- 6 reviews
- 5 completed
Don't take my rating too serious, as I didn't take enough of the course, but here's my impression. I watched the first week of lectures, but found them rather dull, the lecturer was mostly reciting from the slides in a monotonous voice. I can see that the authors have put a lot of effort into the course and tried to get people involved using various ways (including tweets, achievments, creative challenges), but it didn't work for me, even though I'm interested in the topic. The course was competing for my time with two other I was taking simultaneously (and full time job and a life :-)) and the others were simply more interesting and rewarding.
Presentation and organization of the lectures was fine. Sometimes it lacked some precise definitions, but the key topics were well explained. Working in R was almost not explained at all, only examples of how to solve some very specific tasks. Anything else was left to the student to find out. That's OK for me as a programmer, it's what I do every day, but for other people it may be more annoying. What was really disappointing was the interactive parts of the course. Quizzes where you wouldn't see if you answered correctly or what was wrong with your answer. Sometimes even the marking was plain wrong. How does that help learning? (I believe that should be the main benefit of quizzes, not the grades) None of the staff were active in the discussion forum, only later I found that there was some facebook group (created by students) where staff replied from time to time. What's the point of having a discussion forum, then? In the end, I've dropped the course after some six weeks because I simply had better things to do.
Having no musical background and just being fond of jazz, I took this course to get some knowledge and find some gems I wasn't aware of. And that's exactly what I got. An enthusiastic lecturer, lots of samples, reasonable amount of theory and history. Would recommend this course to anyone who likes music.
An interesting course, completely different from what I would expect from the name. No programming, but quite a lot of math. The covered concepts are not hard and are well explained, practical examples are included. The math was pretty challenging for me, I was never particularly good in differential equations and it's been quite some time since college. But the slides are clear and the quizzes are focused on practicing the hard parts. The workload is modest, about 1 hour of lectures per week and a quiz, which is not too hard, but requires to go through some calculation and thinking. Plus optional programming assignments in Matlab (which I didn't do as I don't have matlab). At the moment, I have no use for the knowledge I gained, but I still enjoyed the course and would recommend it as an intro to robotics.
A challenging, yet very rewarding course. Not a beginner's course, and not a course on learning new programming languages. Instead, it focuses on giving insights into common PL concepts and principles, with a greater focus on functional programming (as a contrast to what most people already know before taking this course). Dan Grossman's lecturing is kind of nerdy, which may not be for everyone. But totally OK for me, and I hope that for any CS enthusiast. His passion for the topic was really contagious. All topics were well presented and explained, I didn't struggle to understand anything. (That said, I've already met most of the concepts, but some of them many years ago and my understanding of them was far from perfect). The workload was high, around 3 hours of video for every module plus an assignment or exam; with a little more than a week for every module. The parts on ML and Racket (module 1-6) were precisely built and very thorough; the part on Ruby (module 7-8) was focused more on the contrasts with what was shown previously (the language description was much briefer, but the points were clear). The difficulty of programming assignments was growing with the amount of concepts covered by the lectures, from warm-up to really mindbending (writing an interpreter of a simple language) and it helped digesting the topics introduced in every module's lecture. I didn't like the (last two) Ruby assignments, perhaps because I didn't grow fond of Ruby per se. Peer assessment of the assignments was helpful, but it adds more than an hour to the time consumed by every module (if one tries to be accurate and honest). Personally, I'd prefer more attempts for every homework. In the chosen model, only the first try is with full score, with penalties for the second and no score improvements for further attempts. It's no big deal, but I like a friendlier scoring that guides to making the code perfect, instead of focusing on the score. I'd also prefer softer deadlines, most were little more than a week after the module was available. But I understand that would make the peer assessment less valuable. All in all, a great course, I recommend it to everyone who's serious about programming.
Great lectures - well prepared and Dan Klein is a good speaker that keeps your total attention. Assignments that made you really understand the topic. Not too hard, but challenging when one tries to get the full score. Discussion forums worked fine, the community and staff were helpful. I really liked the approach where you can submit quizes and assignments as many times you want, until you're satisfied with it. Only thing I missed was some statistic info about the course, how many people participated, how many did complete, etc. No big deal, just my curiosity