Happy to do so. I have struggled because I have been a strong, independent student and when I am asked for videos, my response is, "There is really no need for videos. Just study the lessons and complete the assessments. Videos are just a waste of time." That is true...for students like me. The problem is that education, like medicine, is not for the strong but for the weak. This may sound strange but last week, I had a dream in which the need to focus my services on the needs of weak students was made clear. I woke up in the middle of the night with a clear vision for what the purpose of video lessons needed to be, why they were needed, whom they should be made for, etc. Strong students, for whom the CLAA was created, rarely need help. They need access to study materials and time. I, for example, was exempt from all class attendance while studying Classics in college because I could show up on exam day and make a perfect score on the exam after reading and studying on my own. I had no need of class lectures and my professors actually helped me to begin teaching full-time instead of attending classes. Strong students can do such things. The challenge, however, is to help students who are not strong to achieve the noble educational goals their parents have for them. These are students who, left to themselves, will not read, will not make progress, will not work to understand, etc. The teacher does not work to serve the student, but the well-intentioned parents who desire (and provide for) good things for their children. So, what I said previously against video lessons is true--for strong students. Spending hours watching lesson videos is a waste of time for them and their criticism that videos are long, boring, unnecessary, etc., is irrelevant since the videos are not for them. At the same time, what I am doing in making videos does not contradict that criticism of videos, because these videos are intended for weak students who cannot make progress independently. The time required to watch videos is actually more efficient than their independent study would be, so the videos are good for them. It was that distinction between classes of students that led me to understand the purpose of video lessons, which parents have been asking for, but I have not understood or respected. I understand now.
@@classicalliberalarts I think this is a good concession for the weak. Another one that I have found to be essential for my children (ages 10/12/14) in order for them to be able to complete the studies as we go through them together is a clear translation. For Aristotle's Categories, Thomas Taylor is incomprehensible to them. We are using the Edgehill translation, and they are able to understand it independently and summarize its meaning. I think this is historically justified by the prelection always given by the Jesuit teachers after the reading of the classical masters. Since we are already reading these masters in translation, I don't think a certain translation is the hill to die on.
![MV วิถีชีวิตใต้ - ผา อัยย๊ะ [Official MV HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nODlkOUu9B0/mqdefault.jpg)
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 85 | คู่เอก "ยอดเหล็กเพชร vs ผึ้งหลวง"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qq_19bnnxEo/mqdefault.jpg)
Hello. Do guys have courses designed for adults? Thanks.
Our program is open for students of all ages.
You just made a video last month explaining in great detail why you don't do video lectures and claiming lectures are obsolete.
To be clear, I think you're right to have reversed your position. I'd just like you to address the apparent contradiction directly.
Happy to do so. I have struggled because I have been a strong, independent student and when I am asked for videos, my response is, "There is really no need for videos. Just study the lessons and complete the assessments. Videos are just a waste of time."
That is true...for students like me.
The problem is that education, like medicine, is not for the strong but for the weak. This may sound strange but last week, I had a dream in which the need to focus my services on the needs of weak students was made clear. I woke up in the middle of the night with a clear vision for what the purpose of video lessons needed to be, why they were needed, whom they should be made for, etc.
Strong students, for whom the CLAA was created, rarely need help. They need access to study materials and time. I, for example, was exempt from all class attendance while studying Classics in college because I could show up on exam day and make a perfect score on the exam after reading and studying on my own. I had no need of class lectures and my professors actually helped me to begin teaching full-time instead of attending classes. Strong students can do such things.
The challenge, however, is to help students who are not strong to achieve the noble educational goals their parents have for them. These are students who, left to themselves, will not read, will not make progress, will not work to understand, etc. The teacher does not work to serve the student, but the well-intentioned parents who desire (and provide for) good things for their children.
So, what I said previously against video lessons is true--for strong students. Spending hours watching lesson videos is a waste of time for them and their criticism that videos are long, boring, unnecessary, etc., is irrelevant since the videos are not for them. At the same time, what I am doing in making videos does not contradict that criticism of videos, because these videos are intended for weak students who cannot make progress independently. The time required to watch videos is actually more efficient than their independent study would be, so the videos are good for them.
It was that distinction between classes of students that led me to understand the purpose of video lessons, which parents have been asking for, but I have not understood or respected. I understand now.
@@classicalliberalarts I think this is a good concession for the weak. Another one that I have found to be essential for my children (ages 10/12/14) in order for them to be able to complete the studies as we go through them together is a clear translation. For Aristotle's Categories, Thomas Taylor is incomprehensible to them. We are using the Edgehill translation, and they are able to understand it independently and summarize its meaning. I think this is historically justified by the prelection always given by the Jesuit teachers after the reading of the classical masters. Since we are already reading these masters in translation, I don't think a certain translation is the hill to die on.