Teoretisk fysiks kursutväderingar


Resultat av: Advanced Quantum Mechanics, SI2380, ht 2013

Status: Avslutad
Publicerad under: 2013-10-25 - 2013-11-21
Antal svar: 45
Procent av kursdeltagarna som svarat: 68%
Kontaktperson: Mattias Blennow

What is your genral opinion about the course

44 svarande

Very good14 31%
Good27 61%
Bad3 6%
Very bad0 0%

- Interesting material in both theory and applications. As a minor detail, sometimes the reading instructions were a bit off and preparing for lectures beforehand became a bit hectic. (Very good)
- This was a nice course. I learned a lot and it fitted in well in the program as a whole. Sometimes the lectures ande the exercise classes were a bit out of sync. (Very good)
- Mattias and Jack are very good teachers (Very good)
- I learnt a lot but did not like the outline of the homeworks. (Bad)

How did you find the lectures?

43 svarande

Very good4 9%
Good24 55%
Bad8 18%
Very bad4 9%
Did not participate3 6%

- sometimes to slow (Good)
- In the beginning of the course, the lectures were very well-structured and the topics were laid out in a way that made it easy to follow and learn. However, toward the end of the course, a few of the lectures were a little "fuzzy" and hard to follow - most notably the lecture on time dependent perturbation theory (part of the lecture on 1 October). There were also a quite a few practical hiccups: in the beginning of the course, the lecture room only had seats for about half the course participants, so the other half had to bring chairs from other rooms and sit without tables to take notes on. Also, it was way too common that the lectures did not finish on time - neither before the break nor at the end. This is acceptable if it happens once or twice, and if the lecturer announces that "it's time to wrap up, but I would like to say a few things that will take approximately X minutes first - is that OK?" but in most cases Jack just kept on lecturing, on occasion as much as 20 minutes past schedule. Finally, Jack's voice does not carry very well through the room, so at times it was hard to hear what he said. (Good)
- OK (Good)
- Most of the were nice but a few problems that occured: Going on too long. 5 minutes extra is a bit much if your next lecture is in the E or D buildings. Awkward endings, some times the lectures seemed to stop because the time ran out and not because it was a good place to stop. More Real-life connections would be nice. Some words on where an effect is used or how an experiment can be built would probably simplify the learning. (Good)
- Jack had an annoying tendency to end his lectures 5 or 10 past making it hard to be in time for the next lecture, otherwise all good. (Good)
- I would appreciate somewhat less formalism during the lectures. The formalism is covered in the literature, however physical explanations and such are not in the book. A larger portion of the lectures should focus in this. (Good)
- should be faster sometimes, to see more in details (Good)
- Jack speaks in an all too low voice. Other than that, the lectures were excellent. (Good)
- A bit too abstract at times, maybe. (Good)
- The lectures were mostly clear and understandable. I would have liked a mathematical definition of the tensor product on the lectures to make it feel less mystical. At times Jack had troubles keeping the time -- I feel the lectures were perhaps a bit too slow considering the amount of things that were to be presented on them. It was not possible for me to attend all of the lectures. (Good)
- The writing on the board were sometimes to small and thus hard to read. (Good)
- Could barely hear anything and it's crazy to have to sit on the floor during the lctures! (Bad)
- It is extremly frustrating when the lectures never end at the given time. Making it hard to make it to the next lecture in time. (Bad)
- But I would say that I didn't understand very well .. A step, would be to give titles to what you are doing and keep writing on the same board without putting boxes everywhere with lil information so that we must follow your course as a Labyrinthe. (Bad)
- Difficult to follow. (Bad)
- "Bad" ?r att ta i. Men inte bra heller. F?rel?sningarna k?ndes som torra sammanfattningar av kapitlet. Jag skulle vilja f? med fler exempel och att f?rel?saren pratar starkare. (Bad)
- Hard to find a red line that connected the lecture to each other. Sometimes hard to hear the professor, maybe consider a microphone (Very bad)
- F?rel?sningarna ?r extremt ostrukturerade. Det skulle vara trevligt att f? en rubrik p? f?rel?sningen s? att man vet vad som ska komma. Som det ?r nu bara rabblas det upp formler och bevis innan man har f?tt en chans att f?rst? vad allt handlar om. Sedan vore det bra att skriva st?rre p? tavlan och h?ja r?sten s? att alla i salen h?r. Det vore ocks? bra att strukturera upp inneh?llet mer, kanske med tydliga rubriker f?r varje delmoment. (Very bad)
- I went to maybe two lectures, in one Jack did a big digression on lagrangian mechanics at the end of which he asked us if we were familiar with it, and the audience answered "No.". Jack's response to this is "Then maybe you should study up on that." This is not a pedagogical responce (or lecture for that matter). A part of being a good teacher is speaking at the level of the students. (Very bad)

How did you find the exercise classes?

