covers good amount of material and exactly what is in the outline, presented with enough detail to follow. Good walk-through of the spreadsheets helps understanding, easy to follow along and practice.
Material was very well presented. Week 3 was challenging, but taking time to print out the slides, work through them rigorously proved very helpful. I found all sections very, very informative.
By RAJ K A•
Nice course. But's it's a bit too simple.
By Thu P•
Much detailed! Very easy to follow.
By Alejandro A B•
Muy buen curso, excelente material
By Tarun S R•
Teacher are good in this season.
By Thiago H R M•
Good, but gives the very basics.
By Elisa G•
By Carlo D R•
In few pills big contents!
By Zhao y•
By Harshit B•
By Zihui W•
By andy t•
By Joan S•
By Luis E H A•
By Alan I B•
By Valentin Z•
There are good and bad things to say about this part of the "specialization". The good ones (in general thanks to Sergey) are that sometimes during this course you learn something new and useful. But not much... One can hardly say that you will get some sort of "specialization" through these 5 courses. It's highly inconsistent. I'm sorry to say that but it's not the Harvard level of education (at least I hope that the Harvard level is much higher). This part is still far from the wonderful introduction by Professor Waterman. And the 3rd week of this part is a total fiasco: we all know how to read, and mechanical reading from the screen by the teacher doesn't give anything for knowledge. I also didn't understand the part about 'time constrains' as a pretext to describe only normal and uniform distributions (we can read anywhere about these two probability distributions... but where is the value-added product of the teachers?). I would say that selecting the same (very long) range in Excel with a mouse cursor seven times in one lesson is total waste of time that could be spent more effectively. At last, the final quizes are sort of childish: the questions are written in in a very bad style (apparently to complicate understanding) but the real answers are mostly simple arithmetic...
This course deserves a 5 star rating because of Prof. Savin but because of Prof Veeraraghavan, I gave it a 3.
Prof Savin's attention to detail and ability to explain complex concepts in a simple way is a gift indeed. He taught week 1, 2 and 4.
Week 3 with Prof Veeraraghavan however, was a different ballgame. Week 3 was an overload of theoretical statistical probability concepts with little or no explanation whatsoever. No explanation on reading chi square tables, no explanation on the calculation of pdf and cdf etc. I was lost when it was time for week 3 quizzes and I gained zero knowledge from week 3.I recommend that Prof. Savin creates a new video for week 3 as I am sure he will teach the courses therein much much better.
By Mies Z•
The excels presented in Week 3 and 4 were lacking in substance, they didn't really help provide any useful information in real world scenarios. One of the questions in the quiz actually asked for the mode from one of the videos, first of all the mode? That's quite a basic question but on top that you literally have to go back through the videos to find the correct answer. It was quite silly. The first 2 weeks in the course were good, which is why I'm giving it 3 stars. I expect more from Wharton.
By Deleted A•
This course is much more informative than the previous two in my opinion. I liked the sample spreadsheets provided. I still however feel the price is a bit steep compared to other similar courses you can find online. The quizzes aren't that challenging and it may be nicer to expand the assignments to practice more.
By Anna D•
Mostly useful practical advice and examples on how to use Excel to model risks and realities. Week 3 was not very good as it was a quick overview of basic statistics which is incomprehensible if you have no previous knowledge and useless if you do.
By Daniel B•
This course had a mix of high and lows, professor Savins pieces felt more connected to real life examples to help illustrate the concepts whereas Professor Veeraraghavan felt more like a math class and very disconnected from real world examples.
By Marek N•
Good practical examples of the concepts. In general, seems to me that the courses of the specializations do not fit together well. At times, basic things mentioned elsewhere are repeated, some others are not explained sufficiently.
By Irina K•
Only the first lecturer was good. Where are clear excel examples for Week 3, 3.2? You know that students have been complaining over 7-8 months and did nothing! It's a total waste of money.
SERGEY SAVIN is the BEST!!
By Jorge I L•
I felt that it was very repetitive and lacked many tools for risk analysis. Also, i felt it repeated many things from the previous courses in the specialization, which turned ir very tedious.
By Michal C•
All was great, but week 3 has serious issues with linking what is in the lectures and in the quiz. Also the forum is unmoderated and there are over a year old complaints. The rest was great.
By Brendan G•
I wish after each quiz it would show you how to get the right answer then generate a different question when retaking the quiz. You cannot learn without knowing what you did wrong.