exam that's weeks or months away. It doesn't matter if you don't pass, just
>try again next year (or as in my university, at least four times a year). So what
>if you graduate a year or two later. If you don't care, no one else will.
>
>So I don't know whether this is relevant or not. I do think that an average Finnish
>student would be quite different, if he had to pay for studying or was in danger
>of being kicked out because of bad grades.

And what point are you trying to make with that?

>>> I do believe more in exercises, but
>>> lectures are cheaper. The common
>>> theme here is activating the
>>> students, which is pretty hard if
>>> you only give them a book and tell
>>> them to take the exam three months
>>> later.
>>
>> Lectures and activation of students
>> are orthogonal things. I can easily
>> imagine lectures less activating
>> than a competition (even if it's
>> not very well thought out) or
>> game-based approach, but the
>> reverse is really hard to imagine.
>
>So, tell me how to setup competition or game-based approach for large number of
>students (something like 100-300) with about the same cost as lectures. I agree
>that there are better ways than lectures, but the cost is also going to be higher (more on this below).

It's not that hard actually. For programming assignments one can grade speed of code, for just about any design assignment one can think of relevant optimization criteria, and for any task regardless of field time to complete can be taken into account.

>> Well, since you mentioned costs,
>> why a good lecturer would be
>> cheaper than good sources? Esp. if
>> lectures are not meant to replace
>> the sourcese, but to supplement
>> them. Apparent lack of logic there.
>
>I have stated before that "just sources + exam" is the cheapest approach, but very
>bad one. So bad that even accountants understand that it isn't good.

Actually what you said was "The unfortunate truth is that by far the cheapest way to teach is to have a series of lectures followed by an exam."

So how about some clarification there: do you consider appropriate to change your argument over the course of a discussion or a you just a liar?

>But even if we forget the accountants for a while, the lectures have the benefit
>of costing about the same whether there are ten students or three hundred students.
>So once you got someone who knows his stuff picking the sources and making and grading
>the exam, having him give the lectures is relatively cheap on a large course.[1]
>
>And since many students are actually very bad at independently studying a text-book,
>the cost/benefit ratio should be high.
>
>[1] On a neighbouring university, not restricted to engineering, it is common to
>have courses with just few students. Many of those courses don't have lectures.
>They are often about some basic stuff that doesn't really change every year, if
>even every decade. They are, as I see it, perfect fit for "just sources + exam"
>approach. Professor only needs to come up with one or two new questions for an exam
>and update source material every five years or so. Besides, if a student has trouble
>passing the course, he probably don't need to anyway. If it was compulsory, there would be more participants.
>
>> I don't think it's just misunderstandings,
>> as I mentioned before. Yes, some people
>> prefer a lecturer, others would rather
>> read a book, but don't forget that a
>> lecture can be at best as good as a good
>> source -- this is indeed a basic truth
>> which you have to deal with.
>
>I think you need to deal with the basic truth that many students aren't going to
>open that book in time. And it is university's job to get them to learn somehow.
>Not bitch about them being idiots who don't know what would be the best way to study.
>
>Besides, your ignoring people like Dean who actually learn better hearing than
>seeing. It isn't a basic truth that a good written source is always at least as good as a lecture.

You misunderstood me. A lecturer is a human; he can make mistakes, forget things, have imperfect understanding of the subject etc. There is *no way* uni administration can guarantee that lectures by their lecturers are error-free. Or do you know one?

Quite a difference with books where even those few errors which manage to get into the wild tend to get noticed quickly.

>> The clarification is in the parenthesis.
>> Much of university research simply
>> doesn't have scientific significance,
>> which is more or less a fact.
>
>I agree with this, but if that's true, I think there's hardly any such research
>going on outside universities in Finland.

From a brief look at VTT's site I went away with an impression that at least some of their research is of scientific significance. No?

>> You're stating an obvious thing now,
>> and the argument was *never* about
>> whether OoOE is free or not.
>
>It was at the time I introduced the three statements. That's why I introduced them.
>You can blame me for reading you wrong all you want, or changing context or being
>stupid or whatever, but that was the reason.