44 svarande

Very good18 40%
Good21 47%
Bad3 6%
Very bad1 2%
Did not participate1 2%

- Funny teacher ;) (Very good)
- Mattias is awesome. (Very good)
- Mattias Blennow was a very good exercise class teacher. He is easy to understand and always have explanations to questions from the class. The only problem was with this format of the exercise classes, a large portion of the time was spent on the homework problems, which didn't give as much as calculating new problems did. (Very good)
- They prepared adequatly for the exam. (Very good)
- Mattias started very humbly and adapted well to the harsh climate that is teknisk fysik and some of it's students. Some teachers let these rather demanding and confronting students take over classes. Mattias learned quickly to not let that be the case. The tempo was a bit to high for someone like me who did not take the Quantum mechanics GK as it was not mandatory when I was in my third year. (Good)
- The classes themselves where good, but a bit much time was perhaps spent on the homeworks. (Good)
- I could not attend all exercise classes due to collisions in my schedule (my own fault), but the ones I attended were good. I think the time given for correcting the homework problems was perhaps a bit too short (at least if you wrote down the correct solution as Mattias presented it, you would not have much time to actually correct the homework). (Good)
- ?vningarna var bra. (Good)
- Fast pace. The teacher overestimated our calculation capacities... (Good)
- I still think it is way better to let students do their exercices and then give the corrections one week later on paper .. It is two hours quite useless to watch somebody do exercices.. And then,, when I tried to understand the corrections I had copied without understanding, it was very difficult for me .. But I made it in the end :) (Bad)
- I did not like the way the exercice classes are done in Sweden. I am used to a way of learning where our teacher lets us struggle with the exercices alone while he is here to guide us in the right direction and to answer our questions. I feel this method is more productive as we are training to solve exercices, not casually looking at someone doing it for us. I would have been useful to have solutions posted on the course webpage as I made many mistakes taking notes when I was not used to quantum mechanics notations. (Bad)
- Mandatory exercises suck (Very bad)

How did you find the quality of the course litterature? (Sakurai)

44 svarande

Very good6 13%
Good23 52%
Bad11 25%
Very bad1 2%
Did not read it3 6%

- Would be easier if the book had a proper index (Good)
- However, the index and the table of contents both suck, so even though the text is very good it is difficult to find what you're looking for in it if you have not already read it and remember where in the disposition to look. This is very unpractical... (Good)
- I had the previous edition (the purple-black edition) and I have found it better in most ways. More material, more compact format, better register and cheaper. If it used hat-notation it would be really good. (Good)
- it was good. (Good)
- Sakurai is very difficult textbook. It needed way more examples and explanatory text. It is also difficult to read and understand. After a while, I stopped using Sakurai and started using "The physics of low-dimensional semiconductors" by John H. Davies when possible. (Bad)
- If you are looking for a specific topic in Sakuirai it is nearly impossible to find it even if there is a chapter about it. (Bad)
- I found the books outline a little incomprehensible at times. It was difficult to get a grip of what was covered in the different chapters and sections, especially what was a derivation and or development of formalism and what was examples. The index in the book was really bad, it was impossible to find what you were searching for. Some editions of the book lack a proper table of contents. What would have been helpful is a more detailed reading instruction on the course page. This should state the relevant sections/subsections and exclude the unnecessary/too involved examples. (Bad)
- The text itself is good, but the index in the back of the book is terrible, as well as the fact that the chapters arent enumerated in a good way. (Bad)
- It is too wordy and it lacks summaries at the end of each chapter. (Bad)
- The book in itself is not bad, but unfortunately the second international edition (which I bought) lacks decent section numbering and a full table of contents, which makes it very hard and annoying to navigate. The index is also bad, and there are no summaries of the chapters in the book. All of this makes the book very hard to use as a quick reference. A deeper (minor) annoyance is that Sakurai likes to comment on and explain trivial mathematical details (in the style of true American textbooks), which partly draws the attention from the important stuff (I guess many textbooks are like this, so it might be hard to avoid). I think the second international version should be avoided! (Bad)
- Should have kept Shankar. (Very bad)
- Never bought the book, to me my lecture and exercise notes were enough (Did not read it)

How did you find the regular homework problems?

