DD2449 Foundations of cryptopgraphy

Resultat av kursutvärdering


    21 question expecting an answer and possibly a comment.


  1. What do you think of the difficulty of the course?

    1. 0% (0 st) Very easy.
    2. 0% (0 st) Easy.
    3. 8% (1 st) Average.
    4. 77% (10 st) Hard.
    5. 15% (2 st) Very hard.


  2. Did you early on in the course find out the purpose of the course?

    1. 77% (10 st) Yes.
    2. 23% (3 st) To some extent.
    3. 0% (0 st) No.


  3. Do you think the course is interesting and meaningful?

    1. 69% (9 st) Yes very.
    2. 8% (1 st) Yes.
    3. 0% (0 st) Neutral.
    4. 15% (2 st) Not particularly.
    5. 0% (0 st) No.


  4. Was your background in mathematics sufficient for the course?

    1. 62% (8 st) Yes.
    2. 38% (5 st) Doubtful.
    3. 0% (0 st) No.


  5. Was your background in programming sufficient for the course?

    1. 85% (11 st) Yes.
    2. 8% (1 st) Doubtful.
    3. 8% (1 st) No.


  6. What do you think about the book by Stinson?

    1. 0% (0 st) Very good.
    2. 69% (9 st) Good.
    3. 8% (1 st) OK.
    4. 0% (0 st) Not so good.
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad.
    6. 23% (3 st) Did not use it.

    Comment on the book or other book used:

    The book does not cover everything the lectures cover, but that is compensated by the lecture notes.
    ---
    Boken var bra men det hade inte skadat med läsanvisningar. Svårt annars att veta vad som var relevant för varje föreläsning.
    ---
    The book was good, but did not have to use it very much.
    ---
    First few chapters are excellent, while discrete logs (chapter 6) and signature schemes (chapter 7) could have been explained better (by i.e. more and better examples). The book is definitely worth buying.


  7. Were the lecture notes form two years back useful

    1. 8% (1 st) Very.
    2. 46% (6 st) To some extent.
    3. 8% (1 st) No.
    4. 38% (5 st) Did not look at them.

  8. What fraction of the lectures did you attend?

    1. 8% (1 st) Less than 20%.
    2. 8% (1 st) 20-40%.
    3. 8% (1 st) 40-60%.
    4. 15% (2 st) 60-80%.
    5. 62% (8 st) More than 80%.


  9. What do you think about the lectures of Johan Håstad from a pedagogical point of view? Are explanations clear, at the correct pace, is the correct media used for the lectures?

    1. 31% (4 st) Very good.
    2. 38% (5 st) Good.
    3. 8% (1 st) Acceptable.
    4. 15% (2 st) Not so good.
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad.
    6. 8% (1 st) Did not participate.

    Comments (constructive critisism is most useful):

    You almost never get any wiser about how to solve the homeworks. Practical examples would come in handy. If you require students to know how to find isomorphisms, for example, you should teach them how first.
    ---
    Föreläsningarna gav tyvärr inte så mycket då jag upplevde att dom inte tog upp saker i tillräcklig detalj. Visa saker utelämnades också helt som var avgörande för inlämningsuppgifterna.
    ---
    Could have used more time for answers. Often the material was very new to me, and answering questions would have needed a couple of minutes to digest it. Maybe better to save questions for the following lecture?
    ---
    Excellent pace with reasonable amount of detail. The strategy of using blackboard and the occasional OH-slide works perfectly.


  10. What do you think about the guest lecture by Mats Näslund?

    1. 0% (0 st) Very good.
    2. 54% (7 st) Good.
    3. 0% (0 st) Acceptable.
    4. 0% (0 st) Not so good.
    5. 8% (1 st) Bad.
    6. 38% (5 st) Did not participate.

    Comments on the lecture by Mats Näslund:

    Interesting to see real-world problems and parameters. Thanks!
    ---
    Interesting to see an example of how cryptography is used in the real world, but it wasn't presented perfectly. The powerpoint slides could need a bit more work. Also, the presentation was repeatedly interrupted by a nofication that the computer couldn't find a network. This automatic search should have been turned off prior to the presentation!