Sorry, I don't buy it anymore. I could take it from someone I would trust to get confused, not from a hypocrite and a liar as you have shown yourself to be.

>> So let me suggest that you should
>> stop whining how difficult it's
>> for you to express yourself in a
>> foreign language, but instead
>> concentrate on the subject if you
>> really have something to dispute
>> my points with -- in theory or in
>> practice. Otherwise, what's the
>> point?
>
>And what point pray tell are we talking about here? I think your point is that
>you are always right, and if there's misunderstanding, it's other party's fault.

Well, it appears to be your point rather than mine. Don't recall you apologizing for your claims when you jumped in after you "admitted" you misunderstood what was discussed.

>> Besides, you deleted several important
>> questions or points which I'd like to
>> see answered or addressed so we make
>> some progress:
>
>I deleted them because I'm 99 % sure that there isn't going to be progress, and
>that 1 % just isn't enough to motivate me to spend time on this.
>
>I have tried my best to be clear. You don't understand me, so what's the point of going on?

If you're convinced you're not being understood, why not be more clear as suggested?

>Anyway, I'm feeling lucky, so here goes:
>
>>> You quoted me out of context. You
>>> took part of my text talking about
>>> the example I had set up and
>>> presented it as something I
>>> generally think is true. I was all
>>> surprised because I cannot fathom
>>> how you still at that point
>>> managed to miss the context of the
>>> example.
>>
>> No need to misrepresent. I quoted
>> the context to avoid any
>> additional discussion, but it
>> appears you'd go a long way just
>> for the sake of arguing rather
>> than doing actual clarification.
>
>You quoted some text around bolded parts, not the context. Obviously, I hadn't
>been able to communicate that context to you (although I thought I had), but that
>doesn't change it. It's my context to define. It just shows that even something
>I considered simple and already solved issue wasn't one. After all those posts. So why go on?

To be perfectly honest with you, I wasn't sure what kind of person you are until your last post which explained a lot.

>> Then why not try a different
>> approach? Point out what you think
>> I'm missing from Jouni's or your
>> own posts, and be clear about it.
>
>I have tried different approaches on different issues here. Haven't worked, and
>I don't have much faith that n+1th approach is going to work. And what does "being
>clear about it" means? Do you think I'm being unclear on purpose? Then why go on?

I'll give you an example: "the point you're missing from what Jouni/I said is as follows: ... ". ISTR you said he was talking from theoretical standpoint -- fine, find some relevant excerpts in literature to support what he/you said.

>> Of course there's no free lunch.
>> How does it contradict something
>> of what I said to Jouni or to
>> you? Remember, the discussion
>> concerned quite specific aspects:
>
>At that point, it wasn't about that discussion anymore. It had slided to a point
>where I was asking about free lunch since to me it seemed like you denied it.
>
>We have gone over this at least once already.

Then if your admission of misunderstanding refers to that point, why not simply apologize?

>>> By the way. I think you got that fanboy
>>> of theory thing I said wrong. It seems
>>> that most of the time you use the title
>>> I don't quite understand what you want.
>>
>> To undersand what are you grounds to
>> state that someone "didn't get any of
>> the discussion".
>
>I don't understand what this has to do with "fanboy of theory" thing. I think we
>have discussed about "didn't get any of the discussion" part in at least two posts already.

I don't take your self-characterizaion of "fanboy of theory" for anything more than your own words. My response refers to your question of what I want.

>> OK. Then doesn't it apply to anyone
>> else, including you?
>
>Yes, as I have said many times. Have you forgotten?
>
>> Funny question, but if you agree it
>> does, why bring it up?
>
>Why bring what up? The fact that you seem to think it doesn't apply to you or the
>fact that I think you misunderstood Jouni's point?

Can you explain, how do you conclude that a person who tends to ask for sources (me) thinks it doesn't refer to him?

>-JLarja
>