bild
Skolan för
elektroteknik
och datavetenskap
KTH / CSC / Courses / DD2445 / DD2445 Autumn 2017 / Course evaluation

Course Evaluation for DD2445 Complexity Theory, Autumn 2017

    General questions about the course

  1. How did you follow the course?

    1. 90% (9 st) I was taking the course for credit and have passed all the problem sets.
    2. 0% (0 st) I was taking the course for credit but failed one or more problem sets.
    3. 10% (1 st) I started taking the course for credit but decided to drop it.
    4. 0% (0 st) I was a listener on the course.

  2. Did you find the course easy or hard?

    1. 0% (0 st) Very easy.
    2. 10% (1 st) Fairly easy.
    3. 40% (4 st) Medium.
    4. 40% (4 st) Fairly hard.
    5. 10% (1 st) Very hard.

  3. Did you find the course interesting?

    1. 60% (6 st) Yes, very interesting.
    2. 30% (3 st) Yes, fairly interesting.
    3. 10% (1 st) Neutral.
    4. 0% (0 st) No, not very interesting.
    5. 0% (0 st) No, not at all interesting.

  4. Did you understand sufficiently well at the beginning of the course what the course goals were?

    1. 90% (9 st) Yes.
    2. 10% (1 st) Don't know.
    3. 0% (0 st) No.

    If you think this would have been needed, how should the course goals have been explained better?

  5. In the prerequisites for the course, it said that "you need to have taken DD1352 Algorithms, Data Structures, and Complexity or DD2352 Algorithms and Complexity, or corresponding courses at other universities, and should feel comfortable with that material. There are no additional formal prerequisites on top of what is stated in the Study Handbook, but you will need mathematical maturity and a willingness to learn new stuff." Do you think this was a fair description?

    1. 90% (9 st) Yes.
    2. 10% (1 st) Don't know.
    3. 0% (0 st) No.

    What if anything would you have added to or changed in the course prerequisites?

    Formally, I think that a basic course in combinatorics/logic/algebra, such as the Discrete Mathematics course at KTH, could be added to the list. I think the reasons for this go without saying.

    Informally, some "mathematical maturity" is all that is actually required IMHO, which is already mentioned, so maybe that covers it.

  6. Do you think you personally had the required background to be able to follow the course?

    1. 100% (10 st) Yes.
    2. 0% (0 st) Don't know.
    3. 0% (0 st) No.

  7. What is your level of education?

    1. 70% (7 st) Bachelor's or Master's student.
    2. 30% (3 st) PhD student.
    3. 0% (0 st) Already have PhD degree.
    4. 0% (0 st) Other.

  8. How did you hear about this course? (Please check all alternatives that apply.)

    1. 40% (4 st) Word of mouth.
    2. 20% (2 st) Lecturer on other course.
    3. 10% (1 st) Message on mailing list.
    4. 0% (0 st) Message sent out to students on my program.
    5. 0% (0 st) Ad on bulletin board.
    6. 20% (2 st) Ad on the web.

  9. Which of those sources of information had a significant impact on your decision to attend this course? (Please check all alternatives that apply.)

    1. 50% (5 st) Word of mouth.
    2. 10% (1 st) Lecturer on other course.
    3. 0% (0 st) Message on mailing list.
    4. 0% (0 st) Message sent out to students on my program.
    5. 0% (0 st) Ad on bulletin board.
    6. 20% (2 st) Ad on the web.

    Information and interaction

  10. How often did you refer to the course webpages to find information about the course?

    1. 30% (3 st) Several times per week.
    2. 50% (5 st) Once or twice per week.
    3. 20% (2 st) Just a few times per month.
    4. 0% (0 st) Just a few times during the duration of the course.
    5. 0% (0 st) Essentially did not refer to the webpages at all.
    6. 0% (0 st) Not applicable.

  11. What do you think about the quality of the course webpages? (Were they kept up to date? Did they contain the information you needed? Was the information easy to find?)

    1. 60% (6 st) Very good.
    2. 30% (3 st) Fairly good.
    3. 10% (1 st) Acceptable.
    4. 0% (0 st) Fairly bad.
    5. 0% (0 st) Very bad.
    6. 0% (0 st) Not applicable or no opinion.

    Any comments on the course webpages?

    well-organized, I have no complaints

  12. During the course we had a number of "opinion polls" with a few quick questions about the course that you were asked to answer. What do you think about these opinion polls?

