Comments about the book:
Proofs are very sketchy. Lots of spelling and grammar mistakes. Very compactly written. No answers to exercises.
---
I really liked the book. They had a good way of explaining the different topics which they discussed. And many abstract and theoretical notions we're explained with examples and such. Easy to read and follow the book.
---
The book was easy to read and gave simple arguments overall.
Comments about the notes:
Some pictures are missing.
---
Mainly used them to look up some details, so I didn't get a good perspective of them. What I saw was good though.
Comment or constructive critisism:
I found almost every lecture to be a great time, and that's mainly due to the excited and engaging presentation of the material.
Though, I would recommend not trying to engage the audience when they repeatedly don't answer... But perhaps that is some pedagogical trick I'm unaware of.
---
It is sometimes hard to understand the framing of the material being presented (what do we use this for? why is it important and interesting?). Otherwise very well organized given the time constraints. Proofs tend to be very sketchy since time is too short, which again seems unavoidable.
---
More details could help, but I guess this is due to time constraints.
---
I gave it an Good but I think that the lectures are better when held in swedish, mainly because the lectures are more coherent and easier to follow.
---
Inte pga att Johan är dålig, utan att budget inte tillåter honom att hålla fler föreläsningar. Liknande kurs på Harvard med mycket $$ går över en hel termin med ca 20 föreläsningar. Denna var väldigt kompakt och jag skulle behöva mer tid att smälta material efter varje föreläsning.
---
It was easy to understand and thus good in this regard. Some arguments were a bit rushed but it gave me a good essence of how the results were proved. My greatest problem was getting a firm hold on the terminology of a language, so perhaps repeating the key terminology once to make it feel more natural could have been a good thing.
Comment on number of lectures:
Complexity theory is a big and broad subject and it's unfair to the students to cram this into just 8 lectures.
Reading beforehand does not substitute this. W/o a good understanding of the subject it is often difficult to grasp what is important and not from a chapter.
With more lectures perhaps some TCS people could come by and present what they are doing?
---
With so few lectures, why not just skip lectures altogether and have everyone only read in the book themselves?
---
Should definitely be more lectures. Not only because the course deals with such a broad subject but because the topics are hard so thorough explanations are prefered. And of course, it is a very interesting subject and Håstad is a very good lecturer with good knowledge in this field so it's a waste not let him speak about it more!
---
I really feel like I missed out on a lot that there wasn't time to cover.
---
Se ovan.
---
The lack of time resulted in that some proofs felt a bit rushed, or rather relied on handwaving arguments, which was a bit of an annoyance.
Comments on homework 1:
High difficulty but doable.
---
Fun, stimulating and many problems to choose from gave one a freedom which motivated me at least.
---
Nice and fun problems that weren't too hard to do. I have a hard time remembering how much time I spent on them though.
Comments on homework 2:
When the answer to a question is on Wikipedia, it probably shouldn't be in the homework (I'm thinking of you, question 6!)
---
Very high (perhaps too high) difficulty.
---
Like NIM game exercise.
---
Same as for the first homework. But this homework dealt with matters I hadn't read about before (circuits and such) so I had to prepare myself by reading more, but this is rather something positive than negative.
---
Very similar level of problems and overall fun problems to work on. By poor planning I had a lot of things to do those weeks. Since it is towards the end of the period it could have been nice if the problem set was available a few days or a week earlier.
Comments on oral presentation:
Some more formalized criteria for how presentations are evaluated would be nice.
---
Good choice, in my opinion.
---
It was close after the deadline for HW2 so it was kind of neglected until the last days but I still managed to pull off a decent presentation. Despite my paper being very hard to follow. Still, the topic of the paper was very much interesting and I learned about new ways of doing smart things :)
---
It was nice, but poor planning on my part resulted in me having to rush this more than I felt I should, but by luck it worked out well for me in the end.
It is too easy to get a good grade on the presentation, and it does not contribute as much as the homeworks to one's knowledge. I'd rather see 3 HW's when we have so few lectures since they introduce students to more of CC than reading a single paper does.
---
Frustrating to not be able to search the literature as for real-world problems.
---
Homeworks rock. They are the most fun way of being tested since you have a freedom of choice and the problems are stimulating and interesting.
---
Ja, men att sätta gränser på studiegrupperna är lite fail. Vet inte hur många som håller sig inom de gränserna.
If yes, in what way?
I did not view any gender perspective at all in this course and that is how it should be. The only negative thing about gender perspective in this context is the existence of questions about gender perspective in the evaluation form.
---
Ehm.. I don't know. My view is neutral.
Make it 15 lectures again, since the lectures are fun and students want to have as much fun as possible. Simple.
---
Either have more lectures or skip them all. Presentation dates should not coincide with the homework deadline. Announce point penalties beforehand for not selecting presentation topics on time, being late to presentations, etc.
---
Personally I don't think it's a good choice to expect that students read the material before the lecture, simply because I did rarely.
---
More lectures, and preferably in swedish. Better prepared perhaps.
---
Please, increase the number of lectures!
---
Förbättringar utan förändring i budgeten är svåra att genomföra.
Om det blir fler föreläsningar så bör de vara mer interaktiva, det ska kännas viktigt att gå på dem.
Om mer $$ i kassan så lägg upp det som Harvard ( http://my.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k67690&pageid=icb.page325911 ). Liknanade examination men en stor skillnad är att man ska sammanfatta och typsätta föreläsningar som sedan läggs upp på hemsidan. Då är det lättare att greppa vad som är viktigt.
Very time-consuming and difficult course, which would be more reasonable if the deadlines were not so crushing. Suffers the usual disconnect between lectures and homework - anything that was said during lectures that did not help in solving homework was, from the view of a student only trying to pass the course, a waste of time.
---
In conclusion, I liked this course alot.
---
One of the best courses I have read. Håstad is a smart guy and knows a lot in this field which you notice. Really interesting course and fun. The way of examination is great as well!
Denna sammanställning har genererats med ACE.