44 svarande

Very good13 29%
Good27 61%
Bad3 6%
Very bad0 0%
Did not participate1 2%

- It's a very nice idea but the difficulty waryed quite a bit. It was wery nice that you started giving them out earlier givin us more flexibility of when to do them. (Very good)
- It's a good way of keeping up with the course material. (Very good)
- They were at a good level. However they were not worth 0.5pts per problem. Better to make 2 large sets of homework for 12pt or equivalent. (Good)
- I think the HW problems were a great idea! Although I didn't see the point of having to attend the exercises to get the bonus points. (Good)
- Took to long seeing that they only covered part off the course (Good)
- The problems were good but there was too many. Half as many would have been better. (Good)
- Both the size of the problems and the topics they covered were well suited to the course. However, it would have been nice to have a little more space between deadlines - one or two deadlines every week throughout the course demands a lot of work, and takes focus from other courses. I understand this is a change from previous course rounds when everything was divided into two parts, but perhaps it is worth testing a "middle way" with 6 or 8 sets of problems, and deadlines at most once a week. (Good)
- I like the concept of having regular homeworks as it "forces" you to work on the course (Good)
- Good opportunity to solve a problem and see a solution afterwards. For me personally, giving larger homework sets and explaining their solutions during exercise classes would be even more preferable, as watching problems being solved without having tried them yourself seldom gives anything. (Good)
- Though some were way too large. (Good)
- The jump from the regular homework to the final homework was just to big in my opinion. (Good)
- Unfortunately, this falls in my general perception of the class. I tried hard to follow and do the work but couldn't keep up. At the third week I was simply outright asking people to explain them to me. I know of at least a handful of people that also couldn't solve the problems on their own. The few ones I could deal with on my own were good, partial credits is ALWAYS beneficial, escpecially in difficult courses. (Good)
- The difficulty was abit rollercoaster-y at times, but helped studying continously during the course. Bonus points are always nice. (Good)
- It is a good idea with homework problems since you get started with calculating from the start. However, some of the problems were a little too lengthy and took too much time to complete. This results in that other courses you are taking gets less time spent on. Some of the homeworks were put up on the homepage a little too close to the deadline. (Good)
- It was good, it helped me to understand some stuff. (Good)
- Good idea that kept you working, but other courses suffered from the frequent workload. (Good)
- The homework problems were mostly on a good level. Some of them (for example number 4) were a bit unclear in their formulation. I suggest that problem number 4 be formulated more carefully. (Good)
- Having to hand them in twice a week didn't take family problems and not being able to come to every class into considaration (Bad)
- Bra grundtanke men det vore bra att ge dem i tv? omg?ngar med sex problem i varje. Som det var nu hade man ingen chans att planera sin tid. Att l?gga upp en l?xa sent torsdag kv?ll som ska vara klar p? m?ndag morgon ?r ganska respektl?st. Vi l?ser andra kurser parallellt och det g?r att vi m?ste planera c?r tid. Det vore d?rf?r bra att l?gga upp alla problem samtidigt. (Bad)
- The homeworks were a bit too long. (Bad)

How much time (on average) did you spend on solving the regular homework problems?

44 svarande

< 15 minutes2 4%
15 - 30 minutes1 2%
30 minutes - 1 hour10 22%
1 - 2 hours9 20%
> 2 hours21 47%
Did not participate1 2%

- Compared to what I'm used to from home those were really easy. (15 - 30 minutes)
- One of them took >2hrs which felt abit... obscene, otherwise 40minutes on average. (30 minutes - 1 hour)
- I differed a lot between problems. (30 minutes - 1 hour)
- Hard to say, but probably between 30 min and 1 h per problem for the problems I actually tried to solve (since I could not attend all exercise classes, I did not solve all problems). (30 minutes - 1 hour)
- Some of the problems were quite easy, and demanded very little time, while others required more pondering and/or discussion with peers. In retrospect I think the time they required was reasonable, but as stated above it became overwhelming that as soon as you met one deadline, you only had a couple of days before the next. It would also have been nice to have more time between the time that the problems were posted on KTH Social and the deadline, and also more time between the lecture on which the topic of the homework was covered and the deadline, to allow for more active planning of individual studies. (1 - 2 hours)
- I was always late with the theory .. that's why I was so long I think .. (1 - 2 hours)
- Varied greatly but definitly more than 2 hours on average. (> 2 hours)
- The homework problems generally took a couple of hours to work out and to write down neatly. Sometimes you got the impression that it was expected of us to use Mathematica for the algebra, something which wasn't spelled out. Instead, every step of the calculations was written out in the solution. If the usage of Mathematica is allowed and that the algebra isn't that important, then be clear with it from the beginning. (> 2 hours)