  11. What do you think about the fact that the lectures by Johan Håstad were in English?

    1. 15% (2 st) Important for me to be able to follow the course.
    2. 62% (8 st) Equally good as Swedish.
    3. 23% (3 st) Swedish would have been better.
    4. 0% (0 st) Swedish would have been much better.


    Comments on English lectures:

    English wasn't really a problem, but Swedish is and will probably always be easier to understand.
    ---
    Modersmål är alltid att föredra även om Johan är talar en bra engelska.
    ---
    Having lectures in english may not be very important but I found it better and easier to follow. Especially if you want to use the book in parallel or other information sources relevant to the course.
    ---
    Better to learn the English terminology.


  12. How smooth has the course been from an adminstrative point of view?

    1. 54% (7 st) Very smooth.
    2. 23% (3 st) Smooth.
    3. 23% (3 st) OK.
    4. 0% (0 st) Bad.


    Comments to improve administration:

    Vore bra om man kunde boka tider för presentationer tidigare, eller iaf veta om ungefär när dessa skulle vara i god tid.
    ---
    Flawless. Homepage updated frequently, like on most CSC courses.


  13. How much time did you spend on problem set 1?

    1. 0% (0 st) Less than 9 h.
    2. 23% (3 st) 9-14 h.
    3. 23% (3 st) 15-20 h.
    4. 54% (7 st) More than 20 h.

    Commens on problem set 1:

    Really fun and interesting problems.
    ---
    Geheimschreiber var rolig. Osäker på tiden jag spenderade men det var mycket mer på Set 1 än Set 2.
    ---
    I GROSSLY underestimated its difficulty.
    ---
    Very interesting problems with good difficulty level.


  14. How much time did you spend on problem set 2?

    1. 0% (0 st) Less than 9 h.
    2. 46% (6 st) 9-14 h.
    3. 8% (1 st) 15-20 h.
    4. 46% (6 st) More than 20 h.

    Commens on problem set 2:

    Tog rätt mycket poäng i Set 1 så det blev mer att man plockade de poäng som behövdes. Så tyvärr gjorde jag aldrig SHA-1k vilket verkade som en rolig uppgift.
    ---
    Seemed harder than problem set 1, maybe it was just me but I guess a more evenly distributed difficulty would be preferred.
    ---
    Generally good. Excellent bonus competition.


  15. How much time did you spend on your presentation, including finding a suitable paper and reading the paper?

    1. 46% (6 st) Less than 9 h.
    2. 23% (3 st) 9-14 h.
    3. 23% (3 st) 15-20 h.
    4. 8% (1 st) More than 20 h.

  16. The presentation replaces the third set of problems. Do you think this was a good idea?

    1. 46% (6 st) Yes.
    2. 8% (1 st) No.
    3. 38% (5 st) Neutral.

    Commens on the presentation:

    Pratiska problemen var roliga. Men det var intressant att läsa och försöka förstå vad som händer uti i världen just nu.

    Enda negativa är väl att Presentationen påverkar så mycket på betyget. Var tvungen att få 70 för att få A. Hade kanske varit bättre att Presentationen kunnat lyfta ens betyg men inte varit ett måste för att få högsta betyget.

    ---
    Även om det är bra att fördjupa sig i ett ämne ger det inte så mycket att hålla en presentation på något som någon annan har skrivit om. Det hade varit mer lärorikt och roligare att få välja ett område och göra lite experiment eller liknande och sedan berätta om det. Å andra sidan är det alltid bra att öva sig på sin presentationsteknik.
    ---
    I liked the presentation, however there were little guidelines to follow as to what would make a good presentation. A paper that may be easy may also have a lot of background that has to be covered in order for the presentation to be good in which case 12 minutes is a fairly short time limit.
    ---
    Mer information om vad som förväntades hade varit bra. Och det hade varit bra om man inte hade behövt spendera så mycket tid på att leta efter en artikel. En sammanställning som man fick välja mellan hade varit bättre, så man får lite riktlinjer om vad för typ av artikel som är lämplig. Sen är det väl bra om man har frihet att välja något utöver detta om man vill.
    ---
    I loved the different types of examination.
    ---
    A very good idea since I now feel like I'm able, and dare, to read and understand papers from crypto-conferences.
    ---
    I'm just not very comfortable with the idea of talking for audience


  17. How many courses apart from the current course did you follow at the same time you followed this coures?

    1. 15% (2 st) Zero.
    2. 8% (1 st) One.
    3. 31% (4 st) Two.
    4. 38% (5 st) Three or four.
    5. 0% (0 st) More than four.


