| Doc_id | Review | Left | Term | Right | Rating |
| -4ffSHNYEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | Some videos have bad audio quality. | 1) Some videos have | Bad | 1) audio quality. | 5.0 |
| -gcU5xn4EeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Very good course. Most of the new features and technologies were well explained. Maybe a little more hands-on exercise will not be a bad idea. | 1) hands-on exercise will not be a | Bad | 1) idea. | 4.0 |
| -N44X0IJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | I found this Course less well prepared than the previous 3 modules. Misleading hints in the assignments, code errors, etc... Also, I found the amount of work required higher, which is not in itself a bad thing, just a bit unexpected. | 1) which is not in itself a | Bad | 1) thing, just a bit unexpected. | 3.0 |
| 01XLylXyEeWKXg4Y7_tPaw | Not bad for introduction in Machine Learning | 1) Not | Bad | 1) for introduction in Machine Learning | 4.0 |
| 0aY3BdGZEeSX5iIAC4tS5g | Not a bad overview but overall far too shallow to be of significant worth on its own. | 1) Not a | Bad | 1) overview but overall far too shallow | 3.0 |
| 0aY3BdGZEeSX5iIAC4tS5g | You may have wondered why brokers may get it wrong, and why accountant may willing, or unwillingly, do the same. Surely, Finance is a very complex matter and keep it simple cannot be a bad thing. If you want to know more without getting just more confused instead, this course meets your needs. For me, it provided outstanding learning/time ratio...! | 1) keep it simple cannot be a | Bad | 1) thing. If you want to know | 5.0 |
| 1eYewVu-EeWACQpGR_316w | The course is a very good overall description of the Perception field. The part I really liked is that there was no haste or a concept just superficially discussed - lectures are long and detailed. The presentation of lectures especially from Prof. Jianbo Shi are excellent - to represent Matrices in colours and give a intuitive sense of every formula(especially the Jacobians and treating the image blending process as painting) . The bad part of this course is that pronunciations of faculties could be a little unclear and hence a very good transcript is required - which in this course is not upto the mark. There were few mistakes on the slides and should be rectified atleast in the pdf of the slides. What this means is that we have to go through some frustration while watching the video first time which gradually improves on second or third view. Also, there is absolutely no participation of teaching staff. A good content should be supplemented with assistance to further enhance learning experience. Few doubts because of this remains unclear and I wish I could have got this sorted in this class. | 1) blending process as painting) . The | Bad | 1) part of this course is that | 3.0 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | What a great course. The teacher is wonderful, everything was very well explained, with practical examples. Too bad the certificate is too expensive for me to buy it. | 1) well explained, with practical examples. Too | Bad | 1) the certificate is too expensive for | 5.0 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | this course introduced several important points in self-management, and these ideas might sound like cliche and easy to do, however it was really difficult to insist on doing them. unfortunately, this course didn't tell us how to overcome some bad habits in self management, like procrastination. I tought this course would be better if it covered what we should do when these strategy failed on us. | 1) tell us how to overcome some | Bad | 1) habits in self management, like procrastination. | 4.0 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | Coursera stands for its rich courses. This one is an exception, one of the worst I've ever seen so far. It's like reading a bad inspirational book. No system, no methods in place. | 1) so far. It's like reading a | Bad | 1) inspirational book. No system, no methods | 1.0 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | A very helpful course. Short and to the point. It made me consider a lot of my bad habits which resulted in bad time management. I now appreciate my time more and welling to change the way I think, plan and manage my time better than I used to in order to be more productive. I realize that multitasking gave me the illusion of being so accomplished, when the only thing I was accomplishing was being highly distracted and by that working against myself. I loved the additional materials, especially Mike Sanders YouTube videos. Thank you very much for providing this course! | 1) me consider a lot of my | Bad | 1) habits which resulted in bad time | 5.0 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | A very helpful course. Short and to the point. It made me consider a lot of my bad habits which resulted in bad time management. I now appreciate my time more and welling to change the way I think, plan and manage my time better than I used to in order to be more productive. I realize that multitasking gave me the illusion of being so accomplished, when the only thing I was accomplishing was being highly distracted and by that working against myself. I loved the additional materials, especially Mike Sanders YouTube videos. Thank you very much for providing this course! | 2) my bad habits which resulted in | Bad | 2) time management. I now appreciate my | 5.0 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | It highlighted some bad habits in my life that I can try to eliminate in order to improve efficiency while providing better habits to replace them with. It's also a fairly easy course to complete (you don't even need half a day). | 1) It highlighted some | Bad | 1) habits in my life that I | 3.0 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | The course is not bad, but I felt that it was just a collection of common sense advice. | 1) The course is not | Bad | 1) but I felt that it was | 3.0 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | This course points to good soluitons to nowaday's common bad habits, like procrastination or multitasking, and some of the strategies are very applicable the my work environment (not all because of hierarchical and cultural differences). The only point I would like to change is the teacher's tone of voice. It sounded too low for me, even after setting the volume to maximum I have had difficulties parsing the words. This may be an issue of english not being my mother language, but comparing to other courses that's is a possible explanation. Thank you very much. | 1) to good soluitons to nowaday's common | Bad | 1) habits, like procrastination or multitasking, and | 4.0 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | You can do it in one or two days. Basically, it's a bunch of tips to get your job done and be organized, keeping away some bad habits. | 1) and be organized, keeping away some | Bad | 1) habits. | 4.0 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | I LOVED IT! I just got very bad headaches with that white background! | 1) LOVED IT! I just got very | Bad | 1) headaches with that white background! | 4.0 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | One of the well made MOOCs. There are many courses in Coursera taught by good professors from good universities but are badly designed for an MOOC environment making it a bad experience. This course is really well designed. The contents is modular and lectures are split into easy to grasp chunks. The weekly lab exercises using R using real datasets is a plus. Though not much of R syntax is taught and it is up to us to explore(understandable since the goal of this course is not to teach R). The final project was a bit challenging but fun. The course 'mentors' are helpful. | 1) professors from good universities but are | Bad | 1) designed for an MOOC environment making | 5.0 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | One of the well made MOOCs. There are many courses in Coursera taught by good professors from good universities but are badly designed for an MOOC environment making it a bad experience. This course is really well designed. The contents is modular and lectures are split into easy to grasp chunks. The weekly lab exercises using R using real datasets is a plus. Though not much of R syntax is taught and it is up to us to explore(understandable since the goal of this course is not to teach R). The final project was a bit challenging but fun. The course 'mentors' are helpful. | 2) an MOOC environment making it a | Bad | 2) experience. This course is really well | 5.0 |
| 2g7bdO-KEeWTgg7cwVeSqQ | This course is extremely basic. It took me about four hours to complete the entire course (minus the peer reviewed assignment since I audited). This wouldn't be an issue in and of itself, but there were quite a number of issues with the presentation, from questions appearing in the wrong video, to badly worded and misleading questions. It's as if the course material was quickly thrown together and not reviewed or tested. Overall, there is some good info in it if you have no background in accounting and no idea what a balance sheet is, but if you're looking for insight into interpreting balance sheets, this is not the class for you. | 1) appearing in the wrong video, to | Bad | 1) worded and misleading questions. It's as | 3.0 |
| 2H8ExCTIEeWeDBJG1XrG0w | Been waiting for a Unity course for a while and it's finally here! Too bad there is no free option, so I am just following it without any grades. | 1) while and it's finally here! Too | Bad | 1) there is no free option, so | 5.0 |
| 2H8ExCTIEeWeDBJG1XrG0w | I really enjoyed the course so far. The explanation is great. The only downside is the video quality is not that great its not bad but it would be a lot better if it was better quality. Its very Blurry even in High quality. Although thats not a problem that did not stop me from enjoying the course. | 1) is not that great its not | Bad | 1) but it would be a lot | 4.0 |
| 2UHGXkNtEeSfwCIACxeXRw | A really interesting and relevant course. Replayable and pause-able video lectures are obviously the way to go. The software-driven transcription of the lectures is useful but needs a lot of reformatting and some error correction (this process is not a bad learning tool in its own right!) | 1) correction (this process is not a | Bad | 1) learning tool in its own right! | 4.0 |
| 3e249OIsEeSdRSIAC3-Q-A | Very bad audio and video. Couldn't understand most of the content. | 1) Very | Bad | 1) audio and video. Couldn't understand most | 1.0 |
| 3G1aij8iEeWKOBLv1z6n9w | The teacher is so bad, I think Vietnamese teacher can teach better than her! | 1) The teacher is so | Bad | 1) I think Vietnamese teacher can teach | 5.0 |
| 3KNgoXgcEeWrAxJQXw-8PQ | The course work is easy to follow, full of great information and very clear. The only thing I find inconsistent is the reviewing of others work. It seems no-one ever gets reviewed by the same person twice, which means the standard of reviews is varied and inconsistent. Also, many people may not be/feel qualified enough to review or feel bad about failing someone so wont. There can be a great deal learned by having mentors or qualified teachers review the work. Given that, I have learned a great deal in this course and understand, and think it's one of the best online courses I've seen. I also understand you get out what you put in. Thanks for the opportunity. | 1) qualified enough to review or feel | Bad | 1) about failing someone so wont. There | 4.0 |
| 3KNgoXgcEeWrAxJQXw-8PQ | The video lectures are very nicely done. They outline the basics of how a story line (Plot!) should be, how the characters should be developed and how scenes should be depicted. The tips given are practical and clearly defined - even for noobs The course motivated me to write, to refine my thoughts while writing and since there was always pressure of peers reviewing my work - I always revised what I wrote. I discovered that revision helps immensely, and I found I could express the same things in better ways and using lesser words Some students did have difficulties in understanding assignments - something that can get better with time. Also, I felt some learners received the brunt of bad grading since the grading guidelines weren't clear. Shaving off 1 star due to that | 1) some learners received the brunt of | Bad | 1) grading since the grading guidelines weren't | 4.0 |
| 3KNgoXgcEeWrAxJQXw-8PQ | The material isn't bad, and it does provide some interesting prompts to think and write about. But, the curriculum is not at all creative. It focuses on easily teachable and repeatable lessons that teach a certain, standard way of doing things. It tries to reduce creative writing down to a formula instead of acknowledging that many compelling and successful stories can have almost any imaginable form. If perhaps many types of structures had been emphasized or structures had been pointed out as optional, this would have been mitigated, but the time period is so short that there's no time. The result is a class that feels more like "Writing: How to Make a Formulaic, Sellable Book" than anything with "Creative" in the title. | 1) The material isn't | Bad | 1) and it does provide some interesting | 2.0 |
| 3mA6QTIyEeWsOA5fzAmxbw | Hands down the worst course on Coursera. I thought it might be beneficial to take this course but it doesn't cover anything in details. Wherever algorithms are explained, a really lousy job is done. To be specific, first and second weeks are covered badly. I am still trying to understand the material by reading external articles on the course topics. I think that first course of this specialization was pretty great and this one is disappointing. | 1) first and second weeks are covered | Bad | 1) I am still trying to understand | 1.0 |
| 3TdKKA-VEeWhsgqB1eduww | average course not too good not too bad | 1) course not too good not too | Bad | 1) | 3.0 |
| 3TdKKA-VEeWhsgqB1eduww | Not bad for refreshing your memory, as in my case - I already received the information while studied in academy, and new key principles but overall memory was shady and needed to be refreshed. But to speedy for a newbie in the area, pace could have been slower. | 1) Not | Bad | 1) for refreshing your memory, as in | 3.0 |
| 3Vo3Am1LEeWMPAqsmzmVew | The skills taught in this course are fantastic and I'm sure using them will blow my colleagues' minds away. However, I must say that the lectures on Rcharts and other interactive plot builders sound kinda sloppy, poorly prepared. I know the documentation for those packages is bad and it takes effort to figure out what they do, but that is precisely why a well-prepared lecture would be so useful. I would also talk about license, since we have been dealing with packages that are completely open for use, but these have some restrictions. | 1) the documentation for those packages is | Bad | 1) and it takes effort to figure | 4.0 |
| 3vTfVlUsEeWaMw4b4yEpbw | This is a very bad course | 1) This is a very | Bad | 1) course | 1.0 |
| 4IKVIdWxEeWlbgqNCYymGw | I think this information is very dated - Calories In/Calories Out, High Carb/Low Fat, recommending exercise to lose weight, vegetable oils recommended/animal fats denigrated . . . . so many recommendations that have little 'science' behind them, and which have not produced good results for 95% of the people who have used them. I've lost weight with a lower calorie diet and exercise, so, yes, it can work, but it is very difficult. I've kept it off easily for two years with a high fat/low carb eating plan. I've changed my exercise to mostly Pilates when my weight stabilized and I enjoy it enough to stay with it. knowing how difficult it is to stick to a low fat/high carb diet - which causes me to struggle with cravings, even when I am eating unprocessed organic seasonal local food - I hate to see a low fat diet recommended to people struggling with losing weight. I recommend "The Big Fat Surprise" and "Good Calories, Bad Calories" as an alternate view of healthy living. | 1) Fat Surprise" and " Good Calories, | Bad | 1) Calories" as an alternate view of | 2.0 |
| 4tHoAq3EEeSk9iIAC49U6w | Excellent contents, but relator's english is pretty bad. :-) | 1) contents, but relator's english is pretty | Bad | 1) :-) | 4.0 |
| 4tHoAq3EEeSk9iIAC49U6w | Contents are good and interesting, but speakers' english is so low and bad (pronunciation) that the course becomes almost unpleasant. | 1) speakers' english is so low and | Bad | 1) (pronunciation) that the course becomes almost | 2.0 |
| 4vLX1NAeEeWihQ6ogHC6vQ | Not a bad course, but it is a python programming class. There are some steeper steps at times if you are not used to python. Support can seem distant if you hit one of these steeper steps. It's best to have a coding attitude and not a "I want to read about biology and genetics" attitude to approach this class. | 1) Not a | Bad | 1) course, but it is a python | 4.0 |
| 4vLX1NAeEeWihQ6ogHC6vQ | Very badly linked with other websites that provide the actual content. This is more like a click-bait setup than the actual course. I'm not sure why it's even offered on Coursera, other than to make money on a more popular website using the content hosted by less popular one. Very bad experience. | 1) Very | Bad | 1) linked with other websites that provide | 1.0 |
| 4vLX1NAeEeWihQ6ogHC6vQ | Very badly linked with other websites that provide the actual content. This is more like a click-bait setup than the actual course. I'm not sure why it's even offered on Coursera, other than to make money on a more popular website using the content hosted by less popular one. Very bad experience. | 2) hosted by less popular one. Very | Bad | 2) experience. | 1.0 |
| 52blABnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Teacher is really bad. Terrible. | 1) Teacher is really | Bad | 1) Terrible. | 4.0 |
| 52blABnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Very bad explanation too boring lectures | 1) Very | Bad | 1) explanation too boring lectures | 1.0 |
| 52blABnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Not a bad course, but videos must be shorter. Divide 30-40 min videos into small ones | 1) Not a | Bad | 1) course, but videos must be shorter. | 4.0 |
| 52blABnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Update: Coursera or the course content provider has changed this course in a bad way: You have to PAY for the course IN FULL AMOUNT JUST to get your assignments submitted and reviewed by peer learner. What a pity. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Great course! Material is very useful and interesting! The course introduces concepts in a progressive and comprehensive way so that knowledge is easy to be understood. Practise quiz and assignments perfectly reflects course materials. Also, professor Muppala is quite funny. Enjoy the course! | 1) has changed this course in a | Bad | 1) way: You have to PAY for | 2.0 |
| 52blABnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Not bad! | 1) Not | Bad | 1) | 4.0 |
| 5AYG1NbQEeWEOQ7ZE5jC0Q | Really poor powerpoint presentations and videos, half in chinese. The accent of the teacher is horrible (i'm not an english-native speaking person so it's hard for me to follow english when badly spoken, so i cut off the sound and only read the subtitles.) The content is interesting though. | 1) for me to follow english when | Bad | 1) spoken, so i cut off the | 1.0 |
| 5AYG1NbQEeWEOQ7ZE5jC0Q | I don't want to be mean, but the first week was terrible! I was expecting what it said: ADVANCED neurobiology. I feel bad giving this review. I'm just dropping the course. | 1) it said: ADVANCED neurobiology. I feel | Bad | 1) giving this review. I'm just dropping | 1.0 |
| 5AYG1NbQEeWEOQ7ZE5jC0Q | After finishing week 1, I have decided to stick with Duke university's Medical neuroscience which is starting up again. I also highly recommend "Understanding the Brain The Neurobiology of Everyday Life" which I believe was taught by the University of Chicago. I found them to be far more engaging the viewer and the format to be much easier to follow. I found it visually disturbing and also have to keep pausing to read the slide before it switches.It's too bad because I was really looking forward to this course. It also seemed she had trouble pronouncing many of the words and I do not want to learn how to pronounce many of them incorrectly also many of the slides did not have an English translation on them. | 1) slide before it switches. It's too | Bad | 1) because I was really looking forward | 1.0 |
| 5AYG1NbQEeWEOQ7ZE5jC0Q | This course is useless and perhaps even harmful. The professors would have done much better if they had taught the class in their native Chinese language and then got a really good translator to make subtitles in English. I tried turning off the sound and just watching the presentation while reading the subtitles, but even this was so badly done in terms of language and presentation, that although I desperately wanted to take a course in advanced neurobiology, I felt that this course could actually destroy my love for the subject or teach me things that are incorrect because of language mistakes. If you are not a native speaker of English then by all means steer even further clear as you will learn some very bad English habits and pronunciation. I'm sure the profs' English ability is fine for collaborating with other professionals who already know the material, but teaching in English was a big mistake. Again, I highly suggest they re-do the entire thing in Chinese and get really good translations and subtitles made and then I think it could be an awesome course. Now, as is, it would be truly foolish to take this course. | 1) subtitles, but even this was so | Bad | 1) done in terms of language and | 1.0 |
| 5AYG1NbQEeWEOQ7ZE5jC0Q | This course is useless and perhaps even harmful. The professors would have done much better if they had taught the class in their native Chinese language and then got a really good translator to make subtitles in English. I tried turning off the sound and just watching the presentation while reading the subtitles, but even this was so badly done in terms of language and presentation, that although I desperately wanted to take a course in advanced neurobiology, I felt that this course could actually destroy my love for the subject or teach me things that are incorrect because of language mistakes. If you are not a native speaker of English then by all means steer even further clear as you will learn some very bad English habits and pronunciation. I'm sure the profs' English ability is fine for collaborating with other professionals who already know the material, but teaching in English was a big mistake. Again, I highly suggest they re-do the entire thing in Chinese and get really good translations and subtitles made and then I think it could be an awesome course. Now, as is, it would be truly foolish to take this course. | 2) as you will learn some very | Bad | 2) English habits and pronunciation. I'm sure | 1.0 |
| 5AYG1NbQEeWEOQ7ZE5jC0Q | Lots of good information, but the presentation is very bad. Not only are the professors clearly struggling with the English (and the material, calling anatomical planes "plates" and confounding sulci with fissures, etc), but some of the recording/video editing decisions make it less engaging and more difficult to follow. For example, the size of the images is often compromised because they chose to show the professor on the left side of the screen, even though it is absolutely unnecessary to do so. Overall, I do not recommend this course. | 1) information, but the presentation is very | Bad | 1) Not only are the professors clearly | 1.0 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | Very good compare to what the courses in Nicaragua are like. Perhaps the bad point are the examples that the professor use, many of then are not so realistics. When learning about a situation that conditionate our strategy, we must also know what others inputs take part too. | 1) in Nicaragua are like. Perhaps the | Bad | 1) point are the examples that the | 4.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | The instructor is very bad. She made the lectures so boring with her lack of preparation that I switched to just reading the transcript. The assignments were lacking in case studies and were very textbooky. I could have skipped this course and simply read from the E-book. Tried to get a refund but its too late so I will have to force through this one and the next. I hope it doesn't adversely affected my grades as I have scored above 96% in the previous 3 courses in this specialisation. Very disappointed and frustrated. I came to Coursera to avoid teachers and teaching styles like this. This really shakes my confidence in Coursera for future courses. Im definitely not going to pay for any courses in the future. | 1) The instructor is very | Bad | 1) She made the lectures so boring | 1.0 |
| 6Fa6w3EjEeWbbw5cIAKQrw | The course is great for beginners into the filed of learning to be reporting. I am happy i signed up for it though it was a bad time at work to focus on the course but I did. I look forward to completing the remaining courses required for specialisation. Thankyou coursera and the Michigan State University for the opportunity. | 1) for it though it was a | Bad | 1) time at work to focus on | 4.0 |
| 6Fa6w3EjEeWbbw5cIAKQrw | The course is a well thought and masterfully set of lessons on the main principle of journalism: it talks ethics starting from maybe old concepts that surprisingly are still fitting today. Being a basic course, it is very easy to follow and finish. Quizzes are alternating between very good and very bad. Tough ethical decisions and a space to discuss them is a really great thing, but peer grading two phrases essays with only the ability of telling yes or no doesn't make for a good use of the crowdsourcing the very course is advocating. The videos seem to have been made with an indecent knowledge of the technology, especially for journalists who are supposed to use it daily; green screens were used so badly as some parts of the professors "spark white", and slides are often cut away and put back in view while the teacher is talking about it, which was downright infuriating. It still qualifies for a very good opening course in journalism, but needs serious improvement. | 1) alternating between very good and very | Bad | 1) Tough ethical decisions and a space | 3.0 |
| 6Fa6w3EjEeWbbw5cIAKQrw | The course is a well thought and masterfully set of lessons on the main principle of journalism: it talks ethics starting from maybe old concepts that surprisingly are still fitting today. Being a basic course, it is very easy to follow and finish. Quizzes are alternating between very good and very bad. Tough ethical decisions and a space to discuss them is a really great thing, but peer grading two phrases essays with only the ability of telling yes or no doesn't make for a good use of the crowdsourcing the very course is advocating. The videos seem to have been made with an indecent knowledge of the technology, especially for journalists who are supposed to use it daily; green screens were used so badly as some parts of the professors "spark white", and slides are often cut away and put back in view while the teacher is talking about it, which was downright infuriating. It still qualifies for a very good opening course in journalism, but needs serious improvement. | 2) daily; green screens were used so | Bad | 2) as some parts of the professors | 3.0 |
| 6Fa6w3EjEeWbbw5cIAKQrw | Good: The video lectures cover a nice variety of topics giving you a good introduction of journalism, ethics, and other important considerations for becoming a journalist. Bad: The entire course feels hastily put together. Some of the videos have summarizing points, which is helpful when taking notes, but they flash on the screen briefly, then cut to a closeup of the lecturer, then cut back to the summery points so quickly that you can't copy them down and it becomes super distracting. The quizzes are a joke. They usually consist of 1-3 questions with two answers each and once choice so outrageous that they don't take any thought at all to complete. You could just skip to the quizzes without watching a single lecture and "ace" them easily. The assignments are also a joke. They ask for 1-2 sentence answers max! Some of them ask you to "use more than one word" to respond. I've taken free courses on here than involve 1000 word essays and then at least you're forced to process the information in the lectures. You can pass this course without watching a single lecture and that's a travesty to Michigan State. It is full of typos and oversights that could have been avoided if they had once person run through the course as a quality control. One of the quizzes has the answer included right beneath the question as a typo! The simple assignments are described in 3 different places, sometimes with conflicting instructions. They tell you what to do and how to review your peers in one section and then the actually assignment has different instructions on what to do than the page prior so you end up unsure of what the assignment actually wants you to do. For example: the final assignment at firsts asks you how to engage with your audience, and then you click next and the SAME question is now asking you how you distribute content. Did they even try?? In Summery: The content in the lectures are a good but shallow overview of journalism, but don't expect to be challenged to do anything but fill in ovals and regurgitate questions. Not too much to learn here. | 1) important considerations for becoming a journalist. | Bad | 1) The entire course feels hastily put | 2.0 |
| 6Fa6w3EjEeWbbw5cIAKQrw | It is a good introductory course, but the technical aspect for this module is bad... | 1) technical aspect for this module is | Bad | 1) . . | 3.0 |
| 6JyoHjVOEeWBMQ5pdIoFkQ | Bad material, poor graphics, wrong mc questions in videos. More hype content than a course. This is not the way to learn Python, seriously don't take this one | 1) | Bad | 1) material, poor graphics, wrong mc questions | 1.0 |
| 6JyoHjVOEeWBMQ5pdIoFkQ | The support from the faculty and the website is beyond explainable bad. The user interface gets stuck without reasons. There is no direct way to contact the faculty, if you are stuck on any assignments. There is hardly anyone who responds to the feedback that is sought for!! I will never recommend someone to do this course. | 1) and the website is beyond explainable | Bad | 1) The user interface gets stuck without | 1.0 |
| 6lQZLjVvEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | It was too bad to not permit the students to perform the quizzes! Only if we pay for them! I thought the payment was for the certificate! | 1) It was too | Bad | 1) to not permit the students to | 1.0 |
| 6lQZLjVvEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | The course way OK, but it had some flaws. It was very general and could have gone into more detail, but that was intentional, I guess. No big deal. Then again, the difficulty was way too easy and the quiz questions should be tested for test wiseness. What I disliked the most: The way Scrum was introduced and mapped to the role of a "product manager" was very confusing. Still, not a bad course though. | 1) was very confusing. Still, not a | Bad | 1) course though. | 3.0 |