How did you find the final homework project?

44 svarande

Very good11 25%
Good15 34%
Bad13 29%
Very bad0 0%
Did not attempt to solve it5 11%

- Very interesting, very challenging :) (Very good)
- It was fun to have a go at a "real" quantum-mechanical problem, and the project specification and instructions were (mostly) very good. However, it would have been nice if it was somewhere stated on what level calculations etc were expected to be shown in the solution hand-ins. An explicit comment allowing e.g. Wolfram-Alpha or Mathematica for pure mathematical calculations would have saved me, and probably a lot of other students, quite a lot of time spent on trying to get the algebra right. (Very good)
- It was really interesting to see something way less moot than the usual problems we get which are really far from actual relevance as far as I could observe. (Very good)
- Maybe difficult to have time for both the regular homework and the final project. (Very good)
- Very interesting and felt nice to do something 'real' aswell during the course. (Very good)
- And I would have done much better if I could have done it after my revisions! (Very good)
- It was nice to apply our knowledge to a realistic problem, (Very good)
- Covered big parts of the course, and gave a real world example to consider. (Very good)
- I think the final homework project was a very good wrap-up of the course, and it was interesting to solve. (Very good)
- It was good, although some questions were a bit strange. Also there was no means to check your answers, which was a problem since the latter task were building on the first ones. (Good)
- Interesting project, although it would be nice to get feedback on the solutions, preferably before the exam, since it took a long time to complete. (Good)
- Fun with application to a real problem. However, it was MUCH too lengty and took much too much time. The formulation of the problems could be clearer, i.e. what is expected in the answer (is it ok to leave an integral uncalculated or do you have to calculate it and so on). Since the problems built upon eachother you really couldn't calculate a later problem if you failed on an earlier one. Especially problem (b) was unnecessary in the sense that it practically required a trick that had nothing to do with QM. (Good)
- But it was very difficult. (Good)
- It was hard. (Good)
- Way too much algebra (Bad)
- They were goos lessons in algebra and sin and cos rules. (Bad)
- Not hard but not specific enough. (Bad)
- The calculations were to involved and focus shifted from the physics to tedious algebra. (Bad)
- V?ldigt h?g sv?righetsgrad. Alla problem ber?rde olika saker i kursen och d?rf?r k?ndes det konstigt att om man inte klarade b- uppgiften s? gick det inte att l?sa n?gon av de andra. Tyc?r k?ndes det som jag l?rde mig mer trigonometri och att algebra ?r jobbigt ?n att l?ra mig koncepten i kursen. Jag hade ingen som helst nytta av att ha gjort uppgiften n?r jag sedan pluggade inf?r tentan och f?r att f?rst? de kvantmekaniska koncept som kursen tar upp. (Bad)
- Too messy and big (Bad)
- It was an interesting topic and really nice to see some real life examples. But the question were sometimes dependand on clever tricks and since the questions built on each other a trick you missed blocked all work. (Bad)
- The homework itself was good but it resulted in horrible algebraic expressions which took a lot of time. I get a feeling that it would have been ok to solve these using Mathematica or similar, but then it should have been written somewhere that it's ok. (Bad)
- Tog evigheter att bli klar med den. Riktigt klurig (Bad)
- it is my problems. Because of my other course's homework. (Did not attempt to solve it)

How much time did you spend on solving the final homework project?