    1. 0% (0 st) They were really good and/or seemed very useful.
    2. 0% (0 st) They were fairly good and/or seemed somewhat useful.
    3. 60% (6 st) Neutral as to the value of these polls.
    4. 10% (1 st) They were fairly bad and/or did not seem very useful.
    5. 0% (0 st) They were really bad and/or seemed useless.
    6. 30% (3 st) Not applicable or no opinion.

    Any comments on the opinion polls?

    I do not think you need to consider so many polls.
    ---
    I don't like polls, it is not clear how useful the detailed questions were.

  13. We used Piazza for student-instructor interaction on the course. What did you think about Piazza (great, so-so, or bad)? Anything in particular that you liked or did not like? Any comparisons to KTH Social, Canvas or other similar tools? What do you think in general about organizing student-instructor interaction in this way?

    Better than KTH Social.
    ---
    KTH Social is better. Piazza hanged for me, I could not enter the solution to
    ---
    Piazza was great, except:
    - The math symbol is not standard latex, making copy past annoying
    - There is no 1 for answers, which would allow an easy and fast way of expressing agreement to an answer
    ---
    I think that Piazza is pretty good, mainly because it supports LaTeX. I find the discussion phase somewhat weird, partly because it theoretically could involve quite a bit of timing (upload solutions as soon as possible), but it worked pretty well in practice.
    ---
    I think it is one of the better tools. However, some features like having categories of posts under different sections would be nice. Now everything in Piazza is divided into weeks which is annoying when searching for information (scrolling through pset discussion posts...).
    ---
    Good.
    ---
    I think Piazza is decent, but lacking in certain aspects. The organisation of information is pretty much like a mail client. I would have liked a more compartmentalised system, with one place for private-message-like communication, one for the problem set cooperations, one for formal announcements, a section for unread things, etc.

    It is a little bit like that now, but it was still hard to get an overview of what was going on from time to time. I think that what I am saying is that I like KTH Social more in the way it organises information. I do however like the very direct way of communication on Piazze, especially with teachers.
    ---
    great for threaded discussions of solutions and the ability to incorporate LaTeX, and also a very efficient spam-generator to my inbox

    Lectures

  14. How many of the lectures did you attend (23 all in all including guest lectures)?

    1. 10% (1 st) Less than 20%.
    2. 0% (0 st) 20-40%.
    3. 0% (0 st) 40-60%.
    4. 40% (4 st) 60-80%.
    5. 50% (5 st) More than 80%.

  15. What do you think about the number of lectures on the course?

    1. 0% (0 st) Way too many.
    2. 10% (1 st) A bit too many.
    3. 70% (7 st) About right.
    4. 10% (1 st) A bit too few.
    5. 0% (0 st) Way too few.
    6. 10% (1 st) Don't know — didn't attend lectures.

  16. What do you think about the regular (non-guest) lectures by Jakob Nordström from a pedagogical point of view? (Was the material explained well? Did the lecturer speak and write clearly?)

    1. 50% (5 st) Very good.
    2. 30% (3 st) Good.
    3. 10% (1 st) Acceptable.
    4. 0% (0 st) Fairly bad.
    5. 0% (0 st) Very bad.
    6. 10% (1 st) Don't know — didn't attend lectures.

    Any comments about the pedagogical contents of the regular lectures? (Bonus points for constructive criticism.)

    Pedagogical Content was good.
    But I think the evaluation criteria was not nice. All you had were 4 assignments and your assignments were floating by which I mean they were not firm on the release date as you even mentioned on the website.

    One suggestion about the future course is to have 8 assignments, short assignments perhaps every week. This enhances the learnability. For example in DD3382, they have an assignment every week, this forces the students to be upto the mark.l
    ---
    A bit too much time was sometimes spent at the beginning doing a recap of the previous lecture (for those that attended the previous lecture)

  17. In particular, what do you think about the pace of the regular lectures?

    1. 0% (0 st) Way too fast.
    2. 0% (0 st) A bit too fast.
    3. 80% (8 st) About right.
    4. 10% (1 st) A bit too slow.
    5. 0% (0 st) Way too slow.
    6. 10% (1 st) Don't know — didn't attend lectures.

    Any comments about the pace of the lectures?

    I do not think there was any issue with lectures.
    ---
    Sometimes it went slowly, and sometimes it seemed way too fast until something clicked. On average, about right.

