I boneheadedly missed a week (or 2?) keeping up with this lecture series. Here’s the third lecture from David Archer’s University of Chicago class, Phy Sci 134 – based on his book, “Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast” – one of the key books for understanding the larger picture.
Atmospheric physics for poets.
“But this guy is teaching quantum physics to students who want to learn quantum physics.”
Oh, my misunderstanding, then. I thought that the class was about climate change. A discussion of neutrinos is utterly inappropriate to a course on climate change, and quite appropriate to a course on QM.
Oops.
I still think his lecture style is weak. I skimmed through the lecture and realized that this is a standard lecture for what is usually a second-year course for physics and engineering students. It’s usually called something like “Modern Physics” and bundles together QM and relativity. Peter added a notation “Atmospheric Physics for Poets”, but this is most certainly NOT atmospheric physics and it is most certainly NOT appropriate for nonscientists. I’ve taught this stuff, and I was no better than this guy when I was in my early 20s. But back then blackboards and chalk were the only AV technologies we had. And I did have enough sense to know that you don’t just throw equations at students: you’ve got to introduce them in context and show how they’re used and what they mean.
Nope – it’s a course for non-scientists, and it’s an outline of some of the scientific areas relevant to climate change, one of which is quantum physics.
The content is nothing like a second year physics and engineering lecture – there is no mathematical formalism of quantum theory, and barely any equations at all; it’s just some basic physics concepts for people who want to know.
The scope of the course is on the youtube page.
Whether or not its appropriate for the audience depends on who they are and why they chose or were advised to do the course. I don’t know any of that. And neither do you. If they’re receiving it in an appropriate context, it looks to me like a good course.
I’m not sure about Peter’s poets though – you’re right, they’re probably feeling a bit bemused 🙂
I looked at the first lecture on YouTube and sure enough, this is indeed an overview course for nonscientists. As such, I think my criticisms are fully justified. This guy is so deeply sunk into his own worldview that he is unaware of how nonscientists think. As it happens I’m now working on an educational thingamobob that addresses climate change (and some other things as well), and so I have given considerable thought about how to present this kind of material to nonscientists. This guy is going about it all wrong for a nontechnical audience. He’s violating a fundamental rule of good science teaching: you don’t use equations unless they’re necessary. He’s tossing out equations that are absolutely useless to his students in understanding climate change. He talks about “oscillators” when he should be saying “molecules”.
I know I’m sounding awfully mean coming down on this guy for his efforts, but just compare his work with Peter’s. Think about all the work that Peter puts into his videos. They’re carefully thought out, tightly organized, and well-presented. Contrast that with this fellow’s sloppy approach. Which do you think you’d learn more from: an hour of this guy or ten minutes of Peter’s video?
I’m just grateful that there wasn’t someone in charge of H.E. with those kinds of opinions while I was a student. Half the lectures I benefited the most from would have been axed.
Alex, I think you’re approaching this in absolute terms rather than relative terms. Sure, if your choice is between nothing whatsoever and a poor lecture, you’re going to learn more from the poor lecture. But ask yourself this question: if you had a choice between two lectures on the same material, one carefully prepared and competently delivered, the other slapped together and incompetently delivered, which would have been more edifying?
That’s a ridiculous question.
I went to Oxford. The lecturers weren’t poor or sloppy. They just wouldn’t have fit into your narrow little idea of how things should be.
I don’t accept that this guy’s lectures are poor. It’s presumptuous of you to act as if you know how much preparation he or anyone else has made, or how appropriate it is for the student, when you haven’t even watched it, you don’t know who the students are, you don’t know what he’s trying to achieve, you don’t know the context, and you don’t know how effective it is.
I appreciate that you take a lot of care over how you deliver your own lectures, and that you have particular preferences on how you like to receive information. These are good things. Imposing them on others as if they’re objective standards, however, is bigotry.
Use a little imagination. It doesn’t take much to realise that the people who choose to attend appreciate it more than you. It wouldn’t suit you – fair enough. It would suit me and I’m sure it would suit others too.
You want to write and complain to the lecturer, go ahead. You might have some helpful points for him in amongst your opinionatedness.
I’m sure he’ll be happy to refund you every penny you paid to watch them.
As it happens, I *did* go through the lecture watching goodly portions of it to make sure that I wasn’t basing my assessment on a small subset of the material; I can state with confidence that the overall quality of his presentation does not change. Moreover, I *did* watch the relevant portions of his first lecture on YouTube, where he does in fact declare his intentions for the course, and it’s quite obvious what kind of students he’s targeting it for.
Again, I don’t want to be too harsh about this guy because he’s obviously a research scientist, not a teacher, but that doesn’t mean we should give him a pass for poor teaching. I’m also willing to give him some leeway because he’s obviously pretty young and not much experienced with teaching. But again, that doesn’t mean that we should accept his work as first class.
Please observe that my criticisms are specific, not generic; let’s go over my specific criticisms:
1. Do you think that a lecturer should not bother to maintain eye contact with the students?
2. Do you think that taking the time to write text on a blackboard is just as good as presenting that text in a slide?
3. Do you think that proper use of gestures and body language has no bearing on the quality of a lecture?
4. Do you think that proper use of vocal intonation has no bearing on the quality of a lecture?
5. Do you think that use of humor has no bearing on the quality of a lecture?
6. Do you think that use of props has no bearing on the quality of a lecture?
7. Do you think that use of illustrations or imagery in slides has no bearing on the quality of a lecture?
8. Do you think that a discussion of neutrinos from the sun is relevant to climate change?
I could go on, but I think these questions demonstrate why I think his lecture substandard.
I’ll tell you what: I’m willing to put my time where my mouth is. After all, I’m criticizing another person’s work, and that certainly puts an ethical responsibility on me to be willing to back up such criticism. If just two people will declare that they’d like to see me do better than this guy, I’ll slap together a short video addressing one of his central points regarding the nature of electromagnetic radiation, blackbody radiation, and resonant capture. I’ll put it up on YouTube and let you folks turn the tables on me. If you honestly think that my work is no better than his, you can say so. If, on the other hand, you conclude that my approach is more effective, then we’ll all have benefited.
Fair enough?
I think if you were capable of getting off your own trip and understanding the point I was making, you’d have done so by now. Better leave it.
Have fun.