The listening and the reading passage have the same topic, however they have
different standpoints.
In the reading passage professors on television are seen as very beneficial not only
to themselves but also to the university. First it is mentioned that professors
enhance their popularity and therefore their reputation. Moreover a university gets
more popular when one of it’s professors becomes public. Third is mentioned that
people watching tv not always have the possibility to listen to a university professor.
Consequently it is a great contribution to their lifes to hear a professional and
founded opinion about a special topic.
In contrary the women has a different opinion concerning professors on television.
First of all she states that being on television harms a reputation rather than
contributing to it. The professor might not be seen as a serious professor, more as an
entertainer instead of an educate. In consequence he might not get invited to
inportant conferences or discussions. Furthermore it will be more difficult to get
financial support for his research. Of course the professor also has to take into
consideration that being on television costs a lot of time that he could spend doing
research, talking to his student or attending university happenings. Finally she claims
that after-dinner programmes normally do not want in-depth and highly academic
material. A well informed journalist could easily replace the professor.
To sum up as the professor completely refutes what is said in the reading passage,
the listening passage shows that it does not only have advantages when professors
are on television. The drawbacks arising from these contemporary developments
might not be worth the advantages they bring up.
TOEFL listening lectures: A lecture from a social sciences class (3)