Teoretisk fysiks kursutväderingar

 

Resultat av: Theoretical Particle Physics, SI2400, vt 2012

Status: Avslutad
Publicerad under: 2012-05-20 - 2012-06-07
Antal svar: 17
Procent av kursdeltagarna som svarat: 80%
Kontaktperson: Tommy Ohlsson

What is your overall impression of the course?

17 svarande

Very positive7 41%
Quite postive7 41%
Neutral - no opinion2 11%
Quite negative1 5%
Very negative0 0%

- Great course and a good step forward in my education. (Very positive)
- Fun subject, good lectures. Quite positive! (Quite postive)
- I reckon that the main problem is that lectures are far too few for a difficult subject as a whole. As a result, Alexander didn't have much time to derive anything, which is a pity because firstly, the course is supposed to be theoretical, not a summary of a few underived formulas, and secondly I would have been quite interested in seeing Alexander proving things because I am deeply convinced his methods were more bulletproof and efficient than a few of the textbook. (Neutral - no opinion)


How would you rate the difficulty of the course?

17 svarande

Very difficult1 5%
Quite difficult4 23%
Average10 58%
Easy2 11%
Very easy0 0%

- The Relativistic Quantum Physics course bring useful help for this course. (Quite difficult)
- I had already taken Relativistic Quantum Physics. I would consider this course to be easier and maybe it would be better to offer them in reversed order. (Average)
- Few lectures didn't make it easy... (Explanation below) (Average)


Has there been much overlap with other courses?

17 svarande

Far too much overlap1 5%
Some overlap, but it was useful to go over the topics again10 58%
Mostly unnecessary overlap3 17%
No overlap3 17%

- Very much overlap with the Relativistic Quantum Physics (RQP) course, until QCD and Electroweak interactions. (Far too much overlap)
- Some with SH2203, but very useful to hear it again (Some overlap, but it was useful to go over the topics again)
- This was very much an applied version of the Relativistic Quantum Mechanics course (in a good way). (Some overlap, but it was useful to go over the topics again)
- I did not take the relativistic quantum physics, but had an overview of the standard model obtained from experimental particle physics and astroparticle physics. (Some overlap, but it was useful to go over the topics again)
- But then some parts are the same in both courses (and equally there is some with experimental particle physics). (Some overlap, but it was useful to go over the topics again)
- The introduction to SM in the 1st lecture is rather useless as everyone should have heard about the SM by this time. It would be better to spend more time on group theory. (Mostly unnecessary overlap)
- Some overlap was good, but it felt a bit silly to avoid some mathematics and various details on theories, that we had done in the course Relativistiv Quantum Physics. (Mostly unnecessary overlap)
- I had a very few course (No overlap)


How were the homework problems?

17 svarande

Very difficult1 5%
Difficult5 29%
Average10 58%
Easy1 5%
Very easy0 0%

- The difficulty was not so much the problems themselves as the way some of them were formulated. (Difficult)
- I think the difficulty is good and there is a good span of easy to difficult problems. (Average)
- I have not spent enough time on the third one to judge. And yet, I think that the discrepancy between the first homework (very easy) and the second one (already requires more than a few hours) should be decreased (not sure if it is possible though). (Average)
- The level of difficulty increased quite rapidly over the three sets (the concepts in the end of the course were more difficult), but we had about the same amount of time to do each set. It would have been better if the amount time given increased together with the difficulty. (Average)
- The first and second set were quite easy and straightforward yet with valuable calculations to do and get used to. Also very much identical to the ones used in RQP. The third was more fun and challenging. (Average)
- 1st was too easy, 2nd was mostly very easy and the third had a rather good difficulty. (Easy)


How were the quizzes?

17 svarande

Very difficult0 0%
Difficult0 0%
Average5 29%
Easy10 58%
Very easy2 11%

- A lot of easy questions but some were very tricky. So the quizzes were generally good. (Easy)
- Varying, but overall they we're quite easy. This feels like a good idea though, since it is a type of examination that is best fit to be rather easy. (Easy)
- Easy in general but some were not as straightforward as they seemed and some were a bit challenging, so all in all I think they were valuable to have done. (Easy)
- No preparation required to pass. (Very easy)


How did you find the quizzes as a form of examination?

