Course Evaluation, EC2201 Intermediate Macroeconomics, Spring Term 2013

Course Evaluation, EC2201 Intermediate Macroeconomics, Spring Term 2013

 Summary     
 Total number of answers   47 
 Filter   no 
 Group by question   no 


In this course evaluation a five-graded scale will be used where 1=very bad, up to 5=very good

The course in general

What is your general opinion on this course?
    %   # 
 1   4.26%   2 
 2   23.4%   11 
 3   27.7%   13 
 4   34%   16 
 5   8.51%   4 
 ?   2.13%   1 
 Total   100%   47 
 Mean      3.2 

Approximately, how many hours per week did you spend studying during this course? (including lectures and seminars/exercises)
    %   # 
 A) 10 hours or less   6.38%   3 
 B) 11-20h   25.5%   12 
 C) 21-30h   31.9%   15 
 D) 31-40h   25.5%   12 
 E) More than 40 hours   10.6%   5 
 Total   100%   47 

Course literature

Did you have access to the course literature?
    %   # 
 Yes   97.9%   46 
 No   2.13%   1 
 Total   100%   47 

Have you read the course literature?
    %   # 
 Yes, mostly   89.4%   42 
 No   10.6%   5 
 Total   100%   47 

What is your opinion on the course literature? (assuming you read it)
    %   # 
 1   0%   0 
 2   6.38%   3 
 3   38.3%   18 
 4   40.4%   19 
 5   10.6%   5 
 ?   4.26%   2 
 Total   100%   47 
 Mean      3.6 

Lectures

Did you attend the lectures?
    %   # 
 A) Yes, mostly   78.7%   37 
 B) Yes, sometimes   17%   8 
 C) No   2.13%   1 
 D) ?   2.13%   1 
 Total   100%   47 

What is your opinion on the lectures? (if you attended at least some of them)
    %   # 
 1   12.8%   6 
 2   29.8%   14 
 3   36.2%   17 
 4   14.9%   7 
 5   4.26%   2 
 ?   2.13%   1 
 Total   100%   47 
 Mean      2.7 

Did you usually read the literature before you attended lectures?
    %   # 
 Yes, mostly   27.7%   13 
 No   70.2%   33 
 ?   2.13%   1 
 Total   100%   47 

What is your opinion on the level of difficulty of the lectures?
    %   # 
 A) Too easy   2.13%   1 
 B) About right   61.7%   29 
 C) Too difficult   36.2%   17 
 Total   100%   47 

Exercises/seminars

Did you attend the exercises/seminars?
    %   # 
 A) Yes, mostly   89.4%   42 
 B) Yes, sometimes   4.26%   2 
 C) No   4.26%   2 
 D) ?   2.13%   1 
 Total   100%   47 

Who was your teacher on the exercises/seminars?
    %   # 
 A) Niels-Jakob Harbo Hansen   34%   16 
 B) Carl-Johan Rosenvinge   34%   16 
 C) Theodoros Rapanos   27.7%   13 
 D) Don't know   4.26%   2 
 Total   100%   47 

What is your opinion on the exercises/seminars? (if you attended at least some of them)
    %   # 
 1   6.38%   3 
 2   14.9%   7 
 3   12.8%   6 
 4   42.6%   20 
 5   19.1%   9 
 ?   4.26%   2 
 Total   100%   47 
 Mean      3.6 

TA level:

    Total   1   2   3   4   5   ? 
 A) Niels-Jakob Harbo Hansen   16   0   2   3   7   4   0 
 B) Carl-Johan Rosenvinge   16   0   2   2   7   5   0 
 C) Theodoros Rapanos   13   3   3   1   6   0   0 
 D) Don't know   2   0   0   0   0   0   2 
 Total   47   3   7   6   20   9   2 

Did you usually try to solve the problem sets before you attended the exercises/seminars?
    %   # 
 Yes, mostly   89.4%   42 
 No   10.6%   5 
 Total   100%   47 

What is your opinion on the level of difficulty of the exercises/seminars?
    %   # 
 A) Too easy   0%   0 
 B) About right   72.3%   34 
 C) Too difficult   25.5%   12 
 D) ?   2.13%   1 
 Total   100%   47 

