HKN Home

UG6 Search

Registrar

Course Home

Help

6.042J/18.062J Mathematics for Computer Science

Lecturer: A. Meyer, N. Shavit Next Term: D. R. Karger, F. T. Leighton Lecturer's Rating: A. Meyer 3.9/7.0, N. Shavit 3.4/7.0 Prerequisites: Some proof-writing, some probability

Response rate: 38 out of 130 Difficulty: 4.9/7.0 Overall Rating: 4.3/7.0 Term Evaluated: Spring 99

Lecturer's Comments:

Visit the course web page.

This course covers probability and a broad range of topics in discrete math, including proofs, logic, countability, and sets.

This class is a header, and is required for VI-3 majors. As can be expected, almost all of the people taking this course are either VI-2 or VI-3. Most students are in their freshman or sophomore year, although there are a fair number of juniors as well.

While there was very little application, students felt that the class had a good balance between theory and application for a class whose material is geared more toward theory. A few students wanted better coverage of graph theory, proof techniques, and logic, and less of an emphasis on probability.

Students found the lecture notes very helpful in learning the material; in fact, many students felt that the lectures were useless, since they could just read the lecture notes. Overall, problem sets were ranked as the most useful for learning the material, followed by the readings, the tutorials, the recitations, and lastly, the lectures.

Students suggest that those who want more exposure to proofs, set theory, probability, or logic should take this class. The subject is also useful for programming, and for people looking for a combination of computer science and math. While some students praised the variety of the material, some felt that the topics weren't strongly connected, and that, excepting probability, they weren't explored in enough detail.

A few students thought that the lectures flowed nicely, and that the lecturers made good use of jokes. However, many students found lectures too easy in comparison to the problem sets and test material. The examples given were too simple, and the lecturers spent too much time on trivial things. Students also criticized the poor organization of the lectures, the large amount of background assumed, and the lecturers' tendency to get sidetracked. Some students thought lectures lacked clarity, and the lecturers should work on better board technique and keeping lectures from dragging at the end Several students commented that lectures are boring and a waste of time, and recommended reading the lecture notes and not bothering with the lecture. One student wrote "doing something other than reading out Tom Leighton's lecture notes would be nice." Another student reported that less than 30 of the 130 students came to lecture. On the other hand, several students said that the! y liked how closely the lectures followed the notes.

Lecturer Meyer was complimented on his great enthusiasm, and his engaging lecturing style. However, sometimes it seemed as though he had trouble keeping his ideas straight, and confused himself. Students also comment that he shouldn't repeat his explanations so many times.

Students suggested that lecturer Shavit should interact with students more, improve his board technique, and try to speak in less of a monotone.

Students commented that Stanislaw Jarecki knew what he wanted to say, but he would sometimes have trouble saying it. Although he could get hung up on minor details, he was pretty good.

Eric Lehman received many compliments from his students. He tried hard to make sure students understood the material. He was "one of the best", easy to follow, interesting, knowledgeable, and held useful office hours.

Jared Smith-Mickelson was described as a very good recitation instructor who was engaging, approachable, and answered questions well.

Amit Khetan was very knowledgeable about the material, and could explain tricky concepts well. However, some students found it hard to keep up with him, and weren't comfortable asking questions. One student said he was often left feeling incompetent, and one student had trouble reaching him outside of his limited office hours.

Michael Leonida got mixed reviews. Some students thought that he did not know the material, and that he had no control over the class. Others thought that although he may be too laid back, he encourages people to participate, was knowledgeable, helpful with questions, and to the point.

Matthew Blum got generally good comments. He tried to make students understand, and kept a good balance of new and review material. Some complained that he doesn't encourage participation, can only explain using math, and goes too fast.

Zulfikar Ramzan received high praise from his students. He was knowledgeable, clear, well prepared, covered all of the material, and tried to make the material intuitive. While one student found him to be accessible by email and office hours, another was unhappy with his availability.

Many students thought the problem sets were helpful, interesting, and creative. Several students also noted that some of the questions were extremely hard while others were extremely easy. Problem sets were mostly challenging work but had large proportions of grunge and utter frustration. Some students complained that some problems were not clearly stated and others had errors, and some felt that the problems should reference the material. Others thought there was too much grunge work, and one complained that problem set material was often taught on the due date. Students spent an average of 6 hours on the problem sets. A lot of collaboration was common, and students found it very helpful. Almost nobody used a bible, and more students recommend against using a bible than for using one.

Overwhelmingly, students found the lecture notes to be excellent and the text to be extraneous. Although some students found the text nicely laid out and well written, many found that they did not use it. The notes are detailed and well written, although a few students found them disorganized, out-of-date, or cryptic. Several students found that there were too many different reading sources, and that the reading sources subtly contradicted each other. One of the TAs recommends either relying completely on the text or revising the lecture notes. One student suggested using more interesting examples in the lecture notes, and staying away from exotic math.

Grades in 6.042J are based on 11 problem sets (25%), 2 quizzes (20%), participation (30%), and a final (25%).

Many students found the first quiz extremely difficult and too long, but the second quiz was much better in these respects. Some students found the grading to be overly harsh and wanted more generous partial credit. While some felt that they truly tested knowledge and understanding of the material, others felt that they weren't a good measure, and simply tested the ability to be clever on the spot.

Many students wanted better lectures. They suggest that lectures cover more difficult material, and match up with the problem sets and test material. One student suggested either making the tests easier or teaching the harder material. One recitation instructor wanted graders, and one student wanted problem sets graded weekly. Several students found the lectures and recitations too long. Several students were not sure what to expect on tests, and found the test material to be different from the problem sets. They wanted review packets with relevant questions and answers for test preparation, or better practice tests.

Blum M. Khetan A. Lehman E. Leonida M. Meyer A. Ramzan Z. Savit N. Smith-Mickelson J.