| Prior information | Options | Distribution | Mean score |
| Amount & quality | Very poor Poor Reasonable Good Very good |
0 0 0 10 11 |
4.5 |
| Comments: 1: Posting information on the internet before and after a course is an extremely good way of doing it. 8: The information provided on the home page was really useful. 9: Very good information on the homepage on the different accepts relevant to the course. 13: I would have liked to have more information about what we suppose to know already in which "level" we should have been (see Jesper Møllers lectures). 19: Good combination of website and announcements regarding changes to website. | |||
| Work load | Options | Distribution | Mean score |
| Preparation | Far too high Too high Reasonable Too low Far too low |
0 0 18 3 0 |
3.1 |
| During the course | Far too high Too high Reasonable Too low Far too low |
0 0 21 0 0 |
3.0 |
| Comments: 1: Work load during course reasonable IF we were not expected to make all the exercises - otherwise it was too high. 5: [ Work load during the course was reasonable ] as it was clearly stated that there were much more exercises than participants typically would be able to solve. 6: The days were long, but this way we learned more! It would have been good to know that there were datasets we could use for the projects (I had trouble to find any suitable data). 9: I think one would have been better off if you would have read a little more on each subject before attending the course. But I think it will be naive to think that people in general have time to prepare too much before attending to a course. The work during the course was reasonable since it was up to each individual whether they wanted to finish most of the exercises. 10: Could be some Bayesian statistics in the preparation. 16: There were more exercises than I could possibly have time to do during the course, but it was OK to skip some of them. 19: Perhaps literature on bootstrap required before course like the "MCMC in practice". | |||
| Number of sessions, relatively | Options | Distribution | Mean score |
| Lectures | Far too many Too many Reasonable Too few Far too few |
0 0 21 0 0 |
3.0 |
| Computer exercises | Far too many Too many Reasonable Too few Far too few |
0 4 17 0 0 |
2.8 |
| Project | Far too many Too many Reasonable Too few Far too few |
0 0 20 1 0 |
3.0 |
| Comments: 1: Generally, I think the lectures and comp.ex. were well balanced. However, I would have preferred a discussion after the MCMC theory instead of another lecture. 6: I think time was well allocated! 9: I think it was kind of hard to listen to all the projects presented. Maybe it would be better to select a few very interesting ones for presentation, and the rest should do the paper instead. 19: Very good combination of different elements. | |||
| Your benefit | Options | Distribution | Mean score |
| Professional/scientific | Very low Low Reasonable High Very high |
0 1 7 13 0 |
3.6 |
| Expectation fullfillment | Very low Low Reasonable High Very high |
0 2 7 11 0 |
3.4 |
| Personal/social | Very low Low Reasonable High Very high |
0 3 12 4 1 |
3.2 |
| Comments (e.g. "too applied", "too theoretical", "I liked the teachers"): 1: Even though I found the MCMC theory-part of the course very difficult, I believe I gained a lot from the lectures. At least I have an idea of the theoretic background. 3: I would have preferred that the course would have used the weekend and ended on wednesday instead. 5: Henrik awfull as usual... Anders new and of no use... Just a joke - they were great! 6: Maybe a bit too less time to learn MCMC. Jesper's lectures were a bit too theoretical considering the audience. 8: I think the MCMC part could have been smaller. It is better to understand the basics that to understand nothing of a lot. 10: I liked the teachers :) 11: I liked the teachers :) 12: Some lecturers did not take into consideration the different background of the participants in preparing their notes/lectures. 13: Excellent work, excellent teachers for overall. Thank you Anders and Henrik for your dedication and hard work for the course. You did an excellent work! 15: Very nice and helpful "teachers" during the computer exercises! 16: The first week was very good, the second week (MCMC...) a bit too theoretical for me since I don't have that background. But the project was fun. 19: Level of bootstrap perhaps too applied. MCMC OK. | |||
| The course centre | Options | Distribution | Mean score |
| Your room | Very bad Bad Average Good Very good |
0 1 4 11 4 |
3.9 |
| General facilities | Very bad Bad Average Good Very good |
0 0 2 11 8 |
4.3 |
| The food | Very bad Bad Average Good Very good |
0 0 3 8 10 |
4.3 |
| The lecture room | Very bad Bad Average Good Very good |
0 0 4 12 5 |
4.0 |
| Comments: 1: I didn't stay over night. 5: Computers should be turned off during lectures. 6: Tune was a very good place for the summer school! 10: A lot of spiders in the building. It was "bad" air in the lecture room (what about air-condition?). 16: The room (my own) was good except for the bed. The ventilation in the lecture room could be better. 17: Sometimes the air was not very good (smoking people in other courses/meetings). 19: OK to keep all computers in same room for education but: Bad climate. | |||
| Bootstrap | Options | Distribution | Mean score |
| Lectures | Very bad Bad Average Good Very good |
0 0 5 11 5 |
4.0 |
| Hand-outs | Very bad Bad Average Good Very good |
0 0 6 8 7 |
4.0 |
| Computer exercises and solutions |
Very bad Bad Average Good Very good |
0 0 6 8 7 |
4.0 |
| Comments: 1: Generally, I think a short demonstration (1/2 hr) of Minitab would have helped me profoundly. I know we had the opportunity to prepare beforehand, but I still think it would have been beneficial. At least I felt I used too much time on figuring out the programme. 4: For lidt teoretisk. Nogen overlap ml. John & Steve 5: (1) Good that we could work individually during exercises. 6: [ John rated "Average" and Steve "Very good" concerning lectures and hand-outs ] . Minitab felt "clumsy" at the beginning but I got used to it. 8: A good level was kept on everything above. 9: I missed some scientific evidence that makink inference by resampling the same data actually worked. Otherwise Steve Buckland was a very good teacher which compensated for the minor good notes. The computer exercises was OK since you could choose different problems matching your own preferences. 12: Good lectures, but I did not understand all. 13: Excellent teaching, exercises and lectures. 14: Some overlaps between Buckland and Öhrvik's lectures! 19: It seems that John repeated most of Steve's lectures. Perhaps a little more communication appropriate. | |||