17 svarande

Very good4 23%
Good6 35%
Average5 29%
Poor2 11%
Very poor0 0%

- A good way to check what you've understood on the seminar. Perhaps worth adding more questions per quiz (increase from 3 to 5). (Good)
- It is a good idea because it requires the students to study the material before the seminars. Which is something I otherwise rarely do. (Good)
- As an examination form I don't really see the point, one can easily aquire enough points without any preparation at all. It does however force peaple to attend the seminars, which are very good, and that might be a reason to keep them. (Average)
- Good complement to the homework problems as an examination. (Average)
- It is a way to assure that the students work really regularly, which is good. But perhaps a little too easy for giving the best efficiency. (Average)
- I think the idea is good, because the questions make sure that we have basic knowledge about every chapter, and urges us to look back in the book, if we are uncertain about something. However, I would keep the quizzes as a supporting tool only, not as the whole evaluating system (save the homeworks, of course). It looks like the whole evaluating system in Sweden is rather light anyways. If truth be told, studying in Sweden leaves quite some time to go round this beautiful country. (Poor)


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

17 svarande

Very good2 11%
Good9 52%
Average6 35%
Poor0 0%
Very poor0 0%

- What is the "kurs-PM"? (Good)
- It was quite obvious that the lecturer did not agree with the examiner about certain things (the book, the topics to be covered, etc), which was quite disturbing. The kurs-PM doesn't seem to be on the course web page? (Good)


How was the course literature?

17 svarande

Very good1 5%
Good9 52%
Average4 23%
Poor3 17%
Very poor0 0%

- The literature was a bit inconsistent with the lectures in terms of notation but I think it's quite good. The book is very thorough when it comes to calculations and there are a lot of examples. I like that. (Good)
- The book might not be very mathematical, but does hoever give good cenceptual understanding at this level. Additional litterature is more or less required to get a good understanding of the details. For solving problems i often used Tommy Ohlssons book on Rel. Q. Phys. instead. (Good)
- Of course the textbook was far from perfect, but it certainly is not crap. Some passages are a bit doubtful regarding their mathematic lawfulness, and I would definitely not qualify the book as Master level book. It is a good introduction, very good, but I would not dare to carry on with a thesis with such a book only. I am glad I will do Particle Physics again in my country, now that I have had a very good introduction, but nothing more, the name of the course "Theoretical..." is assuredly overused. (Good)
- It was a descent book. The only problem I found with it was chapter 4 because it did not explain in greater detail the group theoretical aspects of particle physics. It would be nice to have some kind of complement which gives a more mathematical and precise account of the representation theory involved. I at least find that easier to understand sometimes. Especially when the subject is quite abstract. (Good)
- (Griffiths) Easy to understand, however sometimes not too rigorous when it comes to more complicated topics. (Good)
- I have found that Griffith's book could be unclear sometimes at the end, for example for quark mixing. (Good)
- I actually didn't use it, but it seemed to be OK, albeit maybe giving a bit too simplified picture. (Average)
- I don't think it was a very theoretical book, it really didn't go deep into the theory behind the material. In the RQP course you learned the details behind for example Feynman diagrams, so it was fine for me, but I would have preferred a more mathematical and theoretical book, like the one used in RQP. (Average)
- There are imho better book out there. The level of education was really low compared to my home country. (Poor)
- Fell out a bit, also explained by the lecture holder that another book would have been better to use. (Poor)


How were the lectures?