  18. What do you think about that the first three lectures recapitulated prerequisites from previous courses?

    1. 0% (0 st) Recap should have been skipped completely.
    2. 20% (2 st) Recap should have been faster.
    3. 20% (2 st) Neutral/no opinion.
    4. 40% (4 st) Recap was good.
    5. 0% (0 st) Recap was absolutely essential.
    6. 20% (2 st) Don't know — didn't attend these lectures.

  19. One idea that could be explored for the first lectures recapping the prerequisites (that, strictly speaking, the students are supposed to know before starting the course) would be to just assign reading and then have a flipped classroom where students explain the material to the lecturer or each other and ask for clarifications regarding any questions that arise. What are your thoughts about such a set-up?

    1. 10% (1 st) Keeping standard lectures recapping the prerequites would be way better.
    2. 20% (2 st) Keeping standard lectures recapping the prerequites would be a bit better.
    3. 40% (4 st) Neutral as to which set-up would be better.
    4. 10% (1 st) Switching to a flipped-classroom set-up for recapping the prerequisites would be a bit better.
    5. 20% (2 st) Switching to a flipped-classroom set-up for recapping the prerequisites would be way better.
    6. 0% (0 st) No opinion.

    Any other comments or suggestions for improvements regarding the recap?

    Infact in a PhD grades for this course, you could as well force PhD students to present materials. This will enhance learning, further also give confidence presenting or taking future classes.
    ---
    Making sure that everybody starts with the same fundamentals is very important. Not all algorithm/data structure/complexity courses are equal, and there were definitely a few things that the second and third lectures cleared up for me.

  20. How often did you read new material in the textbook or notes to prepare for an upcoming lecture?

    1. 20% (2 st) Almost every lecture.
    2. 20% (2 st) Roughly every second lecture.
    3. 10% (1 st) Roughly every fourth lecture or so.
    4. 20% (2 st) Maybe for a couple of lectures all in all.
    5. 30% (3 st) Pretty much never.
    6. 0% (0 st) Not applicable.

  21. How often did you go over the textbook or notes to repeat the material covered in a lecture to refresh your memory before the next lecture?

    1. 30% (3 st) Almost every lecture.
    2. 10% (1 st) Roughly every second lecture.
    3. 0% (0 st) Roughly every fourth lecture or so.
    4. 40% (4 st) Maybe for a couple of lectures all in all.
    5. 20% (2 st) Pretty much never.
    6. 0% (0 st) Not applicable.

  22. The course had a couple of guest lectures. In general, what do you think about having guest lectures on a course like this?

    1. 10% (1 st) Very good — they should definitely be kept.
    2. 30% (3 st) Good — it's reasonably valuable to have them.
    3. 50% (5 st) Neutral — they didn't hurt but skipping them would probably be just as fine.
    4. 0% (0 st) Fairly bad — we should have had less of them.
    5. 0% (0 st) Very bad — guest lectures should have been skipped altogether.
    6. 10% (1 st) Don't know — didn't attend the guest lectures.

    Any comments or feedback about the guest lectures in general?

    The lectures about communication complexity were better than the other guest lectures. I can't concretely say why the earlier ones were worse, but some some thoughts are
    -it was nice to have two lectures on the topic to go a little bit deeper
    -when the lecturers switched, both often seemed unsure of what the other had taught during the previous lecture

  23. How did you like Sagnik Mukhopadhyay's guest lectures?

    1. 30% (3 st) Very good.
    2. 40% (4 st) Good.
    3. 20% (2 st) Acceptable.
    4. 0% (0 st) Fairly bad.
    5. 0% (0 st) Very bad.
    6. 10% (1 st) Don't know — didn't attend the lectures.

    Any comments or feedback to Sagnik?

  24. What do you think about the choice of topics on the course?

    1. 40% (4 st) Very good.
    2. 40% (4 st) Good.
    3. 10% (1 st) Acceptable.
    4. 0% (0 st) Fairly bad.
    5. 0% (0 st) Very bad.
    6. 10% (1 st) No opinion.

    Any particular comments on the choice of topics? Should we have had more of something? Less of something? Something that should have been included that we totally missed?

  25. What do you think about that we have (very intentionally) tended to run over 5 minutes on the first half of the lectures and only get a 10-minute break?

    1. 50% (5 st) Very good; makes excellent sense to use the time this way.
    2. 0% (0 st) Fairly good; seems to make sense to use the time this way.
    3. 40% (4 st) OK/neutral as to whether this is good or bad.
    4. 10% (1 st) Fairly bad; probably would have been better to have a 15-minute break.
    5. 0% (0 st) Very bad; definitely would have been better to have a 15-minute break.
    6. 0% (0 st) No opinion.

