糖心vlog官网观看

Professor quality was not up to expected. Material was interesting, but lectures could have been less monotone. Some of the links to reading material were broken.

An interesting course, informative, yet the instructor speaks in a nervous way and can be very challenging to understand well from him and enjoy the course

Cyber topic speaker needs more speaking practice: too wooden, h. Need to include downloadable files of lecture slides.

Content is not always focused on main topic and questions of quizzes are not clear, answers are ambiguous.

Informative, however Indian dude's pronunciation is awful, luckily they have subtitles.

It's Ok, nothing much to gain iin terms of knowledge realted to cyber conflict.

Way too basic: about everything and nothing at the same time.

Wished the course was a deeper dive into this area.

Was ok, got a little boring after week 2

I felt the course was incomplete

great work with best effort

Not very challenging.

Not very in depth.

Too much generic

I think the course was OK, though not much more than that.

I was rather disappointed from the way professor Sanjay Goel carried his part: It was very dry. Not interesting. It was clear that he was reading from his papers rather then telling/ sharing something with us. It's almost better to just read the text- only that then one misses the pop-up questions.

Professor Williams lectures were much better to my opinion. He is far more engaged. I found his part more interesting and easier to follow.

Having said that, I'd like to thank them both for creating this course and putting an effort.

For me this course lacks substance. It is just high level and a quick insight. I feel it should be developed much further, broader and deeper before it should be on this platform. It might be good if you are completely unaware of the topic, but working in IT this brings nothing new.

Dated, limited and rather incoherent. Nothing about the role of AI in cybersecurity, shared notions are very general. Good introduction into early (2000s) academic approaches of cybersecurity though.

I was more interested in specific nation-state TTPs and less interested in fundamental terminology. This course was a minimum viable product offering. A bit disappointing.

Too much emphasis on the psychology of conflict. The last lecture references future lectures, but none exist. Doesn't seem to be well-organized.

Very basic, some of the points made are based too much in theory and don't relate to the reality of the cyber environment.

Professors accent very hard to understand. Week 5's lesson should be reviewed as may have no place in class

I'm sorry that I'm going to sound harsh, but this course is useless.

It touches so many different topics without going deeply into any of them. All you get is a basic knowledge about All Things Cyber鈩�.

The recommended readings are all over the place, the video captions look like they're just a basic speech recognition and like nobody actually proof read them. They're full of errors. Lecturers say one word, captions show a completely different word. Plus, they're full of spelling errors. (Kadafi regime in Libya!? Really!?)

You can get the same amount of knowledge by reading two or three Wikipedia pages. Don't waste your time on this course.

I have been trying to pass Exam 1 for 5 months. I have even went word for word with the Instructors for the answers and yet the test states the answers are incorrect. I passed the other Exams from Week 2 to Week 5 with easy. But Week 1 exam is very incorrect in its grading mechanism. FAIL. And I have been in cybersecurity for over 35 years.

Not engaging or easy to understand - the time frames are an underestimate