Ok but a bit too chaotic
A useful review, but very theoretical. I was fine as long as it was all fairly easy stuff I've done before and I could think up examples for myself. About 2/3 of the way through I stopped being able to come up with examples and was in fog for the rest of the lecture.
Should have printed out presentation made it a bit harder to follow having to write it all down. {CRS: I agree.}
Also very good.
Frequentist analysis, but within that framework good. {CRS: Anyone who knew the difference between frequentist and Bayesian statistics had no business sitting in the review. Harumph.}
Pretty good review.
well done
He was good.
Too much talk about being "dogmatic." Otherwise, I think I understood more about statistics after Cosma's lectures than I did after taking stats in college.
Covered many things, but never really explained what the points were. Instead, it became descriptive stating formulas rather than concepts.
Didn't go quite as far as I had hoped.
Excellent review. It covered the concepts in a fast but comprehensive way.
Excellent, my favourite section by far. Wouldn't do much different.
I thought overall that the material presented was fine... A few very minor comments were technical things about board presentation. Cosmo had a tendancy to block the board when writing, to not always read what he was writing, or to write something, and not talk during the period he was writing... {CRS: Guilty as charged.} Other than board technique, I think we covered things pretty well - I had already had a course in mathematical stats though, so that part was already very familiar to me... I didn't follow the presentation on Stocastic processes very well, as I have never really had the material before...
Obviously well-versed in his field. Covered the material well and had a delightful sense of humor, but was still serious about explaining the material as thoroughly as possible in a limited amount of time.
I'm afraid that I didn't get very much out of this session. Cosma obviously is very strong in the field, but he didn't present the material in an easy to understand manner. Examples would have been nice.
Perfect as it is.
ot so useful for an already-familiar-with.
It was a very good review. Perhaps spend more time on statistical tests - but then there is so little time that other things would have to be dropped.
t was great. He made the math review not so much of a pain. BTW, did he actually prepare the notes just for the summer school??? {CRS: Yes.}
it's good that this part is in the review, but it was a bit confusing
very good.
ok.
Excellent, in depth and concrete coverage.
This again was a review for me. The comments I made about basic calculus carry-over here. {CRS: Whatever those comments were.} However, I do feel that the formal definitions that Cosma used could have been relegated to the background as some of the audience would have felt lost in all that formal stuff.
good
great
Cosma did a fine job with these three topics, given the amount of time he had to cover them. Unfortunately, the time constraints required that many details, which I would have very interested to cover, be ommitted. Of all the topics covered in the math review, the topics of probability, statistics, and stochastic processes were the ones I would have liked to spend more time on.
5 on scale from 1-5, where 1 is worst
Notes get an A+. Cosma gets an A. Perhaps a bit much detail, given the week that followed. {CRS: I'm jealous of my own notes.}
OK presentation of the material, but sometimes a little unclear. However, the on-line lecture notes were good.