Not having access to slides and materials negates any interest in proceeding with this course.

It was difficult to follow lectures without any kind of reading

The first week is a throw-away, as there are no slides, just a talking head throwing notation at you. The second week at least has a blackboard, but then the assessment is broken.

Great course. Really interesting and condensed content. A perfect course for analysts and data scientists. I will be recommending this to a few of my colleagues.

For some reason there are no slides in week 1 but don't worry there are slides from week 2 onwards

It is impossible to learn statistics without slides in the first week.

It is a very good intro to CI with proofs and references to recent developments.

However, I have to subtract some stars because the quality in material preparation of this course is not up to usual Coursera standards: for the first week there are no slides (so it's hard to follow), and some answers in the exams are not correct. This has been pointed out on this course's discussion forums, but nobody involved in the preparation of this course replies on its discussion forums.

A good course. Lot's of insights on Propensity Score Matching. They show good references to those willing to read some articles. Although quick classes, exercises are easy and very practical.

Please add slides or some teaching aids. This course is otherwise not usable

Talking head is not the best way to present for presenting such subjects.

The selection of material is excellent and the professor covers an amazing amount of ground in a handful of lectures. Currently, however, there are many superficial problems with the course, including repeated errors in the quizzes and lectures that are confusing because the slides are missing.

I can't feel any efforts the lecturer had made to help us understand the topic.

More exercises would be better!

Topic/syllabus/reference material: 5 stars - a great intro to CI (Rubin's approach)!!

Learning material: 2 stars (talking head, slides not provided, typos).

Assessment: 1 star (not particularly engaging and full of mistakes like correct answers scored as incorrect or calculations expected to be done with data different from that provided).

I find it incredible that a course discussing a topic using complicated subscripted variables such as Y sub i sub Z would not use the equivalent of a whiteboard, but would instead try to communicate these concepts vocally. Using a professor who speaks in a monotone.

I am also surprised that apparently no attempt was made to make the suggested readings from the literature available on the web.

I can't unsubscribe.

Excellent!

Assignments are a mess, and apparently haven't been fixed for years after multiple complaints. Otherwise a good course, although not better than the one from U of PA, which was more accessible IMO.

Great course. Really interesting and condensed content. However, It was difficult to follow lectures without any kind of reading and there wasn't any support on the discussion forums.

The teacher is great, but some things could be explained more clearly. Also, there are some errors in the assignments. Other from that, totally worth it!

Lectures are informative, test questions practical. Whereas more delibration could be used to the writing of assessment questions and answers as there are obvious errors. Also, forum is not well-maintained leaving many questions unanswered for years.

The layout of the slides is easy to lose people. There are too many errors in the quiz and no one has ever tried to correct them even though some students have been pointing them out for years.

the teaching videos are kind of boring

I

In my experience, this is a course where knowledge is obtained in another way and from outside the course. Confusing and there is no proper, ethereal exposure. This is my exclusive opinion. And for me, it is very sad to take an absolutely useless course, which is why I decide to drop out so as not to waste time.

The course is worse than going through a textbook, the professor's explanation on most of the proofs and statements is "obviously you know this and that". Additionally, the assessment had multiple errors and vague instructions.