| Doc_id | Review | Left | Term | Right | Rating |
| -4ffSHNYEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | The course is poorly organised: There is a project on week one that requires knowledges of week two. Some concepts are dictated more than once because it uses videos made for this course + other recorded from a class room. I think this course should be a 3 weeks project and the price should be the half of it cost. Though I enjoyed the second project. | 1) The course is | Poor | 1) organised: There is a project on | 2.0 |
| -4ffSHNYEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | To be honest, I couldn't realize why this had to be an entire seminar on its own. Apart from that, in some videos the audio quality was rather poor and the instructor seemed to have caught some cold or something. Although the topic of the course is interesting and significant, I think that do far it is the least engaging of the specialization... | 1) videos the audio quality was rather | Poor | 1) and the instructor seemed to have | 3.0 |
| -Eu38u08EeSKeyIACwQXPg | Wonderful. My poor dog...he is having daily fun as i test him emotionally and cognitively..... | 1) Wonderful. My | Poor | 1) dog. . . he is having | 5.0 |
| -N44X0IJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | The retrieval part of this course is great, it deserve five starts. The clustering part was going well until it reached LDA. The LDA module is very poorly covered, and also very hard to understand. I had to watch the videos more than two times to try to figure out what was LDA, and a Quora article posted in the Forum could explain it much better. Then we get to the Hierarchical Clustering module, which was the most poorly module in all this specialization. There is only one video talking about HMM models, and Markov Chains deserve at least one week to even get started with it. And to complete, there is just one Assignment with only 3 questions. The specialization was going perfect until now. I am very disappointed with this course. I hope the last two courses are much better covered and not just ran over like this this one was. | 1) LDA. The LDA module is very | Poor | 1) covered, and also very hard to | 3.0 |
| -N44X0IJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | The retrieval part of this course is great, it deserve five starts. The clustering part was going well until it reached LDA. The LDA module is very poorly covered, and also very hard to understand. I had to watch the videos more than two times to try to figure out what was LDA, and a Quora article posted in the Forum could explain it much better. Then we get to the Hierarchical Clustering module, which was the most poorly module in all this specialization. There is only one video talking about HMM models, and Markov Chains deserve at least one week to even get started with it. And to complete, there is just one Assignment with only 3 questions. The specialization was going perfect until now. I am very disappointed with this course. I hope the last two courses are much better covered and not just ran over like this this one was. | 2) Clustering module, which was the most | Poor | 2) module in all this specialization. There | 3.0 |
| 0ayiYtaOEeWvEArBkQ8C9Q | Interesting material and good teacher but very poor use of the media (an audio file would have been sufficient for most lectures) and low quality recording for some lectures (background noises, echos, wind...) | 1) material and good teacher but very | Poor | 1) use of the media (an audio | 3.0 |
| 0HiU7Oe4EeWTAQ4yevf_oQ | The quality of the presentation is very low, and way below the quality in other courses. The assignments are very poorly designed. This is not a subjective personal experience. This is based on discussions with other learners in the forum who have expressed disappointment and frustration. | 1) other courses. The assignments are very | Poor | 1) designed. This is not a subjective | 1.0 |
| 1b9VUDu6EeWdUgozVKt3nw | I would suggest to remake the lessons. The speech by the author is very interesting, but the images are a bit poor (and boring) in the sense of not completing to much their explainations. Thanks. | 1) but the images are a bit | Poor | 1) (and boring) in the sense of | 4.0 |
| 1b9VUDu6EeWdUgozVKt3nw | I really did want to take this course in a specialization mode. However I sampled some of the course videos in the different courses making this specialization and decided against it. In the course videos we see no teacher or lecturer just pictures of people and power-point slides with a flat voice in the background reading the slides. In my opinion this does very little in making this topic interesting as it comes out flat and more work should have been put into making of this MOOC considering one has to pay for the specialization. There were also no discussion forums of any kind available. More work should be put into the making of the lecture videos by the school to give it a realistic classroom experience. Unfortunately I dropped out of the MOOC because of the poor quality done by the school despite it being a topic of interest for me. | 1) of the MOOC because of the | Poor | 1) quality done by the school despite | 1.0 |
| 1BM3lirjEeWLVg5w1LoYqQ | poor! | 1) | Poor | 1) | 1.0 |
| 1cW_OysHEeWccAqzeA4VPw | Very poor in all aspects. | 1) Very | Poor | 1) in all aspects. | 1.0 |
| 1eYewVu-EeWACQpGR_316w | Lots of cutting edge mathematical and computer vision concepts, but a serious lack of support. No technical staff around to help, only one or two examples of how the math works, and a general poor explanation of the concepts. This course is not for beginners, and I recommend you steer clear if you do not posses at minimum a bachelors in mathematics. | 1) the math works, and a general | Poor | 1) explanation of the concepts. This course | 2.0 |
| 1eYewVu-EeWACQpGR_316w | I really loved the dense collection of relevant information, this course is a great introduction to computer vision-related algorithms. Unfortunately the lecture videos are poorly edited and subtitles are inaccurate, however the slides are quite good and verbose enough to understand every topic. Assignments are quite good, however formula derivation explanations could be better. | 1) algorithms. Unfortunately the lecture videos are | Poor | 1) edited and subtitles are inaccurate, however | 3.0 |
| 1eYewVu-EeWACQpGR_316w | The least comprehensive course I ever took. It needs very good prerequisite about computer vision. And the demostration was very poor. | 1) vision. And the demostration was very | Poor | 1) | 1.0 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | Very poor course. Not at all academically rigorous. Just a bunch of common sense statements. Instructor's presentation style borders on condescending. | 1) Very | Poor | 1) course. Not at all academically rigorous. | 1.0 |
| 2InHZhR3EeW_mxLPrCkAqw | The teacher explains concepts very well. Really worth the time to go over the lectures several times. The programming assignments however lack instructions and the online judgement system has some strange requests which are not illustrated in the instruction. You have to guess what the assignment is about each time. Overall very good lectures but poor assignments. | 1) time. Overall very good lectures but | Poor | 1) assignments. | 3.0 |
| 2UHGXkNtEeSfwCIACxeXRw | Videos are poorly edited (too much blank space, the bullet points are not clearly visible, there is no narrative or discursive structure, the diagrams are not clear, and the interviews are raw and unedited). Sessions are too long and include too much irrelevant information. The little useful information there is, is not structured clearly and thus it's harder to learn. The material for the first 3 weeks resemble more to someone talking about "the good ol' days" rather than a properly thought-out history class. I had to leave the course as I found it to be a waste of my time, and I am glad I decided not to pay for a certificate for it. My expectations were a lot higher for a University course. | 1) Videos are | Poor | 1) edited (too much blank space, the | 1.0 |
| 2UHGXkNtEeSfwCIACxeXRw | Video quality is poor. The content is quite interesting, but while navigating, the quality of the video disturbs me. It would be better, if you can upgrade this. | 1) Video quality is | Poor | 1) The content is quite interesting, but | 4.0 |
| 2y_2_3REEeWKsgrp3VnvAw | A poor end to a poor Coursera specializations. | 1) A | Poor | 1) end to a poor Coursera specializations. | 1.0 |
| 2y_2_3REEeWKsgrp3VnvAw | A poor end to a poor Coursera specializations. | 2) A poor end to a | Poor | 2) Coursera specializations. | 1.0 |
| 3c1bSkIJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | I was pretty disappointed with this course. Firstly, the course did not seem well balanced meaning that some weeks--particularly week 2--had A LOT of materials to watch and really felt like it was two weeks crammed into one, and then other weeks barely had anything. Secondly, the exercises seemed unclear, poorly thought out and not really helpful. There were many errata that really should have been fixed in the beta iterations of this course. Thirdly, I really would like to see more application and less discussion of implementing algorithms. Fourthly, the "scaling" section was also a major disappointment. While it is mildly interesting to learn about stochastic gradient descent, I think it would have been more interesting to have a discussion about how classifiers work in a parallelized computing environment or actually to try one out using Spark. Finally, given that GraphLab/Dato/Turi was just acquired by Apple, I question whether it is worthwhile to take this course as ALL the materials are taught using a library that in all likelihood will cease to exist. | 1) anything. Secondly, the exercises seemed unclear, | Poor | 1) thought out and not really helpful. | 1.0 |
| 3e249OIsEeSdRSIAC3-Q-A | Capstone exercises were very ambiguous, the students were left to interpret they way they had to finish and how they rated their peers. The peer reviews were poor with little to no feedback and the focus was on how the material was laid out vs what the content was. I have done other coursers and capstones in Coursera this was one of the poorest. UIUC has to revamp this. More guidance to students in the instructions would be the first step. | 1) their peers. The peer reviews were | Poor | 1) with little to no feedback and | 1.0 |
| 3TdKKA-VEeWhsgqB1eduww | Very Poor Course. Should be removed from Coursera. | 1) Very | Poor | 1) Course. Should be removed from Coursera. | 1.0 |
| 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) interactive plot builders sound kinda sloppy, | Poor | 1) prepared. I know the documentation for | 4.0 |
| 4vLX1NAeEeWihQ6ogHC6vQ | This is not a beginner's course unless you already have previous programming experience. The Python lessons are just samples taken from a completely different curriculum on Codecademy and poorly integrated into the bio-centric course content. The lessons are disjointed, taken out of context, and some of the examples are using the wrong version of Python and missing parentheses. It would be a lot better if they took the time to actually craft custom Python lessons designed specifically for this course instead of using ill-fitting lessons from other classes. | 1) completely different curriculum on Codecademy and | Poor | 1) integrated into the bio-centric course content. | 3.0 |
| 52blABnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Learning materials are poorly delivered. Codes given are bug-ridden this in turn makes it incredibly difficult to follow on. Disappointing | 1) Learning materials are | Poor | 1) delivered. Codes given are bug-ridden this | 2.0 |
| 52blABnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Extremely poor help and feedback. Almost no replies on discussion forums from mentors/peers so many issues end up unresolved. Considering how difficult this course is compared to other courses, the lack of real assistance is appalling. Seemingly outdated lessons. A lot of errors I get come from version discrepancies. Lessons should be checked over. If I have to Google problems to complete step-by-step lessons, the lesson is extremely ill-prepared. This is enough to make me abort this specialization. | 1) Extremely | Poor | 1) help and feedback. Almost no replies | 2.0 |
| 52blABnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Pretty good coverage of Angular as whole, how to setup a Angular project, and how it fits into bigger picture web development. Criticisms: - Overall, the code presentation (in exercises, provided files, and the slides) was ugly. Good looking and properly styled code is important to ingrain, and this course fell pretty short there. Code was (very) poorly indented, had inconsistent single vs. double quotes, and didn't follow any style guide out there. Use some beautifier and make sure jshint doesn't have any suggestions for improvement! Slides need at least some monospaced font; better would be colored code snippets or screenshots. - The Gulp and Grunt week felt pretty strangely structured. The two task runners just had such long lectures videos that it was a really big hump to get over, especially since we didn't use Grunt later. - (harder to fix) My files got pretty inconsistent with what I needed to copy/download over week-by-week from the course. Some sort of git repository and easier way to pull changes would be good. I ended up version controlling every week and every week's assignment. So yeah, I'd say this was worth taking, but some parts of the setup are pretty frustrating and version controlling makes life much easier. | 1) pretty short there. Code was (very) | Poor | 1) indented, had inconsistent single vs. double | 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) Really | Poor | 1) powerpoint presentations and videos, half in | 1.0 |
| 5epfT7cBEeScDCIAC9REiQ | It's a excelent course to study the all perspective about the energy situation in the world. Covering the poor and rich countries and diferents technicals skills to develop new and innovation s | 1) situation in the world. Covering the | Poor | 1) and rich countries and diferents technicals | 5.0 |
| 5hRQhN9AEeWsvwp02yXW0Q | I would have enjoyed it more if I had had enough knowledge to do the Honors quiz! I downloaded all the videos so I could play them over without chewing up my data, but the quality is so poor you can't always make out the writing - i's and j's all look similar. It would be better if the presentation material was bigger and the facilitator images smaller - you need only see a face, not the whole upper body in the foreground. Nevertheless, I have been enlightened ! | 1) data, but the quality is so | Poor | 1) you can't always make out the | 3.0 |
| 5lBjD4h_EeWgrxLS5SGTUQ | Seemed like a good course, however I could not stand this professor's voice so if that doesn't bother you I'm sure it is decent. (it might possibly be the poor audio that is off putting as well) | 1) decent. (it might possibly be the | Poor | 1) audio that is off putting as | 3.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | Professor is not engaging at all. Presentation skills are poor. | 1) engaging at all. Presentation skills are | Poor | 1) | 1.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | Course was poorly put together with errors that are not fixed. | 1) Course was | Poor | 1) put together with errors that are | 3.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | Professor just re-iterated text and readings. Lectures were poor and provided no insights | 1) re-iterated text and readings. Lectures were | Poor | 1) and provided no insights | 1.0 |
| 6Fa6w3EjEeWbbw5cIAKQrw | The course is quite interesting, but I have not given it a 5 star because the quality of some videos is very poor. | 1) quality of some videos is very | Poor | 1) | 4.0 |
| 6JyoHjVOEeWBMQ5pdIoFkQ | The highest video production values of any class I've seen on Coursera so far. Unfortunately, that's the best part of the class; the support is simply nonexistent (a post by someone associated with the staff from a previous run of the course suggests getting help troubleshooting Python from Coursera staff), the instructions for the class software are out of date, the source material for the assignments is sometimes unsuitable to the task you're asked to perform (e.g. statistical analysis on a data set aggregated from disparate sources), and the pretty videos are at times completely unrelated to the actual assignments (the very first week with the literature review). Dropping this specialization like a hot coal; it looked quite promising, but the aggravation over the poor organization and lack of support considerably outweighs anything I could get out of it. | 1) promising, but the aggravation over the | Poor | 1) organization and lack of support considerably | 1.0 |
| 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 material, | Poor | 1) graphics, wrong mc questions in videos. | 1.0 |
| 6mOCpgP8EeWmBSIAC9UI2A | I want to give it 3 1/2 starts - sometimes the modules seem really segmented and you spend half the time repeating the same ideas or recapping the course material (that was new that week!). While the assessment tasks were great exercises, the fact that they're peer-reviewed means that the feedback you get is often unhelpful or poorly informed. It was a good course to do, but I don't think it's really going to change anyone's life (and I would encourage people to not take the peer feedback too seriously!). | 1) you get is often unhelpful or | Poor | 1) informed. It was a good course | 3.0 |
| 76FVnKNaEeWHXAr1OpR7HQ | The course is very cheap. However, training material has poor quality. | 1) very cheap. However, training material has | Poor | 1) quality. | 1.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Poor course. | 1) | Poor | 1) course. | 1.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Poor feedback and advice with those who really do not know of programming. To shame! | 1) | Poor | 1) feedback and advice with those who | 1.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | is a Great course for those who want to start to learn the language, even if this is your first computer language. (excuse my poor english, i'm learning it too) | 1) your first computer language. (excuse my | Poor | 1) english, i'm learning it too) | 4.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | This was a great intro for anyone who has never programmed and very well articulated. Concepts clearly explained. Giving it 5 stars since the effort that has gone into making these videos is poorly understood by people who have not been in lecturing positions - I salute you ! Having been a self taught programmer from the mid 80's on BASIC with Apple 2E's, it is a breath of fresh air seeing this kind of material on the Internet. I had to dig around in libraries which had books (yes paper!). If the youth could rather spend time exploiting this fountain of knowledge instead of hacking away on FPS and Online gaming then we could see some really cool stuff happen :). | 1) gone into making these videos is | Poor | 1) understood by people who have not | 5.0 |
| 7vasMEd_EeW8cBKtDAegYw | Although I'm only the first week, there are two main comments I'd like to make. Firstly, why are the lectures sub-divided with the ridiculous, overlong, and irritating introduction for each section. In lesson one, this was repeated 11 times. What a waste of time! Secondly, the transcripts are in rich text, which is basically unreadable, has no line breaks, which makes reading the poems impossible, and the transcripts are poorly transcribed, making them illiterate. I feel I may not continue with the course for these reasons, even though the content is really interesting. This is the worst presented MOOC I have encountered.....I have completed 6, and am undertaking another 2, with edxcel and with futurelearn | 1) poems impossible, and the transcripts are | Poor | 1) transcribed, making them illiterate. I feel | 2.0 |
| 7wfVmobsEeWgjA5cAvYgmw | The last assignment is a time-waster and really poorly designed. Not all adults are into coloring; this is not elementary school and what's the point of coloring a picture of the Arch for you? Frankly I can't be bothered to look up sources for the descriptions of Roman soldiers' attire, and especially to figure what each number is pointing to. It wasn't even always clear what the numbers on the template referred to and two of the numbers were missing. In addition, there were a lot of glitches with the grading software. Finally our questions were almost never answered. Otherwise I found this to be an interesting course and I learned quite a bit from it, although it could have been condensed into three or four classes at the very most. The video lectures were videotaped a bit strangely, with Professor Fine often seeming to talk to an invisible person on the right or the left of the camera, instead of at the viewer. The videos I liked were mostly the office hours ones and the one with the interview with Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove at Park Avenue Synagogue. I could have gotten a very good grade on this course, but the last assignment ruined that. No, I will not be recommending this course or any others by this Professor. | 1) assignment is a time-waster and really | Poor | 1) designed. Not all adults are into | 2.0 |
| 8To4DTVtEeWWBQrVFXqd1w | The material and videos are so poor, and low quality, I am happy to not have bought this course | 1) The material and videos are so | Poor | 1) and low quality, I am happy | 1.0 |
| 9D3LWblUEeWbNBLZhfEI2Q | good course, poor slides in pdf | 1) good course, | Poor | 1) slides in pdf | 4.0 |
| 9h_j5XEiEeWbbw5cIAKQrw | This was by far the worst course in the series. There is a lot of good content in this course that needs to be shared, but I just felt the delivery failed in a lot of ways. Here are some issues 1) Often, concepts are thrown out but aren't explained clearly. Speaker glosses over them without giving concrete examples 2) The structure of the course is poorly configured. On several occasions, inline quizzes test you on concepts that haven't been introduced until later in the video, forcing you to guess at answers. Also, the assignment portion of the course asks you to submit a word or pdf with images, but it wasn't configured to allow uploads. You could only submit text in a text box. I realized I wasn't the only person with the issue when I graded assignments from others who had trouble submitting their assignment. In some cases, I believe students failed that portion of the course because they could not figure out how to submit. I have some IT background and was able to share my homework through my shared drive fortunately. 3) The speaker should re-record his lecture. It was obvious (or at least seemed as if) he was reading a teleprompter. There were many awkward pauses between sentences that made it hard to listen to. Often times, the audio presentation were inconsistent with the words in the slide, making it confusing because I didn't know which I should be following. | 1) The structure of the course is | Poor | 1) configured. On several occasions, inline quizzes | 1.0 |
| 9p1NWzJzEeWFJhJQP1CW-Q | A very poor course. The teacher just ask questions in order to stimulate students, but doesn't teach anything. Incorrect terminology (Ah-ah? Please, study Aaron Allston works before inventing other words). Test are cool. | 1) A very | Poor | 1) course. The teacher just ask questions | 2.0 |
| 9p1NWzJzEeWFJhJQP1CW-Q | Very poor content. Everything is already said in last courses in this specialization. Also they didnt gave any techniques or tips how to easier create game worlds | 1) Very | Poor | 1) content. Everything is already said in | 2.0 |
| a0OJ1ha4EeWKlgqs7LdhRw | Poor quality videos make the course less appealing and make it seems to be unprofessional | 1) | Poor | 1) quality videos make the course less | 1.0 |
