Glad to see this at the top, agree 100%. I’m definitely going to copy some of OP’s setting and snippets, but not for real time use during a lecture.
A textbook is an infinitely better reference than any notes one could take in class. Read the damn book. Lecture time should be for asking questions when you have a freaking live expert professor literally presenting the material to you. Ask all the small, nuanced questions that you can think of in the moment, which you can’t find answers to easily online or in the book.
Not to downplay the efficient workflow here, but there is zero chance that this person’s notes are actually better than a real textbook.
I'm conflicted on this. On one hand, academic donations are always great. On the other hand, Stephen Schwarzman has a record of giving large donations in exchange for naming rights. He gave $150 million to Yale to renovate the main campus center, called "Commons," into the "Schwarzman Center." He gave $25 million to his high school in exchange for naming rights bordering on autocracy, including having his portrait appear "prominently" throughout the school. These conditions were scaled back after they were made public, previously kept private as a condition of the donation. (source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/answer-sheet/wp/...) He made a scholarship program called the "Schwarzman Scholars" modeled after the Rhodes. Now, MIT.
Look, don't get me wrong. I think donations to academic institutions are fantastic and he should be lauded for his generous giving. However I think it is worthwhile as a society for us to inspect these kind of actions a bit more critically. In my view, Schwarzman, who has no prior record of public interest, giving, or service prior to the last 10 years, is embarking on an aggressive campaign to formulate a positive legacy of his name with his money before he dies. It is artificial, transparent, and revisionist. 100 years from now, people won't remember Schwarzman for being a Trump supporter/friend/advisor and a wealthy Republican. As he has made certain with these donations, Schwarzman will be remembered as a benevolent philanthropist.
He has done an extremely clever thing. Even I can't deny that he has done a wonderful thing by giving away so much money. So who can justifiably criticize the intent behind his actions? No one, really.
To me, Schwarzman's donations reveal just how much of culture and history is straight up bought and paid for. If you have enough money, no matter how you actually live your life and what you do, you can just pay the right people or institutions, and you will be forever remembered as a good person. Remember that.
Just wanted to say I have heard of this going back a few years. Skepticism is good but I didn't think there was anything overt in the article that raised red flags. Let's please not brush this off. There are tons of niche markets and industries and practices that you don't hear about. Anyone who has worked at a large company knows just how many hidden markets there are for all sorts of random shit. You just have to pay attention.
A textbook is an infinitely better reference than any notes one could take in class. Read the damn book. Lecture time should be for asking questions when you have a freaking live expert professor literally presenting the material to you. Ask all the small, nuanced questions that you can think of in the moment, which you can’t find answers to easily online or in the book.
Not to downplay the efficient workflow here, but there is zero chance that this person’s notes are actually better than a real textbook.