Teoretisk fysiks kursutväderingar

 

Resultat av: Simulation Physics, SI2335, vt 2014

Status: Avslutad
Publicerad under: 2014-04-28 - 2015-01-19
Antal svar: 3
Procent av kursdeltagarna som svarat: 37%
Kontaktperson: Berk Hess

How much have I learned about simulations?

3 svarande

Very much3 100%
A lot0 0%
Little0 0%
Nothing0 0%

- The course gave me a much deeper understanding of computer simulations in general, and what can be achieved with them in particular. (Very much)
- I have also forgotten a lot already! ;) But it was indeed a very interesting course and I'm glad I took it. I do feel a lot more comfortable to start simulating things, and I know more about what methods to use, what to avoid doing, and what to look for. (Very much)


What do you think about the course format?

3 svarande

Very good2 66%
Good1 33%
Not so good0 0%
Bad0 0%

- I think that the general idea, with assignments and presentations every week and a bigger project in the end, is very good. There can of course be some improvements, but the general idea is very good. (Very good)
- Maybe it was because of few students this year, but I think the report comparison did not go as intended. Otherwise I think it is a good format. (Good)


Did the course reach its goals (see the goals on the course page)?

3 svarande

Very well3 100%
Well0 0%
Not so well0 0%
Not at all0 0%

- I think that all the goals were reached, and that I now know how to create good simulations. (Very well)


What do you think of the course material?

3 svarande

Very good0 0%
Good3 100%
Not so good0 0%
Bad0 0%

- I don't know of any course material, so I can't really say that I have any opinion about it. (Good)
- It seem to be very good, but I barely used it. Maybe relate the slides and course more to the online material? (Good)


Did you look up information from the references given in lectures? (Note: the references should be improved for the, now, stronger physics background of students.)

3 svarande

More than twice1 33%
Once or twice2 66%
Never0 0%

- Mostly searched on google myself to get the information needed, but I did indeed check the references first. (More than twice)
- I tended to look up my own references on the internet when I needed to. (Once or twice)


Did you have sufficient physics background for the projects?

3 svarande

Physics was too easy0 0%
Physics level was good3 100%
Physics was too hard0 0%

- Much of the physics was trivial, especially in the beginning of the course. There is no real need to make the physics any more difficult, but I think that most students could handle more advanced physics. (Physics level was good)
- I think the level was very good. The physics models should not be too hard, since it would take too much effort just trying to understand the physics. Though I'm speaking as a third year bachelor student. Since this is a master course after all the physics level should maybe be a little harder. (Physics level was good)


What do you think about the level of programming required?

3 svarande

Too demanding0 0%
Good3 100%
Too trivial/easy0 0%

- Since this course isn't really about programming, it was good that the programming wasn't that hard, but since I like programming, I would have liked to get more of a challenge there. I would also have liked to see more focus on optimizing the code, since that is a quite crucial thing in real life simulations. (Good)
- I am not a great programmer, but most things were not too hard to implement, although it took some time to realise how to do it. (Good)


Was it clear what to do in the projects?

3 svarande

Very clear0 0%
Clear2 66%
Unclear1 33%

- Most things were clear, but there were some exceptions which I don't remember. (Clear)
- In some of the projects it was clear what we were supposed to do, but it was often hard to understand what we were supposed to look at. This would be good to improve until the next time. Furthermore, the templates were sometimes a bit messy and the choice of variable names were a little poor, which made the task more unclear than necessary. (Unclear)


Would you prefer more open ended projects?

3 svarande

Yes, very open ended0 0%
Yes, a bit more open ended1 33%
No2 66%

- I think after a few weeks there may be some room for open ended projects, when we feel somewhat comfortable with the basics. (Yes, a bit more open ended)
- I prefer when it's clear what we are expected to do, rather than to have to try to find it out by ourselves. It is good that the final project is open ended, but I don't think that the other projects need to be open ended too. (No)


Was the workload OK for a 6 HP (4 full weeks) course?

3 svarande

Too much work2 66%
Average1 33%
Less than average0 0%

- This was by far the most demanding course this period, perhaps even the most demanding course since I started at KTH, based on the number of HP received. It took too much focus from the other courses, so it would be good to reduce the workload the next time. (Too much work)
- Honestly, compared to other courses it was a lot more, but I think it was necessary to have at least that much for us to learn something from the topics. (Average)


Would you recommend this course to others?

3 svarande

Yes, this course is valuable for all engineering students1 33%
Yes, this course is valuable for physics students2 66%
No0 0%

- If other engineering students would take this course it would of course need some modification, maybe not that much physics related stuff as ensembles and molecular dynamics. But I think that some knowledge of simulation topics should be standardized. (Yes, this course is valuable for all engineering students)
- I would gladly recommend this course to everyone; it has without doubt been one of the most fun and rewarding courses I have taken since I started at KTH. However, since the main focus of the course is physics, programming and maths, I'm not sure if students from other programmes than physics would appreciate it as much as I did. (Yes, this course is valuable for physics students)


Do you have suggestions for new simulation topics?

3 svarande

Yes (please comment)1 33%
No2 66%

- I think that the kinetic Monte Carlo method would be a good topic since it is a great way to make efficient, realistic simulations. I also think that FEM could be a good topic, especially since it is used a lot in many different areas. Furthermore, I think that it would be good with more molecular dynamics, perhaps with more interesting potentials than the Lennard-Jones potential. One example would be to make something with both positive and negative charges, e.g. some kind of simple molecule forming. (Yes (please comment))
- I feel that the course is a bit rushed. I feel that if possible it would be better to maybe make this course a 9 HP, but split in two parts of 4.5 HP over one period each. This way we could probably delve a bit deeper in each topic and add a few more topics. (No)



Kursutvärderingssystem från

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