Teoretisk fysiks kursutväderingar

 

Resultat av: Quantum Physics, SI2170, vt 2009

Status: Avslutad
Publicerad under: 2009-04-29 - 2009-07-23
Antal svar: 9
Procent av kursdeltagarna som svarat: 45%
Kontaktperson: Patrik Henelius

General opinion about the course

9 svarande

Very good4 44%
Good5 55%
Bad0 0%
Very bad0 0%

- Overall a rather okay course. Theoretical part much better than seminar part. Would benefit dramatically from a change of course book, as Gasiorowicz is terrible (possibly Griffiths instead). (Good)


Opinion about the lectures

9 svarande

Very good4 44%
Good5 55%
Bad0 0%
Very bad0 0%
I did not participate0 0%

- Mycket bra struktur. (Very good)
- Henelius is good at selecting which topics to present in his own words and when to refer to the textbook. (Very good)
- Patrik is a good lecturer in that he is calm and methodical and always follows a logical line of argument. However, it would have been nice if the lectures were not repetitions of the material in Gasiorowicz. It seems that in Quantum Physics there are many ways of presenting the material, and it would have been much better if we could have gotten one presentation from the course book, and another from the lectures. (Good)


Opinion about the tutorials

9 svarande

Very good0 0%
Good7 77%
Bad1 11%
Very bad0 0%
I did not participate1 11%

- Easier to follow in English than in Swedish, maybe could consider separate groups if it's possible. (Good)
- Overall the tutorials were good, but the problems could have been chosen better, as many gave very little to the fundamental understanding of the material. Several were easy "check that..." and "calculate..." problems that one easily could do alone at home, and, personally, I do not believe that such problems have any place in tutorials. (Good)
- K?ndes som assen inte kunde s? mycket och bara skrivit av den l?sningsmanual som finns p? internet. Han gjorde fel p? en s? grundl?ggande sak som att flytta en potentialbrunn. (Bad)


Quality of the textbook

9 svarande

Very good1 11%
Good5 55%
Bad1 11%
Very bad1 11%
I did not have access to it1 11%

- Kort och konsis. Kanske lite f?r kort, fast jag tror inte jag skulle f?redragit griffits framf?r den som vi anv?nde. (Good)
- I would definitely prefer Grittiths. It is much more consistent than Gasiorowicz. (Good)
- Read both books, Griffiths were much more fun to read (Bad)
- I bought both Gasiorowicz and Griffiths in the beginning of the course, and after reading much of both books, I would definitely prefer (and recommend) Griffiths over Gasiorowicz. Gasiorowicz is badly written throughout the book, and the constant referring to (also badly written) material on the web is extremely irritating. I have also heard great things of Sakurai's "Modern Quantum Mechanics", though I have no experience of the book myself. (Very bad)
- I used Griffiths' book which is an exceedingly good book. Griffiths usually explains things very well and is careful not to gloss over any details. (I did not have access to it)


My prerequisites

9 svarande

More than enough3 33%
Enough6 66%
Not enough0 0%


How difficult did you find the course?

9 svarande

Very difficult0 0%
Difficult7 77%
Easy2 22%
Very easy0 0%

- The seminar tasks were the most difficult parts of the course. (Difficult)


How much work did the course take compared to other courses?

9 svarande

Much more0 0%
Somewhat more7 77%
Somewhat less2 22%
Much less0 0%

- The theoretical part (i.e. Patrik's) took precisely the right amount of work compared to other courses, and compared to the fact that it gave 6 hp. The seminar part, however, took way too much work for it only being 3 hp of the course. (Somewhat more)
- If you count on your own, it will take much time (Somewhat less)


General opinion about the second part of the course (research topics)