  26. What do you think about that we sometimes (less intentionally) ran over on the second half of the lectures and finished a bit late?

    1. 20% (2 st) Very good; makes excellent sense to use the time this way.
    2. 10% (1 st) Fairly good; seems to make sense to use the time this way.
    3. 40% (4 st) OK/neutral as to whether this is good or bad.
    4. 30% (3 st) Fairly bad; lectures should preferably end on time.
    5. 0% (0 st) Very bad; lectures should definitely end on time.
    6. 0% (0 st) No opinion.

  27. During the first half of the course we tended to deal with some new selection of material every lecture, with the material being finished at the end of the lecture so that next lecture could start on something new. Towards the end of the course we instead had more of a set-up with "overlapping" lectures, where the second half of a lecture would introduce some new material, which was then finished during the first half of the next lecture. Which way of organizing the lecture did you like better?

    1. 30% (3 st) Having material covered and finished during just one lecture was way better.
    2. 20% (2 st) Having material covered and finished during just one lecture was a bit better.
    3. 30% (3 st) Neutral as to which set-up was better.
    4. 0% (0 st) Having overlapping lectures with the same material covered during two consecutive lectures was a bit better.
    5. 10% (1 st) Having overlapping lectures with the same material covered during two consecutive lectures was way better.
    6. 10% (1 st) No opinion, or don't know since I didn't attend lectures.

    Problem sets

  28. Did you personally find the problem sets easy or hard?

    1. 0% (0 st) Very easy.
    2. 30% (3 st) Fairly easy.
    3. 30% (3 st) Medium.
    4. 20% (2 st) Fairly hard.
    5. 10% (1 st) Very hard.
    6. 10% (1 st) Don't know — didn't do problem sets.

  29. In general, how would you assess the appropriateness of the level of difficulty of the problem sets?

    1. 0% (0 st) Far too easy.
    2. 10% (1 st) A bit too easy.
    3. 60% (6 st) About right.
    4. 20% (2 st) A bit too hard.
    5. 0% (0 st) Far too hard.
    6. 10% (1 st) Don't know — didn't do problem sets.

  30. What do you think about the number of problem sets and the number of problems per set?

    1. 0% (0 st) Far too few problems all in all.
    2. 0% (0 st) A bit too few problems.
    3. 40% (4 st) About right.
    4. 40% (4 st) A bit too many.
    5. 10% (1 st) Far too many.
    6. 10% (1 st) Don't know — didn't do problem sets.

  31. What do you think about the deadlines for the problem sets and how much time was given for them?

    1. 0% (0 st) Far too much time.
    2. 0% (0 st) A bit too much time.
    3. 70% (7 st) About right.
    4. 10% (1 st) A bit too little time.
    5. 0% (0 st) Far too little time.
    6. 20% (2 st) Don't know — didn't do problem sets.

  32. What do you think about the grading of the problem sets?

    1. 0% (0 st) Far too harsh.
    2. 20% (2 st) A bit too harsh.
    3. 70% (7 st) About right.
    4. 0% (0 st) A bit too lenient.
    5. 0% (0 st) Far too lenient.
    6. 10% (1 st) Don't know — didn't do problem sets.

  33. How much time on average would you say that you spent per problem set?

    1. 0% (0 st) Less than 5 hours.
    2. 0% (0 st) 5-10 hours.
    3. 30% (3 st) 10-20 hours (up to half a week of working time).
    4. 30% (3 st) 20-30 hours.
    5. 30% (3 st) 30-40 hours (up to a full week of working time).
    6. 0% (0 st) More than 40 hours.
    7. 10% (1 st) Not applicable — didn't do problem sets.

  34. How well do you think the problem sets corresponded to the material presented during the lectures?

    1. 50% (5 st) Very well.
    2. 40% (4 st) Fairly well.
    3. 0% (0 st) Somewhat, but not too well.
    4. 0% (0 st) Fairly badly.
    5. 0% (0 st) Very badly.
    6. 10% (1 st) Don't know — didn't do problem sets.

  35. One suggestion, in order to make students work continuously on the course material but also to distribute the workload more evenly, would be to have the same total number of problems but distribute them over twice as many problem sets. This would lead to shorter pset deadlines and probably also to some overlap between the problem solving and peer evaluation phases, but would probably also mean less of a time crunch before each pset deadline. What is your opinion about this suggestion?