| a0OJ1ha4EeWKlgqs7LdhRw | Course is OK, not too informative and not too poor. | 1) not too informative and not too | Poor | 1) | 3.0 |
| A4W_GyDjEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | This course was ultimately frustrating to take. There is a gap in the material presented and the skill set needed to complete the assignments. Using optional methods to complete this course, such as to use the textbook and forums, is too time consuming (deciphering a text book) or insulting (forum mentor responses). To to solve the assignments, it usually involved trying to 1. refreshing yourself in math concepts not used by a beginner or non-mathematician, 2. deciphering what exactly the poorly written questions were asking, 3. scouring the textbook or internet for functions or strategies never covered in the lecture, 4. having snarky and unhelpful remarks by mentors. The unprofessional behavior of the mentors was especially hard to handle. Even from the early week's lectures we learned about semantics, and how simple mistyping could lead to programming errors, so I wrongly assumed the mentors would understand that some of us would probably make simple errors. For example, in the final homework I had a simple mistake, but since we cannot show code, it led to more frustration and a mentor basically just saying "we covered this already." I'm well aware of what we covered, but if someone is stuck on a problem, there needs to be a much better way of helping that person. I did not want to write in the forums after my initial foray in the forum led one mentor to just tell me "your logic is wrong", and the spout the same simple strategies of the lecture that could not help on the complex assignment. There probably will not be anything fixed with this course since it seems like it has been the same for years now. Please fix the questions, stop using Project Euler, and let people directly message code to mentors. Will probably save time rather than try to blindly (and frustratingly) explain code over and over again. Ultimately, I felt that unless someone either has previous experience in coding, or has no work to do other than to do this course, it still is not worth it to just obtain a certificate. | 1) non-mathematician, 2. deciphering what exactly the | Poor | 1) written questions were asking, 3. scouring | 1.0 |
| aaNxjzc9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Really horrible in instruction, experience and application ability of lecturers, poorly put together and assembled. It was astonishing to experience such self-promoting hacks rather than knowledgeable practitioners of the art of meditation. It is very important to clarify the content of a somewhat titled misnomer. The course was an academic study in mediation bring is rather esoteric, questionable, and personal opinion concepts and comments; in effect a mesh-mash. | 1) experience and application ability of lecturers, | Poor | 1) put together and assembled. It was | 1.0 |
| 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) Many of the videos were so | Poor | 1) done (boring) that I couldn't watch | 3.0 |
| aaNxjzc9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Very poorly structured. Purely academic and dull as dishwater. Buddhist meditation is a profoundly beautiful tradition but there is no beating heart here. I gave up quickly. | 1) Very | Poor | 1) structured. Purely academic and dull as | 1.0 |
| 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) to the MOOC because of the | Poor | 1) quality of the subtitles. Not being | 4.0 |
| aAo9tS8NEeWv_w7cMMH1Uw | The information was interesting but sort of long. In fact, I started this so long ago that I don't remember most of what was said, only that it was long. I did enjoy the first course, America's Written Constitution but someone was paying attention then and it was on the older format so it was better. I rate the course so poorly, however, because of the total lack of staff involvement and the worthless peer review papers. I have a huge problem with the peer review process. It is of no value and should be banned. Be that as it may, however, it takes weeks to get reviews and there is NO ONE FROM THE COURSE STAFF PAYING ANY ATTENTION TO THE COURSE!! There is not one posting from course staff in the forums. There has been no response to any of the so called, "comment on this assignment" messages I've been leaving since JULY. There has been no response to an e-mail, supposedly sent to the instructor on my behalf by the Coursera help desk weeks ago. It is obvious that the instructor has abandoned this course. If no one is going to pay attention to it, it should be taken down. If you just want the information, watch the videos but don't expect anything else, including any response whatsoever from this course. I've wasted too much time on this. I'm done. | 1) better. I rate the course so | Poor | 1) however, because of the total lack | 1.0 |
| afay6xVFEeWfzgpfp_iBVw | I was disappointed by this Course maybe because I had a great expectations for it. Months of delay and poor content. | 1) for it. Months of delay and | Poor | 1) content. | 2.0 |
| afay6xVFEeWfzgpfp_iBVw | Unfortunately, this is one the worst paid courses I've taken on Coursera. The material is very brief, the assignments are poorly explained and structured. As with all the other sections in this specialization, there is no feedback for professor or TAs, which is very-very frustrating. | 1) is very brief, the assignments are | Poor | 1) explained and structured. As with all | 1.0 |
| afay6xVFEeWfzgpfp_iBVw | Poor video editing. Homework assignments were poorly written making it difficult to know exactly what was being graded. Often times I had to submit a version and redo it after I started working through the grading criteria during peer review. Decent information covered, however I felt like this was more of a course on responsive design than specifically information design. | 1) | Poor | 1) video editing. Homework assignments were poorly | 3.0 |
| afay6xVFEeWfzgpfp_iBVw | Poor video editing. Homework assignments were poorly written making it difficult to know exactly what was being graded. Often times I had to submit a version and redo it after I started working through the grading criteria during peer review. Decent information covered, however I felt like this was more of a course on responsive design than specifically information design. | 2) Poor video editing. Homework assignments were | Poor | 2) written making it difficult to know | 3.0 |
| afay6xVFEeWfzgpfp_iBVw | Videos were not ellaborative, examples sparse and were not edited to completion. After months of this course repeatedly being delayed we see a complete failure with 'Information Design', both in course and in practice. I was very dissapointed with this course and the time-wasting assignments. I have enjoyed the courses leading up to this one, but this course was obviously rushed and poorly planned. | 1) this course was obviously rushed and | Poor | 1) planned. | 1.0 |
| AMBr8zelEeWJaxK5AT4frw | The material is very poorly explained. Pre-coded stuff isn't good either, as it's very hard to comprehend, even with the professor's explanations, which also don't seem to be aimed at beginners. | 1) The material is very | Poor | 1) explained. Pre-coded stuff isn't good either, | 1.0 |
| aPvqvZlYEeWQGBKrxISOrQ | Course assignment requires knowledge that is not discussed in the course. Various inconsistencies throughout the course. Week 4's material is not really helpful and I had a feeling that the instructior just wanted to "wrap up" the course and didn't really care if the material is appropriate. Poorly written quizzes. | 1) care if the material is appropriate. | Poor | 1) written quizzes. | 1.0 |
| aPvqvZlYEeWQGBKrxISOrQ | This course did not make any effort until I had to dig deep into biology by myself. The course content is insufficient. I think if a sample input was used and every field of the input were explained and also the outputs were explained then it would make much more sense. Poorly designed and demonstrated. Thankfully I started the last assignment very quickly, it took me 10 days to understand how to proceed with the assignment. The TA is excellent, without his help I wouldn't pass this course. | 1) it would make much more sense. | Poor | 1) designed and demonstrated. Thankfully I started | 1.0 |
| aPvqvZlYEeWQGBKrxISOrQ | poor ! very superficial . | 1) | Poor | 1) ! very superficial . | 2.0 |
| aPvqvZlYEeWQGBKrxISOrQ | This course was very disappointing and much of the content in the tests and course did not show up in the course project. I felt like the course project was far more advanced than all the other detail. In addition, there was minimal to NO detail on instruction. VERY poor development here and I would not recommend it to anyone. All you need to do is look at all the threads of complaints. I am looking forward to the next Python course and h | 1) to NO detail on instruction. VERY | Poor | 1) development here and I would not | 1.0 |
| AXmFGEEjEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | Poor content | 1) | Poor | 1) content | 1.0 |
| a_xPWXNVEeWxvQr3acyajw | The course is essentially just a review of formulas with very little intuition explained to the beginner. It was necessary to use a collection of outside material from other courses and readings to learn the concepts. This course needs to be completely redone with a focus on developing a student's intuition for the material and then support this intuition with basic examples that build as the course progresses. A fundamental demonstration of how to use R to work through regression models (starting from square one) should be added so that this becomes a self-contained course. As it currently stands it is a collection of poorly integrated slides and concepts that serve to confuse the student more than educate. Other classes teach this material infinitely better. | 1) stands it is a collection of | Poor | 1) integrated slides and concepts that serve | 1.0 |
| a_xPWXNVEeWxvQr3acyajw | Content and quizz are not aligned. Mentors answer to 0% of the forum posts. Poor student community. Do not pay for this course, just follow the swirl and/or get some tuto about regressions. | 1) to 0% of the forum posts. | Poor | 1) student community. Do not pay for | 1.0 |
| 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 badly organized course. | Poor | 1) explained theory. The book is full | 1.0 |
| a_xPWXNVEeWxvQr3acyajw | Poorly designed, executed and instructed. Too much is left off the materials. | 1) | Poor | 1) designed, executed and instructed. Too much | 1.0 |
| a_xPWXNVEeWxvQr3acyajw | First 3 weeks give very reasonable overview of the subject - topics of linear / polynomial / multivariate regression are covered quite well. Week 4 is a bit sloppy and ad-hoc, comparing to first 3 weeks - GLMs are given poorly. | 1) 3 weeks - GLMs are given | Poor | 1) | 4.0 |
| a_xPWXNVEeWxvQr3acyajw | As for the Statistical Inference course, this course is amazing but is presented in a more complex way than it should be. Once again the concepts are simple and the math not so hard, yet I had to do a lot of research outside the course to be able to understand these simple concepts and derive the not so hard mathematics. Brian Caffo is clearly brilliant and, I would say, seem to be a good lad too, but something is missing. Too often the details are thrown at us without being properly framed in the context or without having the proper concept being introduced progressively. I have a theory about teaching since I was 15, and so far it has proven to be true. Imagine that learning is about climbing a mountain in which tall steps have been carved. Each step is taller than the student. The teacher is somewhere higher than the students (not necessarily at the top, if there is such a thing). The job of the teacher is to throw boxes (concepts) and balls (details) of different size, shape and colors. The job of the student is to catch these boxes and balls and to put the right balls in the right boxes in order to make a staircase out of it to climb (at least) one of the giant stair up. A good teacher makes sure to throw the concepts first than the details and to clearly specify which balls go into which box, as well as which boxes go inside/over which other boxes. But most teacher simply throw the balls and boxes in an not so well structured manner, so the poor students try to catch as many as he can, but also miss a lot of them. His hands can hold a limited amount of balls. If he doesn't have the right box to put them, he would either miss the next balls, or put the one he hold in his hand in the wrong box. Bottom line, the best teachers are those who focus on the concepts (and context) and make sure that the concepts are well understood before introducing details to stuck in these concepts. From my experience our brain (or at least mine) better learn this way. It is as if our brain need first to establish a category-pattern (the concept/context) to which it will associate detail-patterns. But without a proper category-pattern, our brain is having a hard time to properly remember the detail-patterns or miss-associate them to the wrong category-pattern (which create even more confusion). Hope it was helpful somehow... | 1) so well structured manner, so the | Poor | 1) students try to catch as many | 3.0 |
| Bg6XXXVJEeWKxgq26fqTNQ | It is hard to be constructive when you do have something brilliant to compare with. The very first thing to say is that the course is presented through poorly drawn cartoons for 5-year-olds and ineffective lecture videos with little or no eye contact with the instructors. The presentations are filled with strange icons and drawings appearing every here and there, making not much of a professional impression. After watching videos, in just about 5 minutes after the lecture is over, the retained information was always going to zero. Sometimes I had to rewind the video to retrieve the points they were trying to make. Or maybe I just didn't want to listen to them. But it seems impossible due to the fact I am interested, and I do finish every course on Business writing I run into. Always with 100% final grade. The overall demeanor is not as professional as it has to be. I recommend the designers to watch "Write Professional Emails" with Gerry Landers by Georgia Tech and "Teach English Now!" with Dr. Shane Dixon by Arizona State University. I do not normally remember the instructors' names, except for brilliant ones. I do not remember the ones of this course. I do hope my criticism will eventually lead to a better experience for your students. I apologize if I was overly direct and wordy. Regards, Rafael | 1) that the course is presented through | Poor | 1) drawn cartoons for 5-year-olds and ineffective | 1.0 |
| BK2bam0iEeW9CAqYJHF3zQ | Good, and explicit, and well organised course. The only drawback is, it's not free...... Sorry, too poor to pay.... | 1) . . . . Sorry, too | Poor | 1) to pay. . . . | 5.0 |
| bRPXgjY9EeW6RApRXdjJPw | The only attractive thing in this course is a name of the author. The course itself is poorly designed, homework is hardly connected to the content of lectures. Might be interesting as an introduction for Scala newcomers, though. | 1) the author. The course itself is | Poor | 1) designed, homework is hardly connected to | 3.0 |
| bV6GUWEbEeSceSIACy-PDA | I loved this course (in spite of my poor performance in the mathematics related parts of the lecture). The presentation made dense and difficult concepts understandable. | 1) this course (in spite of my | Poor | 1) performance in the mathematics related parts | 5.0 |
| bVgqTevEEeWvGQrWsIkLlw | Forums were poorly organized and not well participated in. There was no forum topic for the honors assignment. Honors assignment appeared to require unix, which was not stated in the course requirements. Honors assignment was due too early in the term. | 1) Forums were | Poor | 1) organized and not well participated in. | 2.0 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | Overly-remedial information, but that is not what earns this course such a poor evaluation from me. The poor evaluation comes from the composition of the review quizzes: The end-of-section quizzes ask questions to which there can be more than one correct answer, yet only a single response will receive credit. Example: "A recommended solution to a problem is valued by an executive because..." Followed by four possible answers: One of which is clearly incorrect while one makes an awful assumption. These two choices can be eliminated easily. However, the final two options are BOTH UNARGUABLY CORRECT, but only one was briefly mentioned in the material (reading or video), and thus only that one receives credit. Unfortunately, this demonstrates the course creators' desire to value a student's memorization of the instructor's own unique words over the student's assimilation of the course content and ideas. Course-takers beware, this course seems more tailored to stroking Ms. Bravo's ego than to you actually learning anything of commercial value. | 1) what earns this course such a | Poor | 1) evaluation from me. The poor evaluation | 1.0 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | Overly-remedial information, but that is not what earns this course such a poor evaluation from me. The poor evaluation comes from the composition of the review quizzes: The end-of-section quizzes ask questions to which there can be more than one correct answer, yet only a single response will receive credit. Example: "A recommended solution to a problem is valued by an executive because..." Followed by four possible answers: One of which is clearly incorrect while one makes an awful assumption. These two choices can be eliminated easily. However, the final two options are BOTH UNARGUABLY CORRECT, but only one was briefly mentioned in the material (reading or video), and thus only that one receives credit. Unfortunately, this demonstrates the course creators' desire to value a student's memorization of the instructor's own unique words over the student's assimilation of the course content and ideas. Course-takers beware, this course seems more tailored to stroking Ms. Bravo's ego than to you actually learning anything of commercial value. | 2) a poor evaluation from me. The | Poor | 2) evaluation comes from the composition of | 1.0 |
| c1njRLZEEeWEoAqTi6kTYw | great, but really difficult for people with poor reading and writing skill to finish. | 1) but really difficult for people with | Poor | 1) reading and writing skill to finish. | 5.0 |
| c8dPVxUQEeWpKw4zIcjkHw | The quality of videos was pretty poor. The question and answer format of discussion was not a great idea (might have been great for kids videos). Doesn't enthuse us to continue the course. Thanks however for putting the effort and making this available to everyone for free. Really appreciate that. | 1) The quality of videos was pretty | Poor | 1) The question and answer format of | 3.0 |
| c8dPVxUQEeWpKw4zIcjkHw | Poor content | 1) | Poor | 1) content | 1.0 |
| CEwR00UZEeWb8RJf7Z1H0w | This will probably be the worst course in the specialization and for good reason. The entire course is designed to overload you with terminology to get you up to speed for the follow courses. As a result this is a pretty bland and boring 4 weeks. The assignments feel like tedious filler an a lot of the questions in them are very poorly worded. The saving grace is that the course is just 4 weeks and can be completed in a fairly short amount of time. | 1) the questions in them are very | Poor | 1) worded. The saving grace is that | 2.0 |
| CJs0DTk_EeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Very poor explanations. | 1) Very | Poor | 1) explanations. | 1.0 |
| Cn3HgzTdEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | I love this course very much, thank you. I wish an Arabic subtitle for they have poor English, and that's my mail if you want any help in ( promoting the course when you translate it into Arabic Language ) - heshammoh80@gmail.com - | 1) an Arabic subtitle for they have | Poor | 1) English, and that's my mail if | 5.0 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | the peer grading system is poor, considering that they are learning just like us. the grading should be done automatically or by a professional . | 1) the peer grading system is | Poor | 1) considering that they are learning just | 1.0 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | I think this is a good review for someone who has the basic in English grammar; however, if you're an ESL student or English-speaking person (who need to start over in grammar). Study first before starting this course. A lot of the feedback in the forum, I found to be poor except when it came from an English-speaking person. You get a lot of: " OK, Great, etc..", no real feedback. | 1) the forum, I found to be | Poor | 1) except when it came from an | 3.0 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Poor visual communications, it should be better since it is the only way to follow the course. Should be nice if the slides counted with a kind of animation to enphatize what we are talking about. | 1) | Poor | 1) visual communications, it should be better | 2.0 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | The course is excellent for people, as myself, that has good base of English language, but due to a poor daily practice in the writing area forgot about the grammar rules. | 1) English language, but due to a | Poor | 1) daily practice in the writing area | 5.0 |
| c_rkuRoBEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | All the modules but last are really interesting and informative. The last week's module is very poorly explained, a beginner cannot really understand it. | 1) The last week's module is very | Poor | 1) explained, a beginner cannot really understand | 2.0 |
| c_rkuRoBEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Really poor course. Rather than starting from the basics, this course picks random information to work with. Week 1 was information anybody with a computer knows. Week 2 was really good. Week 3 and 4 were completely useless. Rather than starting from the basics they jump into picture manipulation and encoding. Don't take this class if you want to learn about coding. | 1) Really | Poor | 1) course. Rather than starting from the | 1.0 |
| c_rkuRoBEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Poorly designed and explained. You do not really gain much knowledge from this course. I would not recommend my friends and basically others to take this course. There are far better courses out there for much cheaper prices. | 1) | Poor | 1) designed and explained. You do not | 1.0 |
| c_rkuRoBEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | I will give it a 3* review as I really enjoyed and learned a lot in the HTML and CSS part (first 2 weeks), but the java script is really poorly covered. It is too hard and with no "translations" on what the hell is going on. The Duke University team is good and they obviously know what they are doing, but they need to review this course and make it more simpler... :) | 1) but the java script is really | Poor | 1) covered. It is too hard and | 3.0 |
| c_rkuRoBEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | The course was really good. I am web application developer myself and I learned some new things here. One of the most important things that I learned here was Steganography. It was a new concept for me and I'm glad I learnt it. The JavaScript part of this course I must say, was very poor. It wasn't designed for beginners like the course mentioned. You could have taught some basic JavaScript stuff instead of just focusing on image manipulation. Anyways, great effort teachers! Thank You for teaching us. | 1) course I must say, was very | Poor | 1) It wasn't designed for beginners like | 4.0 |
