Teoretisk fysiks kursutväderingar


Resultat av: Relativistic Quantum Physics, 5A1386, ht 2006 - vt 2007

Status: Avslutad
Publicerad under: 2007-03-21 - 2007-04-02
Antal svar: 7
Procent av kursdeltagarna som svarat: 77%
Kontaktperson: Tommy Ohlsson

What is your overall impression of the course?

Very positive2 28%
Quite postive4 57%
Neutral - no opinion1 14%
Quite negative0 0%
Very negative0 0%

- A good course, covering a lot of material but still managing to provide understanding at a reasonable depth across the entire course. I suppose we could have gained a deeper understanding of some topics by covering less material, but I think the compromise was a good one. Well organised, challenging but still realistic, with a reasonable assessment scheme and good assignments. (Very positive)

How would you rate the difficulty of the course?

Very difficult0 0%
Quite difficult6 85%
Average1 14%
Easy0 0%
Very easy0 0%

- I would consider an answer of 'quite difficult' here to be optimal - it is far better to have a difficult course evaluated by assignments than a course of average difficulty evaluated by an exam. (Quite difficult)
- I appreciate that the course was spread over two periods. That gives plenty of time to consult a number of different books and really think things through. Since this is a pretty basic subject when entering the field of high-energy-physics, there are a lot of books available, which makes it easier to learn. (Average)

Has there been much overlap with other courses?

Far too much overlap0 0%
Some overlap, but it was useful to go over the topics again4 57%
Mostly unnecessary overlap2 28%
No overlap1 14%

- Not much overlap - though there is now with courses subsequent to this one, seeing as we went through so much subject material - but that is fine. (Some overlap, but it was useful to go over the topics again)
- Personally, I had known the relativistic wave-equations and their problems before. However, it is more or less inevitable to present them in the course since their solutions are important building-blocks in qft and especially the computations done in that framework. (Some overlap, but it was useful to go over the topics again)

How were the homework problems?

Very difficult0 0%
Difficult6 85%
Average1 14%
Easy0 0%
Very easy0 0%

- I would say it was lots of stuff to do, therefore quite hard to get the 5... Since I just needed to pass it was no problem for me. I think it would have been easier if the homework had been handed out every week (same amount but differently arranged) (Difficult)
- See answer to Qu. 2 - they were difficult but realistic - just right. (Difficult)

How was the oral examination?

Very difficult0 0%
Difficult1 14%
Average1 14%
Easy4 57%
Very easy1 14%

- Quite nice style, in my opinion fair and still not too easy - Tommy was helpful when one had problems and didn't force one self to answer every question. I liked his examination. (Average)
- It was just meant to check that you understood the basic ideas behind various parts of the course, which it did - the assignments were the important thing really. (Easy)

What is your opinion about the "kurs-PM" and the administration of the course?

Very good3 42%
Good4 57%
Average0 0%
Poor0 0%
Very poor0 0%

- Whilst I think the policy of requiring PhD students to get more than 80% for a pass is pretty crazy, this point aside, the general administration of the course was very good. Lectures were always clearly arranged well in advance, requirements were made quite clear, lots of notice was given as to when assignments would be handed out and required to be handed in, and the lecturer responded well to our request for the odd tutorial in addition to lectures. (Very good)
- The reading-instructions gave a good overview on what one had to expect of a certain lecture. (Good)

What is your opinion about the course literature?

Very good1 14%
Good5 71%
Average1 14%
Poor0 0%
Very poor0 0%

- Capri is a really bad book, in my opinion not to recommend. Way to short and scratches just on the surface. Gross was good - I used that mainly to understand the relativistic physics part and the introduction to field theory. Peskin & Schr?der is good for understanding the field theory, although one has to get used to the style. (Good)
- This is a composite sort of grade - I would say Peskin & Schroeder is very good, but Capri is somewhere between good and average. Capri is very brief, and contains an enormous number of mistakes for such a tiny book. It is however, still a rather convenient reference for the subject matter, as it provides a succinct compendium of all the important aspects and equations. Perhaps it would be worth specifically taking note of all the errors found in Capri's book during the next course, so that a corrections sheet (book) could be given out in later years, or a new edition prompted from the publishers. (Good)
- Peskin&Schroeder is a good choice for learning QFT, although the derivations of the KG-Propagator and related results in the first chapters are sometimes a bit unclear. Capri in contrast does very detailed computations but sometimes misses out on explaining the motivation of things he does and the big picture in general. So they are quite complementary, which is good. I have also found the book of Schwabl useful, especially when it comes to the question of what the particular problems with the differnt rel. waveequations are and why one is led to (try to) develop the theory in a certain direction. In any case the book of Gross also helped out sometimes. (Good)
- Capri not good at all (no explainations, lots of misprints, etc.) Peskin & Schroeder really good (most of the time) (Average)

How were the lectures?

Very good0 0%
Good3 42%
Average4 57%
Poor0 0%
Very poor0 0%

- Well structured and linear in their logical progression. I also liked the fact that they followed the course texts quite closely, as it meant there was no need to take notes, so I could really concentrate on what was being said. Sometimes they were a little tough to follow completely because we moved through things so quickly, but doing the assignments almost always filled in the gaps. (Good)
- The lectures where ok. Maybe I am used to something different from Germany but I would prefer more an own style of the lecture and not just a more or less copy of book chapters. Tommy was not that good prepared for questions.. there he good improve in my opinion. (Average)
- Some questions could not be sufficiently answered that seemed crucial for the understanding, at least when one is confronted with the material for the first time. (Average)

Please, enter any further comments on the course below.

What do you like this way of making a course evaluation?

Very positive4 57%
Positive3 42%
Neutral0 0%
Negative0 0%
Very negative0 0%

- This is good - it means if we have any real complaints, the lecturers are more or less forced to address them in future years, as the comments are made publicly available, and repeated negative feedback will reflect poorly upon a lecturer. It also means that future students can make more informed decisions about the courses they will take. (Very positive)

Kursutvärderingssystem från

[Theoretical physics home page] [KTH home page]   webmaster