    1. 0% (0 st) Current set-up with few large psets is way better.
    2. 30% (3 st) Current set-up with few large psets is a bit better.
    3. 0% (0 st) No big difference or not clear which set-up would be better.
    4. 50% (5 st) Double the amount of psets with half the number of problems would be a bit better.
    5. 20% (2 st) Double the amount of psets with half the number of problems would be way better.
    6. 0% (0 st) No opinion.

    Do you have any comments or feedback on the problem sets?

    I felt the difficulty in most problems was simply unpacking definitions. Would be nice to have 1-2 more tricky problems per problem set, where the problem requires 1-2 non-obvious ideas beyond the definitions. Currently I would say there was about 1 per set. These could involve concepts with simpler definitions so they remain manageable overall.
    ---
    Large PSets per month is not good for such a course. Perhaps it is good for machine learning where we need to program a lot. But to be with the pace of lectures in the course small assignments perhaps one per week is quite reasonable.

    Further sticking to announced deadline for giving a problem set and releasing complete problem sets on day 1 is important to keep the interest of the students.
    ---
    Ideally I would have liked to have two kinds of problems: Foundational ones that force you to deal with definitions and basic understanding in great detail, but are theoretically simpler; and harder ones that require more creativity and insight, but are constructed in such a way that the ideas do not have to be obscured by complicated details (the kind of detail that is simple but time-consuming).

    It was of course already like that to some degree, but I would like it even more clear-cut. I think that would be a way to reduce the work load of the problem sets, whilst preserving their instructional merit. Also, I realise that maybe it is hard to construct completely "ideal" problems :)

    Peer evaluation

  36. Did you personally find it a useful exercise to peer evaluate the problem set solutions of a fellow student? Did you learn anything from doing the peer evaluation?

    1. 20% (2 st) Very useful.
    2. 30% (3 st) Fairly useful.
    3. 20% (2 st) Neutral.
    4. 20% (2 st) Not very useful.
    5. 0% (0 st) Not at all useful.
    6. 10% (1 st) Not applicable — didn't participate in peer evaluations.

  37. Do you think that having peer evaluation as one of the requirements is a relevant form of examination?

    1. 20% (2 st) Very relevant.
    2. 40% (4 st) Fairly relevant.
    3. 20% (2 st) Neutral.
    4. 10% (1 st) Not very relevant.
    5. 0% (0 st) Not at all relevant.
    6. 0% (0 st) Not applicable — didn't participate in peer evaluations.

  38. Did you personally receive useful feedback on your problem set solutions from your peer evaluator? (Note that this is asking about the peer evaluation comments, not about the instructor's grading.)

    1. 0% (0 st) Very useful.
    2. 20% (2 st) Fairly useful.
    3. 40% (4 st) Neutral.
    4. 30% (3 st) Not very useful.
    5. 0% (0 st) Not at all useful.
    6. 10% (1 st) Not applicable — didn't participate in peer evaluations.

  39. Did you personally find the posting and discussion of solutions on Piazza useful? Did you learn anything from it?

    1. 40% (4 st) Very useful.
    2. 30% (3 st) Fairly useful.
    3. 10% (1 st) Neutral.
    4. 0% (0 st) Not very useful.
    5. 10% (1 st) Not at all useful.
    6. 10% (1 st) Not applicable — didn't participate in peer evaluations.

  40. One suggestion, to train not only written but oral presentation skills, would be to change some or all of the peer review assignments to mandatory sessions with oral presentation of solutions, where participation would be mandatory and each student would have to sign up for being ready to present solutions to at least a certain number of problems. (This would still be preceded by a discussion phase with bonus points on Piazza, so that everybody would have the chance to read up on and understand the solutions to all problems.) What are your thoughts about this suggestion?

    1. 10% (1 st) Keeping only written peer evaluations sounds way better.
    2. 20% (2 st) Keeping only written peer evaluations sounds a bit better.
    3. 10% (1 st) No big difference or not clear which set-up would be better.
    4. 30% (3 st) Change to oral presentations for at least some problems, or maybe all, sounds a bit better.
    5. 20% (2 st) Change to oral presentations for at least some problems, or maybe all, sounds way better.
    6. 10% (1 st) No opinion.

    Do you have any comments or feedback regarding the questions above or on any other aspect of the peer evaluation process?

    The canvas discussions seem very time consuming and I have the impression that people will especially look at tasks they understand fairly well and only point out technical issues. I would expect that most students that didn't solve a task might not be able to understand the student solution, but there have rarely been comments in this direction. So either I underestimate my fellow students or there is potential for more feedback on how good / easy solutions are to understand / and where people get lost while reading it.
    ---
    Holy cow yes PLEASE have oral sessions! Presenting solutions face-to-face is SO much more efficient than in text! I thought about this on every single peer review and piazza session!

