This week I have been to four lectures, on different topics, given by four different lecturers. 

First lecture:  75 minutes long, no opportunity to ask questions, the lecturer read a written text in a flat monotone, no humour, no visual aids. Verdict: Insulting and boring.

Second lecture:  60 minutes long plus 30 minutes for questions, the lecturer spoke annimatedly without notes, plenty of humour, no visual aids.  Verdict: Fun to listen to but little recall of anything other than a few of the best jokes.

Third lecture:  45 minutes, no opportunity for questions, fast delivery with a relentless bombardment of colourful PowerPoints, no humour.  Verdict: Overwhelming – impossible to remember anything.

Fourth lecture:  30 minutes, no opportunity for questions, enthusiastic delivery without reference to notes, sensible use of PowerPoints, no humour – but the enthusiasm made up for this. Verdict: Enjoyable and succeeded in whetting my appetite.

The experience has left me wondering (not for the first time) why we are so tolerant of such a hopeless way of helping people to learn.  But this assumes that learning is the purpose.  Perhaps the whole point of a lecture is to give the lecturer a chance to exhibit their superior knowledge; in other words, to show off?   All four lecturers undoubtedly knew their stuff, but I don’t think they really cared a jot about their listeners.  It was up to us to cope with information over-load as best we could. 

That’s the trouble with lectures as a method; they are selfish, one-sided affairs.  All the focus is on transmission regardless of reception.  They have as much regard for the audience as an expert talking on the radio to an empty room.


  1. Pingback: Chris Honey

  2. Pingback: Robin

  3. Pingback: Paul Brennan

Add your voice

Enjoyed this article? Want to hear more? Book me as a speaker at your next event.

Blog Archives

By date By category

To hell with soft-skills; they are the strong-skills