Why do professors make certain things much more complicated than they really are?

[_tisthetruth]

<p>Have you ever had a professor like that? In the summer class I’m taking now, I’ll be like WHAT in the world is he talking about? He’ll go into technical details without first providing an overview of the general concept, almost like he doesn’t know what’s important to include in his presentation or how the things he mentions relate to the overall concept. I’ll read about the same things online and find out that they’re actually so simple and much more interesting.</p>

<p>For example, to answer the question “specify which cells synapse with other cells in the retina,” he says:</p>

<p>

The synaptic region of the receptor consists of 20-30 pouches per cone and a single pouch per rod, with the processes from bipolar and horizontal cells making contact both within and outside of the pouch.<br>
The synaptic vesicles release their chemical transmitter, which traverses the gap and initiates neural activity in the horizontal and bipolar cells.<br>
There are also connections from bipolar cells that are outside of the pouches; the distinction between the two types of connections is important because the those bipolars that make connections within the pouches depolarize to light (“on bipolars”), while those that make connections outside of the pouches, hyperpolarize to light (“off bipolars”).
Since the receptors hyperpolarize to light, the off bipolars are “sign preserving” and the on bipolars are "sign reversing.”
Cones generally make contact with several bipolars within their pouches.
The other major distinction between bipolars is in terms of the number of receptors they contact.
The midget bipolars are smaller, are found largely in the fovea, and make connections with 1-12 receptors.<br>
The diffuse bipolars are found largely in the periphery and make contact with as many as 100 receptors.

</p>

<p>The online source I used explains it much more concisely and comprehensively. </p>

<p>

The first area of neuropil is the outer plexiform layer (OPL) where connections between rod and cones, and vertically running bipolar cells and horizontally oriented horizontal cells occur.</p>

<p>The second neuropil of the retina, is the inner plexiform layer (IPL), and it functions as a relay station for the vertical-information-carrying nerve cells, the bipolar cells, to connect to ganglion cells. In addition, different varieties of horizontally- and vertically-directed amacrine cells, somehow interact in further networks to influence and integrate the ganglion cell signals. It is at the culmination of all this neural processing in the inner plexiform layer that the message concerning the visual image is transmitted to the brain along the optic nerve.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://webvision.med.utah.edu/sretina.html[/url]”>http://webvision.med.utah.edu/sretina.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[silverpebble]

<p>Some professors like to make it lengthy and confusing so they’ll have a reputation for being hard and you think you’re learning more. Really, they just like to hear themselves talk and don’t understand that all their lingo is completely arbitrary and annoying to their students. Good job looking it up - that’s how you’ll get through the class ;)</p>

[i586]

<p>I never go to lectures, so idk. Im 100% a book learner. I just find professors to be dummies. the way they teahc things makes no sense to me in general.</p>

[steevee]

<p>Biology profs like details.</p>

[_tisthetruth]

<p>It’s cognitive psychology, actually. It’s OK to give specific details (in fact, details are expected), but I think he should give an overview of the lesson first before doing that. </p>

<p>Also, he literally faces the screen and reads from the PowerPoint almost word per word. I’ve never had a professor like that until now. I have no doubt he’s intelligent (Berkeley PhD), but I think he <em>deliberately</em> wants students lost so he will fit the image of a genius professor or something. His presentation, however, is unimpressive compared to the scientists online who could provide really eloquent, understandable, succinct, and comprehensive explanations of the same concepts. Makes me think that he couldn’t express himself really well and that he doesn’t know which things are most important to cover in a 200-level lecture.</p>

[kollegkid]

<p>Study on the books beforehand so that you can follow along with the lectures better.</p>

[_tisthetruth]

<p>VICTORY! I got one of only 2 As on the midterm There are 38 people in the class.</p>

[cherrybarry]

<p>the reason is because they ARE as complicated as they are. the research prof embraces “not understanding” more than understanding. if everything were so simple, then you don’t get funding, can’t publish enough material, etc, and that translates into the classroom lectures.</p>

[_tisthetruth]

<p>For this class, I basically researched the topics using other sources and arrived at a level of understanding deemed superior by the professor. What I’m saying is that he could have made things simpler and more understandable (as evidenced by the fact that other scientists arrived at and communicated the same level of understanding as he in much simpler terms, and I relayed their thoughts to him), but he didn’t. Sure, the material is complex, but what I’m saying is that he had made things unnecessarily more complex than they really are.</p>

[InquilineKea]

<p>I’m linking the site. I love this site. :)</p>

<p>It’s really difficult to “lecture” people on details such as anatomy. I’d much prefer to skip classes. The more complex the material and the more detailed it is, the more you can gain from self-study, not from lectures.</p>