    Paper presentation

  41. Do you think that having an oral presentation of a paper as one of the requirements for the highest grade on the MSc course and for a pass on the PhD course is a relevant form of examination?

    1. 10% (1 st) Very relevant.
    2. 20% (2 st) Fairly relevant.
    3. 30% (3 st) Neutral.
    4. 10% (1 st) Not very relevant.
    5. 0% (0 st) Not at all relevant.
    6. 30% (3 st) No opinion.

    Do you have any comments or feedback regarding the paper presentation requirement?

    Not clear why the paper read up presentation is supposed to be relevant, just seems to be more work for better grade.

    Workload and course credits

  42. How much of your total study/working time did you spend on this course (on average per week, say)?

    1. 10% (1 st) Less than 15%.
    2. 40% (4 st) 15-30%.
    3. 10% (1 st) 30-50%.
    4. 40% (4 st) 50-70%.
    5. 0% (0 st) More than 70%.

  43. This course gives 7.5 ECTS credits. What you you think about this compared to the number of credits given for other courses?

    1. 40% (4 st) Should have given more than 7.5 credits.
    2. 60% (6 st) 7.5 credits was about right.
    3. 0% (0 st) Should have given less credits.

    Concluding questions

  44. Did you experience that you were discriminated against on this course due to gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or disability?

    1. 0% (0 st) Yes.
    2. 0% (0 st) Don't know.
    3. 100% (10 st) No.

    If yes, in which way?

    WHY?

  45. How do you assess the course from a gender perspective (e.g., with respect to course material, course contents, lecturer et cetera)?

    Regarding course material and course content I think it was gender neutral.

    Lecturers were all men but that doesn't feel relevant.
    ---
    No opinion.
    ---
    Personally, I did not see or feel any problems. And would like to think that I keep an eye out for stuff like that. But of course, it may not always be obvious to the observer.
    ---
    I don't see any connection between gender and this course. As far as I could tell, there were no problems in this area.

  46. Do you have any comments on (general) aspects of the course that should stay the same in the next offering of the course?

    Lectures are good, but I think course

    Please use a plane sheet for notes, this will enhance readability and will serve the purpose of spending paper as a resource.

    Try this https://www.whitelinespaper.com/ photocopies really well.
    ---
    No

  47. Do you have any suggestions for how the course could be improved?

    Design short assignments due every week. Simplifies the course and enhances learn ability.
    ---
    I think that some version of the Moore method should be tried. For example, at the end of each lecture a problem or theorem can be presented. The students should then find a solution or proof that is to be presented during the first 10-15 min of the next lecture. The presenter should be the one who presented the least amount of times. If the solution is wrong, then the students should cooperate to find the correct solution. This method would give us the following:
    - continuous learning
    - oral presentation skills
    - immediate feedback
    - and most importantly, opportunity to get rid of some shyness and ego.

    I believe that one reason (or at least my reason) very few responds to the lecturers' questions is shyness or ego. An opportunity to make ourselves vulnerable by presenting a proof can therefore be a good way to train that away and get more interaction in the lectures.
    ---
    All lecture notes written usin computer would be nice.
    ---
    Something like recommended exercises from the textbook every week. Simple ones, that just force you to read and understand relevant parts.

  48. Any other final comments on the course?

    As mentioned earlier but below are conclusive comments
    a) Design of assignments and grading criteria could be improved
    b) There should be short assignments every week, this keeps students on toes and enhances learn-ability.
    c) Your instructions were verbose and could be simplified in concrete small sentences.
    d) Lectures were good and simple and helped understanding the topics.
    ---
    Challenging course that does not only provide knowledge in the area of complexity theory but also trains logic thinking and mathematical reasoning on a very advanced level.
    ---
    I wish that some of the problem sets were earlier since it made period 2 very heavy for me (had 19 hp on period 2). The hp distribution was supposed to be 4 hp on period 1 and 3.5 hp on period 2 but it felt more like 2 hp on period 1 and 5.5 hp on period 2.
    ---
    No
    ---
    I did feel like an unusual effort was made to engage and make the students learn, with the more uncommon forms of examination. More so than in other higher level math courses.

Sidansvarig: Jakob Nordström <jakobn~at-sign~kth~dot~se>
Uppdaterad 2018-12-06