Chevron Left
Retour à Algorithmic Toolbox

Avis et commentaires pour l'étudiant pour Algorithmic Toolbox par Université de Californie à San Diego

4.7
5,218 notes
1,100 avis

À propos du cours

The course covers basic algorithmic techniques and ideas for computational problems arising frequently in practical applications: sorting and searching, divide and conquer, greedy algorithms, dynamic programming. We will learn a lot of theory: how to sort data and how it helps for searching; how to break a large problem into pieces and solve them recursively; when it makes sense to proceed greedily; how dynamic programming is used in genomic studies. You will practice solving computational problems, designing new algorithms, and implementing solutions efficiently (so that they run in less than a second). Do you have technical problems? Write to us: coursera@hse.ru...

Meilleurs avis

SG

Jan 20, 2017

I liked the fact that the algorithms are not just the introductory searching and sorting algorithms. The assignments are fairly difficult (I have decent scripting experience), but not impossibly so.

MM

Sep 29, 2017

good course, I like the fact you can use a lot of languages for you programming exercises, the content is really helpful, I would like to have more indications from the grading system to save time.

Filtrer par :

1001 - 1025 sur 1,030 Examens pour Algorithmic Toolbox

par Aryan V

Jul 07, 2019

subtitle donot work on pc

par Mohand G F

Aug 04, 2019

Explanation needs lots of Improvement. The problems are very hard comparing to the explanation

par Safin B

Aug 14, 2019

The programming assignments are top-notch. Really tests your algorithmic skills. That being said, I didn't find the instructors explaining the algorithms clearly. They were vague in that aspect. They would just tell what is in the slide and would not make efforts to clarify the tedious parts of the algorithm

par Melody C

Aug 16, 2019

I'm giving 3 stars out of respect for the hard work the instructors, Coursera community and course mentors put together to make this course happen, but the quality of the course is at most 1-2 stars. I finished 100% of the assignments even though half of that was required to pass the course, and I have a few concerns about this course:

1 - Poor Use of Pseudo Codes. While Pseudo codes are perfectly fine and sometimes extremely helpful, none of the Pseudo codes in this course were intuitive and can be efficiently translated into real codes. First of all, variable names are confusing and do not tell you what this symbol holds at the first glance, just like how the whole course was taught in a mathematical way rather than programming way, variable names are all like i, j, s, t, l .... when we could have made them into something meaningful and readable.

2 - Since only Pseudo codes were given, it's hard for newer students to learn how a working algorithm actually looks like and how it runs at each step. I feel that either you already know how to do it, or you can't come up with one at all before debugging for hours. So it is more important to show something that actually works from the beginning, then students can imitate -> improvise -> create. Again the Pseudo codes are terrible examples.

3 - DP sections were badly explained, really really bad ........ any of the YouTube videos and GeeksforGeeks explanations are 10X clearer and more intuitive. I feel like the instructors just wanted to teach the math instead of how to program. But the math isn't any difficult to understand, the key is to convert ideas into codes, and this part was completely ignored.

par Ashok R

Sep 13, 2019

The lectures were more narrative oriented and hence felt boring and monotonous at times.

par Muhammad O

Sep 17, 2019

Don't cover all the concept you have to search a lot to be good ..

par ghumdan

Aug 30, 2019

This course is very useful and widens one's brain. However, I always felt there was something missing in the explanation

par Amr A M

Aug 31, 2019

course should be more fixable and provide IDE for run codes

par Marwan Y

Aug 29, 2019

a lot of stuff was vague, the videos not enough but the assignment is good and the grading system is average since it leaves you in the middle in the desert and does not tell you where your code breaks like input and expected output to debug with

par Anirudh K

Oct 05, 2019

The learning curve becomes very steep towards the end of the course. Also sometimes it's difficult to understand what the instructor is speaking and the transcripts aren't very good. The assignments need to have some more problems in the easier category as it's only by doing many problems one gets hold of a concept. Although the difficult problems help , but they tend to be more demotivating

par Sriragh K

Jul 16, 2018

The course has multiple limitations and can improve a lot more. Two main issues I faced were these:Dynamic programming part one lectures were very poor and hard to understand as a result of which I had to view external sources to understand the topicSecondly, the idea of not showing test cases is a bit strange as understanding the failing test cases do not really come in the way of understanding algorithm, it simply makes the questions much harder and tedious to solve. This completely eliminates the purpose of the course and wastes the time of most students. I am a bit disappointed with this course and didn't see it as value for money.

par Tsz Y W

Jul 28, 2016

These two stars go to the instructor in week 1. I left the course after week 3 because I couldn't tolerate the accents of the instructors. I got frustrated starting from week 2 where I have to reread the subtitles to understand the material. Please let someone who can speak English fluently teach the course, please. The course goes kinds of fast, this is first course of the Specialization and it quickly jumps to Greedy algorithm, really? In general Algorithm course, it is usually taught late.

par VICTOR A

Apr 26, 2016

The course starts very promising, but it gets worse week after week, culminating on a barely understandable week about dynamic programming. That’s when I gave up and decided to write this review instead, with just one assignment missing to complete the course.

Some of the teachers aren’t native english speakers, which is fine, but their english is very hard to understand. I found myself having to watch some portions of the videos over and over again in order to understand what was being said. I tried reading the transcripts instead, but the they’re even worse! It seems that they were automatically generated from the videos, thus suffering with the poor pronunciation.

The teachers use mathematical sophistication that feels unnecessary, but to be fair, they do mention it on the FAQ as part of the necessary background. However, even though it’s an online course, they barely use any teaching method besides very raw slides, some dry mathematical proofs and someone speaking about the content. The only resources offered to help learning are a few open source visualizations. I expected much more.

The only good aspect from this course are the assignment checkers, which allow you to write your solutions in multiple languages.

I deeply regret the money and time I spent on this course.

par Die J

May 04, 2016

Feedback in assignment is not good enough.

For example, for the points and segment, there are no correct answer in output as a reference.

par PRATIK A

Jun 05, 2017

Course content was good. Explanation of various problems, solutions and algorithms could be made easier to understand by providing more (intuitive) examples. Overall, the course is good at gaining broad understanding of the different paradigms of algorithms.

par Emilio B

Jan 25, 2017

The videos and explanations are very poor. Most of the time the instructors are reading off a script, and everything feels fake. By reading off a script they are forced to "hand-wave" and do not explain concepts covered completely.

The only thing I liked about this course were the problem sets, which were interesting to do. Will not buy rest of specialization, feels like this is just a cash cow for UCSD.

par Supharerk T

May 21, 2016

Update: As I proceed to wk 5, I know why there are some complaint on Dynamic programming,

Reduced to 2 stars. Lectures are totally useless for the assignment,

The course is really good until week 4 when it deteriorates very quick. No matter how many times I re-watch the lecture, I can't understand much. I ended up using wikipedia for the quiz instead :P

I can't use much of the course forum since there are too many posts there and it keep crashing my chrome.

This course gets my 3 stars from the first 3 weeks alone, otherwise it gonna be 0-2 stars.

par kamal n

Nov 16, 2017

The programming technique - like DP, Greedy could have been better. I had to go to other website to better understand the concepts.

par Alexander T

Jun 05, 2017

The time claimed as required for this course is wildly off.. It takes at least 3 times more than 4 hours, allotted for the weekly assignments. In a way, this makes this course very expensive.

par Zhongyu K

May 13, 2016

Even though this course covers a lot fundamentals for introduction to algorithm, the course itself is not designed as good as I expected. For starters, the weekly problem designs aren't very good. Some problem statements are ambiguous and not very clear unless you read more than one time or take a closer look at the examples. Often, the input format/arguments are designed to take redundant info. Some problem even has more than one possible correct outputs, which is just confusing for learning purpose.

In terms of lecture videos, it's good that there are some classic algorithm problems being demonstrated in the video, however the linkage between how to express a problem in mathematical languages is poorly explained. For example, in the lecture of edit distance, the realization of the matrix was not well explained at all. I personally appreciate a lot of the thorough proving steps introduced in the lectures, however I personally think the proofs are often not well explained to the audience (I also understand that it's more difficult to explain proving steps). Considering the large variety of audience, I would recommend the instructors separate the comprehensive more in-depth knowledge into optional videos, in this way the audiences could decide if they want to spend time in optional videos or not based on their own needs, meanwhile the instructors could spend a little bit more time to explain the difficult concepts better. Overall, I know that talking and analyzing algorithms can be kinda of boring and challenging, but I wish the course videos could be stated in a more interesting and intriguing way.

par Nasim Z

Jun 15, 2016

Algorithmic Toolbox consists of a series of slides containing slimmed down explanations on introductory algorithmic concepts, followed up with programming assignments. The slides are the centrepiece of the course, as the presenters rarely stray from the bullet points and pseudocode they're comprised of.

I learned a lot during this course. Although, to gain confidence in your knowledge, this is a course that will require you to seek out additional materials to supplement your learning. Perhaps unsurprising being an introductory course, but the presenters struggle when faced with setting expectations.

Throughout the course presenters often gloss over fairly complex concepts, treating them as they were trivial knowledge. This applies to mathematical definitions, proofs where most steps are skipped, tree diagrams without the context of their underlying theory, or bullet points used in place of what could be detailed explanations.

All material is left equally weighted. Rather than providing explanations like: "We don't need to go into detail on this, only x concept from it is important for what we want to focus on. Reference this chapter in this book for more detail." presenters would read mathematical definitions verbatim from the slides and move on. I was often unsure of how much I would need to know about such concepts.

In terms of communication ability, the presenters don't hold up against many of the free/low-cost services I'm accustomed to using, for example: MIT OpenCourseWare, Udacity, edX, Khan Academy, Code School, Treehouse, etc. Perhaps unsurprising, as these competing services often feature professional communicators rather than professional researchers. But the marketplace for quality online education is definitely becoming a competitive one. Users now expect nothing less than presenters with exceptional communication/teaching ability.

In most videos the presenters read verbatim from the slides and motion with their hands to explain concepts that would be better broken down on a whiteboard. Rarely straying from the slides, the times the presenters go into more depth on a concept, you get a scribble in the corner of a slide, lacking the clarity I've come to expect when approaching complex concepts from master educators like YouTuber PatrickJMT or Khan Academy. After a couple weeks into the course, I just went straight to the slides, read MIT's Introduction to Algorithms, and skipped most of the course videos.

But all things considered, the course served as a good curriculum to guide my focus through the introductory concepts, regardless of where I sought it out.

par Sonia R

Jul 15, 2017

Teaching technique can be better and more interesting. Not so suitable for beginners.

par Richard Z

May 04, 2019

I would say that the lecture part of this course is quite poor. The professor presents abstract concepts and pseudo-code without giving an example. It takes me a long time to figure out what the professor wants to say. He should've given out the example before explaining the concepts. The contents though is decent, and I learn a lot in his course.

par Jian W

Aug 20, 2019

Some Algorithm are not clear, and the homework submission system is not friendly at all!

par Payam K

Jul 18, 2019

The instructors are terrible at teaching.