Examination

Did you write the exam on March 19?
    %   # 
 Yes   97.9%   46 
 No   2.13%   1 
 Total   100%   47 

How well did the exam reflect the course in your view?
    %   # 
 1   19.1%   9 
 2   38.3%   18 
 3   23.4%   11 
 4   8.51%   4 
 5   8.51%   4 
 ?   2.13%   1 
 Total   100%   47 
 Mean      2.5 

Others

Are you satisfied with the administrative routines around the course?
    %   # 
 1   8.51%   4 
 2   6.38%   3 
 3   14.9%   7 
 4   31.9%   15 
 5   27.7%   13 
 ?   10.6%   5 
 Total   100%   47 
 Mean      3.7 

If you have any additional comments on the course you may write them here:
32 have answered this question
— Johan was a not a good or inspiring teacher, and fail to make the lectures clear. And the seminarexercies was way to big. The exam did not resemble any of the prewious exams that we had to study on
— The teacher should be prepared when entering a class and be able to explain to the student. It wasn't like that this time
— Carl-Johan was very good. Johans lectures were too "slow" and he should work on his presence. Exam didn't reflect what we did on the seminars, work on that.
— Det förvånar mig att två stycken kurser är såpass olika. I kontrast till "mikron" så framstår denna kurs som perfekt. Jag måste ge två stora eloger. Jag personligen gillade Johan Söderberg som föreläsare enormt mycket. Först han tog det lugnt och man hängde med. Det andra var att jag fick känslan att han ville att alla skulle förstå vilket gjorde att han ibland gjorde det "extremt grundläggande". Många kan tycka det är uttröttande, jag gillar det. Jag gillade upplägget!! Tentan var väldigt bra. Det var på vad vi hade gjort på seminarierna, man kände igen problemen och jag kände att "varför är inte fler tentor av denna struktur". Varken mer eller mindre vad vi har gjort, så som det ska vara. Den andra stora pluset som jag upplevde var min seminarielärare, Carl-Johan Rosenvinge!!!!!!! stort +!! Mycket bra sem. lärare som grundligt gick igenom problem och tydligt förklarade vad som händer. Även att han vred och vände/vinklade på problemen var väldigt bra. Största bonusen var sista sem. där vi gick igenom tenta frågor och egna frågor. Stort plus till att det fanns många tentor att plugga på och att det fanns facit!!!! Fortsätt så här så kommer ni har många nöjda elever och relativt få som inte blir godkända.
— I'm quite dissappointed actually. Too much focus on learning models and formulas and without any analyzing connected to our reality. I thought that there would be more dialogue on this level in the seminars, but once again the seminars seem to only aim at the teacher reveals the correct answers on the board, and then nothing else. I think this is a very interesting subject and that there're a lot of important discussion topics that would be very fulfilling for both teachers and students. I've studied in other institutions in this university and I've never experienced this kind of teaching before, without any requirements of critical analyzing and connection between theory and reality.
— too much material for beeing a 7,5 hp course. Skip Krugman and add lessiontime. More help is needed tobe able to learn all the different graphs and the material in the course
— When there is 2 main teachers that obviously are not synced at all, the course is bound to be confusing. There were no clear red line throughout the course, instead we were simply just thrown things upon things without any connection to what we already had gone through! Great lack of organization during the lectures! Our seminar teacher on the other hand was great and made things doable! The exam was strange, not at all reflecting what was said during the lectures!
— The literature was only used to solve problems, as nothing would stick if I attempted to read it cover from cover. The seminars were among the worst I've ever attended, we were always behind although cutting out breaks and going over time. Despite using all that extra time the consensus was we weren't getting good explanations. We had a running joke about having a greek macro teacher, which was further fueled when we had a danish substitute with illegible handwriting.
— The exam almost felt spin-off from the course.
— Jag förstår att det är svårt att hålla en kurs för första gången. Dock tycker jag att det är oinspirerande att lyssna på föreläsare som läser direkt från pappret utan några egentliga kommentarer. Detta fick mig att läsa mycket hemma i stället. Sedan tycker jag inte att tentan avspeglar kursens huvudteman. Det kändes mer att den var till för att kontrollera om vi hade läst på det finstilta. Den var inte alls liknande tidigare. Ett mycket intressant ämne som jag nu har börjat tappa intresset för.