| 6lQZLjVvEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | very bad, useless course. Just listing the names of the methods and practices. | 1) very | Bad | 1) useless course. Just listing the names | 1.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | This is a splendid introduction to a delightful and powerful programming language for the first-time programmer. But it's even more than that: Charles Severance is a gifted teacher who gets the neophyte up and running in a gentle and engaging style. Really! Anyone can learn to program a computer, and get a whiff of mastering technology. But beware! That whiff can lead to addiction... and not in a bad way... | 1) . . and not in a | Bad | 1) way. . . | 5.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Dr Severance is really an amazing teacher - he conveys rather complicated information in an easy to digest format. Also, what a bad ass for dedicating so much of his personal time for a free class. So very much appreciated. | 1) to digest format. Also, what a | Bad | 1) ass for dedicating so much of | 5.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Pretty bad as far as I am conerned. I spent two days clicking back and forth and listening to a lot of talk that taught me nothing. Sorry about that, but there are better courses on the Internet than this one. | 1) Pretty | Bad | 1) as far as I am conerned. | 1.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | not bad | 1) not | Bad | 1) | 4.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | If you have a programming background (I have) then this course really simple. Some might say too simple, but for me it was useful to 'get back into the game'. Also, simple isn't necessarily a bad thing. I understood everything, and enjoyed it. | 1) game'. Also, simple isn't necessarily a | Bad | 1) thing. I understood everything, and enjoyed | 5.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | very interesting, easy to learn though you might have challenges if you are new to programming. but its not bad at all, try it! | 1) new to programming. but its not | Bad | 1) at all, try it! | 4.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | A very basic course, but not bad. | 1) A very basic course, but not | Bad | 1) | 4.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | not bad | 1) not | Bad | 1) | 3.0 |
| 7jEat7ioEeWfYA612mWHZw | The audio quality of a lot of the lectures are quite bad. A number of the slides seem to be un-organised at times, with repeating information, making them confusing. While all the information seems to be presented, it feels like it could be done better with more time spent preparing and recording the videos. | 1) lot of the lectures are quite | Bad | 1) A number of the slides seem | 2.0 |
| 7Sx79iWNEeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | Great course. I learned a lot. Too bad they still say they're verifying my assignments... no certificate so far.. :( | 1) course. I learned a lot. Too | Bad | 1) they still say they're verifying my | 5.0 |
| 8LAp90EaEeWZtA4u62x6lQ | This is a great course and a daring venture for what is really an art form, beyond it's scientific requirements. This part of the specialization needs a little refinement. I posted this in the discussion forum. · 7 days ago · Edited First of all.....these guys running this data science department have their hands full. They are teaching live classes for students who have spent OODLES (lots) of money to attend this prestigious college . Johns Hopkins is about as good as it gets for a medical degree. Then they are doing experiments and other data science for the research division of Johns Hopkins which is also as good as it gets........THEN they are doing these MOOC courses on top of all their other responsibilities......Dr. Leek is a University of Washington Alumni, which is also top notch for Data Science. The video lesson is flawed, there is no denying it. But I must say these teachers are very open to improvement in the course and your comments on what could be better done are received and acted upon, so I would include them in your thank you letter to the teachers. ALSO I think these MOOC courses are best done by all members of the department contributing. Truly this field IS a team sport. I feel this course was good, but the videos need to be edited and scripted, so unnecessary language, which dilutes the core knowledge, that must be learned, is not diluted where questions are left in the students head about content when being tested. I learned long ago in a college calculus class that if your mark isn't perfect, it's OK, so long as you pass with a high score......even if it is the teachers fault. The course could use better video production with teleprompter scripting......maybe some AV students at Johns Hopkins could get on board. it will happen eventually I'm sure. You want to take a course that is absolutely one of the best courses I've taken anywhere and truly the best online. Try the number one business course on Coursera: GROW TO GREATNESS, either part 1 or 2, University of Virginia, Darden School Of Business...........A team created course with one helluva a teacher who is a business person, researcher and award-winning writer. I would recommend this course to ANY student and especially E-Teachers. The problem with this course is that there is a lot of information that can be included but may not be absolutely necessary as a "core concept". Needless to say, the more technical skills any employee has, the more insight they will have into their teammate's skills, as well, as the overall mission of the data department and the business it serves. I'm more of a tech and infrastructure person, I'm not real passionate about coding. I find it tedious. The more I learn about it, the more I enjoy it, albeit, from a distance. I can't see myself creating great blocks of scripts, but the more I know about how they are created AND what rules the code in a project must abide by, the better my skills will be as a data center manager. So I'm trying to learn as much as possible about R, Python, and companion programs like ggvis for creating visualizations. I'd say visualizations are an essential skill for a data manager, since you have to present results and projects, questions, and answers to higher ups and other departments. this link comes from the resource section of this course: https://www.datacamp.com/courses/ggvis-data-visualization-r-tutorial This link or URL is of much more value to me, than a flawed test question and a reduction in my 100 percent average in the specialization. Without this lesson, in this course, I would not have this valuable resource. Another great link, which has a great FREE print publication as well: http://www.processor.com/ ...these people have been advising data center managers longer than just about anybody ! Verbally and in the transcript are some nebulous statements that point toward the main idea, that concept being: the more any employee, on any data science or technical team member IS, a "jack of all trades", the better. So that could have been included in some more general way on the quiz, because really that is pretty much a general rule, I've found, working in ANY capacity in the tech industry. I have done a great deal of audio editing, working at numerous radio stations, with Adobe Audition. With others like: Pro Tools, or any other really good quality AV digital editor the result is streamlined, near seamless, audio-video, or one or the other. You just learn how to read and edit wave forms of all kinds. Years ago, in Dallas, Texas, attending Richland College. I learned a valuable lesson. I was taking a college level Calc-Trig math class being taught by the regular professor's WIFE. I don't know if the professor was sick, but this woman, who was teaching the class for the whole semester, frankly, was not qualified. I had always been considered an illiterate by my high school math teachers, a married couple who, frankly, were highly abnormal even on the geekiest scale. These people were acting like they were a world above most people in the class. Needless to say, I assumed, by their "adult" opinions, they were sent by God Himself, to educate me thru denigration. I was amazed, how 10 years later, in College math how well I was doing. I was carrying a 100 percent average ! So midterm this faux professor declares, "I'll be prefiguring all the arithmetic to be easy, so you won't have to bring your calculators !" SO I DIDN'T.......and of course the teacher's wife proclaims....."I didn't have time to make the arithmetic easy so you'd better use your calculators !" I literally had pages and pages of figuring in handwriting accompanying my 3 page test. The result was a C plus on the test. I angrily told the sub teacher "I did not bring a calculator to this test because you said it wouldn't be necessary, therefore I must be allowed to redo this test with a calculator !" She of course relented, "No that won't be possible...that's not a bad grade...." she continued, "what are you worried about ?"........ I was so peeved, I was going to drop the class. It was too late in the semester, and I was so disgusted with this woman's cavalier dismissal of my perfect grade that I just stopped going to class. The result was a failing final grade. Who ultimately suffered from this dilemma ? That, albeit, unfairly was me.....who created this "academic" tragedy, by the aggravation of a deeply flawed situation. Once again, that would be me. | 1) possible. . . that's not a | Bad | 1) grade. . . . " she | 4.0 |
| 8LAp90EaEeWZtA4u62x6lQ | Good interesting material but the quizzes were badly designed and did not test concepts well. | 1) interesting material but the quizzes were | Bad | 1) designed and did not test concepts | 3.0 |
| 8UQBnm04EeWyAQ6K5KeLkw | As other reviewers have noted, this course is NOT for beginning programmers! (Unless maybe you are a mathematical genius with total recall.) I have a little background in programming, HTML and CSS, but I found this course to be an absolute nightmare. It would be interesting to find out if any of the rave reviews came from real beginners. Most of the problems have already been noted by other reviews, so I will only mention a few that I did not see mentioned. The course requirements should include hardware and software essentials. In particular, the student has no choice but to use Android Studio. If their system is not running a 64bit OS at 2.4 GHz with at least 8 GB of RAM, it can literally take DAYS for Studio to complete the build so that the student can do anything with assignment code. There is a desperate need for a glossary. The course dives in with more acronyms than the military, and assumes the attmpting learner already has a handle on APIs, SDKs, etc., not to mention many other technical terms (interfaces, ...). If I asked the average programmer to evaluate the MT based on comparisons with the Complutensian Polyglot and Codex Alexandricus, the effect would probably be about the same. Another glaring omission for beginners is a battery of exercises for each concept/skill. As for "We've organized all these topics into units that represent roughly 4-6 hours of work each," that is absurd! If you multiplied that by 10, it would still be a stretch. I have no doubt about the programming and technical competence of the instructors (though there are some errors in a number of the instructions). And I'm sure they are very nice people who really want others to learn. The root problem seems to be what professional communicators call "The Curse of Knowledge" -- a syndrome in which a person is so familiar with their subject that they cannot begin to imagine what it is like for someone who is not. My recommendation to a beginner is to look somewhere else. Take a good introductory course in Java before diving into the vastly more complex world of the Android environment. I am not qualified to evaluate the course from the perspective of an experienced programmer, but I have noted that they are frustrated by clutter caused by token attempts to make this a beginner course. My recommendation to the faculty is to completely re-engineer this whole specialization. They should have a separate set of courses truly designed for beginners, and they should get help from qualified instructional designers who specialize in online adult education. (Might not be a bad idea to get the VU English department to review the lecture text as well.) My recommendation to anyone is to never believe anything Coursera tells you about a course. Audit the course BEFORE you pay any money! This is especially important if the course has not actually started. This course started two months late, and I could not get a refund before the course even got under way! After taking nearly 6 months to wade through a little over half the course requirements, I decided to look at the rest of the assignments and project. This removed all doubt that to continue was a hopeless waste of time. So, I decided to end the nightmare, and I'm glad it's over! | 1) adult education. (Might not be a | Bad | 1) idea to get the VU English | 1.0 |
| 8UQBnm04EeWyAQ6K5KeLkw | Very very bad communication from the teachers. The 2nd MOOC was supposed to start I think 2.5 months ago, it did not start at the time of this review. They did not even bother to post some announcement to let the students know : ok course starts in x months. Making things worse, you cannot get a refund if you purchased the entire thing. | 1) Very very | Bad | 1) communication from the teachers. The 2nd | 1.0 |
| 8UQBnm04EeWyAQ6K5KeLkw | First time I gave 1 star. Reason, lecturers are terrible. This deserves a report, if there was adequate reporting system on Coursera. I had a feeling like I was watching professors from school for disabled, and not an university. . . Course material is actually decent, but extremely badly presented. Sadly, I enrolled into second course as well, and hoping that one will be better, so I wont have to go through refund hell. | 1) material is actually decent, but extremely | Bad | 1) presented. Sadly, I enrolled into second | 1.0 |
| 8UQBnm04EeWyAQ6K5KeLkw | Now that I have completed the course I'd like to give some feedback on how I think it was. 1. Quizzes are horrible. The fact we get no feedback on incorrect answers is not very helpful. There are only 3 quizzes where I missed just one question but no matter what, I can't get them correct. It would be helpful if there was some explanation why an answer your selected was wrong, a hint or something. Also while some of the quiz answers are obvious from watching the lessons, some are totally not and if someone doesn't have ANY programming experience I think they would find some questions almost impossible to answer. I have a programming background and out of all the quizzes I just missed 1 question on 3 of them, but I've been trying to answer them again, and again, and again and I just can't get them right. If there was feedback after taking a quiz I'm sure it would of helped. For those 3 quizzes, I took them so many times all the other answers are memorized and I just keep trying to get that one right. It's not helpful and then it turns into a "just keep selecting different things until it's right" thing instead of understanding it. 2. The course says it's for beginners to programming but I beg to differ. I think the way the material is presented and how the assignments are laid out I do not think someone(or not many people) would have gotten through that Week two ascii assignment. I thought they assignments in some cases were harder than the lessons. Maybe it's because they way they were explained in the lessons which brings me to #3 3. I do not think the instructors use the best/most clear examples to present the material to students. There are many easier examples to teach about looping than showing an Ascii art example. Because not only does the student have to grasp the concept of loops, then also have to think about ascii print logic. I think to someone with no experience would get pretty lost pretty quickly in this course. Some of the things explained in the lessons I would actually look up other videos of other people explaining it to get a clearer picture. 4. Some material is not consistent. Like in some assignments the text is wrong, for the Account code example, you never really mention the mOut or the interface the class uses which are in the example files and what to do with them when you write the other constructors (The course goes over this later when talking about the constructors and calling a constructor from another constructor but not that early on when you're working with the Account example files 5. It seems this course really isn't fully developed yet and is still going through it's growing pains Overall, I would say there are many other courses that are far better at teaching the basics of Java. For me, since I do have some Java experience and a programming background it wasn't too bad, But I'm thinking of the guy who has never touched a line of code before. I just don't think the course does a good enough job at explaining things to someone like that. I really hope the next courses in the specialization are better organized than this because starting with the next course because the next ones are more important to me than this course was only because of my prior background | 1) a programming background it wasn't too | Bad | 1) But I'm thinking of the guy | 3.0 |
| 8UQBnm04EeWyAQ6K5KeLkw | i gave this course 1 star not because its bad in content, its just because i was expecting more due to the fact it has been delayed several times; then when it finally came it was like any other youtube or online tutorial. i was expecting something as big as udacity but unfortunately its not. Don't expect to know or understand java with this course, no practical or step by step example in this course. what makes it worst is the fact they never show you how to build an app from scratch while the only app they have in this course, they dont do it. you have to do it on your own. dont get me wrong. all of them are good instructors but the way they did it, its definitely is not a beginner friendly. give a calculator as an assignment to build while you never built one app in this course, i think its not an effective way to teach. i will not pay for this specialization. i will do the udacity nanodegree one | 1) course 1 star not because its | Bad | 1) in content, its just because i | 1.0 |
| 93w6xNzBEeSvjyIAC3jXcg | Course content was very good and I'd highly recommend this class. However the course policy of getting other students to grade the assignments results in people with big egos assigning other students arbitrarily bad grades. Maybe this can be fixed on the next iteration. Otherwise, bravo. | 1) big egos assigning other students arbitrarily | Bad | 1) grades. Maybe this can be fixed | 4.0 |
| 94jQ-3EnEeWhZxJhllGpHQ | I gave the first course a very bad review and the second course an ok review. Now I am very impressed about how they are constantly working to improve all aspects of the course. For example: Now you can download the assignments on word (before you had to copy item by item from a pdf) and the test are not so ambiguous as they used to be. I remember, in the past, to continuously have the feeling that questions in test were too open to interpretation and that the right answer will be defined by some random detail, now they are definitely more straight forward. I also happened to have to log-in in the Online University where I got my Master's Degree years ago and saw their interface is still the same 0 user friendly and a very bad feeling of impossible communication so it really helped me appreciate the effort in improving the course. I really appreciate how they are willing to apply agile methodology to the course and with each iteration they make it better! | 1) gave the first course a very | Bad | 1) review and the second course an | 5.0 |
| 94jQ-3EnEeWhZxJhllGpHQ | I gave the first course a very bad review and the second course an ok review. Now I am very impressed about how they are constantly working to improve all aspects of the course. For example: Now you can download the assignments on word (before you had to copy item by item from a pdf) and the test are not so ambiguous as they used to be. I remember, in the past, to continuously have the feeling that questions in test were too open to interpretation and that the right answer will be defined by some random detail, now they are definitely more straight forward. I also happened to have to log-in in the Online University where I got my Master's Degree years ago and saw their interface is still the same 0 user friendly and a very bad feeling of impossible communication so it really helped me appreciate the effort in improving the course. I really appreciate how they are willing to apply agile methodology to the course and with each iteration they make it better! | 2) 0 user friendly and a very | Bad | 2) feeling of impossible communication so it | 5.0 |
| 9a6pC3gcEeWxvQr3acyajw | this was my least favorite of the classes - the lectures ere not informative, and far too lofty. The style class, the plot class and the setting class all had detailed, concrete teachings, whereas these lectures were too airy. Most of them consisted of authors chatting with each other. The assignments required real craft however, and it would have been helpful to LEARN those skills in the modules. For example, one assignment asked us to describe a character in a setting, while they were not actually there - say a divorced nurse in a hospital. Not once in the lectures were we ever taught HOW to do this. We watched a series of author fireside chats, and then people bumbled through the assignment. I really wanted Amy Bloom to just walk over to the board and draw a character and say "this is a woman, she's divorced, she's middle class, she tends to get very angry when things don't go her way" or whatever,and then draw out a list of how her internal states might manifest in the world around her - she throws things, she's disorganized, she writes mean notes in the patient charts. I wanted her to teach. She seems to think we already know how to do things like imply a characters state of mind through action. I mean, for a beginning writer, its helpful to just make a list of details about a character - where they're from, what they like or don't like, what sort of flaws they might have and so on. We did barely any of this. It was assumed we knew the basics of characterization, but most students did not! some of the other students frustration and confusion came out in the peer review, which was a bad sign. | 1) the peer review, which was a | Bad | 1) sign. | 2.0 |
| 9h_j5XEiEeWbbw5cIAKQrw | There were several technical issues (no submission button for peer-reviewed assignment, right answers listed as wrong and vice versa in the clips, etc.). The lecturer also sounded a bit unnatural with pauses in sentences where you wouldn't expect them, making it harder to process information. The course material itself wasn't bad, but the execution just seemed a little unfinished. | 1) information. The course material itself wasn't | Bad | 1) but the execution just seemed a | 2.0 |
| 9p1NWzJzEeWFJhJQP1CW-Q | Unlike the other two lecturers in this course, this module's lecture is very very bad. I always felt like coming back and learning more with the other two lectures but with this one I had to force myself to complete the lessons. First of all his English is bad, sometimes you cant understand what he means even with subtitles. He repeats many things through out the course and he tries to teach by asking questions all the time. As a guy who takes and make his own notes, I found it really difficult to put together a sentence he was saying. It seems that nobody proof read his lectures before posting it on coursera. I feel that it was done blindly and in a rushed way. If possible can you please change the videos and also the script. Please make it more understandable. | 1) this module's lecture is very very | Bad | 1) I always felt like coming back | 2.0 |
| 9p1NWzJzEeWFJhJQP1CW-Q | Unlike the other two lecturers in this course, this module's lecture is very very bad. I always felt like coming back and learning more with the other two lectures but with this one I had to force myself to complete the lessons. First of all his English is bad, sometimes you cant understand what he means even with subtitles. He repeats many things through out the course and he tries to teach by asking questions all the time. As a guy who takes and make his own notes, I found it really difficult to put together a sentence he was saying. It seems that nobody proof read his lectures before posting it on coursera. I feel that it was done blindly and in a rushed way. If possible can you please change the videos and also the script. Please make it more understandable. | 2) First of all his English is | Bad | 2) sometimes you cant understand what he | 2.0 |
| 9suomDeIEeWJaxK5AT4frw | This capstone project is a bad joke and I'm gonna tell you why! First, ESSEC TAs were never available! We had to contact Coursera several times for weeks to get a simple yet not helpful reply from ESSEC. And it was too late for anything, really... Remember, the whole project lasts for 4 weeks only! Second, several documents required for the weekly assignments were missing! It's fair to say we were all free-styling (i.e. making wild assumptions) our ways through the entire capstone due to lack of necessary information. Third (and most importantly). most of the participants didn't have any basic business background whatsoever. Be prepared to get a bad grade from someone who's clueless about hotel business, not to mention revenue or demand management. That really makes you wonder how these people even passed the last three core courses.... Forth, this capstone is great for those who just want to get a certificate for the sake of having a certificate. Did you notice those 4 or 5 star ratings with no written reviews? Yeah, they were probably trying to show their appreciation for the easy certificate. After all, it's easy to walk away with a decent grade when there's no one knows what's going on. ANYTHING GOES! However, if you are a serious learner who wants to actually learn something, run away from this capstone. You will be thanking me later. All in all, a horrible experience and I wish I could get those 4 weeks of my life back! | 1) This capstone project is a | Bad | 1) joke and I'm gonna tell you | 1.0 |
| 9suomDeIEeWJaxK5AT4frw | This capstone project is a bad joke and I'm gonna tell you why! First, ESSEC TAs were never available! We had to contact Coursera several times for weeks to get a simple yet not helpful reply from ESSEC. And it was too late for anything, really... Remember, the whole project lasts for 4 weeks only! Second, several documents required for the weekly assignments were missing! It's fair to say we were all free-styling (i.e. making wild assumptions) our ways through the entire capstone due to lack of necessary information. Third (and most importantly). most of the participants didn't have any basic business background whatsoever. Be prepared to get a bad grade from someone who's clueless about hotel business, not to mention revenue or demand management. That really makes you wonder how these people even passed the last three core courses.... Forth, this capstone is great for those who just want to get a certificate for the sake of having a certificate. Did you notice those 4 or 5 star ratings with no written reviews? Yeah, they were probably trying to show their appreciation for the easy certificate. After all, it's easy to walk away with a decent grade when there's no one knows what's going on. ANYTHING GOES! However, if you are a serious learner who wants to actually learn something, run away from this capstone. You will be thanking me later. All in all, a horrible experience and I wish I could get those 4 weeks of my life back! | 2) whatsoever. Be prepared to get a | Bad | 2) grade from someone who's clueless about | 1.0 |
| 9wSqaVu-EeWPXA4vXFBIfw | The capstone is really good. Too bad it means the end of this specialization... I liked it here. But it is also the beginning of playing more with ROS, simulation tools and real robots. | 1) The capstone is really good. Too | Bad | 1) it means the end of this | 5.0 |
| aaNxjzc9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | This is a course that sounds like a bad audiobook. The prof. reading a the lecture and giving lot of information without any soul or teaching energy to engage. I prefer then read a book about this topic than being here at this course get bored listening at the same tone a reading of a lecture. | 1) a course that sounds like a | Bad | 1) audiobook. The prof. reading a the | 1.0 |
| aaNxjzc9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Before I began this course, I had only a very general knowledge of Buddhist meditation. After going through a number of lessons, I realized I really knew less than I thought. I had only been attracted to the Buddhist world encountered in readings and travels. For many years, it was something that I wanted to know more about. So I appreciate having access to this course. Classification and organization of detailed and complex material is well organized. Great work amassing and presenting knowledge of contemplative practices. I feel there was some repetition or redundancy, but in my case that was not necessarily a bad thing, other than to add to the mass of information being delivered. The repetition helped to stabilize my memory and helped to establish a baseline of concepts from which to build my understanding. I became mired in detail, but absorbed as much as I could in lieu of being able to recall consciously specific pieces of information. I don't want to judge the presenters by suggesting that they tried to put too much information into too little of a space. I found my efforts to absorb the info meditative in nature, thus I welcomed the challenge. The videos of presenters reading texts of detailed and dense info was difficult to follow at times, but I discovered that it helps, in some cases, to download the script of the talks and follow along with the video as I read the script. The focus on history and historical debates and conflicts between shamatha and vipassana practices, etc., within Buddhism were helpful but not as key as the meditation practices. I suppose it is difficult to separate them since they are so entwined. I have learned a lot more than I ever expected when I began this course. I value discussions and sharing among students, but the course is so dense and time consuming that I had no time left to participate in sharing with others. Not to devalue the info itself, which is fantastic. | 1) case that was not necessarily a | Bad | 1) thing, other than to add to | 4.0 |
| aaNxjzc9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | The course was a very comprehensive introduction to Buddhist Meditation: - there were lectures about the different Buddhist meditation traditions - practical trainings on Buddhist meditation - neurological and psychological view on the effects of meditation on the human body and many more topics related to meditation. I found the course was actually overloaded with content: most videos were too long and there were too many videos. Some videos were more like reading a text: the lecturer was most likely reading his own script from a Teleprompter instead of really talking to the audience. The videos were not bad, but I see some room for improvement for most videos of most lecturers. My favourite videos were from Anam Thubten, he was most genuine and convincing to me. All in all it was still an excellent introduction into the topic for me: a big thank you to all people involved, you did a great job!! | 1) the audience. The videos were not | Bad | 1) but I see some room for | 4.0 |