| c_rkuRoBEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | very poor content on Java Script. If you just started JS do not take this course. It will be too hard. | 1) very | Poor | 1) content on Java Script. If you | 2.0 |
| c_rkuRoBEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Very poorly structured. Explanation and examples were not very helpful. should revamp the course content and video lectures (specially the steganography part). | 1) Very | Poor | 1) structured. Explanation and examples were not | 1.0 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | I think the course covers pretty good range of topics and gives you a good information. I really liked the peer review assignments and I think they put pressure on you to achieve the goals and learn from them. I definitely did not like the multiple answer questions or the last assessment. The questions are not well presented and there is a clear violation of the help and error recovery heuristic for me. I also did not like the video set-up. The quality of the course material is really poor and disappointing. I would like to believe that on a UI course people would have come up with a better and more intuitive set-up. Finally, I would like to have a document in the course resources that students can download and keep that contains all the information we taught like quick reference guide. Again we can download the videos but when you are looking to fins something specific searching in 2-3 videos is not fun at all. | 1) of the course material is really | Poor | 1) and disappointing. I would like to | 2.0 |
| dPkbnh6zEeWP0w4yK2369w | Videos with guest speakers were unhelpful. Also, quizzes were not accurate and poorly written questions. | 1) Also, quizzes were not accurate and | Poor | 1) written questions. | 3.0 |
| dZuQ4VicEeWbIxLOmbkGCQ | I wouldn't pay $49.00 Dlls. for this course, nor the other courses within this specialization. This one contains quite a lot of errors. There's a lack of domain of the matter by the instructor and some concepts are poorly explain and incorrectly defined. It's quite a shame that this course is in behalf the UMAN's name :(. Hope this course gets upgraded | 1) the instructor and some concepts are | Poor | 1) explain and incorrectly defined. It's quite | 1.0 |
| e4SzF9c1EeS-LCIAC3icWw | The Instructor doesn't give enough info about principles and her presentation skills are very week,the studying material also are very poor | 1) the studying material also are very | Poor | 1) | 1.0 |
| EdKScTVwEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Thank you very much for the course - it was really interesting and I've found some useful techniques to be used in my work. However, there are some moments to be improved to make course better: correct questions statements and lack of communication between partipants (there were a lot of interesting topics to discuss but only very few users were involved in discussions, thus, discussion were very poor). But still thank you very much again!!!:)) | 1) in discussions, thus, discussion were very | Poor | 1) But still thank you very much | 4.0 |
| EGWVwnE7EeWxvQr3acyajw | Poor English. Unfair assignments (( | 1) | Poor | 1) English. Unfair assignments (( | 1.0 |
| EGWVwnE7EeWxvQr3acyajw | the quality of the lecture is poor - slides are dense and full of bullet points which the professor LITERALLY JUST READS OUT on videos. I did a google search, and found almost all of the analytical charts he presented, readily available on the internet. What exactly is the point in the lecture then? Instead, why don't you compress some valuable learning nuggets into half the course time, instead of hearing you ready through your ocean of bullet points, and needlessly underline (in red) the current bullet point your reading. Seriously, this is one the poorest quality lectures I've ever done! The quality of peer assignments to grade are a joke. Classmates are simply copying bits and pieces of the lecture material to make up the 'market sizing memo'. I seriously doubt the learning value in this class, and the quality of instruction. | 1) the quality of the lecture is | Poor | 1) - slides are dense and full | 1.0 |
| EjtfHZq7EeSB9CIACxCU6A | Some profs are very good, some are terrible. The terrible ones need to improve their teaching skills and even language skills. As a native Chinese speaker, I find some of the lectures very boring. Good lectures are clear, concise, and right to the point. Good teachers make the learning experience effortless and fun, poor teachers make it like a torture. | 1) the learning experience effortless and fun, | Poor | 1) teachers make it like a torture. | 2.0 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | Poor context, no real examples. The guy just reads what is written on the slides without further explanations. | 1) | Poor | 1) context, no real examples. The guy | 1.0 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | very high level syllabuses, limited application description of BD, poor quiz and questions designed | 1) syllabuses, limited application description of BD, | Poor | 1) quiz and questions designed | 2.0 |
| emCu12atEeW2DA58V0Z6GQ | At first I though it was a very poor course but certain parts of it were gold for me and I got a lot out of it. I particularly appreciated the advice on how to improvise through out the course. I was less keen on the parts on modes and pentatonics but on the other hand for someone further along in their musical journey it may be just the thing. Although the course is ostensibly on the blues it also covers a lot of material relevant to Jazz. Pedagogically there were some problems.I think the course has way too much material and could be split into 2 parts each part maybe a bit slower.The presenter need to sharpen up his game a little as regards presentation skills, reading material of an IPad is not very inspiring. His English is not very idiomatic but that's not really a big problem. Written sheets with the changes and summarizing the lectures would have made the course better. Finally there are no peer reviews and all quizzes are theoretical - rather disappointing. I prefer a hands on approach with peer based reviews as in Gary Burton's course also on Coursera. | 1) I though it was a very | Poor | 1) course but certain parts of it | 3.0 |
| eo6NBCQPEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | I did this course as a parent of a dyslexic child. I thought it was brilliant and I made pages and pages of notes. It is well organised, engaging, and informative. I really liked the two presenters as well. They both seemed passionate about the topic and modeled good teaching in their explanations and advice. That said, I thought the assessment part of the course simply didn't work. It was far too narrow for anyone besides primary teachers and therefore excluded those who might be doing the course for other reasons. It doesn't matter to me, I don't need the certificate and I got a lot out of the course but for others it would be frustrating, I imagine. The quizzes too, for the most part, were a disaster. They were poorly written, confusing, and dishearteningly obscure. Otherwise, I loved this course and hope you will offer a follow up soon. | 1) part, were a disaster. They were | Poor | 1) written, confusing, and dishearteningly obscure. Otherwise, | 4.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | As a professional Instructional Designer, I can attest that this is the poorest-designed course I have ever seen. Regrettably, I paid for the entire specialization up-front, and I cannot get a refund or even a Coursera credit for enrolling in a different specialization. Be aware that the faculty who is the instructor of record does not participate in the course. The video lectures are poorly done, including errors and misstatements that could have been edited out, but it appears that no one bothered to edit the raw footage before uploading it. There is not so much instruction as an overview. There are no coding exercises until the final assignment, which is poorly-described and requires the student to self-teach using outside sources. There are app specializations in Coursera that appear much better-designed. Look elsewhere. | 1) the course. The video lectures are | Poor | 1) done, including errors and misstatements that | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | The lectures are fairly light and there are no assignments throughout the course to reinforce the material. Mostly they just introduce a few concepts then point you at the Apple Swift documentation. They really don't go into much detail. The final assignment is good for getting your feet wet but is poorly specified. | 1) getting your feet wet but is | Poor | 1) specified. | 2.0 |
| 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) to prove your understanding, it was | Poor | 1) managed and the lack of interaction | 3.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Videos are poorly done and leave a lot of useful details out. There is zero support from staff in the forums. If you take this course, plan on spending a lot of time doing research on external sources in order to gain an understanding of the very broad and lacking in detail videos. To improve this course, the instructors should: -provide links to at least one textbook on Swift -add Mentors to the course to help students in the forums -include a repository of code snippets for practice of the concepts | 1) Videos are | Poor | 1) done and leave a lot of | 2.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | The videos are poorly done, and it's hard to follow with practicing in a Playground at the same time. Also, some of the optional material, is required for completing the assessment, which a bit unfair. The material covered in the videos is too basic to be able to apply the principles to a larger programme. | 1) The videos are | Poor | 1) done, and it's hard to follow | 3.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Absolutely poor. Avoid. No professor monitoring of the fo | 1) Absolutely | Poor | 1) Avoid. No professor monitoring of the | 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) Bad: That potential is wasted on | Poor | 1) planned lessons and course content The | 2.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | very poor organized. | 1) very | Poor | 1) organized. | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Poor Quality | 1) | Poor | 1) Quality | 2.0 |
| 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) this course because it's just SO | Poor | 1) conceived. Three weeks in, and I | 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) thought out. The lecture videos are | Poor | 1) organized, concepts are not presented in | 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. | 2) the quizzes contain questions that are | Poor | 2) worded and ambiguous (and I think | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | poorly planned, irrelevant to the subject test questions. | 1) | Poor | 1) planned, irrelevant to the subject test | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | This course was little more than a haphazard, ambling preview of a tiny bit of Swift. There was some useful content in the class but the organization was poor and there was almost no evidence of course design or use of the teaching techniques I expected to see from a major university. The best section of the course was week 5, where they syntax of Objective-C and Swift were superficially compared. That section did give some clear opinions on why Swift should be chosen over Objective-C for new development. The other sections just contained too many confusing, unrehearsed diversions into esoteric topics to be of much use. I ended getting more out of the Apple documentation on Swift than I did from this class. However, the instructors have received ample feedback of this nature and they do seem genuinely concerned with improving the course. Assuming that they will make major improvements for the next round and noting that Coursera's infrastructure is excellent, don't be scared to take the class. The email reminders from Coursera about assignments, etc... kept me on track and kept me in the class. | 1) the class but the organization was | Poor | 1) and there was almost no evidence | 2.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Poor video quality, weak, ad hoc examples, not well thought flow. Seems like tutors have not spent time on proper preparation. Free courses on iTunesU (especially those by Stanford University) are far more better. | 1) | Poor | 1) video quality, weak, ad hoc examples, | 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) The preparation of the course is | Poor | 1) there is no direction, a lot | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Basically a couple of guys have an unorganized discussion about swift. Little to no organization with poor coordination between lectures and quizzes.. Appears that there is no TA or course staff monitoring discussion boards... I am glad I didn't pay for the class... Disappointed though because I really wanted to learn Swift. | 1) swift. Little to no organization with | Poor | 1) coordination between lectures and quizzes. . | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Teachers poorly prepared, explanations ambiguous, it seems that they didn't pay attention to examples and sound of the course. I love Jack Wu written tutorials... way better than videos. | 1) Teachers | Poor | 1) prepared, explanations ambiguous, it seems that | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Sadly, this course is NOT an Introduction to Swift Programming. As a beginner I found this course was not structured and I was confused about the correct steps to take in order to start programming in Swift. No doubt that these guys are knowledgable but they do not plan the course or teach in a linear fashion. Furthermore the sound and video quality is poor and I have decided to quit this course after the first week and a half. | 1) the sound and video quality is | Poor | 1) and I have decided to quit | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | The lectures for this course seem unorganized and often had poor audio. The content covered in many lectures seemed off topic. Quiz questions would then focus on the off topic information making it confusing with regard to what material to focus on during a lecture. Do I focus on the proposed subject of the video or the many tangents about other topics. This combined with the unorganized nature of videos(just winging it) made the lectures distracting. The lecture videos are full of code that simply does not work in the real world and help from staff takes literally days to get(and not just over the weekend). | 1) course seem unorganized and often had | Poor | 1) audio. The content covered in many | 2.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | A resource if your starting with Swift. Video quality is often poor. Examples are a bit too contrived. Generally, presentations should be better prepared, too much figuring things out during the video. Good choice of project for the practical.Many interesting coding practice tidbits along the way but needs polish. | 1) with Swift. Video quality is often | Poor | 1) Examples are a bit too contrived. | 3.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Bad audio quality Poor presentation Not for professional developers (perhaps can be fine for beginners) | 1) Bad audio quality | Poor | 1) presentation Not for professional developers (perhaps | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Poorly prepared course. Lectutets do not have enough qualified to teach others. It's a shame to pay for this money. I do not expect this from the university of Toronto. | 1) | Poor | 1) prepared course. Lectutets do not have | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | This course is poorly designed. What course on a programming language jumps first into how to use the debugger and what went wrong with a program? You are not introducing Swift, you are introducing xcode (and doing a terrible job of it). Also, I have been using xcode and Swift for 8 months now and producing some really good work, but I could only get 3/7 on your quiz because you have written questions with the purpose of tricking people instead of reinforcing or checking knowledge of the content. When you teach a new application, consider introducing the interface first. Explain what the various areas are, what they are needed for, and how to control them. This orients the user in the application and helps them to find their way around when they are trying to reinforce your teachings later. The presentation for this course is so unprofessional. It's like a running commentary on a movie instead of an educational presentation. I felt like I was listening to two geeks stuffing around and having a good time, instead of people who are professional teachers! I'm so incredibly disappointed with this course. Back to the wonderful work of Paul Hegarty from Stanford University on iTunes University and YouTube for me. University of Toronto - you should really consider what your teaching staff are doing before you unleash them on the world. | 1) This course is | Poor | 1) designed. What course on a programming | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | I'm sorry but the presentations were very poor and unprepared. The first quiz focused on rather unimportant and stuff which was NOT PRESENTED in videos, like keyboard shortcuts etc. Do not recommend. | 1) sorry but the presentations were very | Poor | 1) and unprepared. The first quiz focused | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | I am dropping the course. Suggestions 1) One person talk to the audience...rather than 2 or 3 talking to each other 2) Volume and pic quality poor 3) Its going too slowly.....just not enough "meat" to get me engaged...esp if u compare to the course by Paul Hegarty Stanford | 1) other 2) Volume and pic quality | Poor | 1) 3) Its going too slowly. . | 1.0 |
| eWC74yvREeWLVg5w1LoYqQ | Purely theoretical, I doesnt go deep enough, there arent any assignments, only a quiz at the end of the week. Poor material per week. | 1) at the end of the week. | Poor | 1) material per week. | 1.0 |
| eXbmvDe9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Poor alignment between assignments and lectures. Lots of content poorly explained. | 1) | Poor | 1) alignment between assignments and lectures. Lots | 1.0 |
| eXbmvDe9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Poor alignment between assignments and lectures. Lots of content poorly explained. | 2) assignments and lectures. Lots of content | Poor | 2) explained. | 1.0 |
| eXbmvDe9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | I would give this course 0 stars if possible. I am amazed that anyone rated this course better than 1 or 2 stars! The lectures are not focused on the information that is necessary for the obnoxiously long and tedious assignments. The assignments are poorly written and demand too much Ruby expertise for a course meant for Ruby novices. I spent over 15 hrs trying to complete week 2's assignment and still could not finish. I became so frustrated and actually angry at how difficult this course is designed I decided to quit. Coursera should not allow there to be courses that evoke such frustration and emotion. John Hopkins should be embarrassed that their name is associated with the pedagogical malpractice that is this specialization series. Foolishly, I paid for the entire specialization up front and Coursera refuses to refund me for the remaining two courses. (which I have not even taken) | 1) and tedious assignments. The assignments are | Poor | 1) written and demand too much Ruby | 1.0 |
| eXbmvDe9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Poor lessons explanations :( | 1) | Poor | 1) lessons explanations :( | 1.0 |
| F0J_-3LWEeWxvQr3acyajw | Poor lectures, inaccurate and incomplete information. Narrative about changing colors is reminiscent of Sal Khan. I just can't listen to any more of this. | 1) | Poor | 1) lectures, inaccurate and incomplete information. Narrative | 1.0 |
| FDKAdNsuEeSEcyIAC2mPOQ | Paid for the course and never took it. Terrible professor teaching the course, the format was poorly put together, and just wasn't overall a very good course. | 1) teaching the course, the format was | Poor | 1) put together, and just wasn't overall | 1.0 |
| FDKAdNsuEeSEcyIAC2mPOQ | The course content was comprehensive, thorough and required note taking with preparation for quizzes. Solid academically. Some of the assignments required use of third party applications and websites that did function as anticipated or are no longer supported. Peer grading was very poor. It frequently seemed students did not read submissions, off handedly grading. At times comments did not match the scores, such as "nice work," or "good job," while giving only 3 stars. | 1) longer supported. Peer grading was very | Poor | 1) It frequently seemed students did not | 3.0 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | poorly done | 1) | Poor | 1) done | 2.0 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | Good enough for a free course offering very basic understanding of the topic. Lots of video errors, and sometimes the lecturer's speech isn't very smooth. Tests are poorly worded sometimes in ways that contradict the language used in the lectures, making them difficult to pass even with notes. I wouldn't pay for the certificate - if I were an employer I would not recognize this course as teaching any sort of proficiency. | 1) speech isn't very smooth. Tests are | Poor | 1) worded sometimes in ways that contradict | 3.0 |
| Fle9Xzu7EeW6UhL5OnDMBQ | I had a very poor experience being graded by peers. Although the Capstone Project Assignment itself is EXCELLENT, the peer grading rubric is not. I was not fairly graded, and I am sure of this 100%. | 1) I had a very | Poor | 1) experience being graded by peers. Although | 1.0 |
| fM5baJoUEeW93wo8Ha4kow | Material is excellent and very interesting. Test questions can be confusing and poorly phrased. | 1) Test questions can be confusing and | Poor | 1) phrased. | 4.0 |
| Fp0K8RoEEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | The name of this course is misleading to me (and if it's misunderstood by one, you can assume there are other people affected as well) - it would be more clear what's expecting you if the course would be called something similar to the last assignment name "Creating a data-driven website". The responsive part that I was interested in, was basically done with "use bootstrap" - that's pretty poor. Of course the course isn't responsible for this, but an appropriate name would fix that. Throughout the course, the quizzes were entertaining - but the quality of the questions is questionable. Sometimes the answer is obvious because the other answers are ridiculous, sometimes you don't know what to click, even though you just watched the video carefully. Reason for this is that there are questions being asked, which weren't even touched in the lesson. It's basically the same with the last assignment - you can watch and do all the lessons before, you've got no idea how to start and what to do as there's simply no explanation of what affects what - which seems to be extremely important in javascript. Yes, it's often told in an overview-style explanation what a function is doing, but something in depth that tells you how to write working javascript functions is lacking. The quality of the explanations also varied in their quality. Some things that were pretty easy to understand, were explained over 10 very boring minutes, other things that were far more complex and tricky, were handled in half a minute. This made watching the videos frustrating at times. I'm not sure which kind of audience this course is supposed for, but the style varies way too much. Furthermore it's great that coursera is offering an iPad-app, but I'd like to be able to use and do everything that the app is offering me (and in the best case: everything that's necessary for the course). I can't even review classmates, as they're uploading .rar or .zip-files, which can't be accessed via iPad, and also javascript is a problem for ipads. Unpacking such files and running them on your servers would be an option, maybe. | 1) " use bootstrap" - that's pretty | Poor | 1) Of course the course isn't responsible | 2.0 |
