Teoretisk fysiks kursutväderingar

 

Resultat av: Theoretical Particle Physics, SI2400, vt 2008

Status: Avslutad
Publicerad under: 2008-05-14 - 2008-06-09
Antal svar: 7
Procent av kursdeltagarna som svarat: 87%
Kontaktperson: Tommy Ohlsson

What is your overall impression of the course?

7 svarande

Very positive0 0%
Quite postive3 42%
Neutral - no opinion2 28%
Quite negative1 14%
Very negative1 14%

- Nice to see a different setup of the teaching/examination. (Quite postive)
- Neutral, but certainly not "no opinion"! There were a number of good points, balanced by a number of things which could have been better. The last third of the course contained some very interesting material, presented well - but the course structure really needs to be reviewed. (Neutral - no opinion)
- Although I "managed" to complete the assignments I am left with very little understanding of what I actually did. The only way for me to do the assignments was to put up an ad hoc patchwork of formulae that I looked up in books or on the internet in order to get the desired results. Too many concepts were presented with no physical motivation. (Very negative)


How would you rate the difficulty of the course?

7 svarande

Very difficult2 28%
Quite difficult2 28%
Average3 42%
Easy0 0%
Very easy0 0%

- The course was very difficult but didn't have to be so had we had a decent book and a more fundamental approach to the concepts. (Very difficult)
- Conceptually quite easy, but made difficult at times by skipping over details which link different concepts together, both within the course and between this and previous courses. (Average)
- Not very technical, but important concepts. (Average)
- Due to Snellman it ranged from Easy to Completely Incomprehensible. (Average)


Has there been much overlap with other courses?

7 svarande

Far too much overlap1 14%
Some overlap, but it was useful to go over the topics again3 42%
Mostly unnecessary overlap1 14%
No overlap2 28%

- The first third of the course read like an executive summary of the previous course (Relativistic Quantum Physics) - those who had taken the course were bored, those who had not were lost. This course should probably either be made a more advanced one, where Relativistic Quantum Physics and a basic understanding of QFT are compulsory prerequisites, or a less advanced one which students are expected to take before the Relativistic Quantum Physics course. (Far too much overlap)


How were the homework problems?

7 svarande

Very difficult2 28%
Difficult3 42%
Average2 28%
Easy0 0%
Very easy0 0%

- As discussed above, I did the homeworks with very little confidence in my understanding of the physics at hand. It was difficult to make the connection between the material taught and the questions asked (especially in homework 3). The problem-solving techniques of the course book were too terse to be used, so I had to rummage through many other sources to understand how to use the formulae. (Very difficult)
- Not that difficult, but need a lot of work.... (Difficult)
- These took far more time than similar sized homework problems in other courses, perhaps due to the course literature? (Difficult)
- Like the course in general - conceptually easy, but sometimes made difficult by missing experimental, historical, conventional or theoretical details. (Average)
- Average diffuclty, that is. More data points in the crossection in set #2 would have been interesting (but these would then have to be dowloadable in a separate file). (Average)


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

7 svarande

Very good1 14%
Good4 57%
Average2 28%
Poor0 0%
Very poor0 0%

- The syllabus was good as it gave a detailed timetable of the subjects to be covered. (Good)
- The topics to be covered according to the course PM were never really properly dealt with. This was probably because of the small number of lectures and the fact that the course tried to cater to too broad an audience (see Q3). Communication between the lecturer and tutors also could have been better at times - there were a number of administrative things which the students had to inform the tutors of. (Average)
- I did not take other courses because there was a overlapp with the official dates of the course. But we rescheduled all dates in the first lecture. That is very nice because then I could find dates with no overlapp with other courses. BUT: If you do it again in that way, please do not write any dates in the official time schedule when they will be changed afterwards anyway. (Average)


What is your opinion about the course literature?