| aaNxjzc9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | (I posted this review in a blog [https://guhyasamajacenter.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/review-of-the-free-coursera-tibetan-buddhist-meditation-and-the-modern-world-lesser-vehicle-course-given-by-uva/]. Much of the courseware was outstanding. Many of the videos were so poorly done (boring) that I couldn't watch them. (I do not watch people read prepared text in a video. Ever.) ----------- From the blog ---------------------------------- I recently took the FREE Coursera course, "Tibetan Buddhist Meditation and the Modern World". (https://www.coursera.org/learn/buddhist-meditation) From the course catalog: " Tibetan Buddhist Meditation and the Modern World explores the immense variety of meditation practices past and present. We present their histories, their philosophical underpinnings, their transformations in the modern global world, and we give you a chance to reflect upon meditation practices through secular contemplations designed just for this course." (Note: In the class overview, it is noted that the term "Lesser Vehicle" is "perjorative" but they use it anyway. ??") There are many FREE reasons to take this FREE "Lesser Vehicle" course (the first of four): #1 - An awesome, wonderful hour-long interview with Sharon Salzberg, one of the founders of the Insight Meditation Society. What an awesome lady. I was not aware that she is also a Dzogchen student. (Did I mention it was FREE?) Worth signing up for the course just to skip to Week 6 to watch this interview. #2 - Guided Meditations by Dr. Anne Klein and Anam Thubten. Very, very, very nice. FREE, it's ALL FREE. #3 - The Science of Mindfulness against the Background of the Scientific Study of Meditation videos with Dr. Clifford Saron, neuroscientist. His videos start in Week 1 and continue through Week 6 in building a basis for understanding the scientific research on meditation. He (and the course) demonstrates what can and cannot (presently) be scientifically proven about meditation. One excellent example: Two trained pianists were told to learn a complicated piece of music, one with the piano, and the other only in his imagination. After 2 weeks (I think) of practice, their brains' MRI patterns exhibited almost the exact same changes. Dr. Saron noted that the results are not definitive but still may have implications for the compassion/bodhicitta meditations we do. #4: An interview on "Buddhist Modernism", with David McMahan. Very much academic-oriented. One statement, in particular, struck me since, the more I think about it, the more I think it might be true: "The Buddhist Tantra teachings are not accepted nor are they popular in the West." For all the Buddhist monastics that visit the USA and the West to grab donations and go back to their home countries, few of them are sticking around to teach complete Tantra classes. The few that do (and do it well) are having a hard time making ends meet. (That's just my opinion, I guess.) There are also short 5-10 minute interviews with Khenpo Tsultrim Lodro (a short "snapshot" of the Tibetan take on the week's particular subject, which was often better (to me) than the 90min-long "talking head" version ) and Ven. Tsoknyi Rinpoche ("How does Buddhism change in a New Culture" and "Benefits and Dangers of Secularing Buddhism", the TB rebuttal, as it were. He did note that motivation is the key. Bad agenda = bad results, good motivation will cause good results.) Have I noted the course is FREE? So you can take the course, and the following courses, without doing any of the assignments/quizzes. Watch (or download) any video or transcript to your heart's content whenever you wish in any order you wish. (That assumes the courses are not taken off-line at a future date.) Further in the course description is a blurb that may point to at least 3 future courses in "Mahāyāna, …Vajrayāna, …and a fourth vehicle, which is explicit in many Tibetan materials, though no standard term ever emerged that was accepted by all sectarian traditions - we will thus term it as the “Natural Vehicle” or “Post Tantra”." If the quality of guided meditations (GM) in following classes are even half the quality of this course's GM's, then that's all the reason I need to continue the future classes, too. Course gotchas: #1. That said (other shoe dropping here), the other half of the course was videos of people reading their prepared academic papers, in monotone or semi-monotone voices. (Transcripts are available. I figure I can read a paper in 5% of the time someone else reads it to me in a video. Ugh.) However, they would probably need the voice of Morgan Freeman, James Earl Jones, B. Cumberbatch or James Spader to keep me awake. To be fair, the content is golden, although the papers seems to be geared to the academic community, rather than the student community. Books and Videos on these subjects are all over Amazon, YouTube, FPMT, Dharma-Documentaries, etc. #2. The Sharon Salzberg (SS), in her interview, brought up an excellent point. She noted that she and a noted clinical psychology (CP) scientist (researcher) (whose name I have forgotten) were at a conference where the issue on the table was that someone was having trouble with "loving kindness" meditation as a first meditation class. SS noted that she would instantly recommend the student change to "calm abiding" meditation whereas the CP could not change that student's meditation technique to another technique (such as calm abiding) as her research findings would then be invalid. Similarly, many of the non-Buddhist guided meditations that I viewed in this course felt like a physical education or "How To" class. Do this. Do that. It did not feel as though they lived the material, just taught it. (Whereas it was patently obvious Dr. Klein & Anam Thubten were definitely "walking the walk", so to speak, so were able to speak from the heart.) Interviews I did not watch, that may be of great interest to others, include meditation in the school system by Tish Jennings, meditation in the Business Community (an interview with David Mick), the Burmese meditation tradition in an interview with Erik Braun, the MBSR (Meditation Based Stress Reduction) with Susan Bauer-Wu, and meditation in the legal community with Rhonda Magee. And all that is just the first course. Many of it's "failings" may just be my karmic opinions. The course is worth checking out and watching/reading/meditating on those parts that interest you. In that respect, the breadth of the course content is quite nice and so well done. Grade: B-. | 1) note that motivation is the key. | Bad | 1) agenda = bad results, good motivation | 3.0 |
| aaNxjzc9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | (I posted this review in a blog [https://guhyasamajacenter.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/review-of-the-free-coursera-tibetan-buddhist-meditation-and-the-modern-world-lesser-vehicle-course-given-by-uva/]. Much of the courseware was outstanding. Many of the videos were so poorly done (boring) that I couldn't watch them. (I do not watch people read prepared text in a video. Ever.) ----------- From the blog ---------------------------------- I recently took the FREE Coursera course, "Tibetan Buddhist Meditation and the Modern World". (https://www.coursera.org/learn/buddhist-meditation) From the course catalog: " Tibetan Buddhist Meditation and the Modern World explores the immense variety of meditation practices past and present. We present their histories, their philosophical underpinnings, their transformations in the modern global world, and we give you a chance to reflect upon meditation practices through secular contemplations designed just for this course." (Note: In the class overview, it is noted that the term "Lesser Vehicle" is "perjorative" but they use it anyway. ??") There are many FREE reasons to take this FREE "Lesser Vehicle" course (the first of four): #1 - An awesome, wonderful hour-long interview with Sharon Salzberg, one of the founders of the Insight Meditation Society. What an awesome lady. I was not aware that she is also a Dzogchen student. (Did I mention it was FREE?) Worth signing up for the course just to skip to Week 6 to watch this interview. #2 - Guided Meditations by Dr. Anne Klein and Anam Thubten. Very, very, very nice. FREE, it's ALL FREE. #3 - The Science of Mindfulness against the Background of the Scientific Study of Meditation videos with Dr. Clifford Saron, neuroscientist. His videos start in Week 1 and continue through Week 6 in building a basis for understanding the scientific research on meditation. He (and the course) demonstrates what can and cannot (presently) be scientifically proven about meditation. One excellent example: Two trained pianists were told to learn a complicated piece of music, one with the piano, and the other only in his imagination. After 2 weeks (I think) of practice, their brains' MRI patterns exhibited almost the exact same changes. Dr. Saron noted that the results are not definitive but still may have implications for the compassion/bodhicitta meditations we do. #4: An interview on "Buddhist Modernism", with David McMahan. Very much academic-oriented. One statement, in particular, struck me since, the more I think about it, the more I think it might be true: "The Buddhist Tantra teachings are not accepted nor are they popular in the West." For all the Buddhist monastics that visit the USA and the West to grab donations and go back to their home countries, few of them are sticking around to teach complete Tantra classes. The few that do (and do it well) are having a hard time making ends meet. (That's just my opinion, I guess.) There are also short 5-10 minute interviews with Khenpo Tsultrim Lodro (a short "snapshot" of the Tibetan take on the week's particular subject, which was often better (to me) than the 90min-long "talking head" version ) and Ven. Tsoknyi Rinpoche ("How does Buddhism change in a New Culture" and "Benefits and Dangers of Secularing Buddhism", the TB rebuttal, as it were. He did note that motivation is the key. Bad agenda = bad results, good motivation will cause good results.) Have I noted the course is FREE? So you can take the course, and the following courses, without doing any of the assignments/quizzes. Watch (or download) any video or transcript to your heart's content whenever you wish in any order you wish. (That assumes the courses are not taken off-line at a future date.) Further in the course description is a blurb that may point to at least 3 future courses in "Mahāyāna, …Vajrayāna, …and a fourth vehicle, which is explicit in many Tibetan materials, though no standard term ever emerged that was accepted by all sectarian traditions - we will thus term it as the “Natural Vehicle” or “Post Tantra”." If the quality of guided meditations (GM) in following classes are even half the quality of this course's GM's, then that's all the reason I need to continue the future classes, too. Course gotchas: #1. That said (other shoe dropping here), the other half of the course was videos of people reading their prepared academic papers, in monotone or semi-monotone voices. (Transcripts are available. I figure I can read a paper in 5% of the time someone else reads it to me in a video. Ugh.) However, they would probably need the voice of Morgan Freeman, James Earl Jones, B. Cumberbatch or James Spader to keep me awake. To be fair, the content is golden, although the papers seems to be geared to the academic community, rather than the student community. Books and Videos on these subjects are all over Amazon, YouTube, FPMT, Dharma-Documentaries, etc. #2. The Sharon Salzberg (SS), in her interview, brought up an excellent point. She noted that she and a noted clinical psychology (CP) scientist (researcher) (whose name I have forgotten) were at a conference where the issue on the table was that someone was having trouble with "loving kindness" meditation as a first meditation class. SS noted that she would instantly recommend the student change to "calm abiding" meditation whereas the CP could not change that student's meditation technique to another technique (such as calm abiding) as her research findings would then be invalid. Similarly, many of the non-Buddhist guided meditations that I viewed in this course felt like a physical education or "How To" class. Do this. Do that. It did not feel as though they lived the material, just taught it. (Whereas it was patently obvious Dr. Klein & Anam Thubten were definitely "walking the walk", so to speak, so were able to speak from the heart.) Interviews I did not watch, that may be of great interest to others, include meditation in the school system by Tish Jennings, meditation in the Business Community (an interview with David Mick), the Burmese meditation tradition in an interview with Erik Braun, the MBSR (Meditation Based Stress Reduction) with Susan Bauer-Wu, and meditation in the legal community with Rhonda Magee. And all that is just the first course. Many of it's "failings" may just be my karmic opinions. The course is worth checking out and watching/reading/meditating on those parts that interest you. In that respect, the breadth of the course content is quite nice and so well done. Grade: B-. | 2) is the key. Bad agenda = | Bad | 2) results, good motivation will cause good | 3.0 |
| aaNxjzc9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | I enjoyed and benefitted from some of this course. In particular I would highly recommend the Meditation Labs, the Science of Meditation videos and the short presentations from the Tibetan Buddhist monks . But I think the creators of this course need to be a lot clearer about what their aims are in that part of the course which Dr Germano presented. Since this was he was presenting the main overview of Buddhist content it was particularly disappointing that his presentations were so bad. I understand that there were difficulties in getting the course up and running from the various delays in its starting date and the change to its title and perhaps Dr Germano's role was more affected than the other lecturers. However it's pretty damning when he manages to to be so off-putting to so many of the students, going on the discussion comments. For my own part, I've studied and practiced Buddhism for more than 30 years and I am left with little sense of what his aims were for his lectures. To be more specific Dr Germano's Presentation: -he read from what I presume were lecture notes but more likely he was reading from an academic paper. the language was pretty turgid. -he could have just provided a PDF of his paper / notes for us to download. That would have been much more helpful as presumably it would have had some structure to it. doing that would have enabled him to use his video time in a more creative way. -MOOCs are wonderful audio-visual opportunities but he had no slides or illustrations at all. The few text headers which appeared then disappeared in only a very few seconds and sometimes did not relate directly to what he was saying at that time. Dr Germano's content: the amended title was Tibetan Buddhist Meditation. This is a complex subject which encompasses many layers of meditation practice culled from historically earlier Buddhist traditions. Can I suggest that any future version of this course includes the following: -include a video which presents the main aspects of the historical development of Buddhism. There was some mention of this in Germano's material but he did it from the Tibetan point of view. Surely what a modern day presentation needs is a modern impartial historical analysis of the subject. It's not as if there aren't plenty of academics and practitioners who are active in this field. -it's confusing to describe Tibetan Lesser Vehicle practices but then illustrate them with Pali text sources, modern Mindfulness practice, and modern Brahma Vihara practice all of which have emerged from the modern Theravadin tradition. -it's also perplexing to include information about many modern Theravadin teachers (Sayadaw, Goenka) in a course apparently not about them. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the videos about Sayadaw and the interview with Sharon Saltzberg, but I am left in the dark about just what differences, if any, there are between them and Tibetan meditation. Overall I think this course was offered prematurely. Much of its content was enthralling, inspiring and very useful practically. However much of it was not. | 1) disappointing that his presentations were so | Bad | 1) I understand that there were difficulties | 2.0 |
| aaNxjzc9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | This was the first MOOC I ever signed for and I wasn't disappointed. Far more complex, detailed and demanding than I had expected.... which suited me perfectly. Although brilliantly researched and scripted, Professor Germano's detailed input is spoiled by his unecessarily academic style. I found that his tendency to accumulate endless lists of adjectives had an unfortunate hypnotic effect. I very much like the material presented by Kurtis Schaeffer, especially his contribution on the development of Buddhism in the US. His interviews were well-conducted and his remarks always to the point. Interesting - and again complex material from Clifford Saron who managed to caputre the attention of my rather non-scientific brain. Very well presented material and a pleasure to listen to him. The input from the Tibetan participants was more accessible to non-specialists, straight to the point and very refreshing. The work done by the meditators was brilliant and probably what I had been looking for when I registered for the course. I feel that I now know just enough to pursue the practices on my own. It all feels very new, a little bit scary, quite exhilarating and luminous. Some of the interviews were more interesting than others but they all contributed to broaden the scope of the course. I only give 4/5 to the MOOC because of the poor quality of the subtitles. Not being a native speaker and not used to hear American English, I had to rely on them. They were so bad that, at times, what was written was exactly the contrary to what was being said. Hardly any proper names or foreign words were spelt correctly either. Beware ! The course has introduced me to a new world and I will definitely pursue my new-born interest in Tibetan Buddhist Meditation. I will also sign up for more MOOCs in the future. Overall an extremely positive experience indeed. I am looking forward to seing you again for the 'Greater Vehicle'. | 1) rely on them. They were so | Bad | 1) that, at times, what was written | 4.0 |
| aaNxjzc9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Badly taught | 1) | Bad | 1) taught | 1.0 |
| aAo9tS8NEeWv_w7cMMH1Uw | The lecturer's style doesn't go with the nature of a MOOC. By using his book as the notes for lectures, he doesn't give himself a chance to prioritize content so it's kept clear in the exposition. His favorite word is uh-um. In a classroom (face-to-face) situation, the lecturer is likely to see and react to listeners' look of confusion; in a studio he is just talking to himself. He repeats points -- this can be good if done smoothly but it's very confusing when the lecturer is inarticulate, like the present case. It's really too bad because he clearly has a lot of knowledge that could be used to popularize thinking about the unwritten constitution. | 1) the present case. It's really too | Bad | 1) because he clearly has a lot | 3.0 |
| afay6xVFEeWfzgpfp_iBVw | I was quite disappointed by this course, after several delays the course stated months later than originally planned. The videos are badly edited, and there did not seem to be a lot of content within this course. | 1) than originally planned. The videos are | Bad | 1) edited, and there did not seem | 2.0 |
| afDgOoSTEeSA1yIAC1EHSw | Good content but the Chinese translation is bad, which makes quiz quite obscure in meaning | 1) content but the Chinese translation is | Bad | 1) which makes quiz quite obscure in | 4.0 |
| AMBr8zelEeWJaxK5AT4frw | Bad content and instructor. no logistic in place. if you are planning to pay to get certificate. I would suggest look else where. my $279 are stuck in here and they don't reply to forum posts. | 1) | Bad | 1) content and instructor. no logistic in | 1.0 |
| AMBr8zelEeWJaxK5AT4frw | This course had too much content in one-run and some of the topic-assignments had too much confusing questions and answers which were hard to figure out made this course a bit a bad experience. The same goes for the end-assignment project where much functionality was required within a short time -- and the course was delayed so many of the students could not fit it into their schedule. | 1) made this course a bit a | Bad | 1) experience. The same goes for the | 2.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | I love the way this course let you embrace the basics notions of philosophy. The only bad thing it's that I haven't found a course like this (That talks of philosophy) in this site, so I think Coursera need more of this courses. | 1) basics notions of philosophy. The only | Bad | 1) thing it's that I haven't found | 5.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | The course is great. The informatiion is objective, easy to process and good, the only bad thing about this course is that even though it has spanish subtitles all the test are in english which makes them way to hard to resolve. If you give the option of spanish subtitles on an english curse at least translate the test too. | 1) to process and good, the only | Bad | 1) thing about this course is that | 4.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | Very good teaching strategy. Takes you through ideas and gives you examples. Has a couple of questions each video to keep your attention. It is a very interesting subject, even if the teaching was bad, but the lectures add even more by taking their time with concepts. Keep doing what you're doing. I would take other courses by this school if they were similarly designed. Thank you. | 1) subject, even if the teaching was | Bad | 1) but the lectures add even more | 5.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | Is for me the greatest course of philosophy I ever had, specially because of a really bad "teacher" that I just don't know how can he be teaching, but well, had been my first experience with a MOOC and couldn't be better I suppose. Greetings! | 1) had, specially because of a really | Bad | 1) " teacher" that I just don't | 5.0 |
| a_xPWXNVEeWxvQr3acyajw | Very badly organized course. Poorly explained theory. The book is full of typos and it seems like nothing but copy-and-paste from the slides. The course project is even worst | 1) Very | Bad | 1) organized course. Poorly explained theory. The | 1.0 |
| BK2bam0iEeW9CAqYJHF3zQ | Not bad. If you have solid English foundation, you should find more senior course. | 1) Not | Bad | 1) If you have solid English foundation, | 4.0 |
| BK2bam0iEeW9CAqYJHF3zQ | I mean I cannot do the assignment without the certification process. It is a bad point ㅠㅠ | 1) the certification process. It is a | Bad | 1) point ㅠㅠ | 4.0 |
| Bq5Eo50bEeW_wArffOXkOw | The Worst Course EVER on Coursera: It is important to realize at the outset that I am a very avid learner and always give everything a chance to be completely tried out before giving a judgement, and unfortunately, this course is by far, the only bad course I've encountered on Coursera for the following reasons: 1- The professor wastes a whole week's module on explaining something trivial like the interest rate and compound interest rate without naming the necessary terminology that is commonly used. 2- To make things worse, he has a condescending perspective on students and wastes so much time glorifying himself in an upsetting manner that patronizes learners. 3- His demeanour is unprofessional and quite disturbing when he gives mentions at the end of the week that 'I can feel you. I can feel each one of you now' to the degree that even the camera-person filming him cuts his nonsense out. 4- After putting up with all his boring nonsense that I already know, despite being a linguist not a finance person, I gave him a chance and started doing his first 10-question Quiz, which was completely isolated from reality and unrelated to his course material or teaching. 5- All questions were boring and calculation-intensive, and I still gave him and a chance and went through the whole boring set of 10 questions just to tell me that it needs upgrading for such a banal and facile course. Now, I have an idea about the level of Teaching at Michigan University and I will recommend all my friends not to attend such a university due to the previously-mentioned reasons. A complete waste of space. | 1) course is by far, the only | Bad | 1) course I've encountered on Coursera for | 1.0 |
| bV6GUWEbEeSceSIACy-PDA | Nice course. It has touched week every topic, but the quizzes are badly done. | 1) every topic, but the quizzes are | Bad | 1) done. | 4.0 |
| bzhAuJ9sEeWJORITtzkPnQ | The course is a wonderful But the idea of a peer and the final assignment a very bad You need to wait ... for several days and a waste of your time in order to be assessed by other people These people may be incompetent and give you a zero for no reason And lost your effort and your time | 1) and the final assignment a very | Bad | 1) You need to wait . . | 1.0 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | The teacher of this course talks toooo fast ! I`m for example a french educated student, so I prefer to take courses with a teacher who talks in a comprehensive way in which I can understand everything he says in order to proceed in my work and then to benefit everything in this course. Concerning the quiz, in the all of the quiz there is questions not related to what already said from the teacher or in the articles required to read. I red the articles coupes of time but in a specific questions, the answers, it seems, that we should answer from our own memory because badly it`s not mentioned in any article or in the video of the teacher. Thanks | 1) answer from our own memory because | Bad | 1) it`s not mentioned in any article | 3.0 |
| CEwR00UZEeWb8RJf7Z1H0w | The peer review is a bad bad idea. | 1) The peer review is a | Bad | 1) bad idea. | 1.0 |
| CEwR00UZEeWb8RJf7Z1H0w | The peer review is a bad bad idea. | 2) The peer review is a bad | Bad | 2) idea. | 1.0 |
| ClCx1sbdEeShXyIAC5MC2w | not bad | 1) not | Bad | 1) | 3.0 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Very fundamental class. Not bad | 1) Very fundamental class. Not | Bad | 1) | 4.0 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | very very very very very bad | 1) very very very very very | Bad | 1) | 1.0 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | There's some room for improvement, that's for sure. The last video was really bad, not because of the content, but because the Professor was very sloppy in her speaking. I also think there should be more practice exercises and a better way to know if the answers were correct. But overall, was very happy with it. | 1) sure. The last video was really | Bad | 1) not because of the content, but | 4.0 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | I enrolled in this course to fine tune my writing skills for work. I enjoyed this course because I was able to unlearn some bad habits and simple mistakes. The lessons are simple and move at an even pace. If you are a native English Speaker, some of the lessons will be easy for you. In my personal opinion, this course was a great refresher. | 1) I was able to unlearn some | Bad | 1) habits and simple mistakes. The lessons | 5.0 |
| c_rkuRoBEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | bad explanations, nothing you can do at exams without researching from external sources. | 1) | Bad | 1) explanations, nothing you can do at | 2.0 |
| c_rkuRoBEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | This course was okay at best. The last two weeks focused too much on image functions and making. While I get that this can be a 'fun and practical' example, it became stale and annoying. It was more stressful than anything else. I really hope the future classes in the Specialization aren't designed in the same way. Variety is not a bad thing. | 1) same way. Variety is not a | Bad | 1) thing. | 3.0 |
| c_rkuRoBEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | bad | 1) | Bad | 1) | 1.0 |
| d086Bc9YEeSS_CIACzcAUg | not bad but not excellent | 1) not | Bad | 1) but not excellent | 3.0 |
| D5GKj_UHEeSBSSIAC7JSBQ | Opened my eyes a lot regarding the welfare of all kinds of animals and their situations. Really sad course content, but needed to show the severity of how bad it can be for an animal, and the ways being used to stop and protect them. | 1) to show the severity of how | Bad | 1) it can be for an animal, | 5.0 |
| d64E7li7EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | Very enjoyable course. A big thank to all the teachers! Especially the humorous and charming Dr Dixon. I never thought American teachers could be so humorous as I have some bad experience with an American teacher when I was young. When I started my Form 1 secondary education at the age of 13, an American male teacher marched into our classroom and ordered us to have an English name each. He said that our Chinese names sounded silly to him and they were difficult to pronoun. I said to him as I came from a village and my mother was illiterate, could he recommend a name. He said that he didn't care, i could call myself Barbara, Mary, anything I like. I felt so insulted and that put me off from learning English for a long time. I guess he was using Direct approach at that time because he did not speak Chinese, and none of the students understood English then. We did not understand what he said throughout the whole year. I am proud of the name my father gave me and I still only use my Chinese name. | 1) so humorous as I have some | Bad | 1) experience with an American teacher when | 5.0 |
| d64E7li7EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | Excellent Course! It taught me that I can take good things from the "bad" methodologies from the past. | 1) take good things from the " | Bad | 1) methodologies from the past. | 4.0 |
| dPkbnh6zEeWP0w4yK2369w | iTS Okay. a few things seem a bit hokey. the interviews etc. But overall, not too bad. Good learning points. But will I pay for this. NO. Mainly b/c its hard to translate it in to a tangible value. No employer will say, OH, you took this class. Let me give you a job or promotion or more money... | 1) interviews etc. But overall, not too | Bad | 1) Good learning points. But will I | 4.0 |
| d_71NKdPEeSOWCIAC2iDyw | A fresh perspective to see the relation between wars and our societies. The notion that wars are always bad and to be avoided is challenged, and seemingly controversial idea of wars bringing benefit to the societies (at a cost) is discussed, quite convincingly. | 1) The notion that wars are always | Bad | 1) and to be avoided is challenged, | 4.0 |
