Sieo 4150 · SIEO
This class was taken online due to covid restrictions, so some observations might not apply during usual class setting. He's a nice guy, and he puts an effort into the class. I disagree with the other reviewer that his exams are the same as the practice exams - they were not! This class covers material that would otherwise usually be covered by two undergrad classes, so everything was kinda rushed. He did try to explain the concepts well, but most of the time they just didn't get through. He would go back and explain things again if you had questions, and there, I guess, he did a better job explaining concepts. He tells a few jokes, and most of them aren't bad. The grade was calculated using exams and HW, with a fair weighting scheme that he modified to help students' grades a bit more, and he dropped the score of two HWs. While teaching, he makes quite a few mistakes. While most professors do make mistakes, you will notice that he makes them more than the average professor. This can make the material confusing at times. He does catch most of his mistakes in class, though, and sends clarification emails. I never went to office hours or asked him questions after class, but based on some interactions in class, it seemed like he was available for answering questions during office hours. Overall, nice guy, puts an effort into the class, but you'll need to read the textbook or look…
One homework a week, tough if you haven't been paying attention (I hadn't), and two nasty exams.
4 Homework Assignments. Yes, only 4. They aren't very long. (25%) Midterm Exam. Very Easy (25%) Final Exam. Moderate to Easy. Harder than Midterm. (50%)
20%: 8 homework assignments during the semester 40%: Midterm 40%: Final
People hate on Wright too much. I mean, yes, I had a tough time sitting through the lectures for this class. And yes, it sucks to get all your homework assignments in the form of all-caps Courseworks emails that you can't find anywhere else. But, I mean, whatever, the lectures are pretty thorough, the homework is remarkably comprehensive, and he puts the effort in. I don't know about these curve rumors... I had a D average or something and got a B in the course.
The fact that this guy is still teaching makes me doubt the sincerity with which Columbia reviews teacher evaluations. Jan Vecer teaches straight out of the book, gives homework out of the book, and tests on something totally different. In my opinion, he honestly believes that either you get it or you don't and if you don't understand the material you shouldn't be in the class (kind of defeats the purpose of teaching...). Unless you have a very good understanding of prob. stats, avoid this class.
There are few professors at Columbia which every student I have talked to dislikes, at Mark Brown manages to be one of them. This class is not actually very difficult, nor does it move fast, so it is probably best for you to learn from the textbook (which isn't amazing but not horrible) rather than go to class. The best option is to read the textbook and then supplement it with class, but if you do go to class (like I did), you should, at minimum, skim the textbook, or you will be horribly lost. Professor Brown gives little context for what he is doing. He does not tell you what he is trying to prove (which makes following proofs difficult since you have no idea where he is headed) and he rarely explains the conceptual nuance of what is going on. He also spends almost all his time in class proving things whereas, apart from the Extra Credit on the final exam, every exam and homework question is an application question, which means understanding the proofs is of little to no help in tackling the homeworks or exams. Apart from his inability to explain concepts, Mark Brown rarely pays attention to his students. He is 50/50 with being able to understand student questions, he rarely responds to email (and if he does, he is rude), and he doesn't return homework in a timely manner (we got a homework due in October returned on the last day of class). Overall, the material covered in t…
Chris can't teach for his life. Yes, the course was pretty easy. Yes, the exams were very much like the review sheet, but I can't really say that I learned statistics in the process. Chris stops regularly to ask if people have questions and encourages student participation, but he always seems exasperated. On the first day of class, he said to us: "when you raise your hand and ask a question or make a comment, make sure to tell me your name so I can judge you when you say something stupid." I have a pretty strong math background - I've done well in both Calculus and Chemistry thus far in college. But, for some reason, it is very difficult to understand the material when Chris lectures. I think the problem is that he doesn't provide an overview or even say what topic we're covering, he'll just write some numbers on the board and forget to say which test statistic it is, what formula we're using, what assumptions we're making, and the general purpose of the test. If you have to take statistics, I'd choose a professor who uses a powerpoint. At least the lectures would be somewhat standardized...If you're a Barnard student, take psych stats for goodness sakes. I thought regular stats would be fine, but it's honestly just been a hassle...
weekly problem sets (5 problems each), two midterms, standard final
Five HW assignments -- fairly ok. 2 midterm exams -- incredibly hard and 1 final exam -- even more difficult. He does not curve grades.