Resultat av: Statistical Mechanics, SI2510, ht2011Status: Avslutad
Publicerad under: 2011-10-27 - 2012-02-07
Antal svar: 10
Procent av kursdeltagarna som svarat: 50%
Kontaktperson: Olle Edholm
Genral opinion about the course10 svarande
|Very good||4|| 40%|
|Very bad||1|| 10%|
- The course is great, and very interesting. I should say Andreas is really good at teaching the exercise,
very detailed. The take-home examination is very interesting, but I suggest that maybe next time you
can make more problems cover various physical situations in it, and let the students choose several to do.
And then I think some of us will be very interested in some research directions, and you can give some more
practical and complicated ones, and students do them in group. I think we will learn much more from this. (Very good)
- This is one of those courses where you don't realise its value until afterwards. I marked the course as "very good" since I think its content was valuable to my further studies. There are however a few things about the teaching itself that can be approved, see the other questions. (Very good)
- In general, the first half of the course (up to Ising model, and maybe a little further into the course) was good while the latter half of the course was not so very good. The latter half lacked the structure, the time, a decent book and general vagueness.
A suggestion is to define a phase transition (not just say: we see there is something happening here). (Bad)
- The teacher should really try to add a structure for the course. Maybe it could be interesting to divide the course into chapters and the chapters into parts. (Very bad)
Opinion about the lectures10 svarande
|Very good||3|| 30%|
|Very bad||1|| 10%|
- should involve more current research topics (Very good)
- The lectures are good for the most part. Since the book is not very easy to understand at first it is important that the lectures introduce the subject in a way that allows you to then understand the book. The small group and quite slow pace that allows for questions is very good in this sense.
I previously took the basic statistical mechanics course (taught by Olle as well) and I think the lectures were much better easier to follow in the advanced course. (Very good)
- B?ttre (och tydligare) tavelteknik vore att ?nska, men bra genomg?nget av olika saker och bra, ing?ende svar p? fr?gor (Good)
- The fist half was quite good, but the latter half was a bit rushed and too messy/confusing/not-very-structured. (Good)
- Never really got a good sense about what we where doing. Jumped right in to calculations. Need to give an overview and understanding and put the subject in context. What is it good for etc.? Was to much like tutorials... (Bad)
- I gave up to follow the courses. The teacher is really messy, barely understandable and his course has absolutely no structure. I think that going to the lessons was not helpful at all to understand the field. (Very bad)
Opinion about the tutorials10 svarande
|Very good||1|| 10%|
|Very bad||0|| 0%|
|I did not participate||1|| 10%|
- I think the tutorials should include more explanations of what principles from the lectures are applied, and less mathematical detail. (Good)
- I think the lectures have potential to be very good with a little more practice. In fact they improved considerably just over the duration of this course. Just writing solutions on the board is no more useful then reading the solution at home. There needs to be more explaining of what's going on. (Bad)
- The tutorials were usually not very helpful in increasing understanding (primarily latter half of the course - but to some extent the first half as well). They were at times too large to follow properly, or too vague or restrictive in application that an understanding was harder to achieve. The tutorials also failed to help for the examination, due to the difference in type of questions. (Bad)
Quality of the textbook10 svarande
|Very good||1|| 10%|
|Very bad||1|| 10%|
|I did not have access to it||0|| 0%|
- Too much pages, if I did not attend the class, it will be impossible to learn it myself (Good)
- I did not like the book during the course. After completing the course however I must say I find it better and better.
The problem is that many things are not explained very thoroughly and sometimes too much previous knowledge is assumed. It is very hard to understand a new topic from the book alone.
If this book is to be used again, the lectures should focus even more on understanding and explaining the thought behind the mathematics presented in the book. (Bad)
- F?rklarar inte s? ing?ende hur man ska t?nka p? ett djupare plan (Bad)
- The textbook is often confusing and doesn't go in enough detail about many core concepts. (Bad)
- The first chapters seemed alright, but once it started moving past chapter 4 and onwards it got worse and worse and harder to understand anything they were writing about, in my opinion. (Bad)
- Explained things like if the reader already knew them. Not pedagogical at all. Often wrote "and we easily see that..." skipping a lot of hard steps. Also as in 2. hard to put what you read in context. (Very bad)
How did you find the homework ?9 svarande
|Very valuable||2|| 22%|
|Not so valuable||0|| 0%|
- Solving problems this way is very valuable and should perhaps be used even more in future courses. However I think the homework would be much more useful if corrected before the exam.
In general I find that labs and larger homework assignments are a very good way to achieve real understanding of a subject. Having the homework after the exam seems like a wasted opportunity in my opinion.
Perhaps the homework could be a way to earn bonus points instead? (Valuable)
- The homework assignment is very hard! I would have liked to have more time to do it. (Valuable)
- I found it somewhat valuable. It made the percolation a bit clearer, as opposed to lectures/tutorials (Valuable)
Were you happy with the topics covered in the course ? If not, tell us what you would have liked to learn more/less about.- I am satisfied.
- Instead of a catalog of different techniques, it would be more interesting to put them in a global context and discuss the hypothesis we took.
- I think the main topics of the course, mean field theory, scaling and renormalisation worked fine. Adding percolation and polymers is also a very good way to give understanding/examples of these main subjects.
However I feel that some lectures were a bit wasted trying to cover other topics such as liquid crystals. These small introductions are not really enough to provide any additional understanding of the subject and the lectures could probably be better spent focusing on the main parts of the course.
- I was happy!
- I was happy with the topics covered, though I think that things were a bit rushed in the end (too many topics), so the understanding was a bit diminished.