Reference group

If you have feedback on the course, contact the reference group and/or the lecturer directly.

Short summary: The general impression given is that the students are satisfied with the course. Good structure, reasonable amount of details given, but sometimes a bit fast on the blackboard.

* Fast and abbreviations: Please help me. Let me know when you need a break or wonder about abbreviations.

* Deadline project 1: We discussed, there are pros and cons, but the conclusion was to keep the deadline. The main reason is that supervision becomes more complicated if we move the deadline forward.

* Reusing Jupyter-notebooks in projects: Is recommended! But state in the report that you do so.

Short summary:

Project 1:

• Not too big, feels very relevant, helpful to learn elements of the curriculum. Not too easy.
• Tek.led. had a mid-term exam (new this semester), almost colliding with the project deadline.
• Not much pause between Exercise 3 and Project 1. [ERJ: Hard to change due to course progress]

Lectures: Speed is good. Eye contact is good.

Short summary:

Project 2:

• "Nice, reasonable, relevant, less coding than project 1",
• "many other projects, excursion, Easter", but difficult to move deadline
• Can be improved: Error bound hint could come earlier or in project text (and be correct on first attempt).

Supervision/assistents:

• Good capacity and quality, some but not long waiting times.

Jupyter-nb:

• "Useful, saves time, good quality, well commented", "nice use of classes/objects in some"

Exercises:

• "useful, reasonable", "ex 4 done by few due to project deadlines/midterm exams", "use them to prepare for the exam"

Lectures:

• "Good, good speed for the most part, felt fast in the beginning (got used to it?)" (see also above)