I won't argue that the guy is a very talented and eloquent speaker. My point is different: he may be very erudite, but the depth of his knowledge in any of the subjects he's teaching (except maybe some subjects in EE and finance) is not going to compare with that of professors in the respective fields. Certainly, the fact that he's addressing these subjects at high-school level, does a lot to level the field for him.
By the way, I'm not sure how listing his credentials is supportive of your claim that "his ability to teach far outperforms the majority of university professors."
Finally, it's not the anonymous 'majority of university professors' that I'm comparing him to, but the top people in their fields at the top American universities. Those people must excel both in research and teaching, otherwise they simply don't make it there.
I have degrees from MIT and UC Berkeley. I can attest from experience that at such institutions, while there are indeed some professors who excel in both research and teaching, the vast majority are there because of the quality of their research with teaching a secondary concern.
Also, I think having a huge depth of knowledge is really not that important when teaching introductory topics (as long as you don't get anything wrong!). Having tutored students for many years, I'm quite certain that the biggest impediment to learning such topics is motivation, which is addressed more by a teacher's enthusiasm and speaking ability than the depth of their knowledge.
think having a huge depth of knowledge is really not that important when teaching introductory topics
Absolutely, and as I said, that levels out the playing field for him a lot. Partially I was misled by the enthusiasm of the HN users here for the lectures; I didn't expect the crowd here to be so excited about high-school material.
OK, I really need a reality check here. First, let me make it clear - on every reddit discussion about math and about Khan Academy that's I've been involved in, I heartily recommend it. I think what he's doing makes him one of the education heroes of the 21st century, and I'm a public school math teacher! But..."eloquent speaker"??? Khan drives me UP THE GODDAM WALL with his palsy-mousing and repetition while he's thinking on-the-fly. I mean, what amazes me about him is he's able to just sit down and do these videos without any script beforehand, which you can tell because he just starts making up examples while he's explaining things!!! But as a teacher - and professional speaker - and former theatre major - he makes me crazy. EVERY video I've seen goes like this:
"OK, we're going to cover (insert topic here). Now suppose we want to solve 2X=5, that's, uh, 2x, uh twoooo, (wiggles stylus, then writes 2), uh X (wiggles stylus, then writes X, eeeeequals, (wiggles stylus, then writes the equals sign), equals (wiggles stylus, writes 5) five..." Ad nauseum.
I have heard literally NO ONE mention this in any discussion about Khan Academy. Why? I haven't hallucinated this behavior - it's on EVERY video, because, well, it's his STYLE. And I've never seen this behavior at a blackboard by any instructor, no matter how crummy they were (and, whoo, have I seen some crummy ones!).
Please, someone tell me that I've fallen into some universe where I've become the character Monk, and I'm the only one who's bothered by Khan's presentation!
His lessons aren't Teaching Company level, and he could definitely benefit from doing multiple takes and splicing them together. Still his style works for me, and I'd happily trade in any math teacher I ever had for Khan.
It's an unfortunate fact of teaching that certain styles just don't work for specific personalities. One person's harmless eccentricity is another's grating lesson-derailer. There are going to be some people you can't do much to help, no matter how good you are, or how attentive the student is. And it's not anyone's fault.
I upvoted you because I got the humor. Seriously, at this point I am completely willing to accept this is just me, because I have heard no one complain about this but me!
I've read the first book of the Feynman lectures during the last six months, only for fun, to compare the insights of Feynman with the education I've received during my school time, twenty years ago.
In that lecture Khan was ALMOST right, but I think it's not good. He mentions in one moment "the energy given to the system was the higher potential energy of the rocks" which is wrong. There's no the same amount of rocks, so the energy of the remaining (less) rocks is the same as the energy of more rocks before in the process he described.
Feynman's approach to actually understand that the energy transferred was to "speed up" the movement of the gas molecules is right, this is not.
He also "derives" the formula with delta U = Q - ... where he should have just written Q = ... because that was what was intentionally done.
So I'm not satisfied, I believe Khan was able to deliver much better lecture had he first prepared himself a little more. Maybe using some simpler book as the start but using Feynman for the insight to be able to explain what's really going on.
By the way, I'm not sure how listing his credentials is supportive of your claim that "his ability to teach far outperforms the majority of university professors."
Finally, it's not the anonymous 'majority of university professors' that I'm comparing him to, but the top people in their fields at the top American universities. Those people must excel both in research and teaching, otherwise they simply don't make it there.