Aktuella utvärderingar

Visa resultat

Här kan se resultatet från utvärderingen och exportera statistiken till ett annat program. Det går också att göra en enkel filtrering genom att klicka på svarsalternativen och kommentarerna eller en avancerad filtrering genom att använda knappen längst ned.

Quantum Field Theory, FUF020

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2010-02-02 - 2010-03-31
Antal svar: 10
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: ?%
Kontaktperson: Gabriele Ferretti»

Your own effort

1. How many hours per week did you spend on this course?

We mean total time, that is, it comprises the time you spent in class and the time you spent on your own work. Try to estimate the average time over the entire study period.

10 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»1 10%
Around 20 hours/week»2 20%
Around 25 hours/week»3 30%
Around 30 hours/week»3 30%
At least 35 hours/week»1 10%

Genomsnitt: 3.1

- This is a course which always need more time to do it.» (At least 35 hours/week)

2. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?

10 svarande

0%»1 10%
25%»2 20%
50%»0 0%
75%»1 10%
100%»6 60%

Genomsnitt: 3.9

- I think Per did an admirable job but it is a hard subject. If you know a little bit before about what he talks about during the lectures you"re fine, but if you see things for the first time it"s very difficult almost impossible. Therefore you HAVE to read the relevant chapters before and you must press this during the first lectures. Per did say that you should start working immediately with the problems and that is also a very good thing.» (100%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

10 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»4 40%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»2 20%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»4 40%

Genomsnitt: 2.6

- It"s a good description of what one can do when the course is done. You of course have learned a lot about spinors and transformation properties in general too and if you want to you could add that to the description.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)

4. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?

Answer this this question and the succeeding one, only if you do know the course goals.

8 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»7 87%
No, the goals are set too high»1 12%

Genomsnitt: 2.12

- It"s a general feeling that it"s a very time-consuming course, far above the 7.5 credit points it is rated at. _If_ the goals demand this much time to be spent, then they are consequently set too high.» (No, the goals are set too high)

5. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals?

8 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»0 0%
Yes, definitely»4 50%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»4 50%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

- The problems in P&S are good and require a lot of work.» (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

6. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning?

9 svarande

Small extent»2 22%
Some extent»2 22%
Large extent»5 55%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.33

- I especially like Per"s way to get Feynman rules in comparison to P&S, it"s less messy and more intuitive.» (Large extent)

7. To what extent has the course literature and other material been of help for your learning?

9 svarande

Small extent»1 11%
Some extent»0 0%
Large extent»5 55%
Great extent»3 33%

Genomsnitt: 3.11

- The homework problems were picked from the book which is supposed to be self-consistent, so it was natural to read it thoroughly in connection to the problems.» (Great extent)
- Without P&S I"d be as helpless doing QFT as a baby seal would be getting ointment for his polar bear bite at the pharmacy.» (Great extent)

8. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work?

10 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»1 10%
Rather well»6 60%
Very well»3 30%

Genomsnitt: 3.2

- It worked very well mostly, but there were some late date changes (for different reasons, but it keeps me from grading it "Very well").» (Rather well)

Study climate

9. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?

9 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»0 0%
Rather good»2 22%
Very good»7 77%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.77

- Per is very clear about that he is available for questions to a large extent.» (Very good)
- Per never refrains from answering questions and always seem to know what to do despite his many "I don"t know this so well..."» (Very good)

10. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?

10 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»2 20%
Rather well»4 40%
Very well»3 30%
I did not seek cooperation»1 10%

Genomsnitt: 3.3

- I did most work on my own, but when I talked with the others, it also worked well.» (Rather well)

11. How was the course workload?

10 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»3 30%
High»7 70%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.7

- It"s a hard course but it has to be because it"s a complicated subject.» (High)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

10 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»5 50%
High»2 20%
Too high»3 30%

Genomsnitt: 3.8

- The other course ("Advanced Subatomic Physics") I took didn"t demand very much time (it didn"t "demand" it, but it would have been nice to be able to give it more time nonetheless) so the total workload was reasonable. But I seriously probably spent 90% of my time on QFT and 10% on ASP.» (Adequate)
- I took 3 courses and started on my master thesis...» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

10 svarande

Poor»1 10%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»1 10%
Good»8 80%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.6

- From what I understand QFT is a very useful technique in many areas, so it feels like a natural course to take. The fact that it is so mathematically oriented makes it easier to loose interest when one looses track of why we are manipulating all these quantities though. I found that the last lectures on the standard model renewed my interest since one started to see applications, but during the first six weeks or so it was not so clear. From my point of view it would have been nice to have a greater mix of some "real" results and the underlying theory. I understand that complete calculations aren"t possible until a lot of theory has been covered, but I think the lectures would gain in interest if the results were more emphasized, rather than just stated.» (Adequate)
- It is a good course, but hard. Per did a good job during the lectures but next year he MUST point out that if the students want to learn they have to read the material in the book before he lectures about it. » (Good)

14. What should be preserved to next year?

- The format with hard(er) deadlines for the hand-in assignments seemed to have worked well. There where some experiments with students lecturing on some areas from the book. One problem was that this idea came late in the period (study week 4) which would be remedied next year if it was continued. I don"t know how much of a substitute for the oral exam it seems to be though. The students I saw (naturally) followed the book quite literally, and of course they learned those 6 pages or so really well, but in my opinion it doesn"t really test if they fulfilled the course goals (I don"t suggest that the ones who held lectures this year should be "punished" by having to take an oral exam as well, but if the format remains next year I think it needs to be analyzed further).»
- The problems. They were very well chosen and tested a lot of different things.»
- I believe presentation of some materials of the book by students can be very helpful.»
- home work and exam»
- the presentation by the students is a good idea to carry on for the next year also.»
- The standard model theory in the end of the course and the hand-ins.»

15. What should be changed to next year?

- If all the homework problems are found to be necessary for the course goals then they should remain, but if some of them could be found to be not as essential, then the course would probably get better by reducing the workload.»
- Would be fun with some QCD if possible.»
- I"m a little unsure about the student presentation part. If you want to use it as examination you should give everybody the same amount of time in which to present the subject. And maybe it would be best if you took the e-e+ -> mu-mu+ cross-section computation because it"s the first real physical result you get and it should be done by somebody who really knows what he/she is talking about.»
- Could we change a lecturer to do this? This should be a very attracting course....»
- Maybe it is a good idea to give some hint for the homework. »
- More exercise classes would be great.»

16. Additional comments

- Very nice introduction to the standard model. Hard to get everything the first time you see it but after a few times you start to understand things.»
- I would like to thank professor Salmonson for all his efforts.»
- I think there should have some other professor who could make this course more clear. This is a very important course in my mind, so hope someone who charge for this could think about the lecturer who teach this more seriously. I don"t mean Per is bad, but I think he maybe more suit for course like Advanced classical physics»
- Show some pictures during the lectures will make it much more appealing»

Kursutvärderingssystem från