44 svarande

< 1 hour0 0%
1 - 3 hours0 0%
3 - 6 hours4 9%
6 - 10 hours8 18%
> 10 hours27 61%
Did not attempt to solve it5 11%

- I did not keep track of the time I spent on it, but somewhere around 6 hours I guess. I did not have the time to solve the last problem in the project, but I did not have any more time to spend... (3 - 6 hours)
- Afterwards I gave up... (6 - 10 hours)
- The b-part took the vast majority of the total time. (6 - 10 hours)
- I did not finish it. (6 - 10 hours)
- Much more than that. (> 10 hours)
- Probably 40-50 hours at least. (> 10 hours)
- I spent roughly two days, and solved half the project tasks. I don't think this was unreasonable - some of the work I did could have been done much faster - but given that there was not even one week between the deadline for the last regular homework problem and the deadline for the final project, this was all the time I had to spend between other courses and obligations. (> 10 hours)
- But I didn't finish it. This was way more difficult than what I'm used to. (> 10 hours)
- It was my main project during at least one weekend. Not that I'm saying that it shouldn't take that much time, but I don't see how this can be done in 3-6 hours.... Nice idea and nice topic, but much work and small tricks. (> 10 hours)
- I easily spent more than 40 hours. (> 10 hours)
- More than 10 hrs, where most of those hours was on the eigenvector problem of b). (> 10 hours)
- Yeah,, without being completely ready, it was really hard,, and it would have been way easier one week later .. (> 10 hours)
- Was too far behind at that point to even attempt to solve it. (Did not attempt to solve it)

How was the overlap with other courses you have taken?

42 svarande

Way too much3 7%
Some, mostly unnecessary4 9%
Some, but useful as repetition26 61%
None or very little9 21%

- I had a Solid State Physics course which was most of the time at the same time, and in Kista. (Way too much)
- The course was very similar to the basic course in quantum mechanics given at KTH, at least as given one year ago. As it seemed like the amount of material covered in SI2380 was a bit optimistically estimated, many parts could be shortened. The most interesting new parts were on the sigma algebras used in e.g. deriving the Schr?dinger equation and the many-particle systems which were not given that much attention in the basic course. (Some, mostly unnecessary)
- Since I had taken my first QM course back home there was bound to be any sort of problem with the course contents. So no fault on your side. (Some, mostly unnecessary)
- It's two years since I took the first QM course (SI2170), so I might have needed more repetition than many others. (Some, but useful as repetition)
- Quite a bit overlaps with the first course i quantum mechanics (the one that was before quantum mechanics was made mandatory in the bachelor programme). Some other concepts had I encountered while studying abroad. (Some, but useful as repetition)
- Atom physics has a bit of overlap but since it is more specializedd and less theoretical they complemented each other well. (Some, but useful as repetition)
- SI1145 had some overlap with this course. (Some, but useful as repetition)
- This course is very unlike any other quantum mechanics course I've taken. There were very little in common with the previous courses. (None or very little)

How did you find the overall difficulty level of the course?

44 svarande

Very difficult5 11%
Difficult34 77%
Easy5 11%
Very easy0 0%

- Don't really know why I think this course was difficult. (Difficult)
- But QM should be ;) (Difficult)
- Quantum physics is hard, but it was made easier by the course. (Difficult)
- Hard to get proper physical intuition and often messy calculations, but conceptually not too difficult. (Difficult)
- Damn Hilbert. (Difficult)
- I would like to answer 'lagom', but that was not an option... The course felt difficult at times, but always manageable. (Difficult)
- Since you can get so much bonus points before the exam, passing is not difficult. However, the course material is not really 'easy'. (Easy)
- Most conceptual difficulties were encountered in the basic course so the hardest part about SI2380 was achieving the technical aptitude required for the problems. (Easy)
- Except for the exam and final homework. The courses were sometimes tiring because some parts were trivial or repetetive. (Easy)

How did the exam correspond to your expectations? (Both level and content)