— One improvement to next intermediate macroeconomocs is to let the examination reflect more of the subjects that are pressed as important in the seminars. I didn't really feel that the examination reflected the subjects brought up on the lectures and on the seminars.
— I think the course in general was good, although too much literature. It was difficult to know what was important and not, because of this I feel like I didn't have time to fully understand the course and putting it into a perspective. I learned things, but I didn't understand them. The course didn't feel like it was just part-time, I studied more in this course than I usually do in a fulltime course. Lecures: was good but I would have wanted more focus on the most important things, rather than a repetion of what the book says. Especially Johan Soderbergs lectures felt like this, for example: He spent 5 minutes explaining a diagram from the book, that in the book was explanied in detail on 2 pages and this happened more than once. I generally don't mind the lecturers to use diagrams from the book, but all the time, have your own examples of a different (opposite?) case. Exercises/seminars: I think the assigments was too difficult at times and my group (and I know other groups did this as well) spent approx. 6-8 hours/assigment and when you need to read the assigned literature to the next lecture, lectures and seminar-assigments to the other course as well 6-8 hours is alot especially in a group. I spent more time on the these seminar-assigments than I did in any other element of both courses. I also felt like my seminar-teacher didn't really wanted to be there, he looked at the clock during the seminar every 5 minutes and just went trough the problem set in a very high pace. He asked if we had any question at times, but everyone was so busy writing what he wrote on the board, that noone really had the time. Exam: I really didn't like the exam,I think the bar was set TOO high and it was relly different from everything we have gone through and I think there was too much focus on the additional readings and not on Mankiw and Krugman. So I don't think the exam reflected the course well because it was too difficult. When you look at previous exams, they're not even close too as difficult as this one was. Everyone (approx. 12 persons) I have talked to after the exam have all said the same thing: That they're happy if they just pass (get an E) on this exam and I have NEVER heard that before and this is my 9th exam (not counting home-exams) at the university. I also didn't like the fact that one of the questions was EXACLY the same as a seminar-assigment question (financialcrisis, 6 steps). Ask a different question or ask the question with a twist, bt not exacly the same. I feeling like I been very negative so far, but I think it's been a good and interesting course and I think that Roine and Johan have done a good job. And I understand that this is the first time they're incharge of this course, so see the above as constructive critism and not all negativism.
— It was too much in this course and too difficult to understand how things were related, what was important and not. It was just more and more information and very hard to see any structure. Some more help with this would have been appreciated.
— För mycket till en 7,5 poängs kurs. För lite fokus på modellerna på tentan men stort fokus på föreläsningarna och seminarieövningarna, kan så mycket mer som jag inte fick chansen att visa. Synd att man var tvungen att göra seminarieuppgifterna i grupp. Blir ofta så att en person får dra lasset. det kändes som att det var för många frågor på tentan. Jag hann inte med att göra allt noga. Hade gjort många gamla tentor innan för att öva och de var lättare med dem att hinna reflektera kring varje fråga.
— Roine Vestman did decent lectures, and should receive extra credit for quickly answering questions by mail. Johan Söderberg, however, would do well to increase his lecturing speed a bit and offer something more than just what is found in the book. The lecture by Lars Calmfors was an interesting finish. The administrative routines receive a 1 from me because some idiot has lost my credit from the seminars of the previous term (yeah, this was the second time I did this course). And yes, I know I had that credit. If I didn't get it the administration still didn't do their job, since I thought I had it the last term.
— Roine Vestman is a great lecturer! I wish there had been slightly fewer questions for the seminars so that there would have been more focus on a few questions rather than many questions.
— Would have been good if the t.a had corrected the seminar exercises before the actual seminar.
