To take part in discussions on talkSFU, please apply for membership (SFU email id required).
Fall 2010 Grades - Yes the thread we've all been waiting for
I wanted to start this one off as I notice it hasnt been created yet. If anyone wants to share their grades and relish in their glory. I'm still waiting for my 275 grade, but according to the syllabus it should be a b+ @ 81%.
Fire away.
edit: actually turned out to be an A-.
Fire away.
edit: actually turned out to be an A-.
Comments
BUEC 232: B+
ECON 103: C+
MATH 157: C+
:(
Lost my scholarship, so I'm kind of disappointed. But math and economics just aren't my subjects, so I'm not super surprised. Still, finished my 9 lower division classes for Business with a 3.20 GPA for them, so my transfer into Business is pretty much guaranteed now.
CMPT 320: C (oh oh.. ouch)
CMPT 320: C+ Wanted to do better, but not surprised, I really didn't enjoy that class...
CMPT 250: C+ .. really expected better in that one... guess I should have worked harder
CMPT 225: Edit: A+.
kind of a nice surprise, i was hoping for A-
MACM 201: B
disappointed in my MACM mark.. I worked my ass off but I was one/two lectures behind for most of the course. I had to spend my entire time studying just to try to understand the material instead of practicing it. Im scared for cmpt307 :(
CMPT 320: A+
The course was ok, I enjoyed some of the videos Hadley showed us in lecture and the stuff on AI and Privacy, but the rest of the material was pretty boring
Other than that, I regret buying the 100$ textbook, which I only opened once and resold for 20$
CHEM 126: A
MBB 322: A
MBB 323: A
MBB 331: C+ (thought I was going to fail the course, so I didn't study for the final and it turned out being easy)
CMPT320 was pretty terrible IMO... It seemed that some of the things he said were factually wrong about AI and quantum computing... The final's focus was way too memory oriented... I guess I just suck at humanities courses...
For 320, I agree it was just memorization and regurgitation for the midterm and final. I tried hard in the course because I knew I was going to get a B/ B+ at max in MACM.
You took 320 with Hadley? That is terrible. The way he taught the course when I took it was more appropriate to the 1980's than the 2000's.
We should have been discussing privacy, net neutrality, file sharing, and other relevant modern issues. Instead, we covered cancer-causing computer monitors that haven't been produced in decades, whether making a computer run loops was equivalent to torture, and the plight of skilled workers being replaced by computers.
Now, relevance aside, these are all valid issues worthy of debate. My biggest problem with the course was that his tests consisted of repeating his opinion back to him, and I vehemently disagreed with his opinions.
I still hold a grudge from his final, where a question worth 5% of the grade asked us to recall the names of some obscure fiction authors he mentioned in passing during lecture.
Yes! I refrained from posting to avoid being an ass, but the above seems to reflect my opinions... "Cookies can steal your SIN from your computer!!" "quantum computers can break encryption so we should not research them", etc. These seem like.. blatantly incorrect claims... Not to mention, almost all of the problems and disasters relating to computers use, just came down to human misuse... The videos were hilarious, they animated computer viruses, the worst viruses were animated with more spikes than the not so bad viruses. They made DDoS seem like some super genius act of hacking...
Sadly, when compared to the TAs, Hadley was actually brilliant and fair... I'm not sure if it's appropriate to go into too much detail, but one of the TAs seemed to just give marks arbitrarily. Marks were lost for "thoughtfulness", but no comments were made why things weren't thoughtful. Marks were lost for "grammar", because there were words the TA didn't know, but were used in grammatically correct contexts...
I kind of wonder if someone shares my sentiments on this... Does anyone think that the "Chinese Room", is just an act of trolling? Seriously... it claims that the Turing Test is invalid, yet proposes something orders of magnitude dumber. The "Robot Reply" is somehow even more idiotic than the Chinese Room. My guess is that Searle himself submitted the Robot Reply (I can't find any citation of who came up with it). The sheer stupidity of it distracts from how stupid the Chinese Room is. So then Searle can make a counter-argument that makes him look intelligent, and makes his theory seem more sound, when the Robot Reply was just something that shouldn't even have been considered an argument...
Regarding the final, I think I must have only got 30% or so. Practically the only name I recognized on the entire exam was Feynman, and that's only because he was actually relevant to anything useful... i.e. the field of Physics.
Come to think of it, if I wanted to become famous, I should just come up with some asinine theory regarding ethics
I really hope it gets better than this, otherwise it's probably time to change majors, or hope that co-op somehow makes me hate school less...
[/rant]
cmpt 320: B+
cmpt 470: B+
cmpt 361: C-
overall this was my best semester ever :D
Educ 220: A-
Educ 240: A
Hist 212: B+
Kin 142: B
This was my first semester at sfu as a transfer student and it went well.