Teoretisk fysiks kursutväderingar


Resultat av: Quantum Field Theory, SI2410, ht 2015

Status: Avslutad
Publicerad under: 2015-11-06 - 2015-11-27
Antal svar: 9
Procent av kursdeltagarna som svarat: 60%
Kontaktperson: Mattias Blennow

What is your general impression of the course?

9 svarande

Very positive3 33%
Positive5 55%
Negative1 11%
Very negative0 0%

- Seemed to cover to most crucial parts. (Positive)
- I would have very much preferred to also have lectures. (When there are lectures, one is usually reading the course literature as well anyway.) The discussions in the seminars were naturally rather sketchy. (Negative)

How did you find the general administration of the course?

9 svarande

Very good3 33%
Good6 66%
Bad0 0%
Very bad0 0%

How did you find the course literature (Peskin & Schröder)? (Check all that apply.)

9 svarande

(på denna fråga var det möjligt att välja flera svarsalternativ)

Too technical4 44%
Too sketchy3 33%
Too high level4 44%
Too low level0 0%
Too long1 11%
Other (please comment)4 44%

- The above apply in some sections. Otherwise I found it to be good. The fact that we start in the middle of the book sometimes interrupts the reading flow since it refers to earlier sections.
- I checked high level due to the gap in knowledge between this and introductory relativistic quantum mechanics. We've seriously been lacking practice applying Feynman rules and calculating diagrams. It's sketchy in the sense that it doesn't give examples of problems but cuts to the results in order to elaborate on the concept. Not much of assistance for homework problems.
- Some explanations unclear and skips some untrivial calculations. Other than that, a good book.
- It was fine.
- Over all a nice introduction to the subject, however I found it very valuable to also have other sources, such as the book by Schwartz, in order to get another explanation of something which I found hard in the book. The parts I read in Schwartz where nicely presented.
- It's good!

How did you find the reading instructions to the course literature?

9 svarande

Very good1 11%
Adequate8 88%
Inadequate0 0%
Very bad0 0%

Did you use any supplementary learning material? (check all that apply) If so, please comment on which and your impression of them.

9 svarande

(på denna fråga var det möjligt att välja flera svarsalternativ)

Yes - other recommended textbooks5 55%
Yes - other textbooks not in the recommended list3 33%
Yes - lecture notes1 11%
Yes - other online material (video lectures, Wikipedia, etc)8 88%
No - I only used Peskin-Schröder2 22%

- I used Schwartz sparingly. Not enough to form an overall opinion of the book but enough to get the impression that it seems very pedagogical. A lot of googling.
- Googling for stuff was essential in order to solve the homework problems.
- As I wrote the book by Schwartz is nice and there are quite a few articles treating the subject of some of the hand ins.
- A great number of published papers
- Schwartz: QFT and the Standard Model. Easier to read and the explanations are clearer than in P&S.

How did you find the seminars?

9 svarande

Very good1 11%
Good7 77%
Bad1 11%
Very bad0 0%

- It's a pity we were so many students. (Good)
- The idea of not having lectures but seminars instead is very good! The downside of it might be that some students where not as well prepared as others, even though they had checked the question. I think this problem is new since since this year there was 3 discussion groups instead of 1. (Good)

How did the home assignments correspond to your expectations on the course content?

9 svarande

Very well3 33%
Well5 55%
Badly1 11%
Very badly0 0%

- Hard sometimes but this is also positive since to learn the subject better having hard questions helps. (Very well)
- I'm not a fan of the BSM problems in the end. (Badly)

How did you find the level of the homework assignments compared to your expectations?

9 svarande

Much harder1 11%
Harder3 33%
About the same5 55%
Easier0 0%
Much easier0 0%

- Having talked to other students that have taken the course previous years I presumed that they would imply quite some work. (About the same)

How much time did you spend preparing for the seminars?

9 svarande

> 10 hours each2 22%
7-10 hours each2 22%
4-7 hours each3 33%
1-4 hours each2 22%
< 1 hour each0 0%

How much time did you spend on the home assignments in total?

9 svarande

> 100 hours2 22%
50-100 hours5 55%
25-50 hours2 22%
10-25 hours0 0%
< 10 hours0 0%

- closer to 100 than 50 (50-100 hours)
- 50h is definitely not enough. I estimate between 80 and 110h. (50-100 hours)

What did you learn the most from?

9 svarande

Reading the course material1 11%
Going to the seminars0 0%
Asking the course leader0 0%
Doing the home assignments8 88%
Getting feedback on home assignments0 0%
Other (please comment)0 0%

- Problems and examples are the best learning tool by far for me. (Doing the home assignments)
- and preparing for seminars with friends (Doing the home assignments)
- The discussions in the seminars were problematic because according to my impression, nobody really understood the chapters and for the answers we more or less quoted the text given in P&S. Some introductory and more elaborate explanations by the teacher on the blackboard or in form of a document would have been very helpful. (Doing the home assignments)

Would you recommend the course to other students?

9 svarande

Yes8 88%
No1 11%

- Probably the bets course I have taken. (Yes)
- but only if they are interested in the subject (Yes)
- depends on the other student (Yes)

Other comments:

- none
- Five weeks is such a short time for the second half part of P&S.

Kursutvärderingssystem från

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