7 svarande

Very good0 0%
Good2 28%
Average0 0%
Poor0 0%
Very poor5 71%

- When using Halzen + Griffiths + Snellman + everything you could find on the arXiv (and had time to read) it was good :-). Using only Snellmam, you wouldn't be able to learn everything properly. (Good)
- Abysmal. It's all very well to say 'look at other books too,' but if the primary book is so bad, why base the course on it? The course should be restructured around the book of Griffiths in future, or another such 'real' text. (Very poor)
- The Snellman book should be an embarrassment to the physics department. Please do a service to future students and stick with readable literature (e.g. Griffiths). This is made all the more frustrating that, for a reading course such as this, we rely heavily (if not exclusively) on the book. (Very poor)
- The Snellmann book is NOT good. it's not enought to understand the main concepts because the assumptions made are not stated and often there is no connection between the chapters (Very poor)
- Awful. (Very poor)


How were the lectures?

6 svarande

Very good0 0%
Good4 66%
Average0 0%
Poor2 33%
Very poor0 0%

- Interesting and lucid - just not enough of them, so not quite enough detail in any of them. (Good)
- Good, but based on Snellmans book, which didn't make them all that useful. (Good)
- The lectures were too few and far apart to be relevant. They were also of little help if the student didn't do enough preliminary readings to get acquainted to the subject matter. (Poor)
- Nearly copy and paste of the Snellman book. Sometimes Tommy said, that there is not enough time to explain this step in detail. In this case: please plan more time for explaining. But maybe the reason was, that it also was not explained better in the Snellman book... (Poor)


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

7 svarande

Very good3 42%
Good3 42%
Average1 14%
Poor0 0%
Very poor0 0%

- This was the best part of the course. (Very good)
- These are a good idea, but they can't be used to replace lectures - only to reinforce them. Repetition is useful, but only to a point - most topics were superficially covered 3 times (in a lecture, a seminar and a student's seminar) rather than covered in detail at least once. A better model might be to double the number of lectures and halve the number of tutorials. In this case, tutorials could be run more on the basis of students' questions than trying to go back over every single thing contained in the lectures. (Good)
- The concept of seminars is good. please keep it. The seminars were much better for understanding than the lecture. But it was sometimes a little bit ridiculous that we discussed very easy topics three times: first in the lecture, then in a discussion seminar and finally as a presentation in the "student presentation" seminar. (Good)
- The seminars were good in consolidating some qualitative concepts but were of little help in providing problem-solving skills. (Average)


How were the seminars (Jonas de Woul)?

7 svarande

Very good3 42%
Good3 42%
Average1 14%
Poor0 0%
Very poor0 0%

- All the tutors prepared quite sufficiently for the tutorials, and conducted them well. (Very good)
- The discussions on group theory made the assumption that the student was familiar with the subject. (Good)
- He knew pretty much about the theoretical background of group theory and also stated critic. Fine. (Good)


How were the seminars (Sofia Sivertsson)?

7 svarande

Very good3 42%
Good3 42%
Average1 14%
Poor0 0%
Very poor0 0%

- All the tutors prepared quite sufficiently for the tutorials, and conducted them well. (Very good)
- Good. (Average)


How were the seminars (Henrik Melb?us)?

7 svarande

Very good3 42%
Good2 28%
Average2 28%
Poor0 0%
Very poor0 0%

- All the tutors prepared quite sufficiently for the tutorials, and conducted them well. (Very good)
- Good. He gave honest answers. Very fast correction of the home assignments. (Good)


Please, enter any further comments on the course below.

- we learn a lot of different things, but we lack some global vision of what's going on. The book is useless. Sometimes lecture+seminar+presentation is a lot of repetition.
- About the student presentations: After already having discussed the material, it sometimes became repetitive to hear about every topic again (thats without going to the lectures). Maybe having the presentations before the seminars, enabling more in-depth discussions?
- This course taught me how to browse through large amounts of literature in a very short time and how to put up formulae together to solve the assignments. There was very little "from-the-ground-up" understanding of the physics.
- If I were mainly interested in THEORETICAL particle physics would I say that this course was absolutely not enough to get a understanding. Of course there is also the QFT course which is also very important but I had sometimes the impression that this course is just a snapshot of the topic. I expected more.

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

6 svarande

Very positive2 33%
Positive2 33%
Neutral2 33%
Negative0 0%
Very negative0 0%



Kursutvärderingssystem från

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