The course had helped in understanding the concepts of NumPy and pandas. The assignments were so helpful to apply these concepts which provide an in-depth understanding of the Numpy as well as pandans
overall the good introductory course of python for data science but i feel it should have covered the basics in more details .specially for the ones who do not have any prior programming background .
By Carl M•
Poorly worded questions (that are mentioned throughout the discussion board), older version of pandas and the course resources don't help you with course. Get ready to 'learn' by looking in StackOverflow or reading the volumes upon volumes of python/pandas documentation. In other words, expect to spend 15 hours a week per week (obviously it will vary)
By Brent D•
Lectures do not reflect what is required to complete the assignments. Much of the learning is left to independent study by the student. Assignment questions are too vague and frequently require parsing through class discussions to determine the answer the auto-grader is looking for.
By Olena K•
The lectures are not good. They go too quickly. They're about 5 minutes long, but you have to stop every minute or 30 seconds and rewind to understand what the instructor is saying. He just goes way too fast, and it's very frustrating. Really ruins the experience.
The teaching was sparse and assignments got very difficult very quickly. An inordinate amount of time was spent Googling to get past each step due to poor foundations. I learned more in a much shorter time from more gradual and concise YouTube tutorials.
By Yizi Z•
There is only few minutes taught video courses each week, although the reading materials and topics are quite interesting. The learning of python coding rely heavily on your own trial and error, which you could do even without this course.
By Saurabh C•
The level of course content and assignments is not at all similar. The course contents need to be revised, seems like the professor assumes we know everything about the topic. Also the teaching speed is extremely fast. Very Disappointed!
By Tsvetov P A•
With great tasks, lectures, there're terrible assignments, w/o explanation, multiple interpretations. Ttest task in Module 4, is really a hard task, w/o any explanation, could have moved it in a different course.
By BOORLA V N•
The instructor seems like he's reading out points of a book. No proper explanation of tools used followed by assignments so hard compared to what being taught in classes
By Lucas T•
not bad... theres a big mistake in the regex video.
assignments don't really match the lectures.
Without Corey Schafer and Sentdex on youtube I would've quit.
By Chris L•
It never felt like the material was covered in enough depth to give me confidence in the ability to do the assignments.
By Lee S•
Starts off well, then escalates way too quickly. Assignment 4 is incredibly complex and has poor guidance notes.
By Afshin A•
I really don't like the way of explaining the process
the worst course i have ever seen
By Avneesh D•
The assignments were way more complicated than the examples used during the lectures.
By Georgios A•
Too difficult, poor connection between lectures and assignments
By Divyanshu P•
Insanely fast paced course.. Needs Improvement
By Pranav t p•
Very fast paced and poorly taught.
By Kannan S•
This is in fact the worst course so far. Mainly because of auto grader. Here are my reasons.
Actually I did not complete the course at all. But I suddenly got a message saying that I have completed the course. I was working on the first problem of the 4th assignment. I did a provisional submission to see if my answer was right. Auto grader reported the grade for the 3rd assignment and said that I have passed the course. Any submission I did after that was not graded at all.
The assignments are not very clear. Looks like I had a older version of the questions while others had a different version. I was stuck in a particular problem because auto grader did not give me a clear feedback as to why I was incorrect. I wasted too much time on this already.
The assignments require too much research outside what is covered in the videos. I don't feel that is right. The assignment requires that we research on Stack Overflow and Pandas documentation. I strongly feel that such activities should be performed only outside the course work when we try to solve real world problems. Course assignments should be reasonably given based only the materials covered in video. This was taking too much time.
The discussion forums are not giving clear hints. When we are stuck in a problem, we are not able to proceed further. I still son't know the answers for certain problems because the coordinators do not explain the answers well. When we complete assignments we don't get to see the instructor's solution.
The video instructions were too fast paced. The instructors do not pause and explain critical aspects of the code.
Overall I am very disappointed with this course. There are much better videos on Youtube and Lynda than this . I am sorry. I never thought it would be this bad. The first course on Python from University of Michigan was really very good.
By Joseph G•
Not sure whether this course is trying to reach data science or Python, but it does a poor job at both.
The class is a light-speed tour through NumPy and Pandas, definitely not for the neophyte Python developer (which I am not). There's 30-40 mins of lecture each week that's basically lightly narrated typing into a Jupyter notebook with only the slightest bit of additional explanation about what the instructor is doing, although the material covered is substantial. There's lot of important details that are glossed over -- forcing the student to pause the lecture and do offline research to understand what just happened.
Similarly, the assignments address and cover beyond the material covered, but the instruction is scarcely sufficient to understand the concepts required to complete them, so lots of Stack Overview and other research is required. And the automated grader, as expected, is completely literal so for complex problems, not much help in validating whether you're on the right track. Assignments take many multiples of the estimated time.
And because even for paying students (such as myself), you never get access to an answer key even after the assignment is due, you have no idea how closely your solution conformed to best practices, even if you arrived at the right answer. For coding, this makes all of the difference, particularly with large datasets that could consume considerable computing resources if not done correctly. I'm told this is because of potential cheating by learners.
How would I change this course? Simple: 3x more lecture material to actually explain what's going on, or down-scope the class so that the existing lecture time becomes adequate for the material.
