Teoretisk fysiks kursutväderingar


Resultat av: Theoretical Particle Physics, SI2400, vt 2015

Status: Avslutad
Publicerad under: 2015-06-01 - 2015-06-15
Antal svar: 13
Procent av kursdeltagarna som svarat: 68%
Kontaktperson: Tommy Ohlsson

What is your overall impression of the course?

13 svarande

Very positive2 15%
Postive9 69%
Negative2 15%
Very negative0 0%

- Uneven difficulty, examination on material not really covered, or available in the course book. (Negative)

How would you rate the overall difficulty of the course?

13 svarande

Very high9 69%
High4 30%
Low0 0%
Very low0 0%

- Not because of the actual difficulty of the material, in the beginning we repeated material I mostly knew. Then we very quickly went through a lot of material, and were given homework that was not connected to the material we saw in class. (Very high)
- Most of the difficulty came from the homework problems. (Very high)

Has there been much overlap with other courses?

13 svarande

Far too much overlap0 0%
Some overlap - mostly unnecessary2 15%
Some overlap - but useful as repetition9 69%
No overlap2 15%

- Certainly with the course SI2390 (Some overlap - mostly unnecessary)
- Mostly with experimental particle physics. (Some overlap - but useful as repetition)

How were the homework problems?

13 svarande

Very difficult11 84%
Difficult2 15%
Easy0 0%
Very easy0 0%

- Far too time-consuming. You don't need 8-9 questions with 4-5 subquestions each. The previous course (SI2390) had a more sensible approach with 5 questions. (Very difficult)
- I did not mind that some of the problems required a lot of computations, you obviously need to be able to do those computations. But a number of times it was unclear what I was expected to do. (Very difficult)
- The first set was trivial... The second and third was cumbersom. (Very difficult)
- The problem was rather the high amount of time the problems needed for solving all of them than the difficulty of each individual problem. (Very difficult)
- The homework problems were far too demanding. They could have been designed to take much less time without compromising the educational value. (Very difficult)
- They were difficult since we had no numerical examples before them. So the step from the theory to calculations was quite large. There were also so many homework problems, so time was limited. (Very difficult)
- The first set was easy. Second was challenging enough. The third was way too hard. (Very difficult)
- Especially the last ones as the topics discussed went far beyond the course book and it was difficult to follow the second half of the lectures. (Very difficult)
- Challenging, but in the right way. (Difficult)

How were the quizzes?

13 svarande

Very difficult1 7%
Difficult3 23%
Easy7 53%
Very easy2 15%

- Good, somewhere between difficult and easy. (Difficult)
- It was not difficult to get enough points to pass, but there were some questions you needed to think through and it would be hard to guess if you did not know. (Easy)
- almost to easy... (Easy)
- If you studied the material before the quiz, it was no problem. Sometimes, however, I think the questions were too focused on minor details instead of on the important concepts. (Easy)
- They were probably easy since they were on a pretty basic level, and some of it I already knew from other courses. (Easy)

What is your opinion about the course-PM, homepage, and the administration of the course?

13 svarande

Very good4 30%
Good7 53%
Poor2 15%
Very poor0 0%

- If the deadline for a homework is changed, please write that in an e-mail to all or atleast post it on the website. (Good)
- I think this course has been handled well, but I would prefer if it used social instead of the current website. (Good)
- The structure could be improved. (Good)
- It was never updated, for example there was a confusion about when the last homework needed to be turned in. Some believed it was one day later than advertised on the homepage, it is quite severe if different students get different information about these kinds of things, it is not enough to mention something once on a lecture. (Poor)

How did you find the course literature?