| Fp0K8RoEEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | The course is useful. I've learned many things but in the last week the lectures seemed very rushed. There was many coding that was poorly explained or not explained at all. It started good but ended poorly. | 1) There was many coding that was | Poor | 1) explained or not explained at all. | 3.0 |
| Fp0K8RoEEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | The course is useful. I've learned many things but in the last week the lectures seemed very rushed. There was many coding that was poorly explained or not explained at all. It started good but ended poorly. | 2) all. It started good but ended | Poor | 2) | 3.0 |
| 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: presentation | Poor | 1) sound, unprepared and unrehearsed presentations, long | 1.0 |
| fZN4SVfiEeWsGQ6fKrurvQ | The course was beneficial to me and I learned a lot of new things. I took one star because of the assessment of students who are too poorly evaluated. | 1) assessment of students who are too | Poor | 1) evaluated. | 4.0 |
| G6m5MzTeEeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Unfortunately, this is a poorly designed course. It seems like it is strictly scripted, the instructor looks like she's reading the material. It's very boring to watch. And as a student with a business background, I learned zero things related to PR or research. Everything discussed through this course is nothing beyond definitions and general business knowledge. She keeps hinting on discussing the topics further in different section (Which didn't happen) this leaves me confused on why not discussing its details now?! Discussing SWOT analysis is a strategic concern, and as a PR related course we should see more related to marketing and communication techniques as a result of the search. But guess what? its not there... This course Is not worth the money. | 1) Unfortunately, this is a | Poor | 1) designed course. It seems like it | 1.0 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | Three stars for course structure, two stars less for every poor course material which doesn't contain any guidance to test questions. | 1) structure, two stars less for every | Poor | 1) course material which doesn't contain any | 3.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Despite I guess the course has a pretty good coverage of the ML basics, it is definitely just an introductive class. In particular I was surprised by the low quality of the material. The following are my notes and suggestions: -- I found the lectures highly redundant, with many unnecessary repetitions -- using a vector notation (like an arrow or a simple line on top of the letters) throughout the course would have make formulas much more readable -- too much hand writing on the slides while talking: a better set of slides with blocks of text shown at the right moment would be much smoother and readable -- very, very poor video editing (many times it's clear some parts of the videos were meant to be cut!!) -- the desire to create a format suitable for people with a scarce algebra preparation lead to use not the appropriate terminology, which would be more correct and easier to understand. Just realize that ML is basically applied math, and without a good math knowledge it is almost pointless to approach the subject | 1) smoother and readable -- very, very | Poor | 1) video editing (many times it's clear | 3.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | It's quite good for beginners like me to learn about machine learning in this course. Practical advice on machine learning helps a lot. Some examples in the assignment are interesting though very few parts are required to implement by ourselves. I was struggling a lot when applying vectorization to the assignments, reminding me of my poor algebra :D | 1) the assignments, reminding me of my | Poor | 1) algebra :D | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Although my poor English, I understand the lectures without translation. It needs a lot of talent to make as clear lectures like this. I admire the lecturer. | 1) Although my | Poor | 1) English, I understand the lectures without | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Awesome course, many thanks to Andrew Ng for such clear way of explanation. Even beginner without knowing special terminology and poor knowledge of linear algebra and programming is able to finish this course. With this course I've got passion to learn more and deeper. | 1) beginner without knowing special terminology and | Poor | 1) knowledge of linear algebra and programming | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | I'll only mentions things I didn't like: sound/video quality is poor, lack of lecture notes. | 1) I didn't like: sound/video quality is | Poor | 1) lack of lecture notes. | 4.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Poorly described, but versatile in coverage. Could do with accessing Lecture Notes. | 1) | Poor | 1) described, but versatile in coverage. Could | 3.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This course is absolute garbage. You get no feedback on your quizzes or assignments and the professor is one of the most boring I've ever seen. It's absurdly frustrating to repeatedly fail without any feedback as to why you're failing. The lectures are clearly from a math perspective, as the prof simply draws what he's talking about on the slides. His hand writing is poor, and he does a lackluster job of explaining what exactly he's doing. Finally, pure lecture with no notes is almost impossible to learn, as there's nothing to read and study. I'd rate this course a 1/10, take the course on iTunes from Caltech instead. | 1) the slides. His hand writing is | Poor | 1) and he does a lackluster job | 1.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Some courses are well taught on uninteresting subject. Some courses are taught poorly on interesting subject. This is a very well taught course on a very interesting subject. It is one of Coursera's must-check courses. | 1) uninteresting subject. Some courses are taught | Poor | 1) on interesting subject. This is a | 5.0 |
| H02KsW1DEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Poor compared with some of the others on this specialisation. The lectures are too fast and high level, with no allowance given for people who are unfamiliar with this area and attempting to learn it. | 1) | Poor | 1) compared with some of the others | 1.0 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | The instructors are very knowledgeable, but the course seems to have the , "we just threw this together at the last minute feel". Many of the Quizzes are very poorly worded. The final project is a bit of a disaster as some of the reviewers are unable to unzip a generic '.gz' file and you can end up getting 0 points from those particular incompetent types. | 1) Many of the Quizzes are very | Poor | 1) worded. The final project is a | 2.0 |
| I82JCSWXEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | The materials and knowledge of the fundamentals from this course are helpful. However, the assignments and peer grading threw me off. I did not like the fact that your grade depended on students' review of your assignments. It is all subjective. Good course materials, poor grading system. | 1) is all subjective. Good course materials, | Poor | 1) grading system. | 4.0 |
| iN8yoSWdEeWCGRL6mLoB5w | Very poor instructions and not enough theory. | 1) Very | Poor | 1) instructions and not enough theory. | 3.0 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | First, I would like to say that with the exception of ONE exam, I was able to take all the tests WITHOUT WATCHING THE VIDEOS. That shows that this is a poorly put together course. Secondly, this course did NOT cover CHILD NUTRITION, it covered general nutrition. There was nothing helpful in regards to meal planning with children (although there was useful information in the Lunch Packing Video.) Although it claims the project at the end of the course is optional, it will not let me complete the course without doing the project. I find that extremely frustrating. This course offered a lot of great information (even if it was a weird combo of factual/opinionated) I was frustrated by the fact that this course is OBVIOUSLY geared towards the upper middle class/rich instead of the the everyday blue-collar family. I will do the project to complete the course but was very disappointed in my first course through Coursera. | 1) That shows that this is a | Poor | 1) put together course. Secondly, this course | 2.0 |
| iRl53_BWEeW4_wr--Yv6Aw | Hi, I am an IT specialist (30 years experience). I undertook the course so I could learn about IBM Bluemix and IoT development, and extend my skills/understanding of the environment. However, I have very little good to say about this course offering. I had numerous issues with what was offered: The videos were generally ok, but some had poor audio. There was minimal video (compared to any other course I have done), and more detail and discussion in videos would have been more helpful. Some of the video material is out of date already, as I suspect Bluemix layout has changed - this made navigation a bit confusing. The downloadable Pi image has changed since the course was prepared, and the newer image has different code as standard. I ended up having to muddle-through manually loading packages and dependencies, etc. to get things to work. I lost many hours trying to debug and rework assignment code, just to get it to work for the grader tool. This was further complicated by not having good debug output from the grader to work with. Naturally some of the grader fails were my own fault, but the majority of issues I ran in to could have been avoided by better worded assignments and/or more detail about requirements. Lastly, it was taking sometimes days to get any response to requests for guidance on the forums / discussions. In fact, I think the majority of useful assistance came from other students who had run in to the same issue(s). When you have a course that is such a short time frame, you really need to be providing assistance in a timely manner. I could not, in any good faith, recommend anyone take this course in the future - which is a little saddening. I do thank the lecturers for their efforts thus far, and sincerely hope they can either improve or drop this course offering in the future. | 1) were generally ok, but some had | Poor | 1) audio. There was minimal video (compared | 1.0 |
| iRl53_BWEeW4_wr--Yv6Aw | This was a decent class to get started on programming a Raspberry Pi and hooking it up to a web service. The material was easy to follow and the instructions were precise. With this class, you'll be in a position to create interesting applications using the Raspberry Pi There were two negatives to this class: 1) Most of the assignments used the Node Red environment. This is a visual programming tool. Although it's easy to use, I would have preferred programming using a more widely used and more powerful environment. 2) The auto grader for the class was not very robust and did a poor job of giving feedback on why things weren't passing. Several times, the assignment would pass in my environment but fail in the auto grader due to (incorrect) assumptions that the auto grader was making about implementation. Overall, this was a worthwhile course but could use some improvement. | 1) not very robust and did a | Poor | 1) job of giving feedback on why | 3.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | this course is very poorly structured. | 1) this course is very | Poor | 1) structured. | 1.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Really poor quality of the material. | 1) Really | Poor | 1) quality of the material. | 2.0 |
| jA4AZLlTEeWfYA612mWHZw | Very horrible and boring course, poorly designed and the teachers can't even speak properly. | 1) Very horrible and boring course, | Poor | 1) designed and the teachers can't even | 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. | 1) sorry to say this is a | Poor | 1) course. The audio is bad, the | 1.0 |
| jA4AZLlTEeWfYA612mWHZw | I normally struggle to give poor reviews to free online content, but there are so many glaring fundamental issues with the presentation and content of this course, that it I feel it's important to warn people not to waste their time with this course in it's current form. The mapping and planning lectures raise some good points, but the rest give only the most basic overview of the topic at hand, glossing over steps enough that you would probably learn just as much watching youtube, or looking around inside wordpress on your own. The delivery of the lectures needs a lot of work, with distracting, erratic pauses between words, and the sound frequently cutting out mid-word as they switch between slides. I found it difficult to make it through more than 15 minutes of content. I gave more than 1 star because the links underneath the slides contain some valuable information, so if you can be bothered trawling through the slides you can gleam some knowledge there. Hopefully the creators of the course take on board the many negative reviews and give a major overhaul to the course, to bring it in line with the quality of almost all other content on Coursera. | 1) I normally struggle to give | Poor | 1) reviews to free online content, but | 2.0 |
| jA4AZLlTEeWfYA612mWHZw | This was the most poorly designed course that I have ever encountered. Whoever is in control of quality assurance was caught napping on this one - the instructors were woeful! It was as if the principles of instructional design and adult learning were abandoned entirely; there was minimal instruction and I had to rely on my intuition and the assistance of a study buddy to work hard to complete the course. If you are completely new to website design (as I was), prepare for a steep learning curve as you will be spending many hours preparing and organising your info - the title is deceptive and misleading! Ann, Melbourne, Australia April 2016. | 1) This was the most | Poor | 1) designed course that I have ever | 1.0 |
| jA4AZLlTEeWfYA612mWHZw | 1 out of 10. A waste of time. If I cannot participate in discussions, forums, submit assignments, or give reviews, I might as well watch youtube lectures. The course content was very poor as well. (this is based on the unpaid material) This course should be scrapped and not offered as an unpaid course. Its a classical case of bait and switch. | 1) lectures. The course content was very | Poor | 1) as well. (this is based on | 2.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | Very poor. Assignments consist of transcription of formulae given in lectures, and then manually searching the parameter space for solutions. | 1) Very | Poor | 1) Assignments consist of transcription of formulae | 1.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | I had very high hopes for this course. I was actually planning to purchase the specialization - just as a thank you gesture. Unfortunately, there is very little to be grateful for here. In this course, you get a series of super short lectures giving you an overview of the math and physics behind the aerial robotics. I can't be the judge (since I hold a degree in this area), but I don't think you'll be able to get much if you aren't familiar with the topics yet. And you most certainly won't learn anything new if you had some previous training. And then suddenly there are assignments. That have almost nothing to do with the lectures, but require quite a bit of Matlab programming (did I mention you won't be taught any Matlab in the process?) To make things worse, the assignments are rather poorly explained. By the way, you won't get any replies from the course team - they even ignore questions about errors in lectures. The course looks very sloppy. As if someone forced the team to put together something for Coursera. A huge disappointment :( | 1) things worse, the assignments are rather | Poor | 1) explained. By the way, you won't | 1.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | The quiz and assignment are poorly designed. Important issues are overlooked or just briefly discussed in lecture. The assignment focuses on matlab coding, which only emphasizes the coding technique. Do not recommend to audience with | 1) The quiz and assignment are | Poor | 1) designed. Important issues are overlooked or | 1.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | Quizzes and Assignments are poorly designed. You will spend most of your time tuning parameters and deriving matrices that were never discussed in the course. Unfortunate. | 1) Quizzes and Assignments are | Poor | 1) designed. You will spend most of | 2.0 |
| K28H5jJ0EeWgIQ7IEhB31Q | Such a boring course. No challenge at all, no meaningful example, and in the end seems that everybody grade without any reason. I don't think I'll finish the specialization, it's too expensive for such a poor quality | 1) it's too expensive for such a | Poor | 1) quality | 2.0 |
| k2Ty4TonEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Sadly, I found the presentation poor: not at all fluent, and under-prepared - sometimes what was said was different from what was written (which was correct), potentially causing confusion. Also, some results were given without justifying them, for instance the concept of simplest number was stated but not proper | 1) Sadly, I found the presentation | Poor | 1) not at all fluent, and under-prepared | 1.0 |
| k8B9WjxkEeW7GArkqhNhJw | if u r poor, it makes u good.........if u r good, it makes u better........if u r better, it makes u best!!!!!! | 1) if u r | Poor | 1) it makes u good. . . | 5.0 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Very poor CSS content | 1) Very | Poor | 1) CSS content | 2.0 |
| loAmvxJgEea8fxLSgUgxeQ | The instructors do know their subjects and Paul Rodriguez has a wonderfully clear, practiced, to the point delivery. However, the class was not designed well. It appears the instructors did not work together to create the course material or have a well-thought agenda. What we have are concepts introduced without sufficient or any explanation, coursework that involves tweaking software instead of understanding the data transformations, rambling lectures, and no sense of accomplishment. I mostly spent my time working through confusing assignments where the key was to find an example, copy it and tweak it. What was it producing? How was it working? Why were the results significant? Those questions were left unanswered. Learning how software works is important, but we learned neither how it works or why. Also, the course did not build upon the previous Big Data courses. I expected to learn how Machine Learning fits as a piece in the overall puzzle of Hadoop and Big Data. But this class felt thrown together. It's not worth the cost and it's a shame to UCSD. The Big Data series has been overall a disappointment. There are a few good instructors, but they can't save a series of courses that have been poorly thought through. | 1) series of courses that have been | Poor | 1) thought through. | 1.0 |
| m0Du-7_DEeWn-wqIckNy5Q | Well defined courses for student. A student or any age of person can understand easily in couples of times. Good work by Coursera. Best thing is that they give financial aid for poor students and i am one who get aid. Very thanks you for this. | 1) that they give financial aid for | Poor | 1) students and i am one who | 5.0 |
| M9dntkEoEeWZtA4u62x6lQ | The course content is good. But it needs some polishing... Major comment: The assignment submission/review process should be improved. Grading system is not clearly defined at the time of submission. Some grading question are inherently subjective "Is the code at least somewhat efficient?". But even for inherently objective questions "Is the code correct?" (as does it give the correct answer" the staff does not provide the correct answer... I think the staff should create some automated review for what is objective: does the code compile? does it yield the correct answer? is it efficient enough? (Just like many other courses on Coursera) And only when it passes the automatic review, use peer grading for coding style. Finally there a lot of confusion with the deadlines. Minor comments: Lucky Coursera has an option to play twice faster! Not that the content is too easy, but the talking ... pace ... is ... hum... very ... ... slow. Also how come for a programming course the slides with code are so poorly formated??? | 1) the slides with code are so | Poor | 1) formated? ? ? | 3.0 |
| MdNTKtdhEeSgyyIAC4cL9g | I'm sorry to say this Course is really boring, poor in resources and I'm sorry to say this but it's the worse Coursera Course I've attended . | 1) say this Course is really boring, | Poor | 1) in resources and I'm sorry to | 1.0 |
| MdNTKtdhEeSgyyIAC4cL9g | Great first starter but poorly done | 1) Great first starter but | Poor | 1) done | 2.0 |
| mG15ZhQ9EeWCWhKuhISYpw | While the lectures were good, this course had annoying issues, such as in-video questions asking us to refer to previously shown material (which isn't easy given the Coursera interface). A few assignment questions were also poorly formulated. The course would have really benefited from .pdf reference material, for review and elaboration of topics presented in lectures. At minimum, a list of relevant equations would have helped. The acoustics part of the content seemed somewhat sketchy and hand-wavy; the assumptions and limitations behind the rule-of-thumb equations and models presented weren't given much weight, so I wasn't able to get a good grasp of when they were relevant*. The electronics part was more reasonable, but still suffered from some over-simplification (for example, the model of guitar pickups didn't include magnetic hysteresis). All in all, the course was worth taking, but I think the material deserves more rigor. *All models are wrong. But some of them are useful. | 1) A few assignment questions were also | Poor | 1) formulated. The course would have really | 3.0 |
| mG15ZhQ9EeWCWhKuhISYpw | Lectures have very poor teaching skills. | 1) Lectures have very | Poor | 1) teaching skills. | 1.0 |
| mG1NQnUvEeS8UyIACzYI5Q | Very interesting material, and very well explained. The course is slightly out of date, and a couple of the test questions were poorly worded (mostly, these were corrected), but overall it is educational and fun to participate in. I enjoyed it and I learned even more about something that interested me. | 1) couple of the test questions were | Poor | 1) worded (mostly, these were corrected), but | 4.0 |
| mKzzYp5YEeWVBgpelZA5Jw | Poor material, terrible french accent, not a good Android course at all. I don't raccoment it unless you're a total novice at Android development. | 1) | Poor | 1) material, terrible french accent, not a | 1.0 |
| mKzzYp5YEeWVBgpelZA5Jw | Explanation of concept was poor | 1) Explanation of concept was | Poor | 1) | 2.0 |