By Hari B•
Very poor course, badly taught and terrible value for money. The lessons are brief beyond any form of reasonableness, the teacher seems completely unconnected with his students. There is no detail at all and no logical progression. I took and passed this course with a view to doing the specialisation but I'm not going to waste any more money on University of Michigan courses. I've found similar courses on other platforms which cover the same material. The assignments were awful, in some cases they covered material to be presented the following week, in others the questions were wrongly stated and did not match the output from the machine grading. The machine grading itself gave you no clue as to where you went wrong. I'm not talking about the odd question here or there, I'm talking about consistently throughout every assignment. I don't normally, in fact ever, leave bad reviews, I usually just chalk it up to experience and move on but in this case, the course was so bad, I had to say something. I've done two other courses on Coursera with Rice University and the difference to this course is huge, while I would wholeheartedly recommend the Rice Intro to Python courses, Don't do this course, it is not coherently presented or graded. The mentors in the forum tried their best but even they had to admit the grading system was riddled with errors. Absolute rubbish, avoid and spend your money elsewhere.
By Albi K•
I have just completed this course. I have learned quite a bit about the pandas library and that has nothing to do with this course.
The lectures seemed to be scripted; and extremely condensed. At best, they can be used as a sparse reference manual for some undefined subset of the pandas library.
The assignment 4 instructions encourage googling things. Basically "go forth and figure it out on your own" ... why would I need a full course for that piece of advice?
The autograder seems to forbid the usage of certain lines of code in Assignment 4. It will reject your answer and give you no feedback whatsoever with respect to the reasons why your answer was rejected.
As well, it has inconsistencies that will cost you time. The question on the recession_start() function will be graded as correct if recession_start() outputs a certain value, say x. Yet, in another question recession_start() is expected to output some other value y. Go figure. Not even a warning about it.
So, to sum up the salient points:
1. Autograder has holes.
2.Extremely condensed scripted lectures and sparsely sprinkled with practical advice.
3. Useful for letting you know that pandas exist.
By Vikram A•
This course is poorly done, and I'm sorry but in no way close to an intermediate level. Even knowing a fair amount of python, I struggled with learning from this course. I find it ironic that the teacher specializes in education and mostly sits in a chair and speaks code at you. There are very few visual aids to help.
Furthermore, individual topics are not broken down well, showing you how to develop a mastery over the fundamental data objects like a data frame before moving on to the next. Code that is demonstrated is typed out unreasonably fast, and very few examples are done on how to properly access the elements in different ways. The video where the grad student/post doc spits out code 3 lines a minutes made me laugh at how ridiculous it was as if it were an explanation.
I ended up very frustrated with this course, and I'm not convinced it's all me or my inability to learn. I suggest learning data science in python from another site, I'm already finding a different class much better and more understandable. Your mileage will obviously vary.
By Marty Z•
A very solemn warning for those working professionals who wish to add this valuable skill or change career, which is so in my case, DON'T spend time on this course! The problem comes from a very error-prone auto-grader system and an outdated pandas library used by this course.
I understand the ability to research your solution in the absence of guidance is a valuable skill, which is what the course instructors claim. However, setting the student up with an outdated library where the student not only has to figure out how to search for their solution but navigate different library versions is just mean and irresponsible.
If you are planning to be a programmer, I do see the value of grinding this skill out of you. But if you are a domain expert that wants to learn "Applied Data Science" which is what this course is supposed to be for. I do not see the value of dropping the student in the deep end and having them figure out version updates and learn outdated syntax.
Our time is valuable, go learn from people who respect your time. I will.
By Elanur S•
Total disaster. I payed 315euro for this course. Course started on 24/10/2016. I faced with technical difficulties till this weekend. I reported this problem already many times.. Finally this weekend the Jupiter notebook worked and I started the first assignment. I spent many hours but still couldn't get solve the assignment. I read discussions, write post.. Searched on Google.. Read lots of document. I still couldn't get what the correct answer is the assignment wants. I realized that it is impossible to pass this exam. In the lectures they don't mention anything which will help you to solve this time consuming assignment by the way.. After having this terrible course experience this weekend, today (14/11/2016) I decided to apply for refund. But guess what I says 14 days have passed so I cannot get refund!!!! Now I payyed 315 euro for nothing but disappointment!!!!
By Patrick K•
Anything but 'Pandorable'.
My first programming class was 'Python for Everybody' by Dr. Chuck. It was perfect for a novice like me. Chuck was tough, but fair. I then moved on to this class. 'Intro to Data Science in Python' is the complete opposite of everything you'd want in a so called 'intro' class. Brooksy is impossible - no Dr. Chuck. He plows through course material like he's got somewhere to be causing you to re-watch each of his lectures multiple times. Proceeding to the assignments you immediately realize they aren't related in the slightest to the lectures you just consumed. This forces you to consult google, github, stackoverflow, your peers, and anyone else with an extensive programming background. That's all fine and dandy for, say, an advanced or intermediate class, but keep in mind, this is supposed to be an INTRO class...Good luck...
By Heide S•
besides the major technical issues and lack of information before the postponed start of the course and minor technical issues, the way of teaching is well adapted to on-site classes where you can sit in study groups solving the problems together; the given examples have partly little relevance and do not help to solve the assignments and according to the staff the best way to solve assignments is by using google (or stackoverflow or whatever) - really?! somehow it seems they just took an on-site course, played with some fancy technical solutions and call it now a MOOC... they seem not really aware of the fact that on-site teaching and MOOCs require completely different types of pedagogic methods
amazing how the same university can offer both the best MOOC (Dr. Chuck's) and one of the worst (this one)