<p>I was recently accepted as transfer student for the winter semester, and have a simple but moronic question about my enrollment. What is the difference between lecture and discussion? I understand the principle of the distinction, but what exactly is the need for a supplement to the lecture? I come from a small, residential college where classes are taught solely through lecture, and so the idea of two components for a single class period seems a little foreign to me. Does the discussion component primarily exist as a question/answer session to bridge the gap of the impersonal quality of the lecture?</p>
<p>Lecture is just what it sounds like-- you’re in a medium to large hall being lectured to by the professors. The discussion sections are where you are lead by a GSI/UTA (or in rare cases one of the professors) and they are smaller (usually capped at 20 students, while lectures can be hundreds), and you do more hands on stuff. Some discussion sections have busy work, and you usually have homework to bring to your discussion sections. Your GSI/UTA will also usually be grading your essays and such for the class. They’re basically just smaller sections where you actually do the coursework and talk more in-depth about the material. Sometimes instead of a discussion section, you have a lab. This is mainly for science and econ classes I believe.</p>
<p>The idea is that it should be as enteduintransit said. In practice it often is not. For instance, one of my classes has one lecture and one discussion. The entire class is in both. The difference is that the discussion does not fit in pattern time-wise with the lecture, and the discussion is lead by the GSI. </p>
<p>What exactly is covered will vary by class. Sometimes they will review concepts, sometimes it’s more of an office hours where they go over homework problems people have trouble with.</p>
<p>It’s also almost always considered mandatory (attendance is taken and participation credit is given), while this is often not the case with lectures.</p>
<p>Thanks for the responses. It sounds like the value of the discussion is highly dependent on the GSI/TA. And that in some cases – and some classes – it really doesn’t add much value at all.</p>
<p>“It’s also almost always considered mandatory (attendance is taken and participation credit is given), while this is often not the case with lectures.”</p>
<p>That has never been the case in any of my classes. Save one where there were scheduled quizzes given so if you missed the quiz then you don’t get the points for it.</p>
<p>The point seems to be to compete with 25 others to say something substantial in 50 minutes and then forget what everyone said. I can’t for the world figure out how it’s beneficial to learning. In addition if the lecture is really bad at clarifying things the GSI may just end up lecturing like happened in one class yesterday. She spent 40 of those minutes doing that. </p>
<p>I find the pace and pressure of discussions too absurd to gain anything other than participation points (often 20% of your grade). I’m getting an A in both of mine and still think it’s ridiculous. If there are fewer in the class or discussion is longer, I could see the benefit.</p>
<p>I didn’t take the time to read the responses to this, so I’m not sure if somebody already mentioned it–</p>
<p>But the GSI for your discussion section is 98% responsible for determining your grade. The main professor usually has no idea how you are performing in the class, nor are they likely to care to know unless you have a specific issue with your GSI.</p>
<p>So attendance to the discussion section is actually more important in many ways than attendance to the lecture.</p>