Anti-Calendar



8 surveys for M. Molloy

CSCB63H: Design and Analysis of Data Structures
Instructor: Molloy, M. Course Enrollment: 47
Session: Winter 2006 Section: 1 Percent Response: 61.7%
Questions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean
Communicates 771129182904.29
Evaluations 1141526221574.19
Organization 1171421251474.14
Explanations 4111425251844.25
Enthusiasm 1141519192674.37
Teaching 1141125321174.25
Workload 444213221144.96
Difficulty 44421732295.36
Value 74733222244.41
Retake Yes: 37.0%   No: 63.0%
calendar, timetable Comments
Students found this course and the material very challenging and a number of comments suggest Professor Molloy was not as successful as he might have been at 'bringing it down' to an undergraduate level. Various suggestions include more detailed notes, clearer expectations regarding assignments, and more connection between the grading TA and work performed in class. A few students also suggest Professor Molloy was not sufficiently available outside of the classroom. His knowledge and experience was widely acknowledged, but students felt they weren't able to profit from it as much as they would have liked.


CSCC63H: Computability and Computational Complexity
Instructor: Molloy, M. Course Enrollment: 9
Session: Winter 2008 Section: L01 Percent Response: 33.3%
Questions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean
Communicates 00343400344.67
Evaluations 34340000343.33
Organization 34003400344.00
Explanations 34034000343.67
Enthusiasm 03403400344.33
Teaching 34034000343.67
Workload 00003434346.00
Difficulty 0000034676.67
Value 34000340344.33
Retake Yes: 33.0%   No: 67.0%
calendar, timetable Comments
Professor Molloy?s approach of teaching was not favoured by some students. They found some of the examples provided to be irrelevant to the course material studied. Students would prefer if he would be more lenient with the difficulty and marking of exams.


CSCC63H: Computability and Computational Complexity
Instructor: Molloy, M. Course Enrollment: 9
Session: Winter 2008 Section: L01 Percent Response: 33.3%
Questions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean
Communicates 00343400344.67
Evaluations 34340000343.33
Organization 34003400344.00
Explanations 34034000343.67
Enthusiasm 03403400344.33
Teaching 34034000343.67
Workload 00003434346.00
Difficulty 0000034676.67
Value 34000340344.33
Retake Yes: 33.0%   No: 67.0%
calendar, timetable Comments
Professor Molloy’s approach of teaching was not favoured by some students. They found some of the examples provided to be irrelevant to the course material studied. Students would prefer if he would be more lenient with the difficulty and marking of exams.


CSCC63H: Computability and Computational Complexity
Instructor: Molloy, M. Course Enrollment: 48
Session: Winter 2006 Section: 1 Percent Response: 62.5%
Questions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean
Communicates 37713402734.73
Evaluations 0710302717104.67
Organization 377134020104.80
Explanations 37720303034.70
Enthusiasm 337133027175.10
Teaching 010723302734.67
Workload 003233327135.23
Difficulty 00071743336.03
Value 4114262222114.63
Retake Yes: 48.3%   No: 51.7%
calendar, timetable Comments
Students found the workload heavy in this course, and a number were less than enthusiastic about the material itself, but most acknowledged the value and importance of the class. Professor Wain-Bantin's real world experience was an asset and while a few students found her expectations were tough they also found she was very willing to help when needed.


CSCC63H: Computability and Computational Complexity
Instructor: Molloy, M. Course Enrollment: 65
Session: Winter 2004 Section: 1 Percent Response: 73.0%
Questions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean
Communicates 154415351984.42
Evaluations 172619321944.21
Organization 156213402144.35
Explanations 1901113321964.21
Enthusiasm 134411342864.57
Teaching 13649362844.49
Workload 002313321135.10
Difficulty 002172130305.68
Value 4111328221744.22
Retake Yes: 28.9%   No: 71.1%
calendar, timetable Comments
Students in this course requested more examples in class and suggested that the lecture material was at times unclear, while generally appreciating Professor Molloy for his style and approach to instruction. Some suggested the marking scheme was not particularly appropriate and suggested the assignments be worth more.


CSCC73H: Algorithm Design and Analysis
Instructor: Molloy, M. Course Enrollment: 11
Session: Summer 2008 Section: L01 Percent Response: 72.7%
Questions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean
Communicates 000135025135.38
Evaluations 0003863004.63
Organization 000252538135.38
Explanations 00250136305.13
Enthusiasm 000132550135.63
Teaching 00025383805.13
Workload 000132538255.75
Difficulty 0000380636.25
Value 01313132525134.75
Retake Yes: 50.0%   No: 50.0%
calendar, timetable No Comments


CSCC73H: Algorithm Design and Analysis
Instructor: Molloy, M. Course Enrollment: 20
Session: Fall 2006 Section: 1 Percent Response: 65.0%
Questions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean
Communicates 0803184685.08
Evaluations 08158838235.23
Organization 08158846155.15
Explanations 088151538155.15
Enthusiasm 008231523315.46
Teaching 080231523315.38
Workload 000152331315.77
Difficulty 00001531546.38
Value 00023318385.62
Retake Yes: 38.5%   No: 61.5%
calendar, timetable Comments
Students found the course material and subsequent assignments difficult due to a lack of important examples. Students also noted that the distribution of marks for the course was unfairly skewed (e.g. 75% final exam). Professor Molloy was noted to be an enthusiastic instructor who attempted to engage students during lectures.


CSCC73H: Algorithm Design and Analysis
Instructor: Molloy, M. Course Enrollment: 26
Session: Fall 2004 Section: 1 Percent Response: 57.7%
Questions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean
Communicates 000143636145.50
Evaluations 702121142974.50
Organization 070144321145.14
Explanations 0770502975.07
Enthusiasm 000142943145.57
Teaching 00014215775.57
Workload 000212929215.50
Difficulty 00072121506.14
Value 07772929215.29
Retake Yes: 61.5%   No: 38.5%
calendar, timetable Comments
Students appreciated Professor Malloy in this course and were very approving of the educational value of the course content. One student even suggested this should be a program requirement for all Computer Science students. The volume and difficulty of work, however, was a barrier to many, and several students noted that they could not prioritize this course in relation to their other work and commitments because there was simply too much work for too few marks per assignment.


What do the numbers mean?