| mKzzYp5YEeWVBgpelZA5Jw | Big 5 star. Unfortunately I can't give more. My suggestions are to re record the section where the male instructor was explaning the very first android app,; the video quality on that section was very poor. My next suggestion will be: you guys mapped that course perfectly, you should add an advance level to this course or at least, create an android specialization for this course. At last, it would be a better idea after all 9 blocs, before the student submitted their project, the instructors create a big app that include some of the bloc or all of the blocs. This course will be my first completed course on coursera and I will definitely going to pay for that one later | 1) quality on that section was very | Poor | 1) My next suggestion will be: you | 5.0 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | Even though this course covers a lot fundamentals for introduction to algorithm, the course itself is not designed as good as I expected. For starters, the weekly problem designs aren't very good. Some problem statements are ambiguous and not very clear unless you read more than one time or take a closer look at the examples. Often, the input format/arguments are designed to take redundant info. Some problem even has more than one possible correct outputs, which is just confusing for learning purpose. In terms of lecture videos, it's good that there are some classic algorithm problems being demonstrated in the video, however the linkage between how to express a problem in mathematical languages is poorly explained. For example, in the lecture of edit distance, the realization of the matrix was not well explained at all. I personally appreciate a lot of the thorough proving steps introduced in the lectures, however I personally think the proofs are often not well explained to the audience (I also understand that it's more difficult to explain proving steps). Considering the large variety of audience, I would recommend the instructors separate the comprehensive more in-depth knowledge into optional videos, in this way the audiences could decide if they want to spend time in optional videos or not based on their own needs, meanwhile the instructors could spend a little bit more time to explain the difficult concepts better. Overall, I know that talking and analyzing algorithms can be kinda of boring and challenging, but I wish the course videos could be stated in a more interesting and intriguing way. | 1) a problem in mathematical languages is | Poor | 1) explained. For example, in the lecture | 2.0 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | The course starts very promising, but it gets worse week after week, culminating on a barely understandable week about dynamic programming. That’s when I gave up and decided to write this review instead, with just one assignment missing to complete the course. Some of the teachers aren’t native english speakers, which is fine, but their english is very hard to understand. I found myself having to watch some portions of the videos over and over again in order to understand what was being said. I tried reading the transcripts instead, but the they’re even worse! It seems that they were automatically generated from the videos, thus suffering with the poor pronunciation. The teachers use mathematical sophistication that feels unnecessary, but to be fair, they do mention it on the FAQ as part of the necessary background. However, even though it’s an online course, they barely use any teaching method besides very raw slides, some dry mathematical proofs and someone speaking about the content. The only resources offered to help learning are a few open source visualizations. I expected much more. The only good aspect from this course are the assignment checkers, which allow you to write your solutions in multiple languages. I deeply regret the money and time I spent on this course. | 1) the videos, thus suffering with the | Poor | 1) pronunciation. The teachers use mathematical sophistication | 2.0 |
| NFiJtRnpEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | The lectures were too wordy and the lecturers tripped over their words too often (which wouldn't have made it so difficult to listen if the lectures hadn't been so wordy!). There was too much focus on high-level details of the course project and too little attention paid to technical details. This rendered the lectures simplistic, boring, and sometimes a waste of time. This felt like an introductory level course, made more difficult through poor teaching. Also, the slick web interface was slightly difficult to navigate in comparison to other Coursera courses. | 1) level course, made more difficult through | Poor | 1) teaching. Also, the slick web interface | 2.0 |
| NiK99anHEeS88iIAC1WehA | Did not like the course, complicated concepts and poor representation. ( i still really really appreciate the efforts of those who put it together with their hard work) | 1) like the course, complicated concepts and | Poor | 1) representation. ( i still really really | 1.0 |
| NjakpyWaEeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | This course is about nothing, it is poor illustrated and uninformative. The lecturer's manner is anno | 1) course is about nothing, it is | Poor | 1) illustrated and uninformative. The lecturer's manner | 1.0 |
| nnd5lshWEeSA1yIACye2oA | Most interesting topic, previously unknown. excellent illustrations, although flashed up too fast. Poor, sometimes erratic and tiring verbal presentation, which sapped energy for peer reviews. Can be greatly improved. | 1) illustrations, although flashed up too fast. | Poor | 1) sometimes erratic and tiring verbal presentation, | 3.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Poorly executed. Lost my interest very quickly. I thought that this course was going to be as enjoyable as Dr. Chuck's Python for Everyone given that both instructors are from the same institution, and both courses belong to similarly named specializations, that is "...For Everyone", but I ended up disappointed. My suggestion for the instructor: redo your lecture slides or point out to all of the errors in the slides. It is not acceptable for you to just say that they contain errors and not point out where all of the errors in the slides are. You only pointed out to one error in the slides by the way. Also, I personally believe that it would have been much more interesting if you had not read off a screen for your lectures; try speaking off the top of your head. | 1) | Poor | 1) executed. Lost my interest very quickly. | 1.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | The teacher is excellent. This is excellent but poor introduction to HTML. The course, which is part of specialization should be much more detailed. With much more axamples. I think it is not worth 49$. | 1) is excellent. This is excellent but | Poor | 1) introduction to HTML. The course, which | 2.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Very didactic. Even with my poor english I could understand everything. | 1) Very didactic. Even with my | Poor | 1) english I could understand everything. | 5.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | excellent(sorry for my poor express ability) | 1) excellent(sorry for my | Poor | 1) express ability) | 5.0 |
| oZwETNccEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | Poor content. Clearly filler material for the specialization. :) | 1) | Poor | 1) content. Clearly filler material for the | 1.0 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | The Professor is excellent and very student-friendly, and the course material is very clear. Two issues though: 1) List comprehensions should be introduced. They are extremely powerful and should really be introduced at this stage. 2) Charging $79 for this course seems like poor value for money, specially for a student like me. It doesn't go into great detail and the price point for what is a 5-6 hour course with simple exercises seems too high. | 1) $79 for this course seems like | Poor | 1) value for money, specially for a | 4.0 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Very poor Server capacity. Problematic to complete assignments | 1) Very | Poor | 1) Server capacity. Problematic to complete assignments | 1.0 |
| Pc2juyEIEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | poor quality and even worse presentation by the teacher | 1) | Poor | 1) quality and even worse presentation by | 1.0 |
| PeZYFz-zEeWB_AoW1KYI4Q | In fact, this is an inconsistent attempt of re-implementing previous FRP course from the same authors. FRP course had many issues about homework/lectures being poorly related, this one is even worse. This is very frustrating, as a topic itself is one of the most interesting ones in today's software engineering. | 1) had many issues about homework/lectures being | Poor | 1) related, this one is even worse. | 1.0 |
| pFHWsjyCEeW7GArkqhNhJw | A nice idea but very poorly done. This would be cool topic to learn about but it is just so poorly executed. Week 1 was just introduction. Week 2 seemed okay, reasonably interesting with a video that although was somewhat dated in style managed to grab my attention for the 40 or so minutes in length. However Week 3 is where I get off. A 16 minute video of slides, with only a couple of minutes of narration in total with what seems like about 20 links to random articles over the internet Links to articles to read would be fine if done well, but with very little to join them up and link them back to the subject at hand is a bit boring. Also the worst part - the slides aren't posted so in order to get to these articles I had to pause the video and letter by letter type them into the address bar. I gave up after the third article and hit leave course. | 1) A nice idea but very | Poor | 1) done. This would be cool topic | 1.0 |
| pFHWsjyCEeW7GArkqhNhJw | A nice idea but very poorly done. This would be cool topic to learn about but it is just so poorly executed. Week 1 was just introduction. Week 2 seemed okay, reasonably interesting with a video that although was somewhat dated in style managed to grab my attention for the 40 or so minutes in length. However Week 3 is where I get off. A 16 minute video of slides, with only a couple of minutes of narration in total with what seems like about 20 links to random articles over the internet Links to articles to read would be fine if done well, but with very little to join them up and link them back to the subject at hand is a bit boring. Also the worst part - the slides aren't posted so in order to get to these articles I had to pause the video and letter by letter type them into the address bar. I gave up after the third article and hit leave course. | 2) about but it is just so | Poor | 2) executed. Week 1 was just introduction. | 1.0 |
| PLnREdJzEeSeOiIACzWBkQ | The course had many information provided and thanks for that. But there are some things I disliked and I guess by fixing them the course would become much much better. 1. The information refers to the PMBOK very often. That is good, as the PMBOK worth (must?) reading for any PM, but it is a bit difficult to understand anything while a teacher just retranslates something, from any book — especially not written by the one — with poor examples. The much better way for lecturer is to explain it by oneself, not by just staying there and repeating what I can read from my display. 2. I dislike fixating to any software. Maybe Microsoft Project is a good example, but I am sure not the only one at first, and as I am a Mac person who has personal Macbook and Mac Pro at work I am not going to use Windows only for one application. There are plenty of them these days, the same or just similar. The key is not a software itself but the methodology using in the one. The methodology is worth understanding, for sure. 3. Grammar mistakes and misprints. It looks a little strange that no one reviewed the materials: neither on Coursera (I am sure it is not so easy to review every course) nor the creators. I am highly puzzled about how it could be possible: if it is a free course for someone there are also many of those who are paying for the courses, and the courses also represent the University. How the University cannot find someone to check the mistakes before publications? (To be precise there are tiny mistakes related to headers and graphics which make the materials looks untidy). 4. Materials production is very poor in details, even for the key ones: typography, colours, thickness of the fonts and lines. There are no contrasts, no highlighting — that looks as a draft, not as a final course worth spending the time, effort and money. If there are no people available to help with producing the materials of a good quality you can ask people from trueowl inc. (the website is trueowl.com and the working email is trueowl@trueowl.com) to help with it. They — we, as I am member of the team — are highly concerned about educational materials and motivated to enhance the quality of the materials, even for free of charge. Anyway I am glad I finished this course, as it gave me understanding which way should I continue with diving deeper into the theme. Thank you! | 1) written by the one — with | Poor | 1) examples. The much better way for | 3.0 |
| PLnREdJzEeSeOiIACzWBkQ | The course had many information provided and thanks for that. But there are some things I disliked and I guess by fixing them the course would become much much better. 1. The information refers to the PMBOK very often. That is good, as the PMBOK worth (must?) reading for any PM, but it is a bit difficult to understand anything while a teacher just retranslates something, from any book — especially not written by the one — with poor examples. The much better way for lecturer is to explain it by oneself, not by just staying there and repeating what I can read from my display. 2. I dislike fixating to any software. Maybe Microsoft Project is a good example, but I am sure not the only one at first, and as I am a Mac person who has personal Macbook and Mac Pro at work I am not going to use Windows only for one application. There are plenty of them these days, the same or just similar. The key is not a software itself but the methodology using in the one. The methodology is worth understanding, for sure. 3. Grammar mistakes and misprints. It looks a little strange that no one reviewed the materials: neither on Coursera (I am sure it is not so easy to review every course) nor the creators. I am highly puzzled about how it could be possible: if it is a free course for someone there are also many of those who are paying for the courses, and the courses also represent the University. How the University cannot find someone to check the mistakes before publications? (To be precise there are tiny mistakes related to headers and graphics which make the materials looks untidy). 4. Materials production is very poor in details, even for the key ones: typography, colours, thickness of the fonts and lines. There are no contrasts, no highlighting — that looks as a draft, not as a final course worth spending the time, effort and money. If there are no people available to help with producing the materials of a good quality you can ask people from trueowl inc. (the website is trueowl.com and the working email is trueowl@trueowl.com) to help with it. They — we, as I am member of the team — are highly concerned about educational materials and motivated to enhance the quality of the materials, even for free of charge. Anyway I am glad I finished this course, as it gave me understanding which way should I continue with diving deeper into the theme. Thank you! | 2) untidy). 4. Materials production is very | Poor | 2) in details, even for the key | 3.0 |
| PLnREdJzEeSeOiIACzWBkQ | Very poor teaching | 1) Very | Poor | 1) teaching | 2.0 |
| Pw5_EDSEEeWHeRJ9CdC5xQ | Great material. Some things I didn't know about disabilities and colleges, however the presentation of the videos that were not of a guest speaker were poorly done. The instructors sounded like robots and you could tell easily that they were just reading from a script. | 1) not of a guest speaker were | Poor | 1) done. The instructors sounded like robots | 1.0 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | The course is very well structured and everything is well explained. You learn a lot, but for a person with poor previous knowledge about database systems it requires more time dedication than the the 4-6 hours it says. | 1) lot, but for a person with | Poor | 1) previous knowledge about database systems it | 5.0 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Excellent course, with good video lectures. However, the written course materials, especially in terms of slides and assignment instructions, suffer from poor grammar and an occasional lack of clarity. | 1) slides and assignment instructions, suffer from | Poor | 1) grammar and an occasional lack of | 4.0 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Poor english, hard to follow assignments (instructions spread out over 3-4 microsoft word documents with no links between them). Teaches SQL with MixedCase namings, all-named constraints and other non-standard syntax. | 1) | Poor | 1) english, hard to follow assignments (instructions | 2.0 |
| QoJxNRnoEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | I will start with you do learn a lot from the videos (and the stuff you learn is very valuable), it's the absence of staff or professor involvement that is a problem and why I am not giving 5 stars. Outside of quizzes which are graded by computers, your "practice" assignments (which aren't practice because you can't check your answers before a test, super awesome when you can't really ask for help), final project and forum questions are graded or answered by other students. If you have any confusion, either it will go unresolved or be worsened by potentially wrong answers from other students which I saw happen many, many times. Maybe I am expecting too much from an online learning platform? In all, I feel like while I did learn, I perhaps learned some wrong practices too. So while the videos are great, the actual teacher involvement is poor. Coursera - I am not sure how you and the university work together, but is it totally strange to desire some input from your professor? | 1) great, the actual teacher involvement is | Poor | 1) Coursera - I am not sure | 3.0 |
| QoJxNRnoEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | I have being using Tableau for the last 5 months. Though I could consider myself strong in visualization, it is clear after taking the first two weeks of this course that I was utterly poor in analysis. Thank you for this powerful course. Whether you are familiar with Tableau or not, this is a course worthy all your time. | 1) this course that I was utterly | Poor | 1) in analysis. Thank you for this | 5.0 |
| qqRBbiEREeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | The audio can be difficult to understand. Partially because of the Professor's accent and partially because the recording is poor. If you can get past that, it's a good course and the professor knows his stuff. | 1) and partially because the recording is | Poor | 1) If you can get past that, | 3.0 |
| R1xPlXlzEeW3pg6oA-kqJQ | I can only give this two stars at most. The lecturers are just like reading the PPT without any heuristic teaching approaches. The assignments make me desperate, always show very poor feedback message -- "Wrong answer", even the cases failed because of performance issue. The starter files given from the assignment are inconsistent with the pdf description. It's so confusing. Couldn't get any help from forums. | 1) make me desperate, always show very | Poor | 1) feedback message -- " Wrong answer" | 2.0 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | This is just a poor sample of a course. Very few material, low quality assignments and grading. | 1) This is just a | Poor | 1) sample of a course. Very few | 2.0 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | The contents and quality of the video lectures are great. The quality of the supplementary materials (like the quizzes and the Matlab code) provided by TAs for the assignments are very poor. The assignment guides are written with very poor grammar. The Matlab code is written using the worst coding and documenting practices. The automatic evaluation system (the system for grade the submissions), doest't provide useful feedback. As people can read in the course discussion forums, students have been asking for months for improvements to the grading systems. | 1) TAs for the assignments are very | Poor | 1) The assignment guides are written with | 2.0 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | The contents and quality of the video lectures are great. The quality of the supplementary materials (like the quizzes and the Matlab code) provided by TAs for the assignments are very poor. The assignment guides are written with very poor grammar. The Matlab code is written using the worst coding and documenting practices. The automatic evaluation system (the system for grade the submissions), doest't provide useful feedback. As people can read in the course discussion forums, students have been asking for months for improvements to the grading systems. | 2) assignment guides are written with very | Poor | 2) grammar. The Matlab code is written | 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) spend answering questions is just really | Poor | 1) Don't expect even well asked questions | 1.0 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | I think that the theory was very poor in sense of the videos were very short and with little content. The topics that we've seen were difficult to learn by itself, and a better explanation could be very useful in practice. | 1) think that the theory was very | Poor | 1) in sense of the videos were | 3.0 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is an excellent course, especially for someone with near zero knowledge of financial statements and their analysis. The concepts are clearly presented, with interesting details and supporting examples of their use. The inane comments by cartoon characters using poorly simulated accents is only mildly irritating. | 1) inane comments by cartoon characters using | Poor | 1) simulated accents is only mildly irritating. | 4.0 |
| RFyNbG0iEeW9CAqYJHF3zQ | good but supporting material are poor | 1) good but supporting material are | Poor | 1) | 3.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | This seemed like a somewhat outdated course but did have a lot of basic info for people who want to make a game but haven't given it much thought. I also found the quizzes and review options frustration due to poorly worded questions and rating choices, as well as the lack of a written feedback option besides comments. Some of the videos seem to kind of drag on a bit as well, but overall it was still helpful for developing my game despite feeling like I didn't gain much new information. | 1) and review options frustration due to | Poor | 1) worded questions and rating choices, as | 3.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | This class started out very rocky and the videos had errors, the quizzes had problems, and the assignments had a poor grading system. Hopefully, these will be corrected in future offerings. | 1) problems, and the assignments had a | Poor | 1) grading system. Hopefully, these will be | 3.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | This course competes with a full specialization on Coursera with a slight flavor of the "Understanding Video Game" course also available on Coursera. The grading is supported by quizzes and assignment associated to a poor grading system. I found this single class less challenging and interesting than the full specialization on Game Design from CalArts although it allows you to have another view of the process of Game Design in a more engineering way (e.g. writing documentation and not thinking on creating game...). | 1) quizzes and assignment associated to a | Poor | 1) grading system. I found this single | 3.0 |
