The assessments were excellent. Initially, I did have hesitation in getting started, but got hooked to the assessments. Thank you to Kavya and Steve, our Program Managers who encouraged us everyday.
complete view of the businesses related to each type, separated into different sections, but with a clear explanations that the different types are interlinked into a bigger picture
By Andrea G•
I like it but: some links are not working. too many reading and too little lesson.
By SYED D H N•
good course. would have been more attractive if material was presented in videos
By Pelin C I•
Level is much lower than expected. Teacher is not engaging. I do not recommend.
By Suresh R•
Lectures are good however would have enjoyed more with a better acce
By Dusan T•
It would be rated better if there was no annoying Module 4 test.
By Yash A•
Assignment 4 was not at all upto the mark.
By Tomas M•
Good base ground. Need fintech updates
By Vinay V D•
to add more videos and case studies
By Daniel N•
Some links for reading didnt work
too much of text reading
By Jay K J•
By Maarten K•
Interesting contents, good introduction.
First two chapters are quite alright. Later modules have received less attention from the makers. The readings often consist of references to Wikipedia pages and magazine articles (which are missing some depth and sometimes require registration). I found that one video transcript resembled the Wikipedia page about that topic a lot...
Some video's stop before the lecturer has stopped speaking...
It doesn't seem like the course is being updated as there are a number of broken links (preventing of hindering you to pass assessments). Assessment questions could be better as there is too much room for interpretation.
A lot of participants have complained about the assessments in the discussion forums, but no reaction from moderators for years. If you want a certificate for this course, prepare to be frustrated!
By Christian L•
The content was okay, but there were several points, I did not like about the course. As a summary, much less professional than other courses.
1) There were many references to public sources like youtube or wikipedia - the reason for subscribing here is just to learn more than from these public sources.
2) In the video, there not much good visualisation to support the presentation (e.g. no or small graphics)
3) The editing of the videos is not always good, a couple of times, the video is just cut off in the end.
4) The Danish professor was not always easy to unterstand.
5) In the quizzes, it was not always clear how to answer (e.g. the answer consisted of three words which had to be given separated by comma, but there was no hint how to do it, so you had to try & error)
By Georg D•
This is a beginner's course. Except for a couple of short videos, the course uses articles from Wikipedia and other websites. Some of the links are broken or articles are (now) behind paywall. Beyond that there are errors in the script (Growth Settelemt Systems instead Gross Settelemt Systems) and in the quizzes (questions not fully spelled out, so you have to guess what the question should be). Some of the linked documents are outdated. So overall slightly disappointing and I hope this is not the standard that Copenhagen Business School is promoting. Also disappointing, looking at feedback from peers on this course, these issues seem to have been present for a while and nothing has been undertaken to fix it.
By Lily C•
I honestly didn't think this course was a great use of time. The readings are mostly links to wikipedia pages, and they don't connect particularly well to the videos. The quizzes and assessments also seem like broken tools. The answers seem arbitrary, sometimes aren't in the course material, and don't actually test your knowledge of the subject. The grading is very nit-picky and thus the quizzes are nearly impossible to pass. I'm convinced certain questions on the last exam (in Week 4) simply don't have a correct answer.
By Aldrin G S•
Course and topic is actually pretty interesting and is actually good for beginners which is a thumbs up. However, most links used came from wikipedia and many links provided are actually broken or redirects to the homepage of the website and not the article. Lastly, I would like to emphasize that the some questions on the final exam of module 4 will be answered purely based on luck or good guess because the readings and links are already broken hence would not be able to answer the question correctly.
By Karol S•
Some of the parts were not basic but kindergarten level. The lecturer is getting worse in speaking in english each course. The test are sometimes prepared wrong. When answering question the way it should be it sometimes shows mistake, even if it is not - simply the lecturer did not mentioned it in the video.
By Katja T•
Content and links partly not up to date. Little to no support from the mentors in the discussion forums. Had to wait quite some time to get my peer-to-peer review so that I could not finish the course on my on schedule which is frustrating as it is a monthly subscription.
By Juan P R•
Los recursos estaban muy desactualizados y eran páginas de wikipedia o ese estilo de fácil acceso. Los exámenes no estaban bien redactados y las preguntas daban espacio de interpretación que no sería lo más adecuado para selección múltiple.
By Siddharth B•
Lot of missing content. The video on Apple Pay is missing on Youtube. The reading content on the OpenBanking's impact on Customer Bank and Society is missing. It leads to a page not found error. Content is stale from 2018. Nothing new.
By John L•
some contents are behind the paywall or the link is no longer available. some of the prediction on P2P are less accurate in retrospect. should update the course and material given fintech evolved so much in last few years.
By Zivile M•
The presenter is very difficult to understand and the quizzes are absolutely rubbish: they are full of typos and poor grammar, and the questions and answers themselves are not well thought out at all.
By Vikram M•
Very high level information. Mostly refers to Wikipedia articles or magazine articles, that too outdated articles published 3-4 years back. Very little original course content.
By Alan M•
A large number of links don't work or are behind paywalls. Others are 5 year old articles, there is so much information out there this is disappointing
By Francisco A•
Really poor. Explains extremmely basic concepts and abuse in the using of web URLs (lot of them were down). Don't recommend.