| e4SzF9c1EeS-LCIAC3icWw | Great short course. Like the main points brought up. Would have been great to have some real case studies of negotiations that went well and badly to learn from. Even a reading of cases hre would have set the whole thing in context. | 1) of negotiations that went well and | Bad | 1) to learn from. Even a reading | 5.0 |
| e4SzF9c1EeS-LCIAC3icWw | Very bad course. The content can barely be applied outside US, you don't know from which perspective it's explained (for sales or purchasing people), the videos are bad quality, the teacher is babbling, no extra resources, no interaction with the audience outside the assessments. | 1) Very | Bad | 1) course. The content can barely be | 1.0 |
| e4SzF9c1EeS-LCIAC3icWw | Very bad course. The content can barely be applied outside US, you don't know from which perspective it's explained (for sales or purchasing people), the videos are bad quality, the teacher is babbling, no extra resources, no interaction with the audience outside the assessments. | 2) or purchasing people), the videos are | Bad | 2) quality, the teacher is babbling, no | 1.0 |
| EA0hyTUGEeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Only one assignment at the end, so you go through 3 weeks before being asked to code (this seems like a big mistake for any programming course). The final assignment gives you a largely complete project and just asks you to make a few changes. You can't put that as a project on a resume, because you're doing 5% of the work with your hand held through it. Worst of all, the code given to you does not adhere to JavaScript best practices, like local variables not being declared (so that they become global variables, a big no-no), spacing being all over the place, etc. JavaScript has a bad reputation, and sloppy teaching with respect to best practices is very bad. | 1) the place, etc. JavaScript has a | Bad | 1) reputation, and sloppy teaching with respect | 2.0 |
| EA0hyTUGEeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Only one assignment at the end, so you go through 3 weeks before being asked to code (this seems like a big mistake for any programming course). The final assignment gives you a largely complete project and just asks you to make a few changes. You can't put that as a project on a resume, because you're doing 5% of the work with your hand held through it. Worst of all, the code given to you does not adhere to JavaScript best practices, like local variables not being declared (so that they become global variables, a big no-no), spacing being all over the place, etc. JavaScript has a bad reputation, and sloppy teaching with respect to best practices is very bad. | 2) respect to best practices is very | Bad | 2) | 2.0 |
| EfvjN5XvEeSqQiIACyEY7w | I learned too much and got many new ideas that wil apply though I did not buy the certificate. Thank you very much. Translation to spanish was very bad, it's something that need to be improved | 1) much. Translation to spanish was very | Bad | 1) it's something that need to be | 5.0 |
| eL9HZ2ItEeWpHwqwM9Gg0w | Very bad course. No videos, just an interactive textbook. The course states all you need is "high school level biology" yet you require coding knowledge for the very first quiz. there are side questions on the first week like does this algorithm runs in O(k * l * x^2) or O(xllogk) without ANY explanation. I guess you can find much much better book about bioinformatics, and as this course is nothing more then a book i recommend a better one. | 1) Very | Bad | 1) course. No videos, just an interactive | 1.0 |
| ENhHCTboEeW8ZAoCexam_w | The material itself isn't bad, but the course instructors never respond to questions. What's the point of the class if I can't get my questions answered? | 1) The material itself isn't | Bad | 1) but the course instructors never respond | 1.0 |
| eUhVWo2iEeWJIAqFKsey7w | bad useless garbage,this is the most bad online course i've take,just waste time | 1) | Bad | 1) useless garbage, this is the most | 1.0 |
| eUhVWo2iEeWJIAqFKsey7w | bad useless garbage,this is the most bad online course i've take,just waste time | 2) useless garbage, this is the most | Bad | 2) online course i've take, just waste | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | An ok introduction to Swift Programming, but I can see people who do not have previous development experience struggling with this course. Also lecturers were virtually nonexistent on the forums to help with questions which is disappointing since it is a paid course which implies you are paying for their time and effort not just the certificate. Best advice for people taking this course is to get through the material as early as possible and give yourself as much time as possible to work on the project, don't wait till the last week to work on it. Would also suggest the following changes to improve the course and help people understand the material better: 1. Have a programming exercise to complete at the end of every week to prove you have understood the material taught, a quiz alone with 10 or less questions is not enough. The course ramps up way to quickly with the project if all you have been doing is following the videos, students should be practicing and proving they know the work far more often. 2. Provide a clearer project brief since it was clear many people did not understand all the requirements. 3. Provide a video of what the final project should do in general to make it even clearer. Overall I didn't have a bad experience with the course, just disappointed that it was really bear bones, there were too few opportunities to prove your understanding, it was poorly managed and the lack of interaction from the lecturers a massive problem when they are being paid to help out, not just provide videos and forget about the students. | 1) clearer. Overall I didn't have a | Bad | 1) experience with the course, just disappointed | 3.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Not bad. | 1) Not | Bad | 1) | 5.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | The course was not prepared at all, badly improvised and with no structure. I wish I could have my money back. | 1) course was not prepared at all, | Bad | 1) improvised and with no structure. I | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Although Parham Aarabi is listed as the professor throughout this specialization, it's a bit of a bait-and-switch. Prof Aarabi is an award-winning professor at U of Toronto, but it turns out he knows little about iOS and has Jack Wu teach most of the material. Jack Wu is probably a heck of a developer but he's a terrible instructor. I previously took the Android Specialization, which was excellent, so I was shocked at how bad this course was. | 1) so I was shocked at how | Bad | 1) this course was. | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Bad content and instructor. no logistic in place. if you are planning to pay to get certificate. I would suggest look else where. my $279 are stuck in here and they don't reply to forum posts. | 1) | Bad | 1) content and instructor. no logistic in | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Very bad course. | 1) Very | Bad | 1) course. | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Thank you for this course. It was interesting and helpful. Before. But I failed. I got bad mark and I don't know why. I have only one good comment. But I have 3 bad marks and only 2 good. I am a looser, i guess. So I hate this course, this website, this review system and this world. Thank you again. | 1) Before. But I failed. I got | Bad | 1) mark and I don't know why. | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Thank you for this course. It was interesting and helpful. Before. But I failed. I got bad mark and I don't know why. I have only one good comment. But I have 3 bad marks and only 2 good. I am a looser, i guess. So I hate this course, this website, this review system and this world. Thank you again. | 2) good comment. But I have 3 | Bad | 2) marks and only 2 good. I | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | The Good: The idea of having the lectures in a Q&A style, two experts in continuous conversation about the topic has a potential The Bad: That potential is wasted on poorly planned lessons and course content The Ugly: Instructors run the Swift code that is written during the lesson and they get a wrong result due to an error in the code. They both agree that the result is weird but then continue to explain that this is how Swift works. In short, they are misleading and confusing you on a topic you are trying to learn. This is of course unintentional but gives you a clue about how the quality check on lecture videos are taken care of. Details here: https://www.coursera.org/learn/swift-programming/discussions/DBk-SJO2EeWNbBIwwhtGwQ | 1) the topic has a potential The | Bad | 1) That potential is wasted on poorly | 2.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Bad Lecturers and instructions. | 1) | Bad | 1) Lecturers and instructions. | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | I'm dropping this course because it's just SO poorly conceived. Three weeks in, and I can't really articulate what I've actually learned (which leads me to believe that the answer is "not very much"). The major problem is that this course has no clear objective. And I don't mean that the individual lessons don't have objectives - I actually mean that the entire course doesn't know what it wants to be and the instructors seem to have bypassed this critical question. I have a background in Python, and I was under the impression that this course would teach me how to program in Swift (seems like a fairly straightforward goal). But it isn't that at all. If I were to summarize this course (perhaps a little uncharitably, because I'm annoyed at the time I wasted) it would be: some dudes with a computer talk about some cool features of a programming language. I'm fairly baffled by the fact that there was no thought put into which examples might best illustrate the features they were trying to teach. Which-examples-might-best-illustrate-the-feature-I-am-trying-to-teach is pedagogy 101. They would regularly work through examples just to conclude "actually that's a bad example". This is pretty strong evidence that there was no lesson planning involved. There were also no practice exercises, no posting of pieces of illustrative code, and hence, no way to actually get good at programming in Swift (unless it's self directed, in which case - why bother with the formality of taking a course on Coursera?). | 1) to conclude " actually that's a | Bad | 1) example" . This is pretty strong | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Unfortunately the course is not very well thought out. The lecture videos are poorly organized, concepts are not presented in the proper context and lack sufficient detail/depth, little thought or effort was put into designing the examples in the videos, there are no actual coding exercises until the last week, there are no examples of elegant code, nor thoughtful examples of good vs. bad code, the quizzes contain questions that are poorly worded and ambiguous (and I think some actually have the wrong answers and are contradicted by other online resources). It's very high level, and they hand-wave important concepts. I really don't see how this class can actually teach you to build a robust high-quality app. You're probably better off just reading some of the official documentation online. | 1) nor thoughtful examples of good vs. | Bad | 1) code, the quizzes contain questions that | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Not the worst, but I did not think this was a well developed course. It felt like an informal conversation between the instructors with one of them repeatedly calling different aspects of Swift "cool". It was very distracting. I also thought the tests were vaguely worded and the final assignment was long and definitely more than the 30 minutes it said it would take to complete it. I am all for difficult challenges, but it felt like the final project was badly designed/described. Un-enrolling. | 1) felt like the final project was | Bad | 1) designed/described. Un-enrolling. | 2.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | No stars for this course, 3 modules I did, and I think is not a valuable course, gives a bad introduction to the language, there are inconsistencies in the theory and knowledge of the language. The preparation of the course is poor, there is no direction, a lot of errors using playground and the instructors hesitate and doubt all the time during the recording of the screen. That's not good point for the prestigious University of Toronto and Coursera. One star for the review is too much, no preparation, lack of security, bad quality. | 1) not a valuable course, gives a | Bad | 1) introduction to the language, there are | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | No stars for this course, 3 modules I did, and I think is not a valuable course, gives a bad introduction to the language, there are inconsistencies in the theory and knowledge of the language. The preparation of the course is poor, there is no direction, a lot of errors using playground and the instructors hesitate and doubt all the time during the recording of the screen. That's not good point for the prestigious University of Toronto and Coursera. One star for the review is too much, no preparation, lack of security, bad quality. | 2) much, no preparation, lack of security, | Bad | 2) quality. | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Somewhat useful, but suffers from what seems to be bad planning and a general lack of focus. | 1) suffers from what seems to be | Bad | 1) planning and a general lack of | 3.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Bad audio quality Poor presentation Not for professional developers (perhaps can be fine for beginners) | 1) | Bad | 1) audio quality Poor presentation Not for | 1.0 |
| eXbmvDe9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | An unexpectedly disappointing, and in fact, downright awful course. The lectures waste a good share of time as in places they barely scratch the surface of what is further required to be implemented in the assignments. The assignments themselves inherit the nice modular spec-test driven spirit of the first two classes. However, the instructions are mostly quite vague or even misleading, occasionally dropping some “hints”, which are often either not helpful, or just offer to copy-paste a quarter page of code. The tasks are very (and by “very" I mean EXTREMELY) long, tedious, boring to tears and to the point when you start to wonder if the authors are trolling the students. How about a 53 (yes, that is fifty three!) pages of assignment for the 3d week? To be fair, not all of this is the task statement, there is a lot of test code as well, but you know.. even one third of 53 is an impressive volume for a 4 weeks course (you get re-enrolled if you fail to be fair). Took me 44 hours of pure coding time (according to WakaTime) to finish the course. I have passed tens of courses on Coursera, and this one is by far the worst. That is taking into consideration that I would not rather call any other course (of those I have taken) “a bad one”. I suggest saving time and money by buying a book on Mongo and another one on Rails instead. I do believe though that the course is very green and certainly has to undergo some refinements and I will be happy to see future reviews shadow this one as obsolete. | 1) (of those I have taken) “a | Bad | 1) one”. I suggest saving time and | 2.0 |
| FDKAdNsuEeSEcyIAC2mPOQ | Great introductory course. There are bad audio and editing misses, but as a course itself was fun and interesting. | 1) Great introductory course. There are | Bad | 1) audio and editing misses, but as | 4.0 |
| FDKAdNsuEeSEcyIAC2mPOQ | It was an interesting course. General marketing concepts were discussed, marketing mix, many examples and many essays. Unfortunately, I can not say in which areas the course was bad) This may limit development within the allotted time? :) Thank you for the great class! | 1) in which areas the course was | Bad | 1) This may limit development within the | 5.0 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | Course content was pretty detailed. I did not like that I had to write down pretty much every single word from each slide and that was said in order to make sure I could answer the quiz questions. Either the quiz questions were bad or it was taught in a confusing manner. I would go with the former. | 1) questions. Either the quiz questions were | Bad | 1) or it was taught in a | 3.0 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | Great for the begginers and the curious! Sorry for the bad english | 1) and the curious! Sorry for the | Bad | 1) english | 5.0 |
| fjjF0gVfEeW0KyIACxqWIg | Very full content of this course , the teacher does very well . Too bad it does not have subtitles in Spanish , it would be perfect if I had . | 1) teacher does very well . Too | Bad | 1) it does not have subtitles in | 5.0 |
| fM5baJoUEeW93wo8Ha4kow | This is an excellent course! Too bad it doesn't provide the Statement of Accomplishment. | 1) This is an excellent course! Too | Bad | 1) it doesn't provide the Statement of | 5.0 |
| fTnuinwaEeS7SCIACxCljA | Although this course holds quite a lot of information, it is quite slow in the way the information is transmitted and unfortunately, the presenter did not 'made homework' in terms of preparing what to say. In addition to the lagging of 'so, anyways, uhmm...' or just silence, many of the videos are also quite low in quality - especially sound due to bad microphone. Overall the information was interesting and useful, and I'm looking for Part II. | 1) quality - especially sound due to | Bad | 1) microphone. Overall the information was interesting | 2.0 |
| fTnuinwaEeS7SCIACxCljA | GOOD: topics BAD: presentation (poor sound, unprepared and unrehearsed presentations, long intro's, unjustified use of greenscrenns, etc) shallow with regards to the theoretical aspects of what it is presented assignments are mechanical (easier than the tutorial and you have to perform the same tasks for different constants for several times) | 1) GOOD: topics | Bad | 1) presentation (poor sound, unprepared and unrehearsed | 1.0 |
| fZN4SVfiEeWsGQ6fKrurvQ | The content is interesting but the professor is bad at lecturing (lack of structure, some rambling). | 1) is interesting but the professor is | Bad | 1) at lecturing (lack of structure, some | 3.0 |
| gbs1RbnKEeW-xg611XxSbw | Though familiar with the material, the lectures made several very nice key points about the Philosophy of Science which I found useful. However there are a few issues : -a lot of the lecturing is on a board which is hard to read -there is a lot more science than there is Philosophy The latter isn't necessarily a bad thing, but based on the title I expected more of the latter. | 1) Philosophy The latter isn't necessarily a | Bad | 1) thing, but based on the title | 3.0 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | The content of the course looked promising. But then I took a first look: the instructor is reading formulas from a slide. This is missing the whole point of a online class. There is no motivation for the formulars, no context why they are important. And from a learning point of view the course is very hard to follow. No real advantage compared to reading a book on that matter. I just took the "Economics of Money and Banking course", which is one of the best courses I ever attended (personally in class or online). There are other great courses on Coursera. And for easy introduction to some of the concepts Khan University courses are unmatched in accessability. Too bad that this course doesn't match up to the above examples. The topics would deserve that they are presented in a way that they can be understood by a wide audience. | 1) courses are unmatched in accessability. Too | Bad | 1) that this course doesn't match up | 1.0 |
| gh5rVEd3EeW2ZBIIl17oPw | GOOD place to start THe arduino intro is good but little short on c but its only 4 weeks not enough for me to grasp right off the bat anyway so i back off to next session then catch up more C then finish its only a couple short c videos then your asked to write programs with little or no knowledge basicly 3- 7 min lectures on the language EASY TO BE KINDA LOST AT FIRST IM 60 yrs old not twenty !!! From what im reading online LIBRARIES ARE TOTALLY LIMITED ON ARDUINOS IDE nd ITS NOT REALLY C its ARDUINO C because a lot of the workings of the arduino ide are easier for new people alot of the inner workings are hidden tough to learn the inner workings unlike a full featured IDE GOOD Platform to start on AFTER BASICS HERE with tidbits Id rather go later to C++ and spend the time there then get on better platform ARM PIC boards with real ides and REAL C + something you can use in the real world for bigger programs and I can see staying here at arduino too long and not going on to other platforms could cause bad programing habits to start with writing limited code just seems more productive after you get your electronics down coding and some hardwhare experience to go right to the real deal Pic arm or any of the other boards with a MUCH steeper learning curve GREAT to Figure out and learn electronics get some hardwhare experience here of course on ARDUINO and from what im seeing from some pros Even if there on more advanced platforms that run bigger faster programs dont have the bootloader many pros use arduino for a first layout to test circuits here first GOOD COURSE gets you DIGGING AND THINKING This is where to start you certainly cant start on advanced platforms right off its really almost impossible without a lot more skill to obtain first | 1) on to other platforms could cause | Bad | 1) programing habits to start with writing | 5.0 |
| gh5rVEd3EeW2ZBIIl17oPw | Not a bad introduction, but if you already know a bit about programming you can get the same basics and learn more quickly with a book. | 1) Not a | Bad | 1) introduction, but if you already know | 2.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Hi, I appreciate this course and the efforts put into it. However, I am unlikely to focus on it or be as much engaged as I'd hope to due to sound quality in your videos. I am really sorry for rating this course 4 stars. I hope that you'd recored your videos with a better microphone so I could enjoy listening to you and be more engaged in the course. I hope that you understand that it is hard to take a course with a bad sound quality, especially, that there is no excuse not to upgrade the microphone. Nowadays, almost everyone is using a respectably good microphone to recored videos. I believe if you use a better microphone many students would be more engaged and willing to take your course. My opinion might change after finishing this course but I don't think I'd be finishing this course anytime soon or at least on time before the next session because of the sound quality. Best regards, | 1) to take a course with a | Bad | 1) sound quality, especially, that there is | 4.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Nice course, but very practical at the expense of theory. A few mistakes in the lectures and some bugs in the scripts of the programing assignments that you need to manually correct, but not to bad. Very nice as a basic course if you have limited interest in math and just wanna start applying it. If you are interested in the math behind or mainly neural networks (which are only covered briefly), this is not the course for you. | 1) to manually correct, but not to | Bad | 1) Very nice as a basic course | 3.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This course is really amazing in every way, very clear, understandable, and pretty usefull. Only one bad point : nothing about decision tree learning. | 1) understandable, and pretty usefull. Only one | Bad | 1) point : nothing about decision tree | 4.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Outdated material, nightmare to submit assignments. Badly needs to be updated. | 1) Outdated material, nightmare to submit assignments. | Bad | 1) needs to be updated. | 1.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Wonder Prof. and coherent informative material, the only minor issue is the bad sound quality, other than that it is excellent and recommended for everyone passionate about the field of Machine Learning. | 1) the only minor issue is the | Bad | 1) sound quality, other than that it | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The course is amazing. Its too bad that I am not able to complete it. | 1) The course is amazing. Its too | Bad | 1) that I am not able to | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Very good introduction to machine learning. The only issue I have is quality of video materials which is rather low mostly due to bad mic used. | 1) is rather low mostly due to | Bad | 1) mic used. | 4.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Good thing is this course is easy enough to keep me insisting on it. Bad thing is, to some extent, I may need some time to figure out how to use the technique. :D | 1) to keep me insisting on it. | Bad | 1) thing is, to some extent, I | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | I enjoyed it like a child. I learnt a lot (it shows a lot of different subjects), the practices exercises are very fun (most of them)... The only bad thing I can say of the course is that it was made in 2011 and I do not know how many new things are missing. | 1) of them). . . The only | Bad | 1) thing I can say of the | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Bad videos but intense content ! | 1) | Bad | 1) videos but intense content ! | 3.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Very good course with a lot of hands-on, direct-to-application assignments. It is fairly introductory, so all you need is first year calculus, which in itself is not bad but this course is fairly theory-light. The theory that is included is just enough to be able to refer to further theory not covered. | 1) calculus, which in itself is not | Bad | 1) but this course is fairly theory-light. | 4.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | First of all, this course is a quality product: lectures are clear and effective and exercises are challenging enough. Perhaps the conclusion "now you can consider yourself an expert in machine learning techniques" is a slight exaggeration but, certainly, you are made aware of those techniques enough to think about using them effectively and getting some results. And, as an added bonus, you will learn the basics of Octave/MATLAB, which is not a bad thing since, as stated in the course, they are great prototyping tools. It's certainly a recommended course for whoever deals with data analysis problems, where perhaps a killer machine learning system is not the priority but some solid conclusions about the data are essential. | 1) of Octave/MATLAB, which is not a | Bad | 1) thing since, as stated in the | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | good material but sound quality of videos is bad, could use his own machine learning techniques to improve the sound, also no literature which is bad. | 1) but sound quality of videos is | Bad | 1) could use his own machine learning | 4.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | good material but sound quality of videos is bad, could use his own machine learning techniques to improve the sound, also no literature which is bad. | 2) sound, also no literature which is | Bad | 2) | 4.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Very nice, the only bad thing is that the instructor uses Octave/Matlab, It would have been nice if he have used Python instead. | 1) Very nice, the only | Bad | 1) thing is that the instructor uses | 4.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Great course, good lecturer, and also practical and lets you try for yourself and test your gained knowledge. Too bad there is no way to prove that all the assignments were completed successfully and so that I passed the course. | 1) and test your gained knowledge. Too | Bad | 1) there is no way to prove | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Wonderful course! Very clear to understand (I'm a university dropout), all the topics are very well explained with plenty of real life examples. I managed to complete the whole course relying only on my college math ( and I was a bad student ) Highly advised to anyone who is interested into Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence, great kickstart. | 1) math ( and I was a | Bad | 1) student ) Highly advised to anyone | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The Good: This course is a good introduction to fundamental topics and basic techniques in machine learning. I feel that the biggest strength of this course comes from Prof. Ng's suggestions for how to design and improve machine learning systems in practice. The Bad: This course is a few years old, and there are a lot of errors in the videos and even occasionally in the programming exercises as well. In my opinion, there is a little too much hand-holding in the programming exercises, so that while I was able to implement the important bits and pieces of the algorithms, I didn't get much chance to practice the more difficult task of organizing the entire system. The Ambiguous: This course is *very* light on the math, perhaps as light as you could possibly get. I imagine this is a relief for a lot of people, but personally I felt annoyed and even a little patronized with the number of times Prof. Ng said that we "don't have to worry" about the mathematical details of different concepts and algorithms. It's fine to skip over derivations and details for the sake of a simple presentation or to emphasize practical application, but surely it is important to go back and see what all this stuff means eventually. I will certainly be looking for other courses on machine learning that give a more mathematical treatment, and I think that anyone who wants to seriously get into ML should probably do the same. On a related note, Prof. Ng takes his time in each video, speaking slowly, repeating different points, and carefully explicating formulas with examples. For some people that may be good, but I found myself frequently skipping ahead in videos because I just wanted to get to the point. | 1) machine learning systems in practice. The | Bad | 1) This course is a few years | 4.0 |
| GVy8tIIKEeWXmQ4F86nmrw | Some exercises need some improvement. Tests were not that helpful and the instruction to the last homework was quite bad (many open questions). | 1) to the last homework was quite | Bad | 1) (many open questions). | 1.0 |
| GVy8tIIKEeWXmQ4F86nmrw | Great introduction to parallel programming, excercises help to understand topics covered in the lectures. However, if you want to be an expert and understand every detail, you'll need to go further and look for implementations details of several constructs used in these lectures but I think adding all of the details for this short course would make it much less understandable and bad in overall effect. | 1) make it much less understandable and | Bad | 1) in overall effect. | 5.0 |