— The course was fun but challenging. An issue with the lectures was the planning, Johan had a bad habit not giving us breaks during the lectures. Because of this it was very hard to keep up. We also ran out of time during the seminar so an extra session was held. Personally i think that this was necessary, an extra seminar or less material in the future is something i would recommend. Otherwise it was good, the exam questions were different from other exams but in my opinion they were good questions.
— Kursen innehöll otroligt mycket information, vilket gjorde den intressant och lärorik, men jag undrar om det inte var väl mycket för en 7,5-kurs? Jämfört med Makroekonomi med tillämpningar i Nationalekonomi I kändes denna som mycket tyngre. Det höga tempot med många och långa föreläsningar samt flera stora uppgifter till varje seminarium gjorde det svårt att hinna läsa, och ofta kändes det inte som kursen gick på halvfart. När så mycket information ska täckas vid varje föreläsning ställer det mycket höga krav på föreläsarna, vilket inte alltid uppnåddes. Mycket svårt att koncentrera sig den tredje och sista timmen av föreläsningarna. Tentan relaterade till det vi lärt oss, men var ändå svår i förhållande till allt vi hänvisats lära oss. Två tjocka kursböcker samt ett antal artiklar var ganska mastigt. Kanske kan kursen bantas något så att man kan lära sig vissa modeller på djupet.
— Lorenz was not a good cours administrator, good that you changed. The exam didn´t reflect the the course.
— I really liked the exam, it reflected the course very well. The lectures by Johan Söderberg were terrible in my opinion. I just attended one of them. I believe he presented the lectures with difficulty, made them very hard to understand. But when I read the book later on It all got clear. I noticed that many other students felt the same. Otherwise the course as a whole, I really liked it. Much more then the microcourse...
— För lite tid för seminariegenomgångarna Relativt hur pass omfattande uppgifterna var. Vår seminarielärare hann inte gå igenom seminariefrågan Om USA's finanskris, vilket var synd eftersom den frågan kom på tentan.
— It would be great if there were a little bit more time for discussion in the seminars and maybe one less quiestion each time. Our seminarteacher (Rosenvinge) was great and tried to make room for it,but due to the amount of questions there was no time for discussion.
— I missed study question to have during the course, beside the seminar questions. I felt that it was difficult to know in what to focus.
— The course in general was ok. But to make an exam that didnt cover more than 60% of the course is not fair to any one since the couse itself is so wide. I belive that if the exam would've had a greater cover of the couse, i wouldnt have botherd to write this. Why was the DAS/DAD schedule excluded and sollow modle excluded?
— Too much literatue for 7,5hp..and Too many lectures, felt like 100% not 50% if the corse had been 4 weeks you wouldnt havet been able to give that many lectures..sad that the exam didnt reflect the course ..and lecture 4-8 felt very hard to understand(too much "jumps" from One thing to another.)
— För mycket litteratur att täcka vilket gjorde att man inte hade tid att kunna grundligt gå igenom allt material. Svårt att veta vad som egentligen var tentarelevant.
— Just some remarks about the exam. In general felt like lacked alot in content of the course. The questions were too elaborately written. Found it odd that the essay question came to be about the financial crisis in the US when, even despite the more hours added in the seminars, we didn't even manage to get to that question (otherwise very thorough in seminars). Further I saw no link between the theory we've learned and the applicability of that to this particular crisis. For comparison and with the amount of time devoted to the soverign debt crisis, the theory we have been taught seemed very much more applicable to that real world event.
— Too much to hand in for the excercises. I had to little time to read the litteratur
— Use of headset on the lectures would be highly appreciated
— The administravie help has been very bad. Late answers and not so kindly! I think the TA and Roine okay, sometimes to fast and didnt explain very well, and Johan was not god at presentating. it was not so pedagogic....
— To use two heavy books for one 7,5hp course is too much! Sure, its very intersesting and me and many of my friends found it easy to Want to learn - but we didnt had the time! too difficult in the beginning, teachers that assumed that we knew how to calculate things that we've never seen before, time running out during the seminars, too many exercises, too much litterature and so on. no, Im not pleased with the course. Most of the time i mostly were consearned how to make it...and i didnt really felt any support from the teachers.

Contact person: Peter Langenius, peter.langenius@ne.su.se
Last modified: 22/04/13