Learner Reviews & Feedback for Statistical Inference by Johns Hopkins University

To tackle such key concepts and tools of statistics, you need the appropriate time. Too much material covered in this course. I tend to think that revising the approach to this course as two 4 weeks modules would allow to both go more in depth at a more appropriate pace.

ok course. They provide examples that make sense, although assignments don't really touch all of the material covered. The examples as well as assignments tend to be quite helpful, although I dislike how they force the specific format, which for some could be advantage.

Course is reasonably well taught. I have gotten used to stale online courses. You would think that, given the apparent work to correct errors or respond to feedback should be minimal compared to the vast number of students taking this course. Not so much, I guess.

This is a decent overview of statistical inference techniques. Make sure you understand each lecture before moving on to the next since they build on each other. The lecture notes are decent but not great. I found it cleaner and easier to take my own notes.

This course was better than the others in the program because there was much less of a gap between the lectures and the graded sections in terms of expectations. Still, I knew this material going in and would not recommend this as a way to learn it.

It felt like there were a lot of jumps between basic statistical formulae and abstractions thereof. While I don't think it was inappropriate for a course on statistics in itself, it felt rather out of place in the rest of the sequence of this course.

I have taken almost 10 classes from Coursera and this is the first one that I was not pleased with. I had to do much additional work studying examples and explanations on the Internet because those given by the instructor were not asdequate.

The sections on bootstrapping and permutations were great! The instructor does much better, information is easier to follow (better and slower explanations), and the instructor is more engaging when he is not reading from his notes.

The content of the course is really good and so the practices. But the teacher does not know how to explain things and easy subjects are transformed into a difficult ones. I had to study other books to really understand the subject

Although the topic was very interesting, the way of teaching was troublesome. Teacher spoke often in a way as if he talked to specialists. So it was often hard to understand, and for understanding I needed to consult other sources

The subject of the course is very interesting and the professor is very competent. I had the feeling that some subjects were explained in a way that is not very convenient for someone coming from a non-statistical background.

The material in the class is solid, but is poorly described. These are the foundations of statistical analysis, and unfortunately there's a lot of statistics jargon that students aren't going to be familiar with in here.

Nicely outlined and broad in scope, but Brian's presentation is kind of dry. It often appears that he is reading off a script, and sometimes his emphasis on technical details takes away from ease of understanding.

I think the theory is too dense, but with a weak link with R. I understood better with swirl than with the videos. I'd suggest a more organized video with less draws and annotations. They confused me sometimes.

Statistics & Probability being two of the toughest subjects, this course could have been taught a bit more novice friendly way, so that learners with no background in maths can also grab the lectures easily

I had some difficult to follow the lessons, because the professor is kind of reading the material and not building the concepts during class time. I had to look for other videos and texts out of coursera.

As someone who isn't from math background many of concepts thought in here weren't quiet clear or intuitive. Could use more details or pointers to reading materials to help understand the concepts better

Disappointed with the way the course has been taught. The instructor just reads out from the slides. Had to refer lot of other material to understand the topics being taught in this course.

i belive this course should be taught in 6 weeks at least and not 4 . There are multiple areas which needa deep dive. with the month based subscription it is very difficult to deep dive

Teaching material is very good. But I feel the Professor's explanation is monotonic and uses more of textual definitions rather than simple explanations which are required for starters.

The course is really interesting, but I believe the professor approach to describe and explain the topics is really confusing. I had to search other resources to clarify the topics.

A pretty tough course, but I learned some new things. The assignments can be be made better, as well as the evaluation of assignment, which is being done by peer review right now.

very difficult with lots of math not properly explained. What's the point of learned all these formulas by heart if you cannot use the properly because that is not explained well.

Material was interesting. Did not enjoy the teaching method of Prof. Caffo. Very scripted and skips way too fast through some of the equations and R code he's trying to teach.

Material should be supported by more examples. ie. at the end of the course, I couldn't perform a basic statistical test.

Bootstrapping modules completely missed the context.