| hbvvfJLaEeWBSw79YYA_8Q | A very useful course, even for psyhologist! George Everly provides a ton of information which I can use not only as a "first aid" tool but also during my "everyday" work with patients - for exaple, about rapport, reflective listening and so on. Thanks for this opportunity! It's really great that people can learn this course and learn how to help people in such situations - unfortunately in our modern world some cataclysms, tragedies etc happens often than we would like to... And sory for my bad English! | 1) . . And sory for my | Bad | 1) English! | 5.0 |
| HFhDw-STEeWYOBIRup69HQ | This course is neither high level nor low level. After having taking Cloud Computing Concepts Part I and 2 (which were excellent), I expected a continuation of the very deep level of technical material. This course doesn't do this. Instead it is sort of much higher level except that the instructor fails to stay at the high level and will suddenly go deep - but without providing the detail so that someone to whom this is new will be totally lost. Given that I was expecting the technical depth of CCC parts 1 and 2, I already had much of the knowledge that was presented and could figure out what the instructor was trying to present, but I felt bad for someone who wasn't already familiar with the material. It is my opinion that the course needs to be taken offline and redone. Note: Apparently I took a prior version of CCC parts 1 and 2 so my comments on those two courses may or may not apply anymore. | 1) trying to present, but I felt | Bad | 1) for someone who wasn't already familiar | 2.0 |
| hgw1Nkd5EeW8cBKtDAegYw | The Good: Very palatable content and provides information at a very slow pace for ease of learning.More reasonable content and far more worthwhile than the first Arduino course of the series. The Bad: Not worth the money when looked at generally. The first and second course could easily have been merged. A lack of introduction to electronic circuits also hinders full use of what is being taught. | 1) Arduino course of the series. The | Bad | 1) Not worth the money when looked | 3.0 |
| hgw1Nkd5EeW8cBKtDAegYw | Really bad explanation no code explain they left you on your own i'ts supposed to teach you not to left you undestand nothing they just teach components but the real thing the progaming is undeground no one knows that kinda weird :( | 1) Really | Bad | 1) explanation no code explain they left | 1.0 |
| hgw1Nkd5EeW8cBKtDAegYw | This is a very basic course in using the arduino and having it communicate with various other devices. It is not a bad thing to have such a basic course exist, it is a good thing, but there are definite flaws in the course, the main ones being the grading system for the assignments and the lack of a place to go for clarification of the assignment / grading questions. Both the penultimate and the final assignments require a certain amount of extra research and learning beyond what was taught in the lectures and yet the grading instructions for the assignments did not allow for taking that into account; the grading criteria was either binary (grade of 100%, or 0) or had the possibility of a partial passing grade but without listing a number of possible criteria that would put a project into the partial passing grade category. | 1) other devices. It is not a | Bad | 1) thing to have such a basic | 4.0 |
| hgw1Nkd5EeW8cBKtDAegYw | Course contents are fine. Unfortunately the absence of a course board where students can discuss and eventually receive help from the teacher has an bad influence on the course overall rating | 1) help from the teacher has an | Bad | 1) influence on the course overall rating | 3.0 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Not BAD! | 1) Not | Bad | 1) | 3.0 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Suitable neither for absolute beginners nor as a stand-alone course. For example, there are things that the quiz questions refer to that haven't been covered in the course, but you can't even look them up because they haven't given you the necessary terminology to find relevant information about them on google. This means that you'll be left looking through a minefield of resources that include the code in the quiz question but are actually about something else. I have now started using Lynda instead, and am seeing all the bad habits I've picked up and the holes left in my knowledge. Normally I prefer Lynda to Coursera for the assignments and the quizzes, but not in this case... | 1) instead, and am seeing all the | Bad | 1) habits I've picked up and the | 2.0 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Not that bad I've might have learned more visiting other MOOC like Openclassrooms where they give us more information about coding. This course is just showing the basic, not as complete as other online course platform where they show you how to insert video, contact form and audio. | 1) Not that | Bad | 1) I've might have learned more visiting | 3.0 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Could have covered more areas and with more examples for features. Not bad for what it is to serve as guidance. | 1) with more examples for features. Not | Bad | 1) for what it is to serve | 3.0 |
| hJ1Jl-fcEeWwMw6osrJBVw | Not bad! | 1) Not | Bad | 1) | 4.0 |
| Hm73dlDLEeWeiwqPB940Pw | This course is just AMAZING! I am a composer and I found myself astonished of how much I was lacking, yet, the quizzes translations, man, are so bad, must of the time those where "Straight trough" translations that are complete meaningless on Spanish, it's like they simply used Google translate. You might think "it is not THAT bad", well there are sections that ask you to determine stability based on the length of the line... good luck with that (Spanish usually takes more words to write the same idea) | 1) the quizzes translations, man, are so | Bad | 1) must of the time those where | 3.0 |
| Hm73dlDLEeWeiwqPB940Pw | This course is just AMAZING! I am a composer and I found myself astonished of how much I was lacking, yet, the quizzes translations, man, are so bad, must of the time those where "Straight trough" translations that are complete meaningless on Spanish, it's like they simply used Google translate. You might think "it is not THAT bad", well there are sections that ask you to determine stability based on the length of the line... good luck with that (Spanish usually takes more words to write the same idea) | 2) think " it is not THAT | Bad | 2) , well there are sections that | 3.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | I have finished this course and moved on to the 2nd part. In sum, the course was excellent and Professor Fowler is terrific at explaining concepts both visually and algebraically. He provides both rigorous and intuitive explanations. I learned a lot and firmed up many concepts. i really appreciated the balance between visual and numerical. The real problem with the course is the quiz CPU. It does not recognize correct answers even when those answers are exactly the same as the ones provided by way of correcting your "wrong" answer. There is something really wrong with the quiz review code. That can be a "downer" when you are seeking a little encouragement after some hard work - and you know your answers are correct - and In Fact have been correct on the same questions in earlier quizzes. So take the coruse - enjoy the learning - but don't be discouraged because Coursera writes Kludgey code. IThe course is not yet over but perhaps someone will see this and make some changes. The professor is clear and enthusiastic. The main problem with this course is the quizzes. On several occasions I have submitted answers that were completely correct, only to find them all graded incorrect. I know they were correct because I had mathematician friends check them after receiving the failing grades. They could not understand why the quizzes were returned that way. On certain occasions, questions on one quiz were graded correct - and then the exact same type of question on another quiz was graded incorrect. In some cases, my answers were exactly the same as those probided by way of demonstrating the correct responses. Identical - yet marked wrong. When there are several ways to formulate an answer, we have no way of knowing what form is required. On a recent quiz, it turned out the answers were required in raw form - not solved to their numeric conclusion. But how are we to know that? I will write more at the end of the course. It is a good course for learning - but don't get upset if you get a bad grade. It is probably not an accurate reflection of your work. A final point - Professor Fowler should learn to pronounce "integral." It is NOT "intregal." It is "integral." He is, after all, a mathematician. You would not want a surgeon to speak of "cradiac care," would you? Otherwise - terrific class. | 1) get upset if you get a | Bad | 1) grade. It is probably not an | 4.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | I think this course is great, I like everything about it, but I can't say the same about the quiz format, it is rigid and non-standard I gave up on the course many times because of this How do write Sqrt(5) for instance ? 5x must be 5*x or it is not acceptable. I am sorry, this is pretty bad | 1) I am sorry, this is pretty | Bad | 1) | 1.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | The teacher is very energetic and good speaker. I can see that he worked a lot for this course. Videos have very good details(graphical effects, prepared papers for lesson). He teaches very clearly, i am understanding all the subject despite i am bad at English. | 1) all the subject despite i am | Bad | 1) at English. | 5.0 |
| hwiBZm0vEeWbyw5d8C-Blw | The course is quite good and informative in the first two weeks covering a lot of information and a lot of exercises. Week 3 is very unrelated and hard the videos and exercises are bad, and I had to do this part by myself again. Also when we get to the final course project doesn't cover any of these techniques. In my opinion, week 3 should be replaced with something more related to plotting systems and distributions, also one project would be enough. | 1) hard the videos and exercises are | Bad | 1) and I had to do this | 3.0 |
| hwiBZm0vEeWbyw5d8C-Blw | A lot of broken swirl(), which wouldn't be so bad except *a lot* of this course is based entirely on swirl(). Also the swirl() text was almost verbatim of the lectures one has just watched. All in all, good information, but the swirl() badly needs an update. | 1) broken swirl(), which wouldn't be so | Bad | 1) except *a lot* of this course | 3.0 |
| hwiBZm0vEeWbyw5d8C-Blw | A lot of broken swirl(), which wouldn't be so bad except *a lot* of this course is based entirely on swirl(). Also the swirl() text was almost verbatim of the lectures one has just watched. All in all, good information, but the swirl() badly needs an update. | 2) all, good information, but the swirl() | Bad | 2) needs an update. | 3.0 |
| hwiBZm0vEeWbyw5d8C-Blw | Some parts of material is good quality, but some is bad - also some show bad practices in R. Extensively use swirl as assignments over self work. It is better to go through good tutorial over R base plotting system and ggplot2. | 1) is good quality, but some is | Bad | 1) - also some show bad practices | 2.0 |
| hwiBZm0vEeWbyw5d8C-Blw | Some parts of material is good quality, but some is bad - also some show bad practices in R. Extensively use swirl as assignments over self work. It is better to go through good tutorial over R base plotting system and ggplot2. | 2) is bad - also some show | Bad | 2) practices in R. Extensively use swirl | 2.0 |
| HXsj6jeHEeWJaxK5AT4frw | Tests and quizzes don't really ask the right things and the answers given are hard to understand. Bad quizzes but lectures informative. | 1) answers given are hard to understand. | Bad | 1) quizzes but lectures informative. | 3.0 |
| i7N8t4khEeW99gozy_2pgw | bad coarse unclear one | 1) | Bad | 1) coarse unclear one | 1.0 |
| I82JCSWXEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | Excellent course for providing the basic elements of graphic design. It's helped me launch my graphic design career! I can't say anything bad about it! | 1) design career! I can't say anything | Bad | 1) about it! | 5.0 |
| I82JCSWXEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | i hate to say it, but this course is really really bad ... not practical at all. i'm not sure where this is all going. maybe by the fourth course in the series, 100 hours later of lectures, you might have something practical but this approach feels wrong. i'm sorry, it's a reputable school and who the hell am I, but one man's opinion: rethink how you go about introducing the newbie to graphic design as it's applicable to the real world. | 1) but this course is really really | Bad | 1) . . . not practical at | 1.0 |
| I82JCSWXEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | The course was very interesting, hands on orientated and it offered me a lot of useful information. I have really enjoyed it! It was also a good motivation to practice graphic design more often, explore the realms of shapes, colours, typography etc. I was really grateful for the peer reviews, but I missed a bit more professional approach sometimes, for instance comments like "I like it" or "It is not that bad" does not tell me much about my work. So in these cases some feedback from someone who already is a graphic designer and knows much more about it than us, students, starting with the graphic design, would be more than welcome. I also missed advices on where to find out more on a particular topic. Overall, taking this course was a very positive experience and would recommend it to anyone who is interested in graphic design. | 1) or " It is not that | Bad | 1) does not tell me much about | 4.0 |
| IjmG7ah6EeWhzw6RmNsYkQ | Extremely badly organized, messy, and technical | 1) Extremely | Bad | 1) organized, messy, and technical | 1.0 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | Although I am now a grandmother, I really enjoyed the course and was able to confirm my home's "good eating habits" and detect some bad ones, like sometimes eating with the televison on. I learned more about the environment and effects of eating processed foods or meats. I revel in seeing today's encouragement of having children particpate in healthy food : shopping, preparation and cooking. Thank You !! | 1) good eating habits" and detect some | Bad | 1) ones, like sometimes eating with the | 5.0 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | It´s too bad that no degree is awarded. | 1) It´s too | Bad | 1) that no degree is awarded. | 5.0 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | I enjoyed this course very much and found it to be a very good introduction to the science of nutrition and cooking. It wasn't focused on children as much as I thought it would be. I would have liked to know a lot more about portion sizes and calories intake, which weren't much discussed. I knew that some foods were good and others were bad... thanks to the course, I now also know why! I didn't find the course too challenging and thought that Maya Adams was a very pleasant instructor. | 1) foods were good and others were | Bad | 1) . . thanks to the course, | 4.0 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | Very useful nutritional and food information structured with care, combined with common sense advice to apply in every household. The whole package is served with delicate ambient music, practical recipes and kitchen advices, and last but not least, with love towards children and family. One might find inside some controversial aspects as maybe too much frying, cooking in aluminium foil presumed to be bad, using sugar when cooking, but everyone is free to adapt the content to his own perceptions, fears and style. The main philosophy proposed, the moderation, is a keeper though. I just loved taking this course | 1) in aluminium foil presumed to be | Bad | 1) using sugar when cooking, but everyone | 5.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Is this a real course for a data scientist just installing shit and a peer reviewing for that screenshot and forking all repos ...very bad not worth to be with rest course in specialization | 1) all repos . . . very | Bad | 1) not worth to be with rest | 1.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | There just wasn't much to this class. It's not bad information, but it could have been done in one week. | 1) much to this class. It's not | Bad | 1) information, but it could have been | 2.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Great intro. Too bad you need to pay in order to get quiz answer or statement of accomplishment. | 1) Great intro. Too | Bad | 1) you need to pay in order | 4.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | most part of this course is a duplicate of the "R programming" course. microphone/sound of the teacher quality is very bad. not original, boring, dividing this in "4 weeks" is too ridiculously long, this should be done in 1 week to enable users to take more time for the "R programming". this course should be free. don't lose too much time on it, it's doable in a day or a weekend and move on to "R programming". asking for so much money to see how to install R and github is a shame. feels like this course has been added just to have a round number for the specialization. even the survey in the end asking for feedback starts with a question not adapted to moment it's been asked "did you get a certificate?" of course i did not as i've just finish the course and now wait for my peers to review my final submission. | 1) of the teacher quality is very | Bad | 1) not original, boring, dividing this in | 1.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | This was a very professionally done course. It is *very* introductory, which is either good or bad, depending on how you feel about it. | 1) introductory, which is either good or | Bad | 1) depending on how you feel about | 4.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | It's a very good course for beginners. If you already hace R and gihub it may be a little boring, but remembering the basics is never a bad idea. | 1) remembering the basics is never a | Bad | 1) idea. | 5.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | The real basics of data analysis. The course is not bad I would just say it may be too simple even for an introductory course | 1) data analysis. The course is not | Bad | 1) I would just say it may | 3.0 |
| IXgZu35fEeWKYwric11Hpw | It's more or less a repetition of what you've learned in all the courses, tying four peer-reviewed assignments together into a somewhat contrived "project". Not bad, but doesn't really add much value to the courses before. | 1) somewhat contrived " project" . Not | Bad | 1) but doesn't really add much value | 3.0 |
| jA4AZLlTEeWfYA612mWHZw | I'm sorry to say this is a poor course. The audio is bad, the sound editing is bad, the "videos" are mainly static slides that sometimes aren't even showing what the audio is talking about. There are no worked examples or annotated slides. As an example, there's no discussion of the difference between WordPress.org and WordPress.com. The only time that is mentioned is when they touch on plugins, where they say you can't use them if you started with WordPress.com! The additional lectures by guest website designers were the most interesting part, but they were supposed to be after the final project. I just gave up after less than an hour and went and played with WordPress myself. Created a website in 2 days, but with no help from this course. | 1) a poor course. The audio is | Bad | 1) the sound editing is bad, the | 1.0 |
| jA4AZLlTEeWfYA612mWHZw | I'm sorry to say this is a poor course. The audio is bad, the sound editing is bad, the "videos" are mainly static slides that sometimes aren't even showing what the audio is talking about. There are no worked examples or annotated slides. As an example, there's no discussion of the difference between WordPress.org and WordPress.com. The only time that is mentioned is when they touch on plugins, where they say you can't use them if you started with WordPress.com! The additional lectures by guest website designers were the most interesting part, but they were supposed to be after the final project. I just gave up after less than an hour and went and played with WordPress myself. Created a website in 2 days, but with no help from this course. | 2) is bad, the sound editing is | Bad | 2) the " videos" are mainly static | 1.0 |
| jA4AZLlTEeWfYA612mWHZw | Despite all the bad reviews this course got I told myself to give it a try to refresh my antic prior knowledge and since it is for my personal usage and not a career I m not interested in a certificate. So I went through all the open sites which were extremely disappointing. Since I was warned by the reviews, I was not even tempted to pay to unlock further pages. I attended many interesting courses on Coursera, but this one is simply a waste of time from the very first moment. | 1) Despite all the | Bad | 1) reviews this course got I told | 1.0 |
| jA4AZLlTEeWfYA612mWHZw | This course lacks a level of professionalism. The splicing of the videos is bad, and for me actual video of how t | 1) The splicing of the videos is | Bad | 1) and for me actual video of | 2.0 |
| jcbwGG00EeW9CAqYJHF3zQ | The Subtitles were bad not in sync with the words of the professor and were wrong in many cases. Delivery of lecture and Visuals of the lecture was Ok. Module 4& 5 were very confusing and not interesting Thank You Professor for your time and effort | 1) The Subtitles were | Bad | 1) not in sync with the words | 2.0 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | This course is a wonderful nexus between east and west, between science and religion, between intuition and reason and between all those dichotomies, the false ones and more! It is just a shame that discussion forum moderators have become petty tyrants given censorship powers. At least, that was how it was last time I was bothered enough to try to get this stuff. One star subtracted, but it should be more given discussion is the only way really to do philosophy. Only one will do though because I guess it is a systemic problem and that it probably doesn't affect those of you who aren't borderline trolls who imbeciles easily mistake for the bad kind. | 1) who imbeciles easily mistake for the | Bad | 1) kind. | 4.0 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | I loved Robert Wright before I took this class (I have read all his books and have REALLY enjoyed them!), and I love him even more after taking this class. His personality is fun, thoughtful, open, and kind (... and he's not bad to look at either), and his knowledge regarding Buddhism and Psychology is great. I learned quite a bit from this class. Thanks so much for this course. It's my favorite Coursera course thus far. | 1) (. . . and he's not | Bad | 1) to look at either), and his | 5.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | funny good demonstration bad TA good community | 1) funny good demonstration | Bad | 1) TA good community | 5.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | A tough score, which I have mixed feelings about as there was good stuff in here too. The course material is interesting and moves at a robust pace and I do think they have made an effort despite the fact that much of it appears lifted from one PhD student's dissertation. Realistically I would not recommend this course if you don't have a STEM Bachelor's degree and you will likely find it painful if you have been away from your degree more than three years. None of this is bad, although the material would have benefitted by being spread out by perhaps two more weeks as realistically people who have been in the workplace a long time may need more time, and have less time per week with family commitments. Unfortunately there are a number of areas that need work: 1 - Inconsistencies and errors in the material. Certain unexplained suffixes in equations and worse, changes in the suffixes without indication that they changed or what they are. I don't feel that this was particularly widespread but it did result in some loss of confidence in the course and time being wasted "interpreting" 2 - Tests throughout the course that often provide the relatively limited feedback of "correct well done" or worse I'm sorry to say, the relatively useless feedback "sorry that is not correct", without ANY explanation of why it was correct or more importantly what an incorrect answer should have been and why. I can understand that this will hopefully drive students should do more research, but if they hit a wall, realistically they're going to keep iterating on the answers until you pass and learn nothing because of the time pressure to complete by the end of the week. I wonder if there is a better mechanism that can be used here 3 - TA Support - The lack of TA support coupled with some concern about a history of errors led the students to believe that there was an error in week 3. For 10 days students went back and forth debating which one of the two equations that were supposedly doing the same thing but with missing terms were correct. NOT ONCE did a TA wake up and step in. In the end one of the students flagged the video as "inappropriate" to wake the UPenn organization up. The TA then stepped in and said (I paraphrase) "oh, we just dropped those terms because they're not so important, but we didn't mention that..." If you are not going to adequately support the students, the material had better be bullet-proof and show some linear thinking 4 - The last exam. Keep in mind if you do this course, you had better be comfortable with calculus, linear algebra, vector math/mechanics and it would be helpful to have a head start in Matlab. That said, the last question in the last exam, was an order of magnitude more challenging than everything else set and almost felt like a "shake out" question. I passed the course and had a good understanding of the material, but I suspect that the folks that did, made it through that last question in multiple random fashions. The material itself is relatively academic and the trajectory topic was definitely so. Unfortunately the one example (jerk trajectory) provided appears to have left a lot of students feeling very unsupported based on feedback I saw, and would probably benefit from having an example more fully worked through. As for the final exam, it would be highly desirable for UPenn to provide insight into how they would have solved the last part of the last question as my concern is that there is a whole contingent of people who did this course who didn't come away with as good a grounding on trajectories as they may believe they have | 1) three years. None of this is | Bad | 1) although the material would have benefitted | 2.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | This course feels like a bad news anchorman reading the teleprompter. It gives a lot of formulae without proper explanations. A lot of quiz answers do not come from the video lectures. The course is really just spitting formulae from the dissertation "Trajectory Generation and Control for Quadrotors" by Daniel Warren Mellinger (easily found using search engines). Reading the dissertation before doing the course would probably help understand the formulae they say out of context without the proper explanations. Sorry for the bad review, it's the first time I leave one like that, although I've completed many MOOCs. I hope it will help to improve the course. | 1) This course feels like a | Bad | 1) news anchorman reading the teleprompter. It | 2.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | This course feels like a bad news anchorman reading the teleprompter. It gives a lot of formulae without proper explanations. A lot of quiz answers do not come from the video lectures. The course is really just spitting formulae from the dissertation "Trajectory Generation and Control for Quadrotors" by Daniel Warren Mellinger (easily found using search engines). Reading the dissertation before doing the course would probably help understand the formulae they say out of context without the proper explanations. Sorry for the bad review, it's the first time I leave one like that, although I've completed many MOOCs. I hope it will help to improve the course. | 2) the proper explanations. Sorry for the | Bad | 2) review, it's the first time I | 2.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | Really bad course. They don't explain the concepts clearly, the quizzes ambiguously ask things not seen in the videos and the instructor introduces equations without further explanation. The course Autonomous Navigation for Flying Robots (edX) is much better. | 1) Really | Bad | 1) course. They don't explain the concepts | 1.0 |
| knivtHEHEeSfpCIACzWBZw | Feels underwritten by the DEA, and aimed at perhaps high school students? Very slow pace; info could've been distilled into less than half the lectures (I completed the '7 weeks' in 3 days). Doesn't really distinguish between users without serious problems & addicts (which I believe amplifies gateway effects & experimentation once people meet users who aren't brain damaged or addicts). Creates an exaggerated and arbitrary distinction between prescribed drugs as all good and recreational as all bad, and dismisses any possible benefits of substances that are not legal, noting only that medical marijuana has been helpful for HIV patients, which is certainly an understatement. Components are also helpful for cancer patients, anxiety, and more. Perhaps break this into studies of common drugs, how they work, & effects and separately, the mechanisms of addiction and treatment. However, I appreciated the 'reduce harm' policy economics. | 1) all good and recreational as all | Bad | 1) and dismisses any possible benefits of | 1.0 |
| KqKtbzXyEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | This section is great for absolute beginners, and I would highly recommend it to anyone new to social media and social marketing. It seems necessary for it to be this straightforward to set everyone up for the more advanced material. Most of this was review for me, but I learned some interesting, fun facts about social media usage and data. The project was peer graded, which normally I enjoy, however, one of my peer assessments said my assignment was missing elements that I specifically made sure to include and address. There was no way to really dispute this, so I feel like my grade on the assignment wasn't fair. That said, I didn't have a bad grade, but I put a great deal of effort into my proposal and making sure it addressed all of the necessary points. Otherwise, very informative and enjoyable, and the class participation in social media is great. | 1) That said, I didn't have a | Bad | 1) grade, but I put a great | 4.0 |
