Profile

Kaccie Li profile image

Kaccie Li

Student

  • 4 reviews
  • 4 completed
Content 
Instructor 
Provider 
This course was taught by absolutely the best people in the field right now. What I liked in particular was the unbiased approach to every topic, and backing up claims with peer-reviewed research. It is very important to me that the general public start to better understand that peer-reviewed work is on average superior to non peer-reviewed work. It frustrates me when people dismiss peer-reviewed results by saying that peer-reviewed process doesn't guarantee authenticity. The delivery of the material is almost all verbal with some cartoons, but nothing special, so things can get dry - very powerpoint based presentation. I would've preferred some animations. The chemistry content is pretty watered down which makes the course pretty easy. I would like to see the assignment and tests become more rigorous. Too many questions are just asking for minute detail spoken during a particular lecture rather than deep understanding of the subject.
Content 
Instructor 
Provider 
This course is currently at it's first iteration, so it is understandable that some work needs to be done. The lectures were for the most part good (main professor was great but some of the others were hard to bear). A lot of lectures were almost powerpoint like, and once in awhile you will hear the speaker's cell go off, and they turn it off immediately. The exercises were for the most part quite easy. There were a lot of typos/sp errors throughout the text though and sometimes the questions and lecture don't match up (the answer could be in the following lecture). The content of the course is extremely important and definitely worth at least an audit. I took it for a certificate and ended up around 92% without given too much effort. I'm glad I took the course and will be looking forward to expand my knowledge in this area.
Content 
Instructor 
Provider 
As of today (12/15/2013), I've completed 6.00.1x with 95%. It wasn't all that difficult, but I gave a "hard" rating because I think this course would be extremely difficult for someone without real programming experience. I think this is accurate because the course description did not include any hard prerequisites. Let's just say that if this was the first course on the subject taken in undergrad, I would have failed for sure! 6.00.1x taught me many areas of computer science that I did not previously think about which I found quite nice. Some familiar topics to me, like state variables and graphs came up but was presented under a much more abstract context which was quite interesting. The problem sets were thorough, and the structure of presentation and evaluation made it so that I didn't slack off. Anyways, I have PhD from Berkeley where I have had to write a lot of "research-grade" code in environments like Matlab and LabView, and I've still found some of the concepts confusing and/or challenging. At times, I believe the confusion was simply due to a cursory explanation in the lectures and/or poor exercise design, but that was somewhat rare and I'm sure the course staff will iron that out as this course evolves!
Content 
Instructor 
Provider 
I've completed 6.00.1x with 95%. It wasn't all that difficult, but I gave a "hard" rating because I think this course would be extremely difficult for someone without real programming experience. I think this is accurate because the course description did not include any hard prerequisites. Let's just say that if this was the first course on the subject taken in undergrad, I would have failed for sure! 6.00.1x taught me many areas of computer science that I did not previously think about which I found quite nice. Some familiar topics to me, like state variables and graphs came up but was presented under a much more abstract context which was quite interesting. The problem sets were thorough, and the structure of presentation and evaluation made it so that I didn't slack off. Anyways, I have PhD from Berkeley where I have had to write a lot of "research-grade" code in environments like Matlab and LabView, and I've still found some of the concepts confusing and/or challenging. At times, I believe the confusion was simply due to a cursory explanation in the lectures and/or poor exercise design, but that was somewhat rare and I'm sure the course staff will iron that out as this course evolves!