| RKMa0PTnEeSR9SIAC7LYOA | Good material. The notes or transcripts were rather poorly done, making for a lot of editing to get the supplied text to a usable form. More interviews with outside experts would have been welcome. Case studies were informative and useful. | 1) The notes or transcripts were rather | Poor | 1) done, making for a lot of | 4.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | The assignments had nothing to do with the lectures. The teachers do a poor job of explaining basic concepts and theories. The class is a lot more advanced than the class description makes it seem. | 1) the lectures. The teachers do a | Poor | 1) job of explaining basic concepts and | 1.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | From my past experience, I know it’s not easy for people to take suggestions. But I still want to have a try this time. I had high hopes for this course, but I am quite disappointed. I think Dr. Peng needs to improve his teaching skills. 1. Good teaching is clear, concise, and right to the point. So please slow down, speak. Don’t mumble. 2. Programming is a practical skill. So the best method to learn programming is to use step-by-step demos. You can talk about a concept for 5 to 10 minutes but I still can’t get it. Use a demo and I can get it right away. 3. Don’t just try to cover the materials so you think you have done the teaching, try to understand how your students learn and make sure they really get it. 4. If you haven’t covered some concept, don’t assume your students will understand it by magic. A good teacher can make the learning experience effortless and fun, a poor teacher makes it like a torture. | 1) learning experience effortless and fun, a | Poor | 1) teacher makes it like a torture. | 2.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | homework was poorly structured and not adequately discussed in the lecture videos. Had to dig through several buried links to make any progress on the homework assignments. | 1) homework was | Poor | 1) structured and not adequately discussed in | 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) The assignments and quizzes are also | Poor | 1) written and contain spelling and sloppy | 2.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Quiz and especially assignments were poorly written. Spelling mistakes in slides is simply unacceptable in high-level academia, in my opinion. Especially for a course designed for a global audience. | 1) Quiz and especially assignments were | Poor | 1) written. Spelling mistakes in slides is | 3.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Poor quality. A disappointing experience. The lectures are very basic, thought for people that have no experience in programming. This might be ok, but the difficulty of assignments should follow; instead, they can be relatively hard; newbie programmers will probably have an extremely hard time solving them, considering that many of the problems they will encounter are not treated at all in the course. The course does not focus enough on what differentiates R from other languages: just a few videos on data types, *apply functions, and a tiny little bit of scoping (very unclear). All these areas should have been expanded, and the course should have had more arguments as well. Finally, the assignments are not enough and their grading system is quite poor: instead of submitting your code and testing it automatically, you should calculate some quantities by hand and select the results out of a few possibilities. All in all, I was disappointed with the course. | 1) | Poor | 1) quality. A disappointing experience. The lectures | 2.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Poor quality. A disappointing experience. The lectures are very basic, thought for people that have no experience in programming. This might be ok, but the difficulty of assignments should follow; instead, they can be relatively hard; newbie programmers will probably have an extremely hard time solving them, considering that many of the problems they will encounter are not treated at all in the course. The course does not focus enough on what differentiates R from other languages: just a few videos on data types, *apply functions, and a tiny little bit of scoping (very unclear). All these areas should have been expanded, and the course should have had more arguments as well. Finally, the assignments are not enough and their grading system is quite poor: instead of submitting your code and testing it automatically, you should calculate some quantities by hand and select the results out of a few possibilities. All in all, I was disappointed with the course. | 2) and their grading system is quite | Poor | 2) instead of submitting your code and | 2.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Videos are poorly narrated and are marginally effective: vocabulary + key concepts only. The "swirl" exercises are woefully inadequate to prepare students for the quizzes. Foundational tasks (i.e. establishing a valid connection to the sample data) are conspicuously absent from the guided exercises; leaving too many students to seek help from message boards and google. Lastly, the "professors" are completely unreachable: they may as well be dead. After 30 years in the IT industry, I found this course to be profoundly aggravating and a complete waste of my time - I have abandoned this course and bought a "Teach Yourself" book instead. | 1) Videos are | Poor | 1) narrated and are marginally effective: vocabulary | 1.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | The course needs an update. Really poor presentation of the material although a lot of things are covered. | 1) The course needs an update. Really | Poor | 1) presentation of the material although a | 3.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Poorly organized and managed. Each week of this course should have been broken down into individual 4 week courses. I have 20 years software development experience, and I can tell you this is too much information to cram into a single class. | 1) | Poor | 1) organized and managed. Each week of | 1.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | It's good introduction, but the assignment are rather poor. Not worth paying for it | 1) introduction, but the assignment are rather | Poor | 1) Not worth paying for it | 1.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Very poorly constructed. There are major jumps in the difficulty of material that are completely unnecessary. The material could very easily be broken down into more manageable and comprehensible chunks. There is no repetition of any exercise or function to engrain any of the material. This course suffers grossly from the "curse of knowledge". If it were structured in a way where (a) material was broken down into smaller bits, ideally as beta tested by true rank novices and (b) all materials or specific functions were presented with repetition, similar to how khan academy structures its math section, then this course would be much better. I would also assume, given a and b, that there would be higher retention and comprehension. The expected time requirements are also wildly amiss. Try beta testing this on TRUE rank novices. The program suggests that this is for "beginners". I find it doubtful that a true beginner would fare well in this course. | 1) Very | Poor | 1) constructed. There are major jumps in | 1.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | The course had too much stuff crunched (and poorly explained) in too short a time period. That said, I got something out of it using a self-directed approach. | 1) had too much stuff crunched (and | Poor | 1) explained) in too short a time | 3.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | I really enjoyed learning R and stepping up the skills for using R. I really appreciate this great opportunity to learn exquisite classes for free at home. I do think this is as amazing as the Industrial Revolution. It is the Educational Revolution! BUT it seems errors occur (in some assignments), and I feel the level of classes is getting higher/tougher suddenly. I feel overwhelmed and challenged from assignments in week 3. &YOU GUYS TALK TOO FAST. (well, it surprisingly didn't affect to my understanding though). PLEASE! like myself, there are many many ESL students taking this course. I really don't think my English is poor (trust me, my undergraduate major is English lit and i wrote my final thesis for master's degree in ENGLISH as an ESL) but sometimes doing assignments and understanding lectures were challenging... Maybe that's because it takes time to get used to all the technical terms that has nothing to do with my major or career so far. But I think, not just JHU, but all the good universities providing courses need to consider ESL students who wanna learn more and pursue their dreams. Also it will be really great there are more ways to earn some degrees and more support for using the knowledge and skills I learned here for my career. (with reasonable price!) Thank you for the wonderful course, JHU! Hope I can go to JHU in US someday. | 1) really don't think my English is | Poor | 1) (trust me, my undergraduate major is | 4.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | There is a wide gap between the lectures and the practice. Its clear that the video material is completely inadequate and insufficient for the course. A poor introduction to programming. | 1) and insufficient for the course. A | Poor | 1) introduction to programming. | 1.0 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | I was very impressed with the perspective the course took. I had not seen the topic covered from the point of view of the harm to society poor methodology had. | 1) view of the harm to society | Poor | 1) methodology had. | 5.0 |
| rwRs6Tn9EeWJaxK5AT4frw | I thought this was poor. It was basically a re-hash of the previous module with slightly different tasks. Given that I had to wait three months for the capstone to be ready, I found it a bit rich that my deadline to finish it was a couple of weeks! Don't waste your money/time on this particular module. | 1) I thought this was | Poor | 1) It was basically a re-hash of | 1.0 |
| sCE0nT-OEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | Course is OK. Not too informative or too poor. However, it is in the same context with its specialization series. | 1) OK. Not too informative or too | Poor | 1) However, it is in the same | 3.0 |
| SG_K6nEmEeWxvQr3acyajw | Poor grading system. Based on 2 peers' "subjective" points of your week4 analysis assignment, even if you digested all the materials and received 100% on quizzes all weeks, you will have to repeat taking this course endlessly. At first I thought I did not analyze thoroughly so on my second session, I basically rewrote the whole assessment, followed by samples passed students gave me, also making sure I covered all the points the instruction asked me to cover, peer gives me 1 or 1.5 point for writing persona with little detail. I wrote 350 words persona, with stories and demographic of my target audience. Because I am 2.5 points short or so, I have to take this same course for the next round session for the third time, wait it it reaches week 4, resubmit my analysis that is now edited for 4 times. There is no clear guideline, format, or even sample provided, but the grades are left to the peers. Some pass with less than 300 word analysis with a lot of charts and pictures. I did as well but wasn't lucky at my first round so I developed 3 pg. analysis all in words to make it look like a true analytical report, didn't pass again. I do not know what this instructor is looking for as a form of assessment/analysis paper, and only those who are lucky enough to meet sensible peer graders pass. Waste of time, waste of money no one wants to spend lifetime to get a certificate especially when one knows what he or she is talking about. | 1) | Poor | 1) grading system. Based on 2 peers' | 1.0 |
| SG_K6nEmEeWxvQr3acyajw | Very poor. Full of errors in videos and quizzes (which affect final grade), no response from course organizers in the forum to multiple complaints from learners, and extremely thin on content. Could have been merged into the first course of the specialization (Introduction to SEO). I've taken $49 one-off certificate classes that provided 4-10 hours of content for 6-8 weeks; for this course I was charged $119 for 1-3 hours of content for what was supposed to be 4 weeks. I completed the course in a couple of days and felt like I learned more from free resources like Moz. Complete rip-off and easily the worse course of the half dozen I've taken on Coursera on various topics. It seems like you're paying for the UC Davis name on the certificates rather than the content. In addition to all that they dropped the price from $119 to $79 per course for the specialization after I paid for it, and refuse to refund the price difference. Fine - but if I'm paying a premium price I expect much better content and service than was received. | 1) Very | Poor | 1) Full of errors in videos and | 1.0 |
| 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) about week 3 to 4 have | Poor | 1) sound quality, but still understandable. | 3.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Very poor lecture, I barely learn anything about excel from this course. The course title is quite mis-leading | 1) Very | Poor | 1) lecture, I barely learn anything about | 1.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | I found Week 2: Binary Classification really confusing. It was just not clear. Specifics were not given. Definitions were not given. Poorly instructed. | 1) not given. Definitions were not given. | Poor | 1) instructed. | 2.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Poorly coordinated lectures. References to resources that are not provided. No response (at least, for days on end) when questions are posted on the forums | 1) | Poor | 1) coordinated lectures. References to resources that | 1.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | The title is very misleading. Excel is an afterthought for this course; instead there is a heavy focus on statistics. The class claims to be for beginners, but that is clearly not the case, as it requires previous knowledge in inferential statistics and calculus. Excel is hardly used and is certainly not the focus; there are weeks where Excel is not used at all. There are no practice assignments, only quizzes. It's clear that this course is outdated and poorly maintained, as the videos refer to examples that are not included or content that was not presented. Needless to say, I will not be taking any other courses in this specialization. | 1) that this course is outdated and | Poor | 1) maintained, as the videos refer to | 1.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Don't be fooled by how detailed and clear the first weeks videos are. The second thru the final weeks are lacking details and explanations and found myself lost during most of the videos. There were even a few typos and errors. Be ready to do a lot independent research and learning from other sources in order to complete the weekly quiz. I was unable to complete the final project of this course due to the lack of knowledge provided by the lecture videos and some of own research. I was hoping to complete the specialization for this, but it doesn't seem like this course provided me with enough to proceed. ** The use of excel on the weekly basis was poorly integrated with the flow of the course. | 1) excel on the weekly basis was | Poor | 1) integrated with the flow of the | 1.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Was very frustrated with this course. Does not have a strong emphasis on Excel skills and the statistics models provided seem to be randomly chosen and poorly explained. Quizzes were interesting, but time-consuming because of the necessary extra research outside of provided lectures. | 1) seem to be randomly chosen and | Poor | 1) explained. Quizzes were interesting, but time-consuming | 1.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | I would not recommend this course. It was very poorly planned and seemed thrown together. | 1) recommend this course. It was very | Poor | 1) planned and seemed thrown together. | 1.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Very poor material and instruction videos, with no logical flow or process. | 1) Very | Poor | 1) material and instruction videos, with no | 1.0 |
| SrM6V-3pEeSJZSIAC0gHUg | I've done a few online courses on various, and for me, this is poor. The content is gratingly simplified, the delivery worse. The instructions for the assignments are impenetrable at best. Unfortunately, I can't gain those moments that I've spent on this course back. | 1) various, and for me, this is | Poor | 1) The content is gratingly simplified, the | 1.0 |
| sxMQEV4hEeSF2SIACy-E9A | This was a fun & educational course, designed for folks with not much biology or evolution background. A few of the lectures explained things poorly -- I would have been confused if I didn't have a lot of background knowledge. Overall, a good experience. | 1) few of the lectures explained things | Poor | 1) -- I would have been confused | 4.0 |
| 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) does not belong to this specialization. | Poor | 1) content, poor assessment quiz, and felt | 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. | 2) belong to this specialization. Poor content, | Poor | 2) assessment quiz, and felt quite disappointed. | 1.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | This course is poorly organized and presented in comparison to other MOOCs offered by Wharton. | 1) This course is | Poor | 1) organized and presented in comparison to | 2.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | Wharton's online MD can not have a course so poorly develop (lectures vs quiz vs material) | 1) can not have a course so | Poor | 1) develop (lectures vs quiz vs material) | 3.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | What to say about this course? On the one hand, I learned a lot which merits the three stars. On the other hand, the quizzes were very poorly designed. It took me the maximum three tries on every single quiz to pass and I did just barely. Hey, this is EXCEL, not advanced calculus! Also, there were questions on the quiz that weren't even covered in the particular module. E.g., on quiz #1, there was a question about "objective functions" which the instructor didn't explain until the last course module. There were times when I questioned my own sanity until I read in the course discussions that others were experiencing the same issues. Before presenting this course again, TEST, TEST, TEST the quizzes and answers!! And if you're not going to allow for a range of correct answers or formatting variances, then change all questions to multiple choice where there's (maybe) a fighting chance of passing. I am immensely relieved this course is done and I can move on to the next one in the specialization--hoping it's better organized as was the Fundamentals course that Richard Waterman taught. I was fearful that a course in Excel was going to doom me for the rest of the specialization. Last recommendation: improve the presentation materials. Provide more details for reference purposes. Okay, I'm going to go relax, now, to recover from this trying experience.... | 1) other hand, the quizzes were very | Poor | 1) designed. It took me the maximum | 3.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | Very poor course. Low depth of teaching, assignments awfully developed. | 1) Very | Poor | 1) course. Low depth of teaching, assignments | 1.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | Poor quize | 1) | Poor | 1) quize | 3.0 |
| tEqImn2kEeWb-BLhFdaGww | Top quality. I have read many instructions manuals on Pro Tools, and too many poor YouTube videos. I have learned more in this course than in all of my other investigations and studies put together. Clear, concise, and understandable. It gets to the essence of understanding and being able to use Pro Tools. Avid should hire Chrissy Tignor-Fisher. Excellent instructor! Please consider an advanced course in the future! | 1) on Pro Tools, and too many | Poor | 1) YouTube videos. I have learned more | 5.0 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | very poor delivery | 1) very | Poor | 1) delivery | 1.0 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | Poor video lessons. The course is sustained by the reading material alone. | 1) | Poor | 1) video lessons. The course is sustained | 2.0 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | Poorly made very short videos that do not explain the subject matter, some of the content is outdated. | 1) | Poor | 1) made very short videos that do | 2.0 |
| T_hpstgKEeSA2iIAC22KLw | Excellent course content but very poorly designed quizzes. More clarity is needed in formulating questions, since different pages have different values for the same data sets (even on the same website such as the World Bank indicator datasets) and it will be difficult for students to get the right answers. | 1) Excellent course content but very | Poor | 1) designed quizzes. More clarity is needed | 1.0 |
| T_hpstgKEeSA2iIAC22KLw | A very complete view of sustainable development, from all kind of perspectives from global development goals to fighting the poor and from climate change to sustainable food production. | 1) global development goals to fighting the | Poor | 1) and from climate change to sustainable | 5.0 |
| U-SKLJVlEeWF6gpQJiw6hQ | Poor video and audio quality. Not worth the price. | 1) | Poor | 1) video and audio quality. Not worth | 2.0 |
| U-SKLJVlEeWF6gpQJiw6hQ | It was quite confusing with unlocking next weeks work, and the filming of the videos were poor. Eventhough everything was understandable | 1) the filming of the videos were | Poor | 1) Eventhough everything was understandable | 3.0 |
| UA9HkQ8QEeWuEBJhzy2uFw | There's a lot of detailed information here, but it's surface level at best. I don't feel I have a better understanding of how smartphones work. Although I am now more familiar with the tech components of a few smartphone models and the timeline of iOS/Android OS development, I am not able to connect this information outside of base facts. I'm not even sure how the smartphone components fit together, or what they actually do. It would be a really interesting course if there were more examples, such as how smartphone components work together or a deeper comparison between the iOS and Android systems is used when discussing the development timeline of each model, instead of pure cognitive knowledge being read from a slide. Maybe these concepts are explored further in the other courses for this certificate, but as a stand alone introduction to smartphone technologies the information is poorly imparted. | 1) to smartphone technologies the information is | Poor | 1) imparted. | 2.0 |
| UAqCjp_TEeWLkg68u0gykQ | very poor. even though for the most part I found the videos engaging, the course's overall structure doesn't help to 'read the novel together', as is stated in the title. the quizes are poorly written, even for me, a native russian speaker, it was often hard to understand the questions, and sometimes its plain guess work on the opinions of the course authors. often a required number of answers to pass a quiz is the same as the total number of questions in that same quiz. the essay's topics rarely correspond with the actual reading of the book. for the very first week the essay required knowledge of the book that hasn't been read yet by the participants. or it should be stated that one needs to read the book prior to taking the course. then again that would require the change of the course's name. | 1) very | Poor | 1) even though for the most part | 1.0 |