13 svarande

Very good6 46%
Good6 46%
Poor1 7%
Very poor0 0%

- The book is great. (Very good)
- Overall a good book but for certain parts of the course contents I strongly recommend better information regarding which literature treats the parts better, e.g. the Higgs mechanism and the unification of U(1) and SU(2). (Good)
- Supplements on e.g. the Higgs mechanism are needed. Some things that were covered in the lectures were only touched briefly in the booko. (Good)
- In my opinion it was a bit wordy, but more problematically it did not go in deeply in the more advanced topics. I used the book by Thomson, and the one by Peskin/Schroeder a lot instead. (Poor)

How were the lectures? (Sushant Raut)

13 svarande

Very good9 69%
Good3 23%
Poor0 0%
Very poor0 0%
Did not participate enough to have an opinion1 7%

- He is very clear and structured, but still very approachable. (Very good)
- Sushant Raut is one of the best teachers I've had. He had very good "tavelteknik" and he made pauses which were very good. (Very good)
- Very clear outline of the topics that were covered. It was very helpful! (Very good)
- He explained very well the different topics and the reasons why we do what we do. If needed we had the possibility to read the book for repetition and sometimes deeper understanding. (Very good)
- More meta-text on the blackboard otherwise good. (Good)

How were the lectures? (Juan Herrero Garcia)

13 svarande

Very good0 0%
Good3 23%
Poor6 46%
Very poor2 15%
Did not participate enough to have an opinion2 15%

- He had the hardest part of the course so it wouldn't be fair to compare with sushaunt. (Good)
- Overall good, however, much more meta-text on the blackboard. and more context. Sometimes it felt like it was assumed that we knew more than we did before coming to the lecture. I think the majority do not have time to read all material beforehand even if this would be the best way learning wise. (Good)
- The lectures were quite good but I found it a bit difficult at some points to follow the train of thought. Of course that was partly due to the difficulty level of the covered topics. Very helpful in all questions! (Good)
- Attended a few of Juan's classes. Although the subject is hard to teach I did not find Juan's pedagogy stimulating and illuminating. (Poor)
- It is not his fault that he got the more difficult part of the course, but I honestly did not learn a lot from these lectures. It is hard to hear what he is saying. (Poor)
- Immediately when Juan took over it became hard to follow. (Poor)
- Maybe the second part of the course had harder material but I found the entire second part very confusing. (Poor)
- Juans lecture was in many cases too advanced which resulted from the fact, that there was a big step in difficulty between Sushants and Juans lecture. Repeating the lecture with the help of the book was (especially at the end) not possible such that many students could not follow (see last task of the last problem set). (Poor)
- The lectures were very difficult to follow. It might be because they were more difficult than the first part, but it was also a little unstructured. (Very poor)

How were the seminars? (Stella Riad)

13 svarande

Very good3 23%
Good10 76%
Poor0 0%
Very poor0 0%

- Stella is my Idol! She maid the seminars very fun, rewarding and meaningfull! (Very good)
- I really liked the way the seminars were conducted. The discussions and Stella's remarks helped me have a more clear overview of the topics that were covered. (Very good)
- These are great. However, they could be a bit more organized. (Good)
- Some unclear questions sometimes. (Good)
- A suggestion is to write short but clear answers to the questions beforehand which then can be written on the blackboard at the end of the seminars. (Good)
- A solution guide explaining the answers in detail would be good (at the end of the seminar) to improve the learning outcome. (Good)

How much time did you spend preparing for a seminar on average (including reading the course literature)?

13 svarande

None0 0%
0-15 minutes0 0%
15-30 minutes1 7%
30-60 minutes2 15%
1-2 hours5 38%
More than 2 hours5 38%

- Mostly reading the course book. (1-2 hours)

How much time did you spend on the homework problem sets on average?

13 svarande

< 5 hours/set0 0%
5-10 hours/set0 0%
10-25 hours/set0 0%
25-50 hours/set8 61%
> 50 hours/set5 38%

- The first one on the lower end, the other two on the high end. (25-50 hours/set)
- Roughly 50h per set. (25-50 hours/set)
- Approx. 50 hours. (> 50 hours/set)
- As stated before - far too much time! (> 50 hours/set)
- The homework were very good for learning, however, the hard part is sometimes not understanding the question then the focus of the exercise might not be the best. (> 50 hours/set)

Please enter any further comments and opinions about the course:

- Summarizing, better information regarding course literature, I personally found Thomson much better than Griffiths regarding electroweak theory and the Higgs mechanism, this book is also available on the KTH Bib homepage, something that should be informed during next years course and more meta-text on the blackboard.
- It is not a good idea to start the evaluation before we get the final result.

Kursutvärderingssystem från

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