Sep 21, 2017
Great course. Difficult to apprehend sometimes as the Frequentist paradigm is learned first but once you get it, it is really amazing to see the believe update in action with data.
Apr 10, 2018
I like this course a lot. Explanations are clear and much of the (unnecessarily heavyweight) maths is glossed over. I particularly liked the sections on Bayesian model selection.
автор: Chidi O•
Aug 04, 2019
Poor lectures. Please look at the feedbacks on this given in the forums
автор: Matthew A H•
Aug 26, 2019
Disappointing drop in quality compared to previous courses in the specialisation. Lectures are just a verbatim copy of the accompanying book, with no additional context, and course assignments/quizzes expect you to know material not covered in the course (e.g. while working on a quiz, I would go back to the textbook, CTRL+F on key terms from the quiz questions, only for them not to be anywhere in the course material).
автор: Natalie R•
Sep 05, 2019
This course, compared to the others in the specialization, was a bit of a mess. The lectures were hard to follow with fewer exercises to check your learning than in previous courses. The "text" seemed to just be a bad transcript of the lectures with all sorts of errors. The labs were confusing and sometimes included incorrect or outdated instructions that caused me to waste a lot of extra time trying to figure out what was wrong. I enjoyed doing the final project, though, and learned a lot doing that.
автор: Juhong P•
Oct 03, 2019
Too difficult to catch up each week.
автор: Aydar A•
Dec 20, 2017
The worst course in the series.
It progresses at a hurricane speed, thus as usefull as the Maria. I have barely made and it was not a pleasant experience. In fact I drowned at the week 4. The only reason I did not drop the course is because I've already paid for the previous courses of the specialization and I need to complete specialization for the certificate.
I think only people who had bayesian stats before and take this course as a refresher might find it pleasant. Or people with very good knowledge of probability theory. For others it is just a waste of time, because you will not learn to sail during a hurricane.
I have checked the syllabus of the other course on Bayesian Stats offered on coursera and it covers the same material in 8 weeks(2 courses), so that course would probably be a better choice if you are considering taking this course individually.
автор: Erik F•
Jun 19, 2017
Unlike the previous sections in this specialization, this one has no reading material, nor does it have many problem sets to solve. You will definitely need to find external resources in order to complete this section, because numerous concepts are glossed over, explained vaguely, or explained poorly. I recommend Kruschke's "Doing Bayesian Data Analysis" as a very accessible way to learn Bayesian statistics. I'd have no confidence using Bayesian approaches in practice from only the material taught in this section. Frankly, this section seems like it was hastily thrown together, and I was very disappointed.
автор: Renat M•
Sep 08, 2017
The course is too sketchy: it does not provide enough materials to grasp the main ideas of Bayesian Statistics nor it gives any details about some formulas and important principles.
This course does not have a book to follow along as the previous courses had (statistics).
I had to spend more than 2 months to be able to understand all the concepts that this course was trying to teach. In this sense watching Youtube videos and reading papers was much more helpful than the entire course itself.
автор: Andrew O•
Aug 11, 2017
The change of instructors negatively affected this class. The new instructors are nowhere near as good at explaining the data and tending to start talking about things without even explaining what they where to to use a lot of activations, which one would need to continually look up.
автор: Cindy C•
Feb 05, 2017
This class assumes a lot of statistical knowledge and background that is not covered in the first three classes of the series. So much statistical terminology and jargon was used by the instructor, it felt like taking a class in another language where I had to constantly stop the video and google for the terminology she used. It took a lot of grit to finish the class, which was overall a very demoralizing and negative experience.
автор: QIAN Y•
Jul 29, 2016
The course lacks of explanation and it's very difficult to follow. It seems that the instructor just reads the slides without reasoning and explanation. Suggested reading materials are needed.
автор: Ilya P•
Sep 13, 2017
While the first 3 courses had ample examples, guided practices, and other tools to learn, this course does not. Quizzes do not have good explanations, and videos do not have guided practice. There is no book to follow, hence, learning the material is difficult.
Instructors need to rework the course to include books, guided practices, