The University of Missouri at Columbia
Chemistry 433 - Computational Chemistry - Winter Semester 1998
| Criteria of evaluation | WS98 | |
| Organization and preparation of lectures and discussions | 3.82 | |
| Instructor's enthusiasm for the subject matter | 4.00 | |
| Helpfulness in answering questions and clarifying points | 3.82 | |
| Ability to lecture in a manner which is easily followed | 3.27 | |
| Ability to stimulate interest in the subject | 3.73 | |
| Overall rating of the instructor | 3.82 | |
| Your rating of how much you have learned | 3.82 | |
| Overall rating of the course | 3.64 | |
| Overall rating | 3.73 |
Student 1: THE LECTURER TAUGHT IN AN UNDERSTANDABLE MANNER. HARD PROBLEMS WERE MADE EASY THROUGH TIMELY EXAMPLES. NO WEAK FEATURES.2. Compare the lecturer to others you have had (especially with those in science courses at this level).
Student 2: At times moves too fast.
Student 3: We have learned a lot of material which we can apply to our research.
Student 4: Strong: Instructor's enthusiasm. Well organization of whole semester.
Student 5: -
Student 6: Could explain complex questions in an easy to understand way.
Student 7: He should not assume that every student is familiar with computational chemistry. So sometimes he should be patient to answer questions.
Student 8: Highly organized - excellent progression of topic material. Very knowledgeable on the subject material. Write more clearly on board, turn on lights on board. I sometimes had difficulty in making out characters in complex formulae.
Student 9: Organized. An expert on computational chemistry.
Student 10: Projects were great - very helpful. Peer review a little difficult, especially for project 2, as it was so undefined, guidelines were hard to follow. Too much literature to read. Knowing which were the most important papers/most important parts would have helped.
Student 11: Well prepared and knows the subject matter very well. - Assignments well thought out. - Some test and quiz matter was too long for the alotted time.
Student 1: THE BEST LECTURER I'VE HAD IN ANY CHEMISTRY COURSE, AND ONE OF THE BEST I'VE HAD IN ALL COURSES AT ALL LEVELS OF EDUCATION.3. List the strong and weak features of the overall course (not the lecturer) and include suggestions on how its quality might be improved.
Student 2: Above average.
Student 3: The lecturer grasps the knowledge well.
Student 4: Many literature to keep up with - which is nothing wrong.
Student 5: Professor Glaser is a very good lecturer.
Student 6: Enthusiastic. Able to stimulate interest in the subject.
Student 7: He is knowledgeable and excellent.
Student 8: A top lecturer - very committed to his subject - veery enthusiastic - a pleasure to learn from.
Student 9: He is good.
Student 10: All the teachers I've had at MU are very enthusiastic, good teachers.
Student 11: One of the most enthusiastic and provokes interest in the subject.
Student 1: THE COURSE WAS VERY GOOD. I LEARNED A LOT. MOLECULAR MECHANICS COULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN A LECTURE OR TWO.4. Compare the course with the others you have taken.
Student 2: Should also include exercises in common software applications (ie ChemDraw) that are typically used by chemists.
Student 3: This course is practical.
Student 4: Good introduction course about computational chemistry. Little hard to keep up for someone who does not have any experience about that.
Student 5: Teaches computational methods well but more emphasis on actual calculations may be useful. The course was extremely helpful anyways.
Student 6: This course tells me how to do basic research related to this area.
Student 7: I think it is fine so far.
Student 8: This course is very work intensive. - Dr. Glaser has done much to make it computerized and efficient. - But still demands extensive time input. - But very much worth the effort!!
Student 9: We read a lot of papers. It is helpful. Using email to contact eachother is good.
Student 10: Difficult class for which a background in quantum chemistry better than mine is necessary. A more concise review of the background material could have helped. Also, it would have been beneficial if the course textbooks would have been less expensive.
Student 11: Paper of the week went very well and was a good experience, although not enough people participated in discussions.
Student 1: THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST COURSES I'VE HAD.5. & 6. Your overall rating of the course and your approximate GPA prior to this semester.
Student 2: Too much reading comprehension, personally not one of my strong points.
Student 3: -
Student 4: Impressed how well organized this course is.
Student 5: This is one of the best graduate courses in the department.
Student 6: This course is more interesting.
Student 7: I have learned a lot from this course.
Student 8: I have never had a course quite like this one - I really enjoyed it!
Student 9: Dr. Glaser knows a lot about computational chemistry.
Student 10: I have learned more in this class than I have in any classes for a while.
Student 11: One of the most interesting and informative.
Student 1: A and 3.5.
Student 2: B and 3.0.
Student 3: B and 3.8.
Studnet 4: B.
Student 5: -
Student 6: A and 3.7.
Student 7: A and 3.7
Student 8: A and NA.
Student 9: A and 3.75.
Student 10: A.
Student 11: A and NA.