[p2e]

"My conclusion is that college lectures really aren't an efficient way to disseminate education, and they are even less so when they are recorded on video."

I'm curious about how you came to the conclusion that lectures are less efficient when they are recorded on video. It seems to me that (for the student which doesn't speak up and engage the instructor in class -- most students?), that a recorded lecture would provide a near identical experience. I would expect that recorded recorded lectures would also allow students to slow down, decompose, repeat, and revisit portions of the lecture in order to better grasp the information at their own pace.

Is it the issue of not being physically surrounded by students or faced by an instructor that you're not keen on? Perhaps a lack of physical accountability to keep students attentive and on-point?

[transphenomenal]

For me personally, if I have the opportunity to ask questions, I will think of questions to ask and as a byproduct, think about the lecture more critically. If I am unable to ask questions, I am less likely to think critically. Of course, I have just realized this and now that I am aware of this, I can possibly put a stop to this and get more out of video lectures and even real life lectures where questions are discouraged.

[ludwigvan]

The major difference is lectures of Khan Academy, or the new Stanford lectures have a one-to-one lecture format, that probably engages people more.

College lectures, or classroom lectures are non-ideal [1], in an ideal world, each student would have a corresponding teacher. The beauty of technology and Internet is that now we can simulate one-to-one lectures for masses.

[1] There are probably some situations where classroom lectures are better, when the lecture is enhanced by questions via discussion.

[rdouble]

Efficient was the wrong word. The reason videotaped lectures are worse than being there in person: I often can't see the board on the video, and I can't ask questions.