| UAqCjp_TEeWLkg68u0gykQ | very poor. even though for the most part I found the videos engaging, the course's overall structure doesn't help to 'read the novel together', as is stated in the title. the quizes are poorly written, even for me, a native russian speaker, it was often hard to understand the questions, and sometimes its plain guess work on the opinions of the course authors. often a required number of answers to pass a quiz is the same as the total number of questions in that same quiz. the essay's topics rarely correspond with the actual reading of the book. for the very first week the essay required knowledge of the book that hasn't been read yet by the participants. or it should be stated that one needs to read the book prior to taking the course. then again that would require the change of the course's name. | 2) in the title. the quizes are | Poor | 2) written, even for me, a native | 1.0 |
| ujxZm0T9EeWhnQozdayc-w | I slogged through it and got an 89, but the videos were boring and the quizzes were poorly worded and should have had greater correlation with the course content. | 1) were boring and the quizzes were | Poor | 1) worded and should have had greater | 1.0 |
| ujxZm0T9EeWhnQozdayc-w | The material in this course is very interesting, and many of the musical demonstrations are extremely helpful. I am glad I took it. However, much of the most interesting material is poorly explained; I would loved if fewer ideas were covered in more depth. The quizzes were for the most part poorly written, and only somewhat correlated with the presentation of material in the lectures. So there is definitely much room for improvement. | 1) of the most interesting material is | Poor | 1) explained; I would loved if fewer | 3.0 |
| ujxZm0T9EeWhnQozdayc-w | The material in this course is very interesting, and many of the musical demonstrations are extremely helpful. I am glad I took it. However, much of the most interesting material is poorly explained; I would loved if fewer ideas were covered in more depth. The quizzes were for the most part poorly written, and only somewhat correlated with the presentation of material in the lectures. So there is definitely much room for improvement. | 2) quizzes were for the most part | Poor | 2) written, and only somewhat correlated with | 3.0 |
| urbm-CT-EeWCGRL6mLoB5w | The information in this course was valuable, but the assignments were poorly integrated with the course. The types of documents assigned were either not covered or barely covered in the course leaving the students to guess what was expected. For one assignment the provided template left off a section required in the grading criteria. The quizes were also poorly tied to the lecture material and some of the questions were ambiguous. There were several quizes were a single wrong answer resulted in having to take the quiz over. | 1) was valuable, but the assignments were | Poor | 1) integrated with the course. The types | 3.0 |
| urbm-CT-EeWCGRL6mLoB5w | The information in this course was valuable, but the assignments were poorly integrated with the course. The types of documents assigned were either not covered or barely covered in the course leaving the students to guess what was expected. For one assignment the provided template left off a section required in the grading criteria. The quizes were also poorly tied to the lecture material and some of the questions were ambiguous. There were several quizes were a single wrong answer resulted in having to take the quiz over. | 2) grading criteria. The quizes were also | Poor | 2) tied to the lecture material and | 3.0 |
| UShq4HPgEeWi0g6YoSAL-w | Too fast speech/ language use in combination with poor english translation, otherwise pretty well done. | 1) speech/ language use in combination with | Poor | 1) english translation, otherwise pretty well done. | 3.0 |
| UShq4HPgEeWi0g6YoSAL-w | 1. Sometimes the audio of the recordings is poor, making it difficult to listen. 2. For non-speakers of Spanish, the translations are not so great and sometimes lack proper grammar or are almost literal translations of the spoken Spanish version. This makes the subject matter, although very interesting, very difficult to fully grasp. This also occurs in the quizzes, causing me to either misunderstand or not understand the questions. Overall, it is a very interesting course but the 'execution' is not up to standard. It could be improved by updating the audio recordings, and correcting the translations for the subtitles | 1) the audio of the recordings is | Poor | 1) making it difficult to listen. 2. | 3.0 |
| 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) good, the course structure is very | Poor | 1) and leaves a lot to be | 1.0 |
| v0l76HmGEeSi3yIACzSGcw | Poor content, only a book accompanies the videos and we should not be forced to buy anything! | 1) | Poor | 1) content, only a book accompanies the | 1.0 |
| v0l76HmGEeSi3yIACzSGcw | Because of this course, I am more aware of opportunities to negotiate in my every day interactions with others. I enjoyed Professor Siedel's teaching style. He gets you to think on a deeper level, especially when he poses questions and presents scenarios. The course material is framed in a comprehensive manner. In hindsight, this course on negotiation has shown me how much of a poor negotiator I was. However, I now feel more empowered by what I've learned. | 1) shown me how much of a | Poor | 1) negotiator I was. However, I now | 5.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | 1) student's background, this course is just | Poor | 1) and lacking. The premise of this | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | 2) these issues just point to how | Poor | 2) this course was designed. It had | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | Poorly designed course which tests people on things that are not taught. | 1) | Poor | 1) designed course which tests people on | 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) way they are treated is very | Poor | 1) In my opinion lectures are so | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | I think this was a poorly structured online course. Especially for someone who is attempting this course having experienced two excellent previous courses in the specialization. It was good only in few patches but the link was seriously missing. I realize this area is a bit more advanced but with all due respect to the knowledgeable instructors, they could have emphasised more on basic building blocks rather than cramming in so much information which my bandwith couldn't handle it. I did guesswork in almost all the quizzes after week 2 which further adds to my disappointment. I think the Robotics specialization is better off without this course because there is little or no value addition here. Expecting a lot better from the next course in the series. | 1) I think this was a | Poor | 1) structured online course. Especially for someone | 2.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | Poorly structured. Bloated. Discontinuous content. | 1) | Poor | 1) structured. Bloated. Discontinuous content. | 2.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This course is a disappointment after the previous two courses in the specialisation. It tries to cover too many topics. As a result it provides a shallow introduction to many topics rather than deep coverage of any one topic. I do not feel I have learnt anything of substance. Many of the assignment questions are poorly written. To name one example, assignment 3.1.1 question 3 has at least three correct answers, but the grader accepts only one of them. I wasted hours trying to work out why it was marking my answer wrong. The lectures by the TAs are delivered in a "robotic" tone if you'll pardon the pun. They are reading off an autocue and it shows. | 1) Many of the assignment questions are | Poor | 1) written. To name one example, assignment | 2.0 |
| v9CQdBkhEeWjrA6seF25aw | I enjoyed the course itself very much, and I intend to use ideas gleaned from it in my English classroom; however, I was not satisfied with the rating of the final project. I put a LOT of work into it, including eight artworks AND eight corresponding works of literature that inspired the art, and someone ( a peer, not an instructor) kept giving me "poor" as a rating. Not that I expected that ALL would be 3's, but a 1 is not a fair grade. Just my two cents. | 1) an instructor) kept giving me " | Poor | 1) as a rating. Not that I | 4.0 |
| v9CQdBkhEeWjrA6seF25aw | Excellent concepts and content. Poor quiz composition and monitoring by MOMA staff of discussion. Logistical hassles tainted joy from the delivery. | 1) Excellent concepts and content. | Poor | 1) quiz composition and monitoring by MOMA | 3.0 |
| VfuJSYYDEeW99gozy_2pgw | Very good content, but technical issues (poor closed captioning, ambiguous question on the exams, a couple of readings that were a little esoteric for an introductory course) led me to mark the course down a star. | 1) Very good content, but technical issues | Poor | 1) closed captioning, ambiguous question on the | 4.0 |
| Vh4RJTk8EeWJaxK5AT4frw | Poor. Course crammed with unnecessary details (loads of CSS "decoration" properties that one may test on it's own), without focusing on CSS fundamentals, such as page layout strategies, float-based layouts, element positioning which, in my view, are discussed only very superficially. I'll forget 90% of discussed "decoration" properties in a few days but when I think of CSS paradigms - a structure that can be later filled with easily forgotten/easily retrieved "decoration" properties - that I'll take with me "for ever" out from this course.... sounds empty. The extra star goes for stressing the importance of accessibility. To sum up: decoration largely outweighs structure. | 1) | Poor | 1) Course crammed with unnecessary details (loads | 2.0 |
| vrTPjkqzEeWB9g55-yieoQ | The material is useful, but the execution is poor. There were numerous quiz questions that I think they just had coded wrong on their end. I think they need to carefully look at the questions with the most incorrect answers and ask themselves if they've made a mistake. Also, this might be the first time they've tried making a peer-reviewed project part of the course, but they did a poor job. They made it a homework assignment for week 2, but didn't make it clear that it wasn't due until the end of the course, even though Coursera sends you emails saying it's due soon. This caused a great deal of confusion. Some of the required readings also had broken links. It's odd nobody on their end checked those the week the material was taught. They do provide a lot of useful supplemental material (though often pay-walled). | 1) is useful, but the execution is | Poor | 1) There were numerous quiz questions that | 2.0 |
| vrTPjkqzEeWB9g55-yieoQ | The material is useful, but the execution is poor. There were numerous quiz questions that I think they just had coded wrong on their end. I think they need to carefully look at the questions with the most incorrect answers and ask themselves if they've made a mistake. Also, this might be the first time they've tried making a peer-reviewed project part of the course, but they did a poor job. They made it a homework assignment for week 2, but didn't make it clear that it wasn't due until the end of the course, even though Coursera sends you emails saying it's due soon. This caused a great deal of confusion. Some of the required readings also had broken links. It's odd nobody on their end checked those the week the material was taught. They do provide a lot of useful supplemental material (though often pay-walled). | 2) the course, but they did a | Poor | 2) job. They made it a homework | 2.0 |
| VuRXs3EiEeWrAxJQXw-8PQ | This course is terrible for many reasons. Firstly, the amount of content is ridiculously small - only about 20 minutes of video lectures per week. Moreover, more than 50% of content is just non-relevant. Secondly, practical assignments are very poorly planned: 1) in weeks 3 peer graded assignment students are asked to save Tableau workbooks as twbx files, even though this feature is not supported by Tableau Public that is used in this course. The assignment itself is just opening and saving file in Tableau. 2) in weeks 4 peer graded assignment you just asked to write some vaguely defined 1 page description. It doesn't include any Tableau-related activities. Thirdly, quizzes are ambiguous and very general. Overall, this course is just a waste of time. For comparison, you can easily get more useful information about Tableau from the 4 minute long "Getting started" video on the Tableau website than from this course. Just wonder how Coursera allows such courses to be places on the platform. | 1) non-relevant. Secondly, practical assignments are very | Poor | 1) planned: 1) in weeks 3 peer | 1.0 |
| w7FFV3l0EeW53BJEfL52qQ | Poorly designed. Too few instructions. | 1) | Poor | 1) designed. Too few instructions. | 3.0 |
| wD1C7I_eEeWZyg6bf_Oxkw | It is ironic that a course about virtual instruction is one of the worst online courses I have taken. The content was good, if a little outdated (hence the two stars vs only one), but the course design and delivery were lacking. The videos were excruciating for visual learners (or really any non-auditory learners). The video for Week 2, Lesson 2, for example, had a single static image on the screen for eleven minutes. Words were added to the image during that time, but all in all there were 26 words of text on the slide. Really?!? ELEVEN MINUTES. 26 WORDS. Give me a transcript or make it an audio file. Don't keep me chained to my laptop watching a static image for ELEVEN MINUTES! The instructor droned and was clearly reading from a script. She did not even use the video to highlight key terms or spotlight key references. Whenever she mentioned a reference I wanted to look at, I had to either hope it was on the course reference page (many of them weren't there) or try to figure out how to spell the author's name based on her pronunciation of it. It was just really, really hard to get through. The tests were also poorly designed. What states do x y or z. Who cares? I don't live in those states. Which online school has this policy? Again who cares? Maybe a question about why states/schools have different approaches or how outcomes differ between states/schools, but memorizing a laundry list of which state or school has which policies and practices is useless and did not advance the learning objectives in any way. | 1) get through. The tests were also | Poor | 1) designed. What states do x y | 2.0 |
| 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) details on history. A course of | Poor | 1) quality. | 1.0 |
| wD1C7I_eEeWZyg6bf_Oxkw | I found much of the content to be interesting and timely. However, I thought the quizzes were poorly written. There was no feedback, so as a learner it was hard to grow from errors. Also, there were many that required more than one answer, if you missed one, you missed entire question. Without feedback, it was difficult to know which one you missed. The week 4 lesson content was a bit dense for an introductory course. It was dry and could've been more global. Last, the large lesson assignment was only graded by peers with no feedback from the instructor. | 1) However, I thought the quizzes were | Poor | 1) written. There was no feedback, so | 2.0 |
| we5nljlYEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | The course content was somewhat scattered and lacked focus. I think the whole topic of the talent pipeline was completely lacking structure and cohesiveness. Cheri's presentations were not as engaging as the others and her slides were poorly prepared - often difficult to read and not necessarily related to the topic at hand | 1) the others and her slides were | Poor | 1) prepared - often difficult to read | 2.0 |
| wEl1EleDEeWTbwotamPtlQ | This course has valuable information, but it is ultimately political. The professors don't even disclose that there are two opposing historical schools: "New Historians," whom Palestinians reference; and traditional historians, favored by most Israelis. Which version is followed here? The answer is a mix, without identification. This is not the same as "balance," which would entail each side laying out its key points and evidence. As others note, there is zero reading material. One wonders if this is because to choose a historian is to choose sides--that is how divisive this topic is. The discussion forums are also poorly monitored, unlike other Coursera courses; which does not advance understanding. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" unfortunately applies to this condensed intro course. And contrary to expectations for an offering from Tel Aviv U., most Israelis would likely be offended by some of its assertions/omissions. For example, Israelis recall that Palestinian founding father Haj Amin al-Husseini was a Nazi agitator in Europe and bequeathed an anti-Jewish ideology (Netanyahu even made a speech about this in 2015 that was covered internationally). Yet in this course, you will be told simply that al-Husseini was a "man of religion." | 1) is. The discussion forums are also | Poor | 1) monitored, unlike other Coursera courses; which | 2.0 |
| wEl1EleDEeWTbwotamPtlQ | I am 83 years old. Much of this I remember. I did poorly on the test because It is hard for me to take clear notes quickly. {medical condition}. However, as coming from a Jewish background I found the class very interesting. Israel will survive no matter how horrible the situation in the Middle East exists! Joyce Spier | 1) of this I remember. I did | Poor | 1) on the test because It is | 5.0 |
| Wi6g78WsEeWCSBJ1_yk7Tw | Lovely course! For me, a brazilian student, it is very good study another country that was as poor as my country and become a great economy. Lovely teacher and staff! | 1) study another country that was as | Poor | 1) as my country and become a | 5.0 |
| Wl5ych5kEeWFIxLDnS6_kQ | Underwhelmed. If this had been a free course I might have gone up to two stars, but I probably wouldn't have finished. This course attempts to take complex social awareness and patterns and reduce them to an understandable set of skills to be practiced... but it fails. I find it to be full of new-age dreamy ramblings that do not really help in the real world. Leadership is influence, which comes as a mixture of experience and intention. This course seems to discount experience in favour of "sense", used in this context as a poorly-translated summing up of the physical senses and their analysis. This course requires you to create an intimate written self-portrait, which you then find yourself sharing with a stranger and comparing. The exercise is interesting, and a lot of students have bought into the premise that this is a "genuine conversation" and allows them to explore their ability to know another person. I am the heretic in the room: I think the student wish to appear intelligent to their peers and the emperor is in fact shamefully unclad. If this is what the world considers a "genuine" conversation then the world is a shallower place than I had thought. This course, unfortunately, over-promises and under-delivers, and I am not in the least tempted to take the next one in the series. A good concept, but poorly planned, poorly translated, and poorly executed. Valerie clearly understands her topic but the summarizing of it for this framework is not a success. | 1) the series. A good concept, but | Poor | 1) planned, poorly translated, and poorly executed. | 1.0 |
| Wl5ych5kEeWFIxLDnS6_kQ | Underwhelmed. If this had been a free course I might have gone up to two stars, but I probably wouldn't have finished. This course attempts to take complex social awareness and patterns and reduce them to an understandable set of skills to be practiced... but it fails. I find it to be full of new-age dreamy ramblings that do not really help in the real world. Leadership is influence, which comes as a mixture of experience and intention. This course seems to discount experience in favour of "sense", used in this context as a poorly-translated summing up of the physical senses and their analysis. This course requires you to create an intimate written self-portrait, which you then find yourself sharing with a stranger and comparing. The exercise is interesting, and a lot of students have bought into the premise that this is a "genuine conversation" and allows them to explore their ability to know another person. I am the heretic in the room: I think the student wish to appear intelligent to their peers and the emperor is in fact shamefully unclad. If this is what the world considers a "genuine" conversation then the world is a shallower place than I had thought. This course, unfortunately, over-promises and under-delivers, and I am not in the least tempted to take the next one in the series. A good concept, but poorly planned, poorly translated, and poorly executed. Valerie clearly understands her topic but the summarizing of it for this framework is not a success. | 2) A good concept, but poorly planned, | Poor | 2) translated, and poorly executed. Valerie clearly | 1.0 |
| Wl5ych5kEeWFIxLDnS6_kQ | Underwhelmed. If this had been a free course I might have gone up to two stars, but I probably wouldn't have finished. This course attempts to take complex social awareness and patterns and reduce them to an understandable set of skills to be practiced... but it fails. I find it to be full of new-age dreamy ramblings that do not really help in the real world. Leadership is influence, which comes as a mixture of experience and intention. This course seems to discount experience in favour of "sense", used in this context as a poorly-translated summing up of the physical senses and their analysis. This course requires you to create an intimate written self-portrait, which you then find yourself sharing with a stranger and comparing. The exercise is interesting, and a lot of students have bought into the premise that this is a "genuine conversation" and allows them to explore their ability to know another person. I am the heretic in the room: I think the student wish to appear intelligent to their peers and the emperor is in fact shamefully unclad. If this is what the world considers a "genuine" conversation then the world is a shallower place than I had thought. This course, unfortunately, over-promises and under-delivers, and I am not in the least tempted to take the next one in the series. A good concept, but poorly planned, poorly translated, and poorly executed. Valerie clearly understands her topic but the summarizing of it for this framework is not a success. | 3) but poorly planned, poorly translated, and | Poor | 3) executed. Valerie clearly understands her topic | 1.0 |
| wmoTBzyAEeWFSA6UPWxRyQ | The material is very interesting. There a a huge number of quizzes over poorly explained (or not at all explained) models, which would still be an interesting challenge if the models themselves had better explanations. This has been the most frustrating Coursera class I have taken, not because of the subject difficulty, but because of the lack of adequate resources for working with the models. | 1) a huge number of quizzes over | Poor | 1) explained (or not at all explained) | 2.0 |
| Wp6z-dymEeWUwhJ351EtdQ | The course feels pretty shallow and it ignores all the interesting stuff like proofs. There is no written material available, so if you can't follow the lectures, poor you. Quizzes aren't very well formulated and sometimes the correct answer is more of a matter of opinion rather than a hard fact. Evaluation seems to be based solely on peer review and there are no model solutions available, so the points you'll get may vary depending on how your peers understood the assignment and if they were interested in the review process at all. My overall feeling is that nothing was quite challenging on the course, and I didn't learn much more than what I could have learnt by reading a few paragraphs per topic from Wikipedia. I also felt that the programming assignments were quite disjoint from the core, tough I don't feel like I understand the core better than before the course because none of the assignments made me think why something works, rather than that we just mechanically reproduced the examples shown in the lectures. | 1) if you can't follow the lectures, | Poor | 1) you. Quizzes aren't very well formulated | 2.0 |