| KzTkolCEEeWxCwowHhzTpQ | The reading material is not good (it' s even bad) , but the course videos are excellent. | 1) is not good (it' s even | Bad | 1) , but the course videos are | 5.0 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | This course is way too basic, so basic it doesn't even cover some of the essential basics, like explaining what the Box Model is in CSS. The only reason I gave 2 stars is because you can still learn SOMETHING with it if you are a complete newbie, but it is very far to be reliable if you are aiming to be a professional. There is a long road to go after you finish this course, which makes me think the certificate is almost pointless and worthless. It also uses things that are generally considered a bad practice (like using DOM event attributes in the HTML). It is okay to present that to the students, but you should also mention that while they are there, it is usually not recommended to use them and explain what would be the recommended practice. I have taken courses from other sites like Codeschools, Codecademy and Treehouse and left Coursera for later because I believed that getting a certificate would require me to have some expertise, but so far I feel kind of disappointed with the Full Stack package. I am hoping it will get better with the next modules. | 1) things that are generally considered a | Bad | 1) practice (like using DOM event attributes | 2.0 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Great assignments and bad videos. | 1) Great assignments and | Bad | 1) videos. | 3.0 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | It's not bad but I think the other courses in this specialization are much better | 1) It's not | Bad | 1) but I think the other courses | 3.0 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | This was a pretty nice course about html css and javascript. Small drawback, the html part did not focus on any of the newly introduced semantic tags and did rather use anonymous divs and spans. Although this may still work it is already pretty bad style therefore I had wished that for people just starting with html5 the course would try to teach them the language using the latest introduced standard. | 1) still work it is already pretty | Bad | 1) style therefore I had wished that | 4.0 |
| loAmvxJgEea8fxLSgUgxeQ | I had a lot of troubles with the spark exercises process. bad for the specialization. | 1) troubles with the spark exercises process. | Bad | 1) for the specialization. | 4.0 |
| LrTP0yv9EeWccAqzeA4VPw | Not bad | 1) Not | Bad | 1) | 4.0 |
| M0etLDe9EeWJaxK5AT4frw | bad instructor | 1) | Bad | 1) instructor | 1.0 |
| mG1NQnUvEeS8UyIACzYI5Q | Very interesting, the professor is a great teller. Unfortunately the tests in week 4 are pretty bad, and the order of the lectures in week 1 and 2 seems off. Well worth 5 stars without these two imperfections. | 1) tests in week 4 are pretty | Bad | 1) and the order of the lectures | 4.0 |
| mGM6AmlPEeSdNiIACrbZkA | Very good course, very bad accent:) even being Russian I could hardly understand sometimes | 1) Very good course, very | Bad | 1) accent:) even being Russian I could | 4.0 |
| mKzzYp5YEeWVBgpelZA5Jw | Not bad for beginners | 1) Not | Bad | 1) for beginners | 4.0 |
| MMnLaEEjEeWKOBLv1z6n9w | very bad and not organised | 1) very | Bad | 1) and not organised | 1.0 |
| mTJHKj0pEeSGwyIACxCdDw | I wish there was more character emphasis, but not bad! Nice and refreshing. | 1) was more character emphasis, but not | Bad | 1) Nice and refreshing. | 4.0 |
| mTJHKj0pEeSGwyIACxCdDw | Fine sensible teacher, excellent enunciation and pacing. I shall be returning to this course every few months to keep improving my pronunciation bit by bit. It is impossible to recommend this course too highly for beginners -- and I say this as an expert on introductory languages. I have been English-French bilingual as a child, and Japanese-English as an adult. In addition I have learned six or eight languages at the tourist level, and can do "Hello, I'm here from the gas company, to read yur meter..." plus thank you, which way? Where's the light switch? and so forth in 24. (I live in Toronto, so there are lots of languages around...) This means I've seen both good and bad language courses. This course is one of the good ones. | 1) means I've seen both good and | Bad | 1) language courses. This course is one | 5.0 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | I was not aible to complete this course for free. That was very disappointing! Universities like Stanford and John Hopkins find the opportunity to offer similar courses free of charge to peoople who want to learn. From University of Washington I have expected the same. Your bad! Best regards Konstantin | 1) I have expected the same. Your | Bad | 1) Best regards Konstantin | 1.0 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | This is an excellent course to get the math involve behind the regression. Instructors are awesome. I also feel that Bayseain regression should have been included. I missed that part badly. | 1) been included. I missed that part | Bad | 1) | 4.0 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | (Beta-Test review) Status: Still on the first week. The content is an easy follow, though it might seem to be a slight difficulty for those without a heavy background in calculus. So far, all the links (to the downloadable csv's and ipynb files) work well. All the videos have no apparent bugs and/or problems. I would also suggest to have the slides available for download as in the previous module. I don't think writing over the animation is a bad thing as long as it's still understandable. As an aside, I suggest editing out the swallowing sound you might occasionally hear whenever either instructor is speaking. To some, it seems a bit off-putting. Great course, overall. Thanks, Marvin | 1) writing over the animation is a | Bad | 1) thing as long as it's still | 4.0 |
| n2zunIlgEeWSMw6QLoDNsQ | It's not bad, but not amazing. I would recommend University of Michigan's Programming for Everybody (Python) over this course. While the game-oriented approach is fun, I don't like the excessive focus upon the simplegui module which was created by the instructors specifically for this course. You will learn some basic python concepts, but you'll spend way too much time learning how to use this module which you will likely never use again, and this is at the expense of learning how to use some of the more commonly used standard modules (eg datetime, sys, etc). I also found glitches in the materials, and many of the questions and grading rubrics are unclear or ambiguous. Very frustrating. | 1) It's not | Bad | 1) but not amazing. I would recommend | 3.0 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | Bad teaching quality. | 1) | Bad | 1) teaching quality. | 2.0 |
| NNe5CEW4EeW8ow5lHOiKYQ | Even do the Research subject was very interesting, this capstone was a total disappointment. The Capstone did not offer very much support and the final review was performed for peers without previous knowledge and experience, receiving peer's complaints due to the fact that many got bad grading. Also, many peers complaint about the image of the Specialization Certificate for not being designed professionally and many felt that they petitions where overlook. | 1) to the fact that many got | Bad | 1) grading. Also, many peers complaint about | 3.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | The caliber of questions in the quizzes is quite advanced. I would be fine with that, as the challenge of writing correct html5 is a good challenge. However much of these questions were not covered in the lectures or the required and optional reading. Learning the correct html tag syntax is not intuitive--one has to be shown examples. If no examples have been covered, how can a quiz-taker be expected to create the proper tags? This strikes me as bad pedagogy. In order to answer the questions and prepare the requested page of html tags, it became necessary for a beginner such as me to research elsewhere in order to answer the questions. In that case, I began wondering why I was taking this course, rather than just reviewing the many free html5 explanations on the Internet. Further the very general response to the submitted page of html gives me no help when I am simply told something isn't right and I should review the lessons--again. I expected better feedback. I found this course to be fascinating from the lecture point of view, but "abusive" in terms of quiz expectations. I was going to take the CSS3 course from the series, but now I plan on looking for this education elsewhere. | 1) proper tags? This strikes me as | Bad | 1) pedagogy. In order to answer the | 2.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | I'd give it a 3.5, but it's not possible so I'm leaning more towards a 4 than a 3. The most positive thing about the course was Prof. van Lent who really knows her stuff. She also has a calm, soothing manner of explaining things and moves with it at the right pace. The content was easy to follow and quizzes were useful. Final assignment was messed up and they really should fix that, but the additional eight questions were basically a transcript of the code itself, and if you did your own code, you shouldn't have had any problem distinguishing the bad code from the good one. Extra stuff for those who successfully finished the course was a nice touch. The real downside of it all was the 'staff'. I got my question answered nine days after I posted it, when I had already finished. I've also seen some rude and condescending yet sparse answers to other students. Similar (but worse) things happen in CSS3 course as well. I don't know who those people are and how they got their jobs, but they should be replaced. Or sent to professional conduct and time management class. | 1) have had any problem distinguishing the | Bad | 1) code from the good one. Extra | 4.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | If there had been a working autograder for the last final project this course would have been worth it somehow. What does that mean? - The lectures provided valuable information. - The quizzes generally made sense (in relation to the lectures). - Learning how to code wasn't really possible. Why is that? - There is only one programming assignment. - The autograder doesn't give any feedback at all why resp. where things go wrong. That's everything but good style (for software as well as for learning). - Code snippets can't be tested individually. That's very bad behavior in programming. - At the end working code that meets the teached rules is marked as wrong. You are lost without any clue. So probably you can learn something. Unfortunately you can't possibly finish the course with a feeling of success. | 1) can't be tested individually. That's very | Bad | 1) behavior in programming. - At the | 2.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | The good: This course really shows how to code in the 'right' way both syntax and semantics, so the theory is covered better than in other courses. There are good explanations on how to host your site, whch is not less important than learning coding. The bad: More examples and practice are needed, it's hard to get everything so quickly. I had some initial background so i handeld that ok, but for total newbies it might be too frustrating. The final assignment should be changed imo to peer review, the quiz is not the right way to do it imo. Thanks, learned alot. | 1) less important than learning coding. The | Bad | 1) More examples and practice are needed, | 5.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Videos were OK, practice quizzes somewhat helpful. However, the final autograder quiz was extremely temperamental and gave no usable feedback. This resulted in frustration and made what should have been a good experience a very bad one. Updated course to three stars since a change was made to be able to pass the final quiz without needing to pass the autograder submission. | 1) been a good experience a very | Bad | 1) one. Updated course to three stars | 3.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Very excellent course for beginners. Hope that the next courses will be at the same level! Two main problems, though: first, the autograder is very bad, should be much more flexible. Second, in my opinion, the homework should be more code-based, just like the final project. | 1) though: first, the autograder is very | Bad | 1) should be much more flexible. Second, | 3.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | The lectures get you through the basics in a clear, understandable way. But the auto-grader was really a bad idea, that got the lecturer into a lot of trouble for very little gain if any. It seems to me that peer-reviewed assessments, with proper instructions, are better suited. Apart from being more reliable and less frustrating, I think the learner can really get more out of it. | 1) But the auto-grader was really a | Bad | 1) idea, that got the lecturer into | 2.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | It may be a 5 weeks course with a more slow learning, because we see some tags in a second and it passes. And the autograder works really bad. I do not know where I fail but I failed all the questions. A peer grader would be nice for the final project. | 1) passes. And the autograder works really | Bad | 1) I do not know where I | 2.0 |
| NSxhuc9cEeWczg7kSY_tVQ | Not a bad course, generally learnt a lot of interesting facts about market crashes. Behavioural biases discussed are not something new that you can't figure them out on your own, but giving names to them makes it quite useful to remember and recall in future situations. The major problem with this course is the fact that many quiz questions are tricky. Most of biases aren't discussed well in lectures, so you need to do a bit of research. But even then, they overlap a lot, so some questions have several answers and it is difficult to choose. However, it makes you think at least. | 1) Not a | Bad | 1) course, generally learnt a lot of | 4.0 |
| oC5XlyT_EeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | The Course was very informative. Apparent creativity in presenting the subject, however it's too bad to not to be able to participate in the following courses without payment. I would really appreciate re-considering this matter. Thanks all Copenhagen Business School & Coursera Staffs | 1) presenting the subject, however it's too | Bad | 1) to not to be able to | 5.0 |
| oFRMKhbHEeWKlgqs7LdhRw | The irony of the fact that a course that was meant to teach how to appropriate evaluate adult learners was full of quizzes that were riddled with "guess what I'm thinking" short answer questions and multiple choice questions with > or < 1 correct answer was not lost on me. I ended up leaving the course during week three after issues with a quiz that was described in the forums as "impossible." It's too bad - the course description was very promising. | 1) as " impossible. " It's too | Bad | 1) - the course description was very | 1.0 |
| OmgIw0C2EeWZtA4u62x6lQ | The instructor's presentations are so irritating due to him acting in a jumpy, nervous, and hyper-excited manner that I could not stand watching the lectures. If you don't mind that, it's probably not a bad course. | 1) mind that, it's probably not a | Bad | 1) course. | 2.0 |
| OrpXgQt0EeS5diIACoo5jQ | Lecture videos were funny and usefull. I!ve really enjoyed them. But peer assesment worked badly. | 1) enjoyed them. But peer assesment worked | Bad | 1) | 4.0 |
| pFHWsjyCEeW7GArkqhNhJw | it wasnt bad | 1) it wasnt | Bad | 1) | 5.0 |
| pFHWsjyCEeW7GArkqhNhJw | Nothing but badly put together videos and recommendations for readings. The only terrible course on Coursera I've come across, and I've done a few dozen of them. | 1) Nothing but | Bad | 1) put together videos and recommendations for | 1.0 |
| PGQphxLCEeSD_CIACooXkA | bad | 1) | Bad | 1) | 1.0 |
| PLnREdJzEeSeOiIACzWBkQ | Prof Rob Stone is a very good speaker and has made the videos very informative. The content is very small, which is good because it makes the course very lean, but bad because it merely scratches the surface of project management world. | 1) makes the course very lean, but | Bad | 1) because it merely scratches the surface | 3.0 |
| PLnREdJzEeSeOiIACzWBkQ | Great introduction to the topic. Great teacher. Too bad it's so short. | 1) to the topic. Great teacher. Too | Bad | 1) it's so short. | 4.0 |
| QEXoJRBmEeWhsgqB1eduww | Raj, is super pleasant it was so nice to spend some time in his happiness univers. He spot our bad habits and recommend simple change of mindset to get back on track to happiness path. | 1) his happiness univers. He spot our | Bad | 1) habits and recommend simple change of | 5.0 |
| QEXoJRBmEeWhsgqB1eduww | I am really enjoying this course. Its so nicely planned out and put together. Prof Raj speaks so eloquently thats easy to follow him. I love the way instructions are provided to submit the assignments. In other coursera courses I have mostly quit because of the lack of proper instructions during the assignments and also additional help. Not this one. What I dont like is the pop up quiz. Its not that the quiz is bad but the pop up destroys the flow of the topic. You could have executed the quiz just like the polls where there is a pause by the Prof and then comes the quiz. It would ensure a coherence in the videos. But overall a great course. | 1) Its not that the quiz is | Bad | 1) but the pop up destroys the | 4.0 |
| QEXoJRBmEeWhsgqB1eduww | ridiculous , unscientific 'self-helpie", far below of even talk-show standards. It gives bad reputation to any business school that endorses such "course". " | 1) of even talk-show standards. It gives | Bad | 1) reputation to any business school that | 1.0 |
| QEXoJRBmEeWhsgqB1eduww | Simply excelente, It helped me to understand too many things that have been happening to me for a long time and teach me how to overcome my bad habits THANKS A LOT!!! | 1) teach me how to overcome my | Bad | 1) habits THANKS A LOT! ! ! | 5.0 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | The specialization is great, and the course breadth and topics described in each is equally good. For this course, however, I felt like I could have covered what was taught by myself with a book, i.e. I didn't feel like it was class room level engaging with the explanations. I realized this is a one way MOOC, but I've taken courses off and on since they came out, and some others felt more interactive. This was more of here's a slide, I will read what's on the slide and explain some topics. The assignments were not bad, but definitely took more time than stated (just keep that in mind). The other thing that would help immensely is having TAs in the course. It's possible that they may get some later, but I've felt I learned/got feedback a lot more in courses with TAs. That said, this is an excellent introduction to databases course, and there's not many of them out there. If I had to go it again, I would, and I also paid for getting the cert - if anything for career advancement and having it on your LinkedIn profile as a starter DB course. | 1) some topics. The assignments were not | Bad | 1) but definitely took more time than | 3.0 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Not enough implication from the instructors in the course. Students are left alone with the material, without any answers to there questions on the course. Peer review process subject to personal interpretation and leading to frustration for the students. That's quite unfortunate as this provides a bad experience whereas the course might have been good without that. | 1) quite unfortunate as this provides a | Bad | 1) experience whereas the course might have | 2.0 |
| QRDjcWLVEeWFkQ7sUCFGVQ | The course content is very very good and not superficial as some courses we see around here. I liked very much how the order of subjects where build. However, if you allow me to give a *constructive* criticism, please let me say that the strategy chosen to ask lectures to read from previous written scripts, instead of letting them present more naturally, was a bad one. I understand that in order to make the legends/captions available, the lecturers kinda read from scripts their talks and this was very bad. It would be much better next time if you allow each speaker give the talk naturally as they want, with no reading, and then latter produce the subtitles. The lecturers are reseachers and not ACTORS so the final result of reading word by word what they were saying compromised a lot the final quality of their talks. Please don't get me wrong, I just trying to be constructive giving back somehow the time and effort spent by you guys to prepare such nice course. | 1) them present more naturally, was a | Bad | 1) one. I understand that in order | 4.0 |
| QRDjcWLVEeWFkQ7sUCFGVQ | The course content is very very good and not superficial as some courses we see around here. I liked very much how the order of subjects where build. However, if you allow me to give a *constructive* criticism, please let me say that the strategy chosen to ask lectures to read from previous written scripts, instead of letting them present more naturally, was a bad one. I understand that in order to make the legends/captions available, the lecturers kinda read from scripts their talks and this was very bad. It would be much better next time if you allow each speaker give the talk naturally as they want, with no reading, and then latter produce the subtitles. The lecturers are reseachers and not ACTORS so the final result of reading word by word what they were saying compromised a lot the final quality of their talks. Please don't get me wrong, I just trying to be constructive giving back somehow the time and effort spent by you guys to prepare such nice course. | 2) their talks and this was very | Bad | 2) It would be much better next | 4.0 |
| r0e9gyUAEeWxbhIkPfddLQ | This is a very simple, brief and useful course. The modules are short, concise but do not go into lot of details. Is a good course to audit/browse for free but may not be good enough against a verified option. Anyways, paying for verified course is subject to personal value derivation. While I had rated earlier for the above reasons before the course finished. I am facing the exact same problem with this course as I faced with earlier course. The grading process is badly constructed for final assignment. In fact, now I am learning from coursera staff that may be there are not enough students to grade my peer review assignment. So please do audit this course but do not be trapped in specialization. Cheers.. | 1) earlier course. The grading process is | Bad | 1) constructed for final assignment. In fact, | 2.0 |
| R1xPlXlzEeW3pg6oA-kqJQ | very bad course | 1) very | Bad | 1) course | 1.0 |
| R1xPlXlzEeW3pg6oA-kqJQ | The course is too shallow - amount of topics discusses is quite small. Practice tasks are boring - implement pseudocode given in lectures. No quizzes. In particular you can see that it is a bad course, if you compare it to the previous 2 courses in the specialization. I'm agree with other people posting in forums about that. Wasted time, could spend that month more productively. Not going to continue passing other future courses. | 1) can see that it is a | Bad | 1) course, if you compare it to | 2.0 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | The topic is interesting and the lectures itself were good. The explanations of the algorithms and concepts was clear and easy to understand. However, the amount of material covered is very little. I think there should either be more concepts thought or they should be covered in more depth. Quizzes: The quizzes were very weak. They didn't really tell you weather you understood the concept or not. If one of the answers was wrong there was no information which one it was. So you have no idea which lecture you should watch again. Assignments: The assignments were very bad prepared. In some assignments there were bugs in the provided code, we weren't supposed to edit. The assignments itself are rather easy and can be completed quite quickly, if there wasn't the grader. From the grading you got no information what was wrong or which tests passed or failed. Most of the time it wasn't the case that the algorithm failed, instead the output was not as expected by the grader, although it was as described in the assignment. But you never knew. This part has to be improved a lot. Overall I have to say that I expected much more from University of Pennsylvania, especially after taking the first part of the Specialization which was of good quality. | 1) again. Assignments: The assignments were very | Bad | 1) prepared. In some assignments there were | 1.0 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | So I'll start with the positives. The material was appropriate and interesting and well presented. CJ Taylor is an enthusiastic lecturer and the material was presented in an enjoyable easy to understand way and having finished the course, I definitely want to learn more about computational motion planning. The problems I have with this course though are numerous. This is the second part of the Robotics Specialization and compared to the first part, this course was very weak. There was very little lecture material and the course felt thin - as if it were 2 weeks of material stretched over 4. There were many instances where the lectures could have gone in to much more detail and just didn't, I appreciate that you can't cover everything in lectures, but would it have killed you to provide or at least point to some good additional reading resources? The assessments were the worst part. The quizzes barely tested what I had learnt and could mostly be solved by common sense. What I find shocking is that there were so few questions with few multiple choice answer that you could easily brute-force these quizzes if you really wanted to. Compare this to the Aerial Robotics course where the quizzes took time and forced me to think and understand what was discussed in lecture. The programming assignments were shockingly bad. They were hard for completely the wrong reasons. I spent most of my time on them not coding the solution, but trying to figure out what was actually wanted and fixing bugs that were in the provided code that we WEREN'T EVEN SUPPOSED TO EDIT. The autograder would never tell you why you were wrong, just "I'm sorry, your solution didn't pass all of our test cases." This meant that finding the solution was based on guesswork rather than considered thought. This was made even worse by the fact that some simulations took a long time to run which made iterating guesses very slow - and doing this on a time limit is just pointlessly stressful. One of the assignments had the solution already in the source code as the instructors had forgotten to take it out. The final assignment wouldn't even run out of the box without fixing bugs in the provided code. This would have taken seconds to check had the person who wrote it bothered to check their work beforehand. Thing is, the tasks provided in principle weren't that hard, they were actually kind of too easy. Dijkstra's algorithm isn't that difficult to implement from scratch, and yet all that was asked of us was to implement a small 10 line for-loop. That said, I appreciate that as a software engineer, I might find this sort of thing much easier than most, but even so I don't feel as though the programming assignments helped me learn anything. Overall, regardless of how interesting the material was, this course was very shoddily put together. I appreciate this is the first time the course has been run, but this really felt phoned in and unacceptable. I paid money for this course and the quality of it is notably worse than most free MOOCs I have taken. I feel ripped off and I sincerely hope that the next section is better otherwise I doubt I will bother to continue until the end. I thought Penn University was better than this. | 1) lecture. The programming assignments were shockingly | Bad | 1) They were hard for completely the | 2.0 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | The course is very bad and feels thrown together at the last minute. Learning A* and Dijkstra's algorithm is great however the assignments require you to learn not just the little details but to "discovery" techniques not even mentioned in the course material. In addition, you must have strong matlab programming skills and be familiar with much matlab functionality in order to debug some of the assignments. You must have more knowledge concerning matlab than any of the course material or pointers provides. Meaning that beginners will NOT pass this course. The automatic grader provides no feedback at all except pass or fail. This is unfortunate as it can look like your code is working correctly but, the grader is using some edge cases to grade the code but will not include any information indicating what to look for. This is really atrocious. Although the TA's do occasionally provide answers to questions. The total amount of time TA's spend answering questions is just really poor. Don't expect even well asked questions to be answered at all. In addition, the coded template quality upon which your own code depends is horrible and thrown together. You will spend way too much time analyzing it for clues as to what went wrong. Sadly, enough all of these issues have caught up with me and I was unable to pass assignment 2 part 2. Even, though everything looks like it works and achieves the desired goal and even works with all of my own test cases. The grader is merciless. Perhaps, in the feature more time can be devoted to make this course better and I can spend more time learning how the algorithms and maths work rather than matlab and the automatic grader. At this time I don't feel like my money was well spent on these courses. I don't think I would like to risk another 50 dollars learning matlab and debugging the automatic grader on any of the other courses in this specialization. That is very disappointing as I really am passionate about learning robotics and looked forward to the other courses as well. | 1) The course is very | Bad | 1) and feels thrown together at the | 1.0 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | While I enjoyed this course and the topics covered, I don't feel like the course content matched what the course description stated it was supposed to. I enrolled in the Business Analytics Specialization course with a focus on analyzing a business from the inside, not outside. Of the 4 weeks of the course, I'd say that only week 4 was valid from an internal perspective but it was kept very high level. I'd say this course could be good for a specialization in business market analysis, but not as advertised. I also found the cartoon classroom questions to be very annoying, almost as bad as fingernails on a blackboard. | 1) to be very annoying, almost as | Bad | 1) as fingernails on a blackboard. | 2.0 |