9 svarande

Very good0 0%
Good6 66%
Bad3 33%
Very bad0 0%

- The examination was generally too extensive and time-consuming. This was my first contact with actual research articles and it takes a lot of time to realize what we are supposed to understand or not. It is a good idea to practice, though. I think these lectures would be better off by focusing on applications rahter than example calculations. Of course, the mathematical connection should not be lost. (Good)
- It was good to get some practice on reading research papers and making oral and written presentation. However, the second part could be removed without any great damage to the course, since there are other courses where we get this kind of training. (Good)
- Often far too little time for the tasks given. I would have needed considerably more to do them as well as I would have wished. As it was, it became to hurried. Also, I did not manage to do anything but the tasks when we had them. (Good)
- Skulle den inte kunna vara valfri? Jag var p? alla seminarier men det var l?ngt ifr?n alla som var det. Den om kvantdatorer var helt om?jlig att f?rst?r (till och med klassens geni hade sv?rt att f?rst?). Lite or?ttvist med n?rvaron. Kanske n?rvarolista? (Bad)
- Some were meaningless, especially quantum computers. Cosmic ray good, nuclear good. Sometimes too advanced theory (Bad)
- Albeit somewhat unpleasant, it is always good to exercise talking before people, and writing scientific "articles", and most of the topics were also very interesting to listen to and learn about. Having said that, however, I feel that this course would be much better off if the two parts were split into separate courses; one course "Quantum Physics" containing only the theoretical material of this course, and some new course (e.g. "Scientific Methods in Physics") containing the seminars and the oral and writing examinations. They are too disjoint today for the entire course to benefit from consisting of these parts. (Bad)


Opinion about the "laser" topic

9 svarande

Very good2 22%
Good7 77%
Bad0 0%
Very bad0 0%

- A very entertaining and interesting initial lecture by F. Laurell, keep that up! The oral presentations gave little, however. Please refrain from handing out list of personal numbers and names, as was done during the presentation seminar. (Good)


Opinion about the "bio spectroscopy" topic

9 svarande

Very good1 11%
Good8 88%
Bad0 0%
Very bad0 0%

- Again a very interesting lecture; the presentations did not give much. (Good)


Opinion about the "spin" topic

9 svarande

Very good0 0%
Good5 55%
Bad2 22%
Very bad2 22%

- Interesting lecture and topic. Not too fond of the type of examination, however. It would have been better to know before the presentation seminar which part of the article one was to discuss. I understand that not knowing exactly what one is to present has the advantage of everyone having to read and re-read the entire article, but I feel that this also had severe effects on the quality of the presentations (i.e. people not being able to prepare enough), which gave very little. (Good)
- The article was a bit hard to understand and there wasn't much time to prepare the presentation. (Bad)
- Ans?g inte att vi hade tillr?ckligt med f?rkunskaper f?r att kunna ta in den information som gavs (Bad)
- f?r sv?r! (Very bad)


Opinion about the "Stark and Zeeman" topic

9 svarande

Very good1 11%
Good5 55%
Bad3 33%
Very bad0 0%

- Rachlew is extremely entertaining and good at presenting interesting material. (Very good)
- Don't remember it, I'd have preferred a neutral alternative on this question. (Bad)


Opinion about the "nuclear" topic

9 svarande

Very good2 22%
Good4 44%
Bad2 22%
Very bad1 11%

- The topic was somewhat interesting, but the presentation was terrible. I absolutely disagree with the lecturer's opinion that constantly asking the audience questions keeps everyone alert and interested. Indeed, people may become more alert, but only because one is constantly thinking of possible questions that might arise, and what to say if one has to answer. It gets extremely difficult to follow the lecture and actually learn anything, as one instead only worries about "the next question". These were, without a doubt, the worst lectures of the seminar part of the course, and possibly the worst lectures I have ever attended at KTH. (Very bad)


Opinion about the "cosmic background" topic

9 svarande

Very good4 44%
Good5 55%
Bad0 0%
Very bad0 0%

- Mark Pearce's lectures were fantastic! (Very good)
- In contrast to the nuclear lectures, these probably were the best lectures I've ever attended at KTH. Mark Pearce has a wonderful way of lecturing, and it doesn't hurt that the topic is immensely interesting in itself. (Very good)
- intressant (Good)


Did this course enhance my interest in physics ?

9 svarande

Yes8 88%
No1 11%



Kursutvärderingssystem från

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