Learning

For the first theorem of the school year, I have chosen to keep it related to academics. This theorem will be part of a two-part series entitled "How to Get Smarter."

Theorem 15: Learning must come naturally or it won't come at all

This theorem is inspired by my theology professor, who recently tried to tell me that by listening and contributing in class discussion, I will learn the most about Exile, Exodus, and Pilgrimage. Listening, maybe: I know for a fact that everyone in the class is smarter about theology than I am so if the students happen to slip in a fact amongst their barrage of opinions, I could, in fact, theoretically, learn something. But with the same logic, the professor (Emily Stetler, I like her) is smarter than all the students, so I think she should just do all the talking. As for contributing, I know personally that no one can learn anything about what I have to say on Exile, Exodus, and Pilgrimage.

This brings me to my main point, which is that all classes should be lecture classes. It is by far the most efficient classroom form of learning. The smart person (professor) who has all the information gives it to the student, who receives it as quickly and efficiently as possible. Note: I have discovered that, aside from Lou Berzai, professors are all EXTREMELY smart in so many ways. Technology savvy maybe not, but very smart nonetheless. It is exactly when the student tries to offer their own information to the professor that this flow is slowed down. If a teacher gets lazy and doesn't feel like teaching, which I know I would do if I had the job of teaching to college students, they can tell you to read something with aforementioned information, but this information better be bullet-pointed or some sort of book on tape, otherwise it is only slowing down this flow. Honestly, I can't remember the last time I knew something that my teacher or professor did not know. Actually I can. It was my sophomore year in high school in my English class. I knew how to write sentences and paragraphs and she didn't. I know she didn't know this because she did not really know anything. But this was a special situation and as far as I can remember, she is the only teacher I have had that was so clueless.

Now you may be saying that class discussion is important for learning how to think critically and argue your points. This is approximately 85% true. Discussion helps in both aspects, especially in arguing your points. However, I believe that you don't really learn either of these things, they just come with practice. For example, you get practice with thinking all the time when you take a test, especially a hard test. The harder the test, the harder you have to think, and the better you get at thinking. And there are a million different things you can argue on your own time, including but not limited to: getting screwed on Halo spawns, why Troy Smith deserved the Heisman over Brady Quinn, and why it is unethical to steal from the DH. If you are interested in a mock argument for practice, Geisman is available for appointments in Room 250. Be prepared for a handsome dose of semantics.

There are two main ways in which lecture classes offer up information, and both have their respective places in academia. The first is the shotgun method, which is employed by John W. Stamper. In this method, you offer an incomprehensible amount of useless information that will be memorized and regurgitated on the test. The vast majority of this information will promptly be forgotten. However, is impossible to regurgitate ALL the information, and some still remains in the gut. Because there was so much to be memorized to start with, there is a reasonable amount that you have retained, thus a reasonable amount that you have learned. This is perfect for a class like Architectural History since the information obtained is equally as useless as the information forgotten, so as long as you got something out of the class, it is more successful than a class discussion. The second method is of course the opposite: full mastery. This is perfect for classes that are in a series, where you will need to learn everything so that you can build upon it next semester.

Lastly, I would like to point out that although this theorem seems tremendously biased toward people like me (math/science/business types), it is actually based in fact. You can't learn an opinion, you can only learn a fact. You also can't learn a skill, you can only practice a skill. Thus if you don't care about learning, then discussions and such might be the way to go. However, you won't get any smarter ("smart" is defined as the word to describe something with lots of information) and it will be a tremendous waste of 3 credit hours at a University full of information.