| RFyNbG0iEeW9CAqYJHF3zQ | This course was very interesting at a human point of view. It helps with bad level of English non native speakers, and it is useful in a company. | 1) point of view. It helps with | Bad | 1) level of English non native speakers, | 5.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | Peer review is really bad idea for such assignement when you are writing your very first design document. It's very subjective and peers cannot provide a valuable feedback on your work | 1) Peer review is really | Bad | 1) idea for such assignement when you | 4.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | I will review this course appointing its pros and cons. Pros: - The instructor: he is a captivating person. It really seems that he like game development, he make jokes and try to make the course interesting. So, he’s personality is makes the course less boring. Cons: - The course name: when I saw “design” in the course name and the icon of course page, I thought it would be related to graphic design, or history telling and so on. But no, the “design” means “project”. So I think a better name would be “Principles of Game Project”. Although, it might be just me who thought this way, because in my language design means something totally different. - The course content: this course should be at the end of the specialization. It is too much abstract and, in some aspects, very obvious. I will not say it is completely useless, because it is not. It gives us a structured view of the stages of game design and its documentation, but I think it would be better if it was like a case study. - The assignments: probably the worst part of the course. They very very complex, to be sincere, none of the assignments I reviewed were full, I gave max grades to many because I think the person tried really hard to make it. Imagine this situation: you are not a programmer, not a graphic designer, not a writer and with a week you need to make a prototype of the game idea you’ve been working on course. This prototype must show the game mechanics and aesthetics, should be playable… And can be non digital? Come on, we are here learning the concepts of developments digital games and the instructor says that we can make a non digital prototype? Some people did it, and I can say for sure that I couldn’t imagine the real game. I made a digital prototype using the knowledge acquired from the first course, but as you can imagine, it is not enough to make our game ideas come true. - The peer review system: the grading is completely non sense, as I said before, the assignments are complex, so it is difficult to show our ideas clearly in a document, without the abilities to make concept arts or something. In 2 of the 4 assignments 2 of the 3 people gave me max grades and 1 gave me bad grades, and did not left any feedback! One of the assignments when I first submitted it I got 12/20. Then, when I resubmitted it, without changing a comma, I got 20/20. So I think this system must change, maybe the mentor should do it. If you want to do all the specialization, ok, go and do this course. But, if this is not your objective, do not waste your time. | 1) max grades and 1 gave me | Bad | 1) grades, and did not left any | 2.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | Tasks are different in complexity, but time is given the same. Speaker's constantly interrupts sentences. Hard to understand for people, who bad speek English. Questions for peer review are bad: "Mark 5 if work amasing". But we just student, our work are rough, not amasing. And everybody can grade as he wish. | 1) Hard to understand for people, who | Bad | 1) speek English. Questions for peer review | 3.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | Tasks are different in complexity, but time is given the same. Speaker's constantly interrupts sentences. Hard to understand for people, who bad speek English. Questions for peer review are bad: "Mark 5 if work amasing". But we just student, our work are rough, not amasing. And everybody can grade as he wish. | 2) English. Questions for peer review are | Bad | 2) " Mark 5 if work amasing" | 3.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | I learn a lot by doing assignments and reviewing other people's assignments. The important con of this course was some of its quizzes' questions which was ambiguous or badly framed. | 1) quizzes' questions which was ambiguous or | Bad | 1) framed. | 4.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | One big user-experience comment is that I wish that the videos had been edited; there are many long pauses and times where there is a lot of talking around the thing that you actually want to say. I think you have some great things to say, but perhaps streamlining those ideas and editing out the times when you need to pause to think (which is definitely legitimate when recording yourself!) or other things of that nature, would have definitely cut down on the length of the videos. Long videos aren't bad, if they are well put-together and conveying information in an engaging way. | 1) of the videos. Long videos aren't | Bad | 1) if they are well put-together and | 3.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | The course is not bad, right? It gives you interesting texts to read, right? And explains a design process, right? Is it OK to say right after each sentence? (English is not my first language, right). | 1) The course is not | Bad | 1) right? It gives you interesting texts | 4.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | This course has a good starting point, but there are so many things that ended up being wrong that I just can't force myself to give it more than 3 stars (and I'm not sure if it should be 3 or 2 stars). I think this is also the first course on Coursera that didn't get 5 stars from me (not sure if I've given 4 stars once only). So the bad parts first: Assignments are so unrealistic it's unbelievable. Week 1 is doable. Week 2 is problematic if you have a complex idea, let's say it's still doable, but you would certainly need more time than expected weekly hour work. Week 3 is insane. It is so out of the scope of this course. And week 4 is even worse, I had to use pen and paper and then explain only 1 of the core mechanics (even that used more than expected weekly hour work). Some of the quizzes are not fully clear if you are not a native English speaker. Sometimes I had to re-read things several times, and still wasn't sure what I was doing wrong (I realized that only after I managed to literally guess the correct answer). And most of all grading is the worst I've seen in any course. All of it based on a personal opinion. Hey I even managed not to get full points for a "document is HTML/PDF/....". I mean - how can I not get full points there? It either is or is not a HTML. It's so much subjective that it's making it awful. Now about the good parts: Professor did a great job, the course inspired so many ideas for me. The material is concise and it was a pleasure listening to this course. Most of the courses are too slow for me, so I have to fast forward them to 1.5 and some even to 2 times speed. I've run this course only on 1.25 speed, which is a good thing. I'm not a native English speaker. | 1) 4 stars once only). So the | Bad | 1) parts first: Assignments are so unrealistic | 3.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | Very good course, allows you to actually "think" and implement a game, which I love. Only issue is the grading. I would change the name of the scoring, makes it easy for people to give bad grades. | 1) it easy for people to give | Bad | 1) grades. | 4.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | Not very informative content, some parts are interesting but not worth the money. The worst thing is, all assignments are writting work that are evaluated by colleagues, meaning, it is purely objective, to the extent that one question asks if my uploaded file is in a readable format, example pdf, txt...etc and two out of three marking my pdf file as not!!! and not even leaving a comment why they are giving that bad score on obvious things! | 1) comment why they are giving that | Bad | 1) score on obvious things! | 1.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | One of the worst courses that I have taken in coursera. The videos feel unstructured without preparation and boring. The quizes are subjective. You can pass all of then without watching a single video or lecture. The assignments are interesting but the way of grading them are bad designed and subjective. Sad, I passed this course without trouble but made me stop wanting to get the full specialization. Spartans! Review the course or better close it. Its a shame. | 1) the way of grading them are | Bad | 1) designed and subjective. Sad, I passed | 1.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | This course is not set up right, the assignments ask you to do things that aren't explained until the next weeks content, its kind of discouraging. In the end, it does teach you the basics of R, its just too bad that the way to get there is aggravating. The reason I still only give it 2 stars is because of the quality of the courses itself. There are many, many 1 and 2 minute videos, these could've easily been combined. The teacher seems unprepared in his lectures, he stutters and repeats a lot and makes a weird noise between slides. This shouldn't be necessary with pre-recorded lectures. The assignments and quizzes are also poorly written and contain spelling and sloppy mistakes, which doesn't make sense because the material isn't new. It all just makes it seem like the teacher doesn't really care and just wants to sell the course to a lot of people without putting in much effort. If you are not following the specialization I would not advise this course for beginners. I'm quite surprised to see the course get such high ratings. | 1) basics of R, its just too | Bad | 1) that the way to get there | 2.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | The first 2 weeks have too many videos, which make it difficult to follow. This breaks the flow of the lectures and makes a lot of unuseful repetitions. The slides only have words and are hard to follow, no graphs or illustrations, this means that you rely on the voice of the lecturer to guide you, which is difficult sometimes. Furthermore, the code presented is not run 'live', and results are often lacking, which makes comparison with 'my own results' hard to do. Summary: Not that its a bad course (SWIRL is a great tool), just look for another course that's easier to follow. | 1) do. Summary: Not that its a | Bad | 1) course (SWIRL is a great tool), | 2.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Course does not do a good job actually explaining R or training you on how to properly use it. The lectures go over the material very fast and you do not get much out of them, and then the assignments throw complex problems that are very difficult. You spend most of your time Googling to learn it, and I find that I would have learned R better if I just did that to start without this course. Maybe if you aren't new to R and have a programming background, it may not be so bad, but if you are new to R and not an experienced programmer, this is not the class to take to learn it. | 1) background, it may not be so | Bad | 1) but if you are new to | 1.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | If you are planning to learn R, then go and buy a book. This course is a complete scam. At least don't pay any money. The reasons; 1.) They advertise that you need couple of hours of study per week. That's a lie, you have to study much more than that unless if you know a little R programming. 2.) The quiz questions are totally unrelated from the lessons. They teach you the basic stuff but they expect you to accomplish intermediate quizzes. 3.) The instructor has no idea how to teach. May be he is trying to prove something. I couldn't really understand his motives. If you really want to teach that's simple. You do couple of extra videos and teach whatever you are asking in quizzes, or tell us to read a certain material. He didn't do any of them which means he either doesn't know how to teach or this specialization is a complete scam. 4.) And I don't really understand what coursera is doing by the way? What kind of a business model is this. I was planning to enroll many specializations but now I am not going to do it. So think about how much they are loosing. Where is the quality assurance. Just because one guy comes up to you and say that he teaches this and that do you believe them? MY ADVICE TO YOU: DON'T PAY ANYTHING FOR THIS SPECIALIZATION. AND FOR ANY OTHER COURSE READ THE BAD REVIEWS FIRST (WHICH WAS MY MISTAKE). | 1) FOR ANY OTHER COURSE READ THE | Bad | 1) REVIEWS FIRST (WHICH WAS MY MISTAKE). | 1.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Overall not a bad course. Needs some tidying up though. For example, the assignments seem to assume knowledge of functions not covered in the prior lessons. Same applies to the textbook, e.g. page 50 refers to the subset() function, but it is not actually covered. | 1) Overall not a | Bad | 1) course. Needs some tidying up though. | 3.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | This is probably the most pedagogically inept course I have ever enrolled on. Although the content is what you would hope to find in such a course, the delivery of it is outrageously bad. When to complete your assignment, Google becomes your best friend rather than your lecture notes, you know that something is wrong. The idea that a baby thrown in the water may just learn to swim rather than drown is pedagogically retarded. Unfortunately, this seems to be the approach here... | 1) the delivery of it is outrageously | Bad | 1) When to complete your assignment, Google | 1.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | I wanted to love this course so bad but unfortunately I couldn't. There was a great distance from what was taught in the lectures and what was asked for you to do in the assignments... and It's not a matter of knowing how to program. I know Ruby and Python but R is a very peculiar language itself. Perhaps they should invest more on gradual exercises like the one they advised to do on github or some easy statistical exercises... Now I don't know if I should take the next module or if I should look for something out of here where I can learn R. I see potential on this course. | 1) wanted to love this course so | Bad | 1) but unfortunately I couldn't. There was | 3.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Excelente opportunity to learn a lot. The course is very well prepared introduce you to R programing. Dont feel bad if you dont get it at te first moment. It will be a process of leaning worth trying | 1) you to R programing. Dont feel | Bad | 1) if you dont get it at | 5.0 |
| rNpCSyQbEeWXzxJxfIL00w | Uncomfortable to watch and also a very outdated layout of the course, feels like a bad 90s American talk show. | 1) of the course, feels like a | Bad | 1) 90s American talk show. | 2.0 |
| RO728xoIEeWg_RJGAuFGjw | not bad,but too simple for me | 1) not | Bad | 1) but too simple for me | 4.0 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | Great use of examples. I was not thrilled with peer-reviews as some people may give you bad scores with no explanation and/or they may be wrong in their understanding/interpretation of the course material/assignment. | 1) as some people may give you | Bad | 1) scores with no explanation and/or they | 4.0 |
| ru6DZ3Q6EeWi0g6YoSAL-w | Enjoyed the class, only part that was bad is I couldn't do any of the quizzes. I can't afford the cost. Other then that the class was very informative and I found it very entertaining as well. Thank you. | 1) the class, only part that was | Bad | 1) is I couldn't do any of | 5.0 |
| sCE0nT-OEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | the course is very good, but in comparison with the first course with dr Leigh Thompson, the instructor in a little bit monotonus, and the screenplay does not have any illustrations which is needed badly. otherwise the course is very good and informative and a big thanks to the instructor and his respected assistants | 1) have any illustrations which is needed | Bad | 1) otherwise the course is very good | 4.0 |
| SG_K6nEmEeWxvQr3acyajw | Good content, but blocked quizes in free version is bad idea. | 1) blocked quizes in free version is | Bad | 1) idea. | 2.0 |
| sHs1AyWUEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | I must say that the Capstone Project was a good assignment. The issue is that the Peer Reviews were bad. I had to resubmit my assignment due to a student that choose to give me 0's when the other reviewers gave me 5's. There was also a bias to what each reviewer thought the capstone should cover so you had no idea which direction to update your work because the next reviewer may feel that the type of analysis you did was not Necessary. The course needs a specific Rubric and specific methods each person has to use in order to complete the assignment. For example, Must Use the Four Forces Model when evaluating Strategy. This way everyone knows what to expect and what to look for. Otherwise you can get a low grade on a great project because a Classmate thought you should have used another model so he gave you a 1 or 0 when the model you used demonstrated your knowledge. Capstones need to be monitored either by a student or assistant to protect against trolls that don't read your work and give you the lowest score. Otherwise the Course was great and the information was definitely well put together. The Peer Reviews brought my overall grade lower because I didn't get the High Mark I should have. | 1) is that the Peer Reviews were | Bad | 1) I had to resubmit my assignment | 2.0 |
| shV98lfdEeWT8xIUiEQHHQ | It's good for undergraduates, and people returning to academia (say, before starting a Master's course). It's a very short simple introduction. I kind of wish it had more examples of language to use in academic writing, contrasting good and bad examples. Some of the quiz questions and final exam questions need some proofreading. The videos from about week 3 to 4 have poor sound quality, but still understandable. | 1) in academic writing, contrasting good and | Bad | 1) examples. Some of the quiz questions | 3.0 |
| SiUFNQMIEeWKrCIAC49PHA | sth not bad | 1) sth not | Bad | 1) | 4.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | I read some of the other reviews and feel I should comment on some of their criticisms. The material, objectives and tuition are top-notch. Yes there are things that are unclear and difficult and I you will need to read around the subjects introduced from other sources and persevere. But that is how you will learn and remember. So far I have yet to complete the course, I am about to start my 4th attempt, but I get a little further each time and the next presentation acts as revision initially. Daniel Eggar introduces key concepts that you need to master, this course is not spoon fed, but is better for it. If I have a criticism, perhaps the course is badly named, maybe it should be called "Core statistical concepts for data science using Excel" | 1) a criticism, perhaps the course is | Bad | 1) named, maybe it should be called | 5.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | PROS: - Classification lecture is good; -Weekly assignments are challenging enough CONS - No slides provided. Professor draws on an eletronic chalkboard (with a very bad handwriting) and you need to keep going back to videos when you are doing the homework. For me, this shows lack of professionalism and laziness - Some excel sheets are provided. But they are very messy and badly formatted, matching the messy handwriting in the videos. AND, the instructions are for MAC! No instructions for PC are provided whatsoever. I never used MAC, so I had a very hard time! - Very few examples real examples are provided; - You learn math concepts, not Excel skills! Except for the LINEST function, which is very handy, BUT it's NOT TAUGHT in the videos. I had to google the function to learn it. - They say to complete each piece of the final assingment after you finish the respective week related to that piece. But they only say that as you start week 6! - The course doesn't provide sufficient material for the final assignment. You get stuck without knowing how to get to answers; - Some answers to the final assignment are not correct, you check the answer sheet, and the results aren't present in the test! OVERALL: I'd never recommend this course to anyone. I only took it because I'm plannening to finish the specialization. I've taken several Online Courses (5+ on Excel), and this is the worst and most frustating one by far! | 1) an eletronic chalkboard (with a very | Bad | 1) handwriting) and you need to keep | 2.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | PROS: - Classification lecture is good; -Weekly assignments are challenging enough CONS - No slides provided. Professor draws on an eletronic chalkboard (with a very bad handwriting) and you need to keep going back to videos when you are doing the homework. For me, this shows lack of professionalism and laziness - Some excel sheets are provided. But they are very messy and badly formatted, matching the messy handwriting in the videos. AND, the instructions are for MAC! No instructions for PC are provided whatsoever. I never used MAC, so I had a very hard time! - Very few examples real examples are provided; - You learn math concepts, not Excel skills! Except for the LINEST function, which is very handy, BUT it's NOT TAUGHT in the videos. I had to google the function to learn it. - They say to complete each piece of the final assingment after you finish the respective week related to that piece. But they only say that as you start week 6! - The course doesn't provide sufficient material for the final assignment. You get stuck without knowing how to get to answers; - Some answers to the final assignment are not correct, you check the answer sheet, and the results aren't present in the test! OVERALL: I'd never recommend this course to anyone. I only took it because I'm plannening to finish the specialization. I've taken several Online Courses (5+ on Excel), and this is the worst and most frustating one by far! | 2) But they are very messy and | Bad | 2) formatted, matching the messy handwriting in | 2.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | The Course is fine, explanations and videos are a bit hard to follow at times. The final assessment is in my opinion very bad, as it i appears to me quite unrelated to the course it self. The lectures are quite abstract and the exam is a practical application of the concept. The instructions of the course also aren't very good as you need to do each part of the final project at the end of each week. I would strongly suggest to not take this course unless you have many spare hours. | 1) assessment is in my opinion very | Bad | 1) as it i appears to me | 3.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Good content but badly structured | 1) Good content but | Bad | 1) structured | 5.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | The class has great concept but it needs a bit more structure and change to hit its full potential. The Good:-The spreadsheets and exercises along with Quiz material. The project was also very informative. The Bad:- The video need to better explain how Area Under Curve and how the Credit model make sense. It was not very intuitive and I struggled for over 2 weeks to put the Project together due to this gap. But a worthwhile class with great potential. I am glad I took it. | 1) project was also very informative. The | Bad | 1) The video need to better explain | 3.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Great class, however I felt it was very heavy on statistics and math concepts versus how to use Excel for data analysis. I would've liked to see some strategies on how to analyze large datasets, look for trends, and clean up bad data. | 1) look for trends, and clean up | Bad | 1) data. | 3.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | The course name is very misleading. While overall it is not a bad course, I believe a lot of people come here expecting very different material. Let's just put it this way: Mastering Data Analysis (mostly things to do with probability) with occasional use of Excel. Do not expect to learn anything new in excel. | 1) While overall it is not a | Bad | 1) course, I believe a lot of | 2.0 |
| sxQd3zI6EeWtEArDRuZAUQ | This course is really bad. The instruction is not enough to solve the programming assignment. The almost contents aren't related to communicating data science result. | 1) This course is really | Bad | 1) The instruction is not enough to | 1.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | This course does not belong to this specialization. Poor content, poor assessment quiz, and felt quite disappointed. It is way below par. I never thought I would have to rate it this bad. If not for specialization that I am aiming for, I would never take it. Period. | 1) would have to rate it this | Bad | 1) If not for specialization that I | 1.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | Is not as bad as I thought at the beginning (the first two weeks). It gets better the third week. I think it needs some improvement though. | 1) Is not as | Bad | 1) as I thought at the beginning | 3.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | A separate class for spreadsheets and modeling isn't bad perse. The best way to teach these models is to integrate them during finance or accounting, or whatever specific class you are trying to learn. That said this is probably a good resource for someone with 0 and I mean absolutely NO experience with excel. However my gut feeling also tells me that those who have had 0 experience with excel will not be able to follow the models shown in this class. | 1) class for spreadsheets and modeling isn't | Bad | 1) perse. The best way to teach | 3.0 |
| tGbJuel4EeSnMSIACzuFJw | Too much math! This course was not at all what I was expecting it to be... which could be both good and bad, depending on your own perspective. It concentrates heavily on the logistical side of negotiations via mathematical analysis to figure out "what's at stake" in a negotiation (i.e. "the pie") and less so on learning actual negotiation techniques. I got halfway through the first week before deciding to un-enroll. That said, Professor Nalebuff has a very engaging teaching style and presents each lecture in a dynamic fashion via animation. If you are a math whiz who excels in algebra and can do complex mathematical equations quickly on the fly, then this course will definitely benefit you. If you are like me, however, and looking for a course that will focus more on artistry and practical real-world application, then this course is not for you. | 1) which could be both good and | Bad | 1) depending on your own perspective. It | 2.0 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | I would give it 5 stars but , staff really needs to start reviewing assignments because there are a couple of bad apples copying the work of other students. We work hard and should not have our work plagiarized, but since it is peer review and not teacher graded, they get away with it. | 1) because there are a couple of | Bad | 1) apples copying the work of other | 3.0 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | Excellent overview of some current issues related to security and the Internet. I especially liked the assignments which required one to write a short essay. The videos are somewhat minimal but I do not think that is necessarily bad. Instead, one has to gather a lot of information oneself through readings and Internet searches. | 1) do not think that is necessarily | Bad | 1) Instead, one has to gather a | 5.0 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | all on demand flow are bad. difficult to follow and see where we are and what is left... | 1) all on demand flow are | Bad | 1) difficult to follow and see where | 1.0 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | The course isn't bad, but the videos explanations are all way to general, they should be more detailed. | 1) The course isn't | Bad | 1) but the videos explanations are all | 3.0 |
| T_hpstgKEeSA2iIAC22KLw | Great Course. The only bad thing is that in the end the course does not provide a certification. | 1) Great Course. The only | Bad | 1) thing is that in the end | 5.0 |
| T_hpstgKEeSA2iIAC22KLw | I've only recently been going in depth into issues like harming the environment, poverty and solutions to those problems that don't affect us in bad ways and this course has helped deepen my understanding of the way everything works tremendously. The professor is a wonderful speaker and there isn't one boring minute. Each lesson is very well thought out and i would recommend this to anyone and everyone seeking to better understand how the connections in this modern world work and affect each other and effects on the environment if we keep on this destructive path of ours. | 1) problems that don't affect us in | Bad | 1) ways and this course has helped | 5.0 |
| U-SKLJVlEeWF6gpQJiw6hQ | The first week was quite suitable and I had enough time to spend. The only problem was in editing of clips. They had bad cuts. | 1) in editing of clips. They had | Bad | 1) cuts. | 5.0 |
| UA9HkQ8QEeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Good lecture and educational. Extremely bad thing that is not offered and for free. same bad is that they are not try to explain more, (for students with less tech skills). In any case i am happy with the course and i will continue with the specialization, but regardless my decision to continue, my very fair rate will stay low, (especially for the fact that they didn't offer the course and for free). | 1) Good lecture and educational. Extremely | Bad | 1) thing that is not offered and | 3.0 |
| UA9HkQ8QEeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Good lecture and educational. Extremely bad thing that is not offered and for free. same bad is that they are not try to explain more, (for students with less tech skills). In any case i am happy with the course and i will continue with the specialization, but regardless my decision to continue, my very fair rate will stay low, (especially for the fact that they didn't offer the course and for free). | 2) not offered and for free. same | Bad | 2) is that they are not try | 3.0 |
| uiT8U5oIEeWQGBKrxISOrQ | The worst course I've ever take in Coursera. I can pass the course all because I have some background of this topic. The lecture taught me NOTHING! Consider I just finish the previous course "algorithm for DNA sequencing" which might be the best course I toke in the Coursera, this course makes me very disappointed! If the previous course gives me the faith to continue learning something in Coursera, this course must be the reason that let me leave the Coursera left. I can't even understand why there are some guys give this course 5 stars. If there is -5 stars option, I'll put this score in front of the lecturer and tell her WHAT A BAD COURSE her give us. | 1) lecturer and tell her WHAT A | Bad | 1) COURSE her give us. | 1.0 |
| uiT8U5oIEeWQGBKrxISOrQ | Very bad or non-existent support | 1) Very | Bad | 1) or non-existent support | 1.0 |
| ujxZm0T9EeWhnQozdayc-w | This class isn't very good. It is confusing and not well explained, and the quizzes are too short and badly written. I gave up on week 5 (of 6) because I just didn't feel i was learning very much, particularly about what the title of the course would suggest you'd be learning about. | 1) the quizzes are too short and | Bad | 1) written. I gave up on week | 2.0 |