43 svarande

Very well0 0%
Well18 41%
Bad19 44%
Very bad5 11%
I did not yet take the exam1 2%

- I liked the questions about QD and SC :) The exam was challenging, but not impossible. If anything, I think there were waaay to little time to solve the problems. (Well)
- QUite different to the old exams. 3 easy and 3 really hard problems which i wasn't able to solve completely... (Well)
- The last problem (about superconductivity) felt abit out of place as we had not discussed it at all in this course... or any other for that matter. (Well)
- Number 6 on the exam, did not corespond to my expectations at all tho. It seemed harder than all past exam problems I've been looking at. (Well)
- It was a very interesting exam. And curiously I took pleasure in doing it. (Well)
- Seemed harder than previous ones. (Well)
- About as I expected, perhaps a bit more difficult. There was no really easy problem on the exam, in my opinion (and nothing about the variational method, as far as I noticed). (Well)
- It was much harder than expected. (Bad)
- It felt a lot harder than the previous ones (Bad)
- Harder! (Bad)
- It was more difficult than the old ones on the course homepage. (Bad)
- The content was very similar to what I had expected, but many of the problems were formulated in ways that I had not expected by looking at homework problems and previous exams. Because of this, I was unprepared for many of the tasks that were given on the exam, and performed much worse than I thought I would. (Bad)
- Compared to previous years, the exam was trickier and was hard to complete in 5 hours (although all students probably say this). (Bad)
- I learned mainly based on old exams and this one was a lot different. Might've just been me though. (Bad)
- The difficulty varied more between the questions in this exam compared to the earlier ones. the first were too easy and the last were too hard for an exam. (Bad)
- I expected at least half of the problems to be longer and closer to the course. I fear our understanding of the course may not be well evaluated with problems that are too difficult, even though I admit it is more interesting to think on difficult problems. (Bad)
- It was more difficult than the previous exams which I studied to prepare for the exam. (Bad)
- Mycket sv?rare ?n v?ntat. Jag l?ste kvantfysik i Singapore och d?r gick vi igenom Mach Zehnder-interferometern noga och prata lite om Stern-Gerlach. F?rsta fr?gan som jag r?knade med att f? po?ng p? blev sv?r. (Bad)
- The exam didn't fit well with the course program. We didn't solve problem like perturbation theory but rather exercises with lots of calculations. Moreover sometimes the questions were too vague. (Very bad)
- Horribly. The most important pieces of the course were nowhere to be found. (Very bad)
- I thoroughly enjoyed the course. However, I didn't expect questions on Quantum dots and superconductors! A little disappointed that I could not write the exam well as I hoped. Both level and content were high! (Very bad)
- This years exam contained a few questions that was too involved in the sense that it strayed from the course content of QM. It really felt like the knowledge gained from this course did not suffice to solve all questions. When calculating older exams at home before the exam I easily got most problems right. During this exam I struggled to get a C. This exam did not reflect the course or its difficulty. (Very bad)

How did you find the course administration? (Information to students, course-PM, homepage, etc)

44 svarande

Very good15 34%
Good23 52%
Bad2 4%
Very Bad4 9%

- All good (Very good)
- No complaints here. (Good)
- It's good that KTH social is used, but the usage of the system could be improved. For example, instead of posting all the content in the news feed, create pages for lecture notes, tutorials, homework problems + solutions, old exams etc to make it easier to find older course content. (Good)
- Not much to say. (Good)
- Would be nice if the homeworks would overall come a bit earlier. (Good)
- The website was good! (Good)
- Good, but a bit unfortunate that the lectures had to be rescheduled in last minute. I suppose the administration knew how many students were admitted to the course already in August or something like that, so the lectures could have been rescheduled at an earlier point. (Good)
- A slight lack of updates in the schedule (Good)
- Very bad is rather unfair to the person who was in charge of information, homepage etc but a course where there are not enough seats in the classroom is simply very bad from an administrative point of view (Very Bad)
- Vore bra att samla all information p? en sida, antingen social eller homepage (Very Bad)
- Bought shankar because course website said it was main litterature. Had to go back and return it (barely got away with it). Appalled to see you still haven't fixed this. (I realize this is your reluctancy to use kth social but that is honestly something you (as in you and SCI/KTH) need to figure out. See http://www.kth.se/student/kurser/kurs/SI2380?l=en) (Very Bad)

Additional comments

- I learnt a lot, but didnt not like mandatory exercises and fake hints n homewprks.
- Skip the exam, have only HW. It would be fun to see some current applications of QM, like how it was used in the large HW.
- I'm not very much a guy for quantum mechanics but I still enjoyed your course a lot ^^
- Extremely interesting topic, I am honestly gutted that the level of it made it completely unrealistic for me to take it in parallell with other demanding classes. Hopefully it was simply a case of me not being up to par.
- Odd time suggestion for the excerices. Nice course!
- Jack and Mattias are very good teachers and I hope they will continue having this course.
- Could you post an estimate on when the exams will be ready ?
- No
- F?rel?sningarna beh?ver bli b?ttre. Och tentorna lite j?mnare. Jag upplevde det som att tentan vi fick var sv?r.

Kursutvärderingssystem från

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