ethanrt

On a recent visit to Harvard, plus some research into Yale and Princeton, I've found that a lot of freshman and sophomore classes are large lectures. At Harvard, I discovered what I would call three types of lectures:
1) The boring, one-sided lecture. This is what you get when you're being taught by a grad student who's reading off a PowerPoint slide show.
2) The exciting, one-sided lecture. This is what you get when you're being taught by a dynamic, knowledgeable professor who is really interested by what he or she is teaching, and who goes through the entire lecture hour without stopping.
3) The exciting, two-sided lecture. This is what you get when you're being taught by a dynamic, knowledgeable professor who also stops for questions at least a few times throughout the class.

But now I'm asking myself, "Do either of the first two types of lectures really interest me?" With the increasing availability of videotaped lectures and syllabi (MIT's Open Courseware being a prime example), even a good lecturer who doesn't take questions hypothetically imparts nothing more than an iTunes video, a syllabus, and a textbook.

I'm still in the process of trying to figure out exactly how prevalent big lecture classes are at the big three I'm interested in (Harvard, Princeton, and Yale), but the merits of smaller liberal arts colleges seem to stand out stronger after my Harvard experience.

But basically, I'm throwing this idea out there to generate discussion and different perspectives: what do you think about lectures? Do they tend to be one-sided, or two-? Does a lot of worthwhile learning tend to go on? If open courseware choices were expanded, would it be a worthy substitute for lectures themselves? Is the prevalence of smaller lectures and seminars a big plus for small liberal arts colleges? Are seminars even "better" and more conducive to learning?