17 svarande

Very good9 52%
Good5 29%
Average2 11%
Poor1 5%
Very poor0 0%

- Alexander is a very good lecturer. Knows the subject, takes time to answer questions, good english, answers email. (Very good)
- a couple of times, things went a bit too fast. Overall very good though! (Very good)
- Very clear and progressing at a good pace. A fine lecturer. But I wonder how the course would be if the lecturer could choose exactly what to include as topics? Also I very much liked the informal talk after the end of the last lecture; it's good to know a bit about how the physics community works. (Very good)
- I reckon that the main problem is that lectures are far too few for a difficult subject as a whole. As a result, Alexander didn't have much time to derive anything, which is a pity because firstly, the course is supposed to be theoretical, not a summary of a few underived formulas, and secondly I would have been quite interested in seeing Alexander proving things because I am deeply convinced his methods were more bulletproof and efficient than a few of the textbook. (Good)
- A bit strange structure of taking a chapter of the book per lecture. It would've been better in my opinion to cut a bit in the easy parts and focus a bit more on the heavier parts. (Average)
- Our lecturer Alexander always could answer all our questions and was always helpful. This is no grade on him as person but on the system and amount of lectures. The only problem: There were way to few lectures for covering the subject. Nothing was deduced or anything. Sticking with the "1 chapter in the book = one lecture" rule did not help there. Many exercises are good. But in THEORETICAL physics there are simply more lectures needed. Of what use is such a lecture if there is no time at all to deduce equations? (Poor)


How were the seminars?

17 svarande

Very good4 23%
Good10 58%
Average3 17%
Poor0 0%
Very poor0 0%

- The level of difficulty is good, you learn a lot and pick up all those "trivial" details that are not mentioned during the lectures. The concept of a "seminar" did not work very well due to student (including myself) not talking very much. (Very good)
- A very good idea! (Good)
- Very good lecturer for the seminar as well. The only thing that marred them was that most of the students (including myself mostly) didn't talk so much. In my case it was due to not being in phase with the material from the lectures. Otherwise, I liked them very much. (Good)
- The seminars only explained some applications but they did not solve my issues as above described. The lecturer Hendrik could not always reply to our questions satisfactorily. (Average)
- They were ok, but I would have preferred if we'd talk about topics in smaller groups instead of the whole class: I think this would create more discussion (people were "shy" and didn't talk much as the group was quite big). (Average)


What do you think of the discussion seminars as a way of learning the course material?

17 svarande

Very good5 29%
Good7 41%
Average5 29%
Poor0 0%
Very poor0 0%

- I love the concept of seminars as a complement to lectures, and I would have wished that they had it in all courses. (Very good)
- Again, the "seminar" part is not working very well. You do however learn a lot since Henrik is very good at explaining. (Very good)
- I loved the concept to finally be able to discuss physics, I like that way of learning. I think also there should be a bit time given for inter-student discussions; talking to your neighbour for example. I liked that from the Relativity Theory course. It should be possible since the material gone through at the seminars are what's been covered at the lectures. Perhaps also doing some more calculations. (Very good)
- The concept is good, but the way they were performed could be improved. (Good)
- I don't understand the question. (Average)
- It is always useful to repeat a second time and add new examples but I am unsure of the principle of the seminars. (Average)


Please, enter any further comments on the course below.

- Good course but a bit short. Would be nice if it could be extended from 7.5hp to 10hp. This way we could get deeper into the subject.
- Surprised, that the stuff from the first 3-4 lectures was not taught in the Bachelor. There was nothing new for me because I'm from abroad.
- This course with these few lectures and the low level of education was definitively no flagship of the quality of education at KTH. I was really disappointed.
- Maybe it would be good if the seminar would be an application of the theory we have seen in course more than a reminder, and to count less on people's answers
- Perhaps squeeze together the material that's already been covered in other courses a little bit, to leave room for the more complicated topics (gauge theories, the strong and weak theory etc.)
- Comparing it to (the heavy and difficult) course Relativistic Quantum Physics, I feel that I would have liked a bit more math and underlying theory in this course.
- The notation "log" could be ambiguous... natural logarithm or base 10 ?
- I liked it as a whole, learned a great deal. The lectures and seminars were really good. Problems to, especially the last set. I just want to "efterlysa" more discussions among students in groups during the seminar. I think you could have that in the first hour of the seminar, to get the students more comfortable with talking and spawning some ideas, and then the second hour could be more teacher - student oriented discussions. It can be only 5 min in the first hour, but i think that would give the students a chance to get into a more conversational and idea-popping mood.

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

16 svarande

Very positive2 12%
Positive9 56%
Neutral5 31%
Negative0 0%
Very negative0 0%

- Some more questions on the teaching staff and course materials etc. would be helpful. (Neutral)



Kursutvärderingssystem från

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