When I was doing my undergraduate degree I had lecturers apologies for the topic on which they were about to speak. This happened for a number of reasons. Perhaps the topic was a sensitive one or was a little crude. These are somewhat understandable. Or at least more understandable than this next one: the fact that the topic was dry or boring. This baffled me. Although, unfortunately, it was not an apology without warrant. Not to say that the topics were boring but rather that it was very clear people found them boring. In my three years there I heard a conversation that went like this: Person One: That was so boring. Person Two: Yeah, but it all is isn’t it. Or worse: ‘I was so bored I wanted to kill myself’. It was the theory heavy lectures, the ones where we were given a break halfway through (from which a number of students did not return – hopefully not because they’d taken themselves up on the idea suggested in the latter quote above.) that were prefaced with an apologetic look and disclaimer that it was going to be a gruelling two hours.

Now, I don’t mean to suggest that these lectures were fun or enjoyable. Or that people just didnt understand the magic of those two hours discussing political theory, the philosophy of Fregre or Rene Girard. No lectures are fun. Nor should they be. But what they are, or atleast should be is interesting.

There is the possibility that something that is not enjoyable can be engaging and worthwhile, even, transformative, if you are not, upon entering into it totally averse to giving it your full attention. God forbid your phone is off or in your pocket for two hours, or at least 110 minutes if you take the ten minute break out of that time. It seemed that to gain the full attention of a lecture hall was impossible. Because it wasn’t enjoyable?

At the minute I am halfway through a 1100 page detailed account of the Third Reich. I wouldn’t say that this book is enjoyable, it isn’t fun. It is, however, interesting. If I want fun or enjoyment I read something like The Millennium Trilogy which I go through a hell of a lot quicker than this breeze block I’m reading at the minute. The book about the Third Reich is arguably more interesting than former.

I think the main issue that I’m trying to get at is that if you go into a lecture with an interested and engaged outlook it can never be boring – even if, or more so especially if, you disagree or don’t like a topic. You can engage with that topic from that angle, attempting to take it apart, seeing how far it will stretch and finding which ideas and theories you do like can challenge what is being said or add to it.

If you go into a lecture however with the attitude that it is a waste of time because it won’t help answer your essay and it doesn’t matter anyway of course it will be boring.

It should not be the case that lecturers feel the need to apologise about the content of their lectures because your degree is merely a stepping stone to a job. To complain about something you are wholly uninterested in does not help anyone.

Stating that something is boring does not negate it importance. It merely highlights your own apathy. Your own apathy towards what you have actively chosen to engage in. To make such a choice and then complain as if you are oppressed is a large part of what stands out as negative within society at large but also within the university setting more specifically. You chose a module and then “this module is crap” or you pick an essay question and then “this essay is so difficult”. Blah blah blah. An apathetic attitude and lack of initiative, not a lack of interesting content is what leads to the need for lectures to introduce topics apologetically.

Perhaps it would pay to split vocational and industry skills teaching from academic universities once more. This split would occur in correlation to individuals willingness to accept responsibility for their own learning and their genuine interest in critically engaging rather than moving on to the next stage. I don’t see this as a split between good and bad but is rather reflective of different aims being reached through different types of institutions.

Any thoughts on this please let me know. I am interested to hear what you have to say and what your own experiences have been in this regard.