| MCMC theory | Options | Distribution | Mean score |
| Lectures | Very bad Bad Average Good Very good |
0 8 6 5 2 |
3.0 |
| Text book | Very bad Bad Average Good Very good |
0 3 8 8 1 |
3.4 |
| Hand-outs | Very bad Bad Average Good Very good |
0 6 6 9 0 |
3.1 |
| Computer exercises and solutions |
Very bad Bad Average Good Very good |
0 1 8 8 3 |
3.6 |
| Comments: 1: The hand-outs could - in my opinion - had been better structured or had included some summarizing pages. 3: Difficult to interprete hand written handouts 5: As (1). 6: [ Lectures: ] Both good and bad aspects, well lectured but the audience was not considered. [ Text book: ] - demanding, very expensive taking account how little it was used. [ Hand-outs: ] difficult to read the handwriting, but Jesper had done big effort writing it. [ Computer exercises and solutions: ] A couple of very simple BUGS exercises, then suddenly very difficult ones. 8: This week required a lot more knowledge than I pocess. 9: I think I can make use of Jesper Møllers notes in the future and they are extremely thorough. His lectures though was on a too high level. The book was quite good. 10: Hard to understand the notes (handwritten) and when he was speaking. 12: Lectures were academically written but not formally presented, i.e. manuscripts difficult to understand by many participants due to the fact that he did not consider his audience. 13: Jesper Møller was clearly an expert of MCMC. However, the level of his lectures was too high for me. I didn't have enough mathematical and statistical background to get a full benefit of his lectures. I think he had realized himself that the level of his lectures was too high for many of us. "Comments: Probably 5 of you will understand this and that ..." Why to keep that kind of level? However the exercises were good ones, so via them I learned a lot. 15: It would be nice if hand-outs were (machine) typed! 16: The lectures were not bad, but on the wrong level for me personally to follow. The handouts contained good information and literature notes but was partly hard to read. 17: [ Lectures: ] Sometimes the theory was at a too high level for many of the students. [ Hand-outs: ] The handwritten pages were difficult to read. The content was good. 18: [ Hand-outs good ] , but so difficult to read. [ General ] Too theoretical for me, but I bet that I am going to read the hand-outs many times. 19: I liked this part much more than bootstrap. 20: The lecturer did not take the level of the majority of the participants into account. Instead he was thinking himself and what he like to lecture. | |||
| Graphical models and example | Options | Distribution | Mean score |
| Lectures | Very bad Bad Average Good Very good |
0 0 7 12 2 |
3.8 |
| Hand-outs | Very bad Bad Average Good Very good |
1 0 4 14 2 |
3.8 |
| Computer exercises and solutions |
Very bad Bad Average Good Very good |
0 0 5 13 3 |
3.9 |
| Comments: 1: I learned a lot from Heidi's example and the exercises. Again, a short introduction to winbugs might have been beneficial. 5: As (1). 6: It was very important to have Heidi here in order to understand anything of practical use of MCMC. 8: ... still ny prior knowledge set the limits. 9: It was a general good introduction to solving a practical problem using MCMC. 12: She did her best she could. 13: I believe she had understood and taken into account to whom she was giving the lecture. 16: Nice to get an example of how the methods could be used in practice. 17: [ Lectures: ] I missed easy examples to understand the theory/reasons. [ Hand-outs: ] Too small letters. Much of it was unreadable for me. [ Computer exercises and solutions: ] Good with much help. 19: Very good supplement to the theoretic part of the week. | |||
| The project(s) | Options | Distribution | Mean score |
| General benefit | Very bad Bad Average Good Very good |
0 0 5 13 3 |
3.9 |
| Presentations | Very bad Bad Average Good Very good |
0 1 7 13 0 |
3.6 |
| Comments: 2: The presentation part was too boring. 5: I've got mixed feelings: actually it's better with projects than posters. It's also good that people are forced to give a talk. But, I must admit it's tough to keep up concentration on all talks - but it wouldn't be a solution to work in groups to keep projects down. 6: With own data would have been more motivating - but I just do not have any suitable. 8: Good for the selfestime & good fun. 9: I think I commented on that earlier. 12: We did not achieve all of our aim, i.e. we were unable to test all possible methods, perhaps due to lack of time. 13: If I would have had my own data to analyze, the benefit would have been of course even higher. 16: It was fun to work with the "real data". 19: At least I got started on the analysis. | |||
| You may for instance mention some positive and some negative circumstances: 6: Thank you! 8: In general the course has been really nice. ...would have hoped to learn more about MCMC ... but my prior knowledge set limits. 10: I was impressed of the course level (esp. the lectures and the teachers). We could get help almost 24 h a day! (Good) 12: The inter-participant relation was quite pleasant. 16: I think the exercises were good, without them it would have been too theoretical for me. I also received good help when needed.. For the negative: maybe a bit too long days. 17: It has been very nice with working together with the other people from Norden. Very helpful teachers. 19: Great course; I got the tools required to proceed my own studies. Probably I will never use bootstrap again, but now I know the idea. 20: Henrik was an excellent choice for this course. Anders also OK. |
Author: phd@dina.kvl.dk. Updated: 30 August 1999