  18. What fraction of your time spend studying during period 1 did you spend on this course?

    1. 8% (1 st) Less than 15%.
    2. 15% (2 st) 15-30%.
    3. 23% (3 st) 30-50%.
    4. 23% (3 st) 50-70%.
    5. 23% (3 st) More than 70%.


  19. The credit for the course is 4p. What do you think of this compared to other courses?

    1. 38% (5 st) 4p is good.
    2. 46% (6 st) Should be 5p.
    3. 15% (2 st) Should be 6p.
    4. 0% (0 st) 4p is too much.


  20. Suggestions for improvements of the course:

    More practical examples. Not everybody get difficult theory right away. But they are able to solve it practically.
    ---
    Jag förstår anledningen till att göra teori- och praktikuppgifter men jag tycker att kursen blev onödigt svår på det här sättet. Över lag var de praktiska uppgifterna lätta medan de teoretiska var riktigt svåra. De teoretiska uppgifterna kräver också att man kan en hel del matematik (även en del matematik som vi knappt stött på tidigare.) Fortsätt gärna med att dela upp i teori och praktik men sänk kraven för teorin.
    ---
    I have some doubts about the presentation part of the course, at least in its current form. I think that presenting a paper on such a high level, and in just 12 minutes, makes it more an exercise in information digestion and presentation techniques. While those subject are not uninteresting in their own right, they are not obviously related to cryptography.
    ---
    Just try to explain that the homeworks are fuck-hard.
    ---
    Make the course worth more points. At least 6, but it is worth more


  21. More comments on the course:

    Tyvärr fick jag känslan av att vi som läste kursen i princip fick sköta kursen själva. Det enda tillfället där undervisning gavs var på föreläsningar och även om Johan var mycket bra på att svara på mail så är inte det samma sak. Detta blir ett än större problem när man inte heller får be varandra om hjälp obehindrat. Jag tycker inte att det skulle skada om man fritt för diskutera uppgifter med andra så länge man kan redogöra för sina inlämningar. För min egen del är det diskussioner med andra som ger förståelse och ju fler diskussioner desto bättre. Ett stort pluss var att inlämningsuppfiterna lämnades ut så lång tid innan deadline. I allt för många kurser sätts inte den slutgiltiga uppgiftslydelsen förrän bara några dagar innan deadline.
    ---
    Douglas var onödigt hård vi redovisningen, det kan väl vara ok om det sägs att man ska ha stenkoll på teorin bakom allt man gjort och implementerat.

    Överlag en mycket trevlig kurs, men det hade varit bra med lite mer information om just redovisningarna och presentationen.

    ---
    One of the most interesting courses I've taken here. Definitely the hardest intellectual challenge I've been through, and I'm planning on retaking it. I've recommended it to others.
    ---
    The course has been extremely useful, and fun to learn. I have spend many sleepless night sitting at the same computer at the computer-room grey to be able to hand in the paper. And if somebody had come right then and asked me if the subject is worth all this I would have said "absolutely, and I do not regret studying it one bit". The problem is that 4 points is WAY TOO LOW comparing to the amount of work this course demands. It is common knowledge that a student should not take other courses beside this one if the student wants to pass this course, and yet it is worth only 4 points. I just want to point out that we are students, we still need to accomplish at least 10 points per semester to keep our apartments and at least 30 points a year to get CSN the following academic year. And from where I'm standing, dedicating a whole period to only pass 4 points leaves the student with no choice but to spend the rest of the year taking either easy courses he/she does not really need or learn anything new at just to earn the necessary points, or to take many serious courses and stress even more because he/she feel that they HAVE TO pass all these courses to keep the apartment and next year's CSN.


johanh@kth.se

Denna sammanställning har genererats med ACE.