|
|
|
|
|
by danpalmer
1059 days ago
|
|
Huge +1 to this. I had one lecturer who would essentially rant at us about security vulnerabilities every week for a semester, and then write a paper based on his rants. Some students ignored his rants because they didn't find the subject interesting, did the past papers, and then got to the exam and did terribly, then complained about the fact that "it's all based on his rants". Others found the ranting engaging because it was deep dives on obscure bits of computer security history. My year he spent ~4 weeks going on about Stuxnet, including deep dives into the wider political context. When I got to the paper, one of the few questions we could choose, for 50% of the paper, was just "What was Stuxnet". I wrote pages and pages. Figured out from marking that I got full marks on that one. I always did great in that lecturer's modules despite never taking notes and rarely doing any targeted reading. To show the level of engagement, I once turned up to one of these lectures 10 mins late, with most of the class already there, and the lecturer said "oh I wondered where you guys were, I guess I'll start again". He knew we were the only ones who cared about the class. |
|