| X8YjHDowEeWnxw5wP_KHTw | Test errors, no answers from staff on forums, poor narration at times, audio scripts that do not quite correspond to what is being said... It needs careful reviewing and more user-friendly features being introduced by the organisers. | 1) no answers from staff on forums, | Poor | 1) narration at times, audio scripts that | 2.0 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | This course is well worth a student's time and effort. There are excellent presentations by the professor, but in it's current format the course is too short for the amount of technical knowledge implicit in the material. In addition, the quizzes are poorly written. Some questions are asked at the end of modules when the subject of the question is not even introduced until the following module. Further, for some questions the right answer is either not given in the choices presented or the grading protocol doesn't recognize the correct answer. Some questions ask what answer is "most correct" which implies that there is a strong element of subjective judgement involved in its formulation. The student is allowed only one attempt at a quiz every 8 hours, where many other Coursera courses allow 3 attempts every 8 hours, which is more conducive learning and retaining the material due to the instant feedback. Finally, there are several "NOT" or 'opposite answer' questions which are valid but confusing, so the student must be careful when answering. Recommendations: 1. Add at least three more sessions to the class and spread the technical material out over more sessions. 2. Rewrite the quiz question set to clarify what you are asking, and make certain the material was covered in the module you are assessing. 3. Don't use 'what is the best answer' ("most correct") type questions, they are ALL too subjective to be fair. 4. Recheck the grading protocol to make certain it is properly evaluating the answers. | 1) material. In addition, the quizzes are | Poor | 1) written. Some questions are asked at | 3.0 |
| XEjjlXEkEeWhZxJhllGpHQ | Weeks 2-4 contained good information about how Google searches for websites, and a quick outline of how Google's algorithms calculate which sites get ranked. Week 1 was out of place, and a poor introduction to the rest of the material. | 1) was out of place, and a | Poor | 1) introduction to the rest of the | 4.0 |
| xj2LNEUVEeWE9A7XSkBY3w | The deliver papers are great but slides are poor. In overall, a good course to begin learning about Data Collection and Analysis. | 1) papers are great but slides are | Poor | 1) In overall, a good course to | 4.0 |
| xRA5cxnoEeWg_RJGAuFGjw | I am very disappointed in this specilization/course. I am working as a business analyst in a data warehouse consulting firm, so I was highly motivated to take all the courses! However, lecturer's poor delivery has taked me aback! It is really hard to grasp the information when it has simply been read to you! The lecturer is always reading and it makes me sick (sorry!). Anyway, I would not continue with the courses if nothing changed. In my opinion, if the lecturer respects students and his field of study, he does not READ from the script and lack motivation... | 1) take all the courses! However, lecturer's | Poor | 1) delivery has taked me aback! It | 1.0 |
| XZomz77LEeWn1ApTWZT9Yw | I should suggest my fellow Coursera students not to waste their money and time for this course. You'll learn a lot more than this course has to offer if you consult some websites with screenwriting tutorial blogs, read books and write on your own. I am a PhD student of theoretical film studies and and a fan of Coursera courses. I was eager to learn screenwriting as an interesting hands-on course. Well, it's project-based alright, but where's the real guidance?? This is a lazily designed course with poor content and almost zero guidance. The videos are very short and feels like a layman is trying to motivate you to write something, that's all. No methods explained other than some terminologies like bible, acts, outline being thrown at you. No examples, no comparisons, no detailed approaches. Lastly, scriptwriting has a significant difference with other humanities course. Being peer-reviewed doesn't help here -- a total novice can not effectively judge another newbie's work nor give them quality feedback. | 1) is a lazily designed course with | Poor | 1) content and almost zero guidance. The | 1.0 |
| YcfRNRoCEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | I think that is a poor course; a lot of much theory and little practice; is better read a book and see youtube. It doesn't meet my expectations. | 1) I think that is a | Poor | 1) course; a lot of much theory | 1.0 |
| YcfRNRoCEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | This course wasn't good. Many of the assignment instructions and questions were poorly written, and students clearly had trouble understanding what was asked of them. The assignments also weren't very deep or imaginative, and some of them requested very specific answers relying in keywords from the lectures rather than ensuring that the students had really understood the concepts. The design principles were introduced at such a surface level as to be just silly rather than useful. This was kind of a waste of my time. | 1) the assignment instructions and questions were | Poor | 1) written, and students clearly had trouble | 1.0 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | I don't recommend this class. Jogesh K. Muppala has very labored English and his pace and verbosity make the lectures hard to get through. I've turned in around 10 assignments and have yet to get a grade on anything. The course content is poorly organized and executed. Peer grading is just dumb (and clearly doesn't work, since I have yet to get a single assignment back). When you turn in assignment files, they cannot be opened (and we found out from an apparent student how to get past the technical issues). Questions about the class and submitting assignments went unanswered. My advice, save your money and don't take this class. | 1) on anything. The course content is | Poor | 1) organized and executed. Peer grading is | 1.0 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | I think the course, while well laid out content-wise, is poorly executed. I'm thankful I audited the course. I would have been upset had I paid for it. Still, even the free access permits you to use all of the materials minus the major graded assignments. I struggled getting any styling to work with my CSS (files that was provided by the teacher) in conjunction with my Bootstrap. I was unable to replicate what he presented throughout the project (figuring it out on my own after-the-fact), as he would jump ahead in sections while verbally NOT visually detailing what he would be doing next. I was lost for a while. When I managed to correct where he'd left me in the dark, I found that my class assignments failed to override the bootstrap defaults. I didn't get much help when I asked if he had altered the bs files or changed his specificity in order to get them to work. Overall - I'd give the class a C+. I did learn a few things that filled in the gaps with responsive websites, but the tutorials were ultimately not very helpful. | 1) while well laid out content-wise, is | Poor | 1) executed. I'm thankful I audited the | 2.0 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | First, the assignments always had poor instructions. It wasn't until grading time you would find out what the criteria are. (After your assignment is submitted) Secondly, there was no documentation/help for the fact the Windows needs a webserver to run content in this section. (Many versions of Windows can't do this) Discovered/resolved over many hours, when course content would not work. The actual course content was sparse/not much to it other than "Bootstrap bootstrap bootstrap." After how good the first course was/how much ground it covered, this course was frustrating, poorly documented, and a disappointment. | 1) First, the assignments always had | Poor | 1) instructions. It wasn't until grading time | 1.0 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | First, the assignments always had poor instructions. It wasn't until grading time you would find out what the criteria are. (After your assignment is submitted) Secondly, there was no documentation/help for the fact the Windows needs a webserver to run content in this section. (Many versions of Windows can't do this) Discovered/resolved over many hours, when course content would not work. The actual course content was sparse/not much to it other than "Bootstrap bootstrap bootstrap." After how good the first course was/how much ground it covered, this course was frustrating, poorly documented, and a disappointment. | 2) it covered, this course was frustrating, | Poor | 2) documented, and a disappointment. | 1.0 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | poor teacher.. | 1) | Poor | 1) teacher. . | 1.0 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | This is the second course in the Full Stack series by Hong Kong University. Because I find the first course in this series very interesting (the assignments are challenging and easy to understand; the professor does a very good job in explaining the materials), I continue to take the second course, which is this one, a shoot. However, it is a complete disappointment. In every single assignment, it requires a file, which is built by going through every single lectures of the course. That means I have to go through every videos and copy his code to my code in order to get the file. If you have a lot of time, that is perfectly fine. However, if you are a college student like me, you properly will not be able to commit that much time. Personally, when I take a course, I take a look at the assignment and then see what knowledge I need to have in order to complete the assignment. Because of this, I may watch the lecture or just Google out the answer. Requiring a file in order to complete an assignment strips away my liberty in doing so. Furthermore, if you miss a step in the video, your file may very well be ruined and you need to rewatch the video again to see what you missed. Also, the course is extremely slow paced. I have to play back rate to x1.5 normal speed. Sadly, even with faster speed, the lectures are also poorly structured. There are many other materials online that can cover the same amount of information in less time and easier to understand. Combined with the required file for each assignment, this course can easily be a torture. | 1) faster speed, the lectures are also | Poor | 1) structured. There are many other materials | 2.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | Very poor instruction and organization of topics, very poor explanation of core concepts. I learned more from reading other sources while taking the class than I did from the lectures. | 1) Very | Poor | 1) instruction and organization of topics, very | 2.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | Very poor instruction and organization of topics, very poor explanation of core concepts. I learned more from reading other sources while taking the class than I did from the lectures. | 2) instruction and organization of topics, very | Poor | 2) explanation of core concepts. I learned | 2.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | Poor concepts exposition with a bad teaching method. | 1) | Poor | 1) concepts exposition with a bad teaching | 2.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | This course is very difficult to follow, not because the topics are hard or too technical but mostly due to lecturer's poor job in explaining and creating a narrative. | 1) technical but mostly due to lecturer's | Poor | 1) job in explaining and creating a | 1.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | Do NOT recommend. Very poorly explained. Refers to some concepts without introducing, introduces others without explaining. Spends most of the time looking to the computer screen instead of toward you and reading the text instead of explaining in understandable manner. | 1) Do NOT recommend. Very | Poor | 1) explained. Refers to some concepts without | 1.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | poor course, saturated, with an instructer that uses big words and does not explain many difficult ideas, and take for granted that the leaner knows a lot of probability and statistics. | 1) | Poor | 1) course, saturated, with an instructer that | 1.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | Poorly explained lessons. | 1) | Poor | 1) explained lessons. | 2.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | The material in the class is solid, but is poorly described. These are the foundations of statistical analysis, and unfortunately there's a lot of statistics jargon that students aren't going to be familiar with in here. | 1) the class is solid, but is | Poor | 1) described. These are the foundations of | 3.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | The worst professor in this specialization. The subject really interesting, and I have been studying for a while in my Master's and PhD in engineering, so I could understand the bulk of the course. This is a very important subject in data analysis and these poor explained classes could make lot of people give up the specialization. Statistics involves much of mathematics and calculus which make it a natural challenge for most of the people. Please, improve these classes in order not to disappoint the student who want to become data scientists. | 1) subject in data analysis and these | Poor | 1) explained classes could make lot of | 1.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | Very poor lessons: a lot of theory for a brief period like a one-month course. The material (both on the slides and on swirl) is not explained in a clear way and so it results as very confusing mess of concepts. LOTS of typos, especially in the LittleBookInference. This course needs a careful revision by the authors. | 1) Very | Poor | 1) lessons: a lot of theory for | 1.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | This course, which is part of Data Science Specialization Course, which is a BEGINNER specialization, doesn't explain as it should to BEGINNERS. They try to explain, complex topics in 3 minutes ... If I didn't need the certificate, I would definitely not waste my time on this course. Youtube videos from khan academy or Brandon Foltz (Statistics 101) are much more valuable, you really get the topic and they are free. The professors didn't want to spend time preparing good material, from my point of view, the preparation is very poor. The course is more oriented to teach you to be a "data monkey". You know the code you need to write, but you don't get what are you doing ... Where do these formulas come from? | 1) of view, the preparation is very | Poor | 1) The course is more oriented to | 1.0 |
| Yj9bIu-LEeWJRgpWnDLcCw | A lazy reviewer gave me the score of 0 and left me this comment: "I am not able to give any score, I tried very hard to understand the matter but it was difficult for me. I have to score it just for me to check the other student's work. Please don't consider my scoring here." I studied hard and received this poor evauation. I screamed for help many times but no one replied to my request. The quality of the course is superb and my experience is completely ruined by a shitty score which does not reflect my work. | 1) I studied hard and received this | Poor | 1) evauation. I screamed for help many | 1.0 |
| yOZEQ3lwEeWb-BLhFdaGww | A really great course, you should definitely take this second after Algorithmic Toolbox, as that has an easier learning curve for the very 'CS professor' style code (lots of single letter variables and other quirks) and how projects should be submitted and tested. That said, there is a lot of good learning in this course. Make sure you have some good Algorithms textbooks to accompany the lectures, they have recommendations in the course. I personally use Sedgewick's book and CLRS which aren't exactly what they suggest, but work well. Take your time with the learning, make sure you really understand the concepts before moving on to the homework. Use multiple sources to learn (they provide plenty of links!) and you'll do well. In response to a very politely asked request for clarity: I rated this 4/5 rather than 5/5 stars as I found that for my preferred language (Python) some of the starter files were very poorly created. This meant I often have to rewrite the initial parsing of the inputs because it would create variables that contained incorrect or incomplete input data. Further, there were some non-harmful quirks like semi-colons or parameters shadowing Python reserved words in the code. The next course in this series, Algorithms on Graphs, did not seem to have any of these issues, though! | 1) of the starter files were very | Poor | 1) created. This meant I often have | 4.0 |
| yOZEQ3lwEeWb-BLhFdaGww | Pros: Effort has been taken in putting up the assignments. Cons: Quality of teaching is very poor and too fast to follow through . Instructors have rushed to present course material . I would not recommend this course . Princeton and Stanford offer much higher quality and presentation on the same topics. | 1) Cons: Quality of teaching is very | Poor | 1) and too fast to follow through | 2.0 |
| yOZEQ3lwEeWb-BLhFdaGww | The structure of the class follows the regular academic model you'll find in college: lecture -> lecture -> lecture -> assignment... repeat. I don't think this model is suitable for online delivery. Without discussion and the ability to interrupt and ask questions, the lectures are at times a more frustrating than useful (especially with Coursera's user interface, which lacks quick rewind and is generally speaking rather poorly thought out). For many of the topics, better videos exist online (try safari or pluralsight). As for the problems, they were the main source of learning, but were also at times a bit frustrating (the splay trees starter code was rather sad to look at). I find that hacker rank is probably better at delivering value (if you can forego the warm fuzzy feeling you get from getting a verified certificate, you'll probably be better served by practicing on hacker rank than from doing the problems in this course). | 1) rewind and is generally speaking rather | Poor | 1) thought out). For many of the | 3.0 |
| yQcuJCOcEeagwg7hVay0BQ | I've been through several courses over the past year, some really good, some pretty poor, both here and on Edx, but this one has really no match to find. I would recommend this to anyone, and especially to those planning on creating a MOOC, as this one is really a state of the art :) | 1) year, some really good, some pretty | Poor | 1) both here and on Edx, but | 5.0 |
| Zba0dJLREeSb9SIACzCJlg | A rather non-engaged teacher ho does not know what goes on with the reviews. She does not have enough people to review the written assignment and the assignments go UN-reviewed leading to a 'no-grade' whihc is ridiculous. It is not even clear how the written reviews are graded. She is not involved and does not serve to inspect the work of the students to ascertain that a grade is in order. Three reviews are requited for a grade, but she has so few reviewers that one might only get one review and then fail. Very inept. Stay away from this one. She does not get involved with answering questions of students either. Her internet activity is rated a 2/5 whihc I did not know until I got involved with this course. Observation of the video showing her teaching is terrible. She places herself in front of the camera and one cannot see the placement of the student's fingers or most importantly what is actually happening on the fret board with the finger movement. She also places herself directly in front of the camera blocking a clear view of everything - poor video skills. | 1) a clear view of everything - | Poor | 1) video skills. | 1.0 |
| zKZY59dlEeSQOCIAC0ELFw | Disappointing, not different from a class presentation, poor in content, lousy instructor | 1) not different from a class presentation, | Poor | 1) in content, lousy instructor | 2.0 |
| zTzjmvssEeSDoyIAC1CH0g | Poor visual aids, course content and format. | 1) | Poor | 1) visual aids, course content and format. | 1.0 |
| _aXKkBnJEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Unfortunately there is no involvement academic staff so there is no assistance/support. The course is put out there and students are left to their own devices. The calibre of students is poor and informed discussions non-existent. A great pity because the content on occasion is interesting. | 1) devices. The calibre of students is | Poor | 1) and informed discussions non-existent. A great | 2.0 |
| _Mms-nE8EeWKsgrp3VnvAw | On later parts the videos are poorly edited and less interactive. In one place practice quiz has wrong answer marked as right. (Whether it's a situational question or behavioral). | 1) On later parts the videos are | Poor | 1) edited and less interactive. In one | 3.0 |
| _Mms-nE8EeWKsgrp3VnvAw | This course was a bit mediocre. The videos were often choppy, awkward, and cut off in the middle of sentences. The quiz questions were unclear and generally poorly written, and didn't make me think enough. I did enjoy the onboarding special topic section, and the quality was higher there. But the first 3 weeks need quite a bit of revision and fine-tuning. | 1) quiz questions were unclear and generally | Poor | 1) written, and didn't make me think | 3.0 |
| _UsmIV-PEeSnpyIACzWBsQ | I wish I could rate this course higher but I didn't enjoy it and despite being 10/12 weeks into it, I'm going to stop now. The videos are hard to follow, the examples are few and far in between, some explanations (eg. exchange rates) are really poorly explained. I'm disappointed, I don't feel like I learned much! | 1) explanations (eg. exchange rates) are really | Poor | 1) explained. I'm disappointed, I don't feel | 2.0 |
| _UsmIV-PEeSnpyIACzWBsQ | Too much contents in short lectures. Hard to catch up and to understand. The tests after each class are poorly designed. Most correct answers are the first choices. | 1) The tests after each class are | Poor | 1) designed. Most correct answers are the | 2.0 |
| __y3wBnnEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Poorly designed and explained. You do not really gain much knowledge from this course. I would not recommend my friends and basically others to take this course. There are far better courses out there for much cheaper prices. | 1) | Poor | 1) designed and explained. You do not | 1.0 |
| __y3wBnnEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Interesting, but some assignments needs to be double checked. In my opinion some of the presented material is teaching poor coding practices for the sake of simplicity. | 1) of the presented material is teaching | Poor | 1) coding practices for the sake of | 4.0 |
| __y3wBnnEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Poor, very poor course, worse course structure. Instructor hasn't put any thoughts in how they should strucutre this course.Cover no basics, assumes lots of thing and term this course as beginner for Java where actually there is no Java taught. | 1) | Poor | 1) very poor course, worse course structure. | 1.0 |
| __y3wBnnEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Poor, very poor course, worse course structure. Instructor hasn't put any thoughts in how they should strucutre this course.Cover no basics, assumes lots of thing and term this course as beginner for Java where actually there is no Java taught. | 2) Poor, very | Poor | 2) course, worse course structure. Instructor hasn't | 1.0 |