Teoretisk fysiks kursutväderingar

 

Resultat av: Theoretical Particle Physics, SI2400, vt 2009

Status: Avslutad
Publicerad under: 2009-05-14 - 2009-06-30
Antal svar: 4
Procent av kursdeltagarna som svarat: 50%
Kontaktperson: Tommy Ohlsson

What is your overall impression of the course?

4 svarande

Very positive0 0%
Quite postive2 50%
Neutral - no opinion0 0%
Quite negative2 50%
Very negative0 0%

- The thing I didnt like about this course was that there was no literature, only six recommended books. Do you expect one to buy 6 books (400 ?) for a course of 7.5 hp? Please use one book so that one knows were to read instead of six so that one has no chance to read anything at all. And also, parts of the material was not in any recommended book. (Quite negative)
- The course would do better without the seminars and concentrate more on the theory. (Quite negative)


How would you rate the difficulty of the course?

4 svarande

Very difficult0 0%
Quite difficult3 75%
Average1 25%
Easy0 0%
Very easy0 0%

- Difficult due to the fact that the lectures did not cover what was needed for the homeworks. (Quite difficult)
- The material was not difficult, but finding the information in the literature was hard for a simple reason, there were no literature, only six recommended books. (Average)


Has there been much overlap with other courses?

4 svarande

Far too much overlap1 25%
Some overlap, but it was useful to go over the topics again2 50%
Mostly unnecessary overlap1 25%
No overlap0 0%


How were the homework problems?

4 svarande

Very difficult2 50%
Difficult2 50%
Average0 0%
Easy0 0%
Very easy0 0%

- The homework was not in agreement with the course material from the lectures or the books, but seemed separate. Maybe this course should be a reading course instead. (Very difficult)
- Not intellectually difficult perhaps, but hard to find the information needed to solve the problems. (Difficult)


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

4 svarande

Very good1 25%
Good3 75%
Average0 0%
Poor0 0%
Very poor0 0%

- The course PM was good, but the literature references was bad and the limits for grades was to high. (Good)


What literature have you used for studying the course?

- I used, Quarks and leptons by Halzen and Martin Elementary particle physics, by Griffiths Elementary particle physics, by Snellmann An Introduction to the Standard Model of Particle Physics, by Cottingham, Greenwood
- Book by Snellman, the book Introduction to the Standard Model (not so much), book by D. Griffiths (good book), some books about neutrinos.

How were the lectures?

4 svarande

Very good0 0%
Good3 75%
Average0 0%
Poor1 25%
Very poor0 0%

- The lectures were good, but it was impossible to cover the material of the course in so few lectures so I could not understand what was important, and there were no reading instructions, so there was no way to get familiar with the course material. (Good)
- Good given the circumstances, should have been more of them though so they were not so compressed. (Good)


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

4 svarande

Very good1 25%
Good0 0%
Average1 25%
Poor1 25%
Very poor1 25%

- Good for repetition but not for learning new material. (Poor)
- The discussion seminars is a good idea, but failed in execution. The plan of the course had a good intention but became the following: 1. Listen to the lecture 2. Memorize answers to the question by looking in Snellmann 3. Go and listen to some seminar about what we just talked about This setup only makes one repeat the material from the lectures, thereby missing a lot of material (which we found out that we should have learned we got the homework) (Very poor)


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

4 svarande

Very good2 50%
Good0 0%
Average0 0%
Poor1 25%
Very poor1 25%

- Students only learn their own presentation subjects. (Poor)
- This method was maybe good for the person presenting, but because of the poor level of most of the seminars, I did not really learn anything from this. (Very poor)


How were the seminars (Henrik Melb?us)?

4 svarande

Very good3 75%
Good1 25%
Average0 0%
Poor0 0%
Very poor0 0%

- The discussion seminars were fun and interesting but did not cover the material we were supposed to learn (I suppose from the content of the homework problems) (Good)


How were the seminars (Sofia Sivertsson)?

4 svarande

Very good0 0%
Good3 75%
Average1 25%
Poor0 0%
Very poor0 0%


Please, enter any further comments on the course below.

- The course could have been much better if you had only used ONE book. By not using any main literature, the course was impossible to get a grip of. What is important? What are we supposed to learn? I still dont understand what the goal of the course was because I spent all my time looking through the books trying to find something relevant. Since no book covered the material of the course, you could not use any of the books listed in order to understand the course. Please change this for next year.

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

4 svarande

Very positive1 25%
Positive2 50%
Neutral1 25%
Negative0 0%
Very negative0 0%



Kursutvärderingssystem från

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