| urbm-CT-EeWCGRL6mLoB5w | I was most excited about taking this class (in fact, it's how I found the specialization as a whole) and I did not get as much out of it as I was hoping for. :-\ I think that it's geared to too wide of an audience, so we didn't get as specific as I was anticipating. I also felt that a lot of the time of the videos were taken up by telling us what not to do. ("You don't want to be too far to this side, but you don't want to be too far to the other side, right?") I did get some good information out of this class, but I found a disconnect between the lectures and the homework. When we were assigned an elevator pitch as an assignment, it might have been nice to have seen some examples of elevator pitches--what makes a good (or a bad) elevator pitch? What kind of things would be a good idea to include? Concrete examples would have been super helpful. Submitting my homework and then seeing that other people did vastly different stuff made me question my own submission (Did we just take it in a different direction or did I (or they) misunderstand the assignment?) but since we're all peer reviewing, it's a case of the blind leading the blind there. This also happened with the SWOT Document...which I don't think was even mentioned in the lectures at all in-depth. Again, it would have been helpful to have seen some concrete examples, as I've never heard of that document before. | 1) pitches--what makes a good (or a | Bad | 1) elevator pitch? What kind of things | 2.0 |
| urbm-CT-EeWCGRL6mLoB5w | Many of the issues from the previous course have been fixed in this course. Not bad, but there were still issues with the video content not matching up well with the assignments. Especially in that the assignments are never talked about in the videos, especially how to create the papers that are asked of the student. | 1) been fixed in this course. Not | Bad | 1) but there were still issues with | 4.0 |
| usIwBhODEeWfzgpfp_iBVw | This course is bad! I had come upto week 4. While Chris Impey is knowledgeable and good, the course structure is very poor and leaves a lot to be desired. I would venture to make some suggestions: a. Restrict each video to a max of 7 minutes. More than that makes one sleepy. b. Reduce the number of videos in each module to a max of say 6. c. Instead of having Chris expound it like an audio reading, please include some slides, pictures,tables so that the matter to be learnt becomes self evident and Chris doesn't have to speak so much. A good example is the Coursera "The Global Financial Crisis", which I am also doing currently. d. If you feel all the material in this course has to be studied, then to achieve the objectives in (a) and (b) above, divide this course into two parts, Astronomy: Exploring Time and Space - part I & II. e. The written assignments are very simple and do not require any mental resources other than memory. Can you make the questions more challenging? For example, in Telescopes (Assignment 2), can you not ask a question like "In addition to Atacama, Chile, using Google earth, which other parts of the globe may be suitable for installation of ground based telescopes?" or "To obviate the blurring effect of the atmosphere, discuss the possibility of high altitude balloon based telescopes?" or "What do you feel about the fact that since today's mobile phones have high computing ability, their components can be used to make a low-cost space based interferometric telescopes?" Kudos to Chris and his team! On the whole, knowledge wise, this is a good course. | 1) This course is | Bad | 1) I had come upto week 4. | 1.0 |
| v0l76HmGEeSi3yIACzSGcw | The contents are so relevant to the real world. I am glad that I have the opportunity to learn these skills and collect the techniques to use for the future. I always think that that the skillful negotiator will have to lie and being a bad person, but this course change my thought. I used to scare of negotiation, but now I am up for it. Thank you very much for the fantastic class. I don't know how you craft this course, but it kept my interest up till the end (which rarely happens). | 1) have to lie and being a | Bad | 1) person, but this course change my | 5.0 |
| v0l76HmGEeSi3yIACzSGcw | Great teacher, wonderfull content and examples. Thank you very much professor Siedel Only one improving point: the videos were often working badly (no audio or breaking the upload) | 1) point: the videos were often working | Bad | 1) (no audio or breaking the upload) | 5.0 |
| v0l76HmGEeSi3yIACzSGcw | It was definitely a bad idea to take up this course as my first MooC I took seriously. Professor George J. Siedel’s course was too well-structured, consistent and practical, and have raised my MooC expectations level so high, that now, being absolutely hungry with massive online education, I face certain difficulties in finding a course to keep to the same level. But I go on believing that it's possible. As for the practical application of the knowledge obtained - it’s too early to make conclusions, but having tried some techniques in reality, I find them very helpful. What’s also great: now, getting a bit deeper in some of the issues raised by the course, say, negotiator’s decision making psychology, I find out that what I see in 10 different sources, had already been covered by this only course. And the final practical task was a bit of mind-blowing for me. In a good sense. Thank you very much for the experience! | 1) It was definitely a | Bad | 1) idea to take up this course | 5.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This course, was really bad structured, was often the discrepancy between the information provided in the videos and the questions in the Quiz. Also a lot of time the system was very picky to take an answer like correct, just because the format used, for example e!=E in one equation, and because this was necessary a lot of guessing in order to find how the system take the answer by correct. But really the worst was the discrepancy between the video and the quiz, because my impression is that the videos were cut to fix in the time, but they were cut a lot, missing important information to be used in the quiz. | 1) This course, was really | Bad | 1) structured, was often the discrepancy between | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | Despite the arguments of this module are extremely interesting and very useful for Robotics, I think the way they are treated is very poor. In my opinion lectures are so superficial that it is almost a waste of time to follow them. Lectures are completely useless and most of the time quizzes are note related with them. In order to solve quizzes you have not only to recover prior knowledge, that it is obvious, but also to search for new arguments somwhere in the web, in some other courses where contents are better treated and explained. In that contest what are the quizzes, what should quizzes have to test if no content is given? Moreover it often happen that without a clear support from the lectures, questions are confused and ambiguous. It is quite difficult to follow the teaching path and to enrich my knowledge. I think it is a very bad way to make a course and often the pleasure to follow disappears leaving a sense of frustration and futility. I arrived at the end of the course just because I'm doing the specialization otherwise I would have left in the middle of the first week. I'm very disappointed. | 1) I think it is a very | Bad | 1) way to make a course and | 1.0 |
| v9CQdBkhEeWjrA6seF25aw | I have taken many courses on Coursera now, and I've enjoyed and learned a lot from most of them, but I have to admit I was disappointed with this one, despite having a deep interest in modern art and art theory. Here are some of my criticisms: 1. The course is aimed at teachers and art educators, which was not made at all clear on the course info page, apart from a single reference to the 'pedagogical framework'. If I'd understood this, I may well not have enrolled. 2. I found the course very basic, with no consideration of art theory beyond a level appropriate for classroom discussion. This is in contrast to many other Coursera courses, which have been pitched at graduate level or above. I don't really feel like I learned anything on this course. 3. The video lectures are very short and uninformative, but the weekly reading list is very long and much more time consuming that the actual tuition. I would have preferred a better balance between tutorials and reading. 4. The weekly quizzes were very short (six questions, where other courses typically have 20 to 30 questions per module), and and questions focus almost entirely on the pedagogical set texts, with very little attention paid to the art history or the works discussed in the tutorials. If you are not going to be tested on the material, what is the point of all that required reading? 5. The final peer-assessed assignment is lacking in instructions or guidance. For example, you are required to upload images of 3 or 4 artworks and discuss them. It is in fact impossible to upload more than a single image, but there are no instructions on what to do about this. People found various workarounds - uploading pdfs or Word documents, or zipped folders of images, but really, there should be some official guidance on this. 6. Comments made when assessing other students' work are not anonymous - this is unique in my Coursera experience, where anonymous marking is the norm, and knowing how fractious people can get when they are disappointed with their grade, I am not at all happy about having my name made available to them. Overall, the only reason I persisted with this course is that I wanted to get a certificate with MoMA written on it. Too bad I couldn't have actually learned something as well. | 1) with MoMA written on it. Too | Bad | 1) I couldn't have actually learned something | 3.0 |
| v9CQdBkhEeWjrA6seF25aw | Bad teacher. extremely disappointing ! | 1) | Bad | 1) teacher. extremely disappointing ! | 1.0 |
| v9CQdBkhEeWjrA6seF25aw | The concept of this course is unique and pretty interesting, but videos are too short, basic and non-specific, they have vague connection with the rest of the materials. And the design of the tests and assignment is just awful. The questions with multiple choice work wrong: marking all the right answers is not appropriate, you must choose the "all of the above" option, but it is wrong because of formal logic. The correct option here is only to match all the answers and the "all of the above" line. Also many questions are debatable, and there is no answers in the materials for the course. And, finally, the uploading of the last assignment was just impossible for more than a week, and I don't know if it will ever be possible. Bad experience. | 1) if it will ever be possible. | Bad | 1) experience. | 2.0 |
| vrTPjkqzEeWB9g55-yieoQ | Bad quality slides and presentation. not possible to use headphone since it was on mono not stereo. Interesting topic but not well executed to fit online learning | 1) | Bad | 1) quality slides and presentation. not possible | 1.0 |
| VxTqEC8iEeWUWxIOAnoaFQ | this module makes me think about the tax i have been studying about the taxes and how working , thank you to the leiden university i have been learning about of the famous beps and other themes sorry for my bad english | 1) and other themes sorry for my | Bad | 1) english | 5.0 |
| wD1C7I_eEeWZyg6bf_Oxkw | I would have given this course NO stars at all if that option were available!!! The course is designed in contradiction of all the principles it preaches--there are no forums for the students, there is no way you could contact the instructor, the instructor keeps reading badly, stammering like a first-grader, speaks monotonously and there's no interaction whatsoever! Furthermore, there are mistakes in the quizzes and you have to choose blatantly wrong options if you want to get the 100% score! Although the subject matter about Virtual Instruction is pretty interesting and the instructor made it sound like the most boring thing in the world! Many of the links are outdated or not working at all and often the documents she refers to are 10 or more years old. Bear in mind that Virtual Instruction is a fast developing field and the technology as well as the legal framework are changing very fast too. In a nutshell, if this course were not a part of a Specialization track, I would not have paid for it. Unless you want to do the specialization, I wouldn't recommend this course or any by the UC Irvine because all of the lack forums and no channels for communication with the instructors!!! In one word BAD! | 1) the instructor, the instructor keeps reading | Bad | 1) stammering like a first-grader, speaks monotonously | 1.0 |
| wD1C7I_eEeWZyg6bf_Oxkw | I would have given this course NO stars at all if that option were available!!! The course is designed in contradiction of all the principles it preaches--there are no forums for the students, there is no way you could contact the instructor, the instructor keeps reading badly, stammering like a first-grader, speaks monotonously and there's no interaction whatsoever! Furthermore, there are mistakes in the quizzes and you have to choose blatantly wrong options if you want to get the 100% score! Although the subject matter about Virtual Instruction is pretty interesting and the instructor made it sound like the most boring thing in the world! Many of the links are outdated or not working at all and often the documents she refers to are 10 or more years old. Bear in mind that Virtual Instruction is a fast developing field and the technology as well as the legal framework are changing very fast too. In a nutshell, if this course were not a part of a Specialization track, I would not have paid for it. Unless you want to do the specialization, I wouldn't recommend this course or any by the UC Irvine because all of the lack forums and no channels for communication with the instructors!!! In one word BAD! | 2) instructors! ! ! In one word | Bad | 2) | 1.0 |
| wD1C7I_eEeWZyg6bf_Oxkw | Some materials are useful but the teacher has no idea of teaching techniques and good presentation. Very bad choice for the University of Irvin, California to entrust such an interesting course to such an incompetent and feeble instructor. She is reading in a monotonous way and nothing more. Her presentations have no meaning. She does not appear in the video lectures. She can not introduce animated elements. The materials she selected are sometimes and only somehow relevant. The most of the materials have only percentages, and small details on history. A course of poor quality. | 1) teaching techniques and good presentation. Very | Bad | 1) choice for the University of Irvin, | 1.0 |
| wKPtohoHEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Great class and Meteor.js is really wonderful once you understand what it can do. Seamless persistence, i.e. program data and Mongo db, is what you wish all other dev frameworks would give you out of the box. Mongo db integration is missing full-text search capability which is badly needed, I think. But, easy:search package complements it well. I highly recommend this class and this specialization. Pace is great, materials are delivered piecemeal, and the instructor(s) are also great. | 1) missing full-text search capability which is | Bad | 1) needed, I think. But, easy:search package | 5.0 |
| Wl5ych5kEeWFIxLDnS6_kQ | Very bad Because you need 3 persons to evaluate you every week and often this persons is not educated or gives a score zero for all . So having to re-course or leaving without convincing reason | 1) Very | Bad | 1) Because you need 3 persons to | 1.0 |
| wmoTBzyAEeWFSA6UPWxRyQ | Good points: 1) Great instructor; 2) applicable content; 3) great for physics students. Bad points: 1) Lacking of a "Formulae booklet" to use as reminder and reference for formulas and constants - when working on the models for this course; 2) The exercises approach should be reviews, making more use of the tools available in the Coursera interface (example: Assigments in text format (discursive) should use the own coursera interface, instead make us upload .TXT or .DOC files). Extra: I did not finish the course, the format and content do not achieve my personal objectives, as a software developer and environmentalist. But i really enjoyed the general approach and goal. | 1) content; 3) great for physics students. | Bad | 1) points: 1) Lacking of a " | 4.0 |
| wnxlH3Q8EeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | This course feels quite weak, especially for the paid course, for these reasons: Models (Leader as Mentor, Coach, etc..., CTFAR model), which are given in this course, are given as is, with no references on how they were developed, authorship, and how good the results of application are. Almost no (just one) external references for reading to better understanding course material. The amount of material (about 3 hours of video, 4 quizzes, 2 discussions and 1 assignment) doesn't feel like it's a month's course, more like a one/one-and-a-half week. No references on topics, described as "hard" during the course (for example, identifying your values), which would make this topics less "hard". No instructor interaction on the course forum (I don't know if this should be like this or not, but it still feels bad). However, the final assignment is good and practice oriented. | 1) or not, but it still feels | Bad | 1) However, the final assignment is good | 2.0 |
| wSAQVkpJEeW8cBKtDAegYw | not bad | 1) not | Bad | 1) | 3.0 |
| X8YjHDowEeWnxw5wP_KHTw | Very bad learner experience. I'm disappointed. I don't know if what I have learnt is correct or not. All quizzes and some lectures have errors, impossible to get a 10/10. There're few characters to learn. -- Muy mala experiencia de aprendizaje. Estoy decepcionada con éste curso. He aprendido pero no sé si lo que he aprendido es correcto! Casi todos los test y algunas presentaciones tienen errores (y no son pocos), es imposible sacar un 10 ni con diccionario. Además hay muy pocos caracteres y no se explica la relación de cada carácter con el significado de las palabras. | 1) Very | Bad | 1) learner experience. I'm disappointed. I don't | 1.0 |
| XEjjlXEkEeWhZxJhllGpHQ | Good content, but blocked quizes in free version is bad idea. | 1) blocked quizes in free version is | Bad | 1) idea. | 2.0 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Short and concise. The course strongly aims for USA residents who eat too much. If you are that person, this course is perfect. As someone from another country without health problems, there was not much here. I was hoping to learn more about food and how to optimize my diet so as to increase energy, improve mood, increase life-expectancy, and reduce chances for depression. I found nothing about that. But it's not so bad because the course took me less than 3 hours and I still picked up a few things :). | 1) about that. But it's not so | Bad | 1) because the course took me less | 3.0 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | this is the most beautiful thing i have ever experienced about food and health Before this introductory course i had almost total dislike to the theme because of the incredibly high percent of low-quality sources - both human and media - both in informational (logical) and emotional (presentational) parts. Some highlights: 0: It is a Scientific approach 1. It considers sustainable goals 2. It considers transitions to the goals - very important part which is often omitted 3. It is does not confront with other models (like vegetarian) - this is the first sign of science (but not otherwise: a lot of people have this way of thinking: "science - corporations - just for money - bad for health" - it is obviously logically incorrect way of thinking but wide-spread) 4. It suggest improvements for any income 5. It considers emotional aspects of the solution (this disproves another wide-spread logical error in the area: "science in food - just nutrients - no emotions". For those who is trying to do the critical thinking this error is obvious as well - science is about objective knowledge about the real world - and there is enormous science knowledge about areas which study emotions, in this course the knowledge is gracefully used to transfer the information and construct sustainable goals and transitions). 6. To have a bit of emotions in the last point: it is a very harmonious base knowledge about food and health. | 1) corporations - just for money - | Bad | 1) for health" - it is obviously | 5.0 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | it is VERY basic course suitable for people who really struggling to find their way to healthy food and even to its determination. Basic recipes are giving for home cooking. BEAUTIFUL illustrations along the course as well. BUT I hoped to find more scientific information about nutrition and suggestion which products might cause specific diseases. Would be also nice to have lectures from scientific point of view like: why it is unhealthy to eat before going to bad, which products digest slower etc. | 1) unhealthy to eat before going to | Bad | 1) which products digest slower etc. | 4.0 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | This class helps me to realize the significance of foods and health.I had a bad dietary habits,then I have been fat and some chronic diseases.I thought i was lazy and didn't know how to deal with it.But now,i determine to have a healthier diet and lifestyle. THANK YOU! | 1) foods and health. I had a | Bad | 1) dietary habits, then I have been | 5.0 |
| xtpKLngcEeWrAxJQXw-8PQ | wonderful course, clear assignments, informative lectures. of all the classes this one changed my writing the most. I thought it would be the most extraneous of the series. I thought the plot and character class would be more important but in fact, just paying attention to style helped the movement of my stories - it forced things to happen, it forced a plot, it forced a character to do things. Scribona's advice is practical - use more nouns and verbs, pay attention to how you describe the world through the eyes of the characters, learn how to edit and so on. He helped me finally get a handle the POV i use all the time in writing, but never really understood, and so I used it badly. Some of the other classes in the specialization were too heady, and not practical. But most importantly, Scribona's love for the written word was so apparent during the lectures that it elicited the same reverence in the students. | 1) understood, and so I used it | Bad | 1) Some of the other classes in | 5.0 |
| y20FTlDPEeWMlwoziUhyxQ | Not bad by the now | 1) Not | Bad | 1) by the now | 3.0 |
| YcfRNRoCEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Thank you very much for this interesting course! I still do these excersizes and try to notice good and bad design solutions in everything what surrounds me. I love this course and I am reading now Don Norman's 'The Design of Everyday Things' to understand design principles more deeply. It's an upgrade for me! | 1) and try to notice good and | Bad | 1) design solutions in everything what surrounds | 5.0 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | It gives you a lot of information about Bootstrap and various tool you can use for Front-End Web Development. It gives you hand on experience with Bootstrap and how it functions. It doesn't explain to you everything which can be a good thing or bad thing depending on how you see it. Overall it's a great course that makes you see how Web UIs are made. | 1) can be a good thing or | Bad | 1) thing depending on how you see | 4.0 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | This course was pretty cool. A lot of very useful stuff was covered, but I feel like it went too fast. But I think it could be better connected together in terms of broad principles, rather than just going through tons of particular examples. I still don't feel like I have a "mental framework" for how to lay out a web page, other than the basics of the 12-column grid system. It all seemed very ad hoc. It's by no means a bad course, and I still gave it four stars since the material is very useful, but I definitely think it could be improved upon. Also, the ratio of homework/lectures is way too low. I definitely think the course should put more emphasis on actually creating websites oneself. Many of the homework assignments took me under an hour -- after I spent hours watching all the videos and taking notes trying to remember it all. | 1) hoc. It's by no means a | Bad | 1) course, and I still gave it | 4.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | The course is very rushed and the assignment does not cover the key points of the classes. I did not feel like I have learnt anything from this course, it is badly structured, I had to take a different Statistics course just to get through this course. | 1) anything from this course, it is | Bad | 1) structured, I had to take a | 1.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | The worst course I've ever taken. Bad sound quality, dead discussion forums, not possible to understand material without external (not mentioned in the course) sources. | 1) The worst course I've ever taken. | Bad | 1) sound quality, dead discussion forums, not | 1.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | Poor concepts exposition with a bad teaching method. | 1) Poor concepts exposition with a | Bad | 1) teaching method. | 2.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | I really felt that the explanations were terrible. I had to learn everything out of a text book that I had from first year, because the lectures were so bad... | 1) year, because the lectures were so | Bad | 1) . . | 1.0 |
| ypgDPuPQEeSyBSIAC9REKg | Great course too bad it is so short... | 1) Great course too | Bad | 1) it is so short. . . | 5.0 |
| yVldYUd5EeWb5ArkqfgJBw | Very bad introduction to Python and almost nothing about Raspberry Pi itself. | 1) Very | Bad | 1) introduction to Python and almost nothing | 1.0 |
| yWjlOBnoEeWg_RJGAuFGjw | Not enough implication from the instructors in the course. Students are left alone with the material, without any answers to there questions on the course. Peer review process subject to personal interpretation and leading to frustration for the students. That's quite unfortunate as this provides a bad experience whereas the course might have been good without that. | 1) quite unfortunate as this provides a | Bad | 1) experience whereas the course might have | 2.0 |
| yWjlOBnoEeWg_RJGAuFGjw | I think this course is great, however weeks 2 and 3 should be restructured to ensure students acknowledge topics properly. I had a bad time solving those week's asignments. | 1) acknowledge topics properly. I had a | Bad | 1) time solving those week's asignments. | 4.0 |
| Z3yHdBVBEeWvmQrN_lODCw | Assignments are ambiguously phrased and full of inconsistencies and typos. The last assignment does not provide feedback at all. It mainly felt like sitting in a lecture theatre getting a fragmented overview of the lecturer's work, while never gaining a real handle on the wider context, or what would have happened if an action hadn't been taken/had been performed differently. There was not enough further reading and no discussion of other people's work - such as a dissection of how a company might have arrived at a product we can actually identify in the wild. Rather than learning how I could tackle any project, I now know how to work on very specific examples of projects - if anything was to deviate from this, I'd still be clueless. Overall, the course feels haphazard and badly prepared. | 1) Overall, the course feels haphazard and | Bad | 1) prepared. | 1.0 |
| Zba0dJLREeSb9SIACzCJlg | The early stage of violin learning is usually thought to be much more difficult than any other kinds of instruments such as piano. I had not expected that violin could be taught so smoothly in such a systematic and scientific way until I enrolled in this course. Ms Spencer introduced a series of skills not only to prevent those common bad habits but also to make the violin learning so fascinating especially for young kids. | 1) not only to prevent those common | Bad | 1) habits but also to make the | 5.0 |
| ZNeGqEC2EeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | I love the main lecture of the statistics. The Subject is fun. After couple lecture, my mind was very clear. But most of the time I'm working on the statistics software name R. I think it would be better if require R knowledge. If not, student like me will need more than weeks to get use to R. I don't mean learn another software is bad idea. I will always like to learn something new. That's why I go MOOC. What I mean is R and Basic Statistics should be separated. First R, than Basic Statistic. Or first Basic Statistic than R. I really enjoy the class. but the extra is a bit heavy for me. | 1) don't mean learn another software is | Bad | 1) idea. I will always like to | 1.0 |
| zTzjmvssEeSDoyIAC1CH0g | Professor is very knowledgable and honest about the topic. As a student of classical civilizations I loved his simple communication style to explain concepts that tend to become overly complicated by bad professors. Definitely enjoyed | 1) tend to become overly complicated by | Bad | 1) professors. Definitely enjoyed | 5.0 |
| _aXKkBnJEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | I was very disaappointed by this course, in fact a bit more so than by the "Unwritten" course that has run concurrently with this one. I was **very** put off by the professor's simply opening his book and trying to remember what he'd said there and then, in front of his audience, reduce it down to a videoed talk. He needed to put some effort and thought into understanding his topic from the point of view of an audience that is inevitably very, very different from the one he had in mind (if any, in particular) as he was writing the book. If he didn't have time for proper preparation, he should have found another medium for flogging his publications. By and large, everyone who is from the US (I'm not) and who teaches about the US constitution emphasizes its uniqueness. Indeed, they have a point: it was the first (and, admirably, the shortest) modern written constitution. However, uniqueness isn't unique among nations; all nations are somehow unique. Undertanding a nation (including thir constitution) has to involve looking at both hum-drum normality as well as uniqueness. I felt that the course would have been more substantial if it had been built on the obvious fact that the US revolutionaries were "Englishmen fighting for an Englishman's rights." And, indeed, what they created had both the worst and the best traits that England's historical jurisprudence offered. Social stare decisis has been a major stumbling-block not only for common-law countries but as well for countries that follow other sorts of jurisprudence. The course was embarrassingly bad. | 1) of jurisprudence. The course was embarrassingly | Bad | 1) | 2.0 |
| _UsmIV-PEeSnpyIACzWBsQ | I have to admit, this course greatly disappointed me from the beginning. The main reason is its title; it should have been "Macroeconomics of the USA". The instructor focuses too heavily on the US economy, which is partially understandable due to its significance, but I personally got tired of the endless supply of facts (and opinions) about US Presidents and their choices on US Macroeconomic Policy over the last 80 years. Other than that, the main concepts of Macroeconomics are presented with adequate detail. I had very little background in Economics but managed to grasp them rather easily. The presentations are pretty dull, however, with the professor mainly reading through the slides (which mind you are NOT in downloadable form). All in all, it's not a bad course, but there is great room for improvement. | 1) All in all, it's not a | Bad | 1) course, but there is great room | 3.0 |