First off, I all of my lectures have been bearable in Queens College, so I honestly don’t understand those who dislike them.
Now, I my thoughts on the digital ethnography are a little mixed. I feel like at powerful statement made in the video was that the average student had to somehow balance their 26.5 hour life into a 24 hour day, but almost 13 hours of the time was negotiable.
“A Lecture From The Lectured” sets their point with “Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, J. Crew 50 percent off, Darwinism, Facebook “. With those things falling under the bottom most layer, the individual is unable to reach self-actualization.
I look at human interaction, care, trust, and everything else numerically. We each have 24 hours a day, 8760 hours a year, and at 18 years of age I have about 630720 hours left. This type of thinking is bound to make you desire efficiency above all else, as well as a defensive precaution to how we spend our time.
Professor must teach efficiently, and the hour long lecture allows for the Professor to reach hundred of students and align their thinking to what they need to succeed in the course. This can be supported by the fact that most lecture classes are for hundreds of people in a new field. Not all of those students are going to remain in that field, professors don’t need to learn the names of every student they teach.
The authors of ,”A Lecture From The Lectured”, seem to want a genuine human interaction with someone who already has to budget their personality and time among hundreds of others.
The final ethical part of the video seems to undermine the struggle of school with the struggle of living in this era. Because the students have to deal with current problems, but no one dedicates time to thinking about them, or trying to make a difference.
Do you think a lecture should be the primary source to effectively learn about a subject?
What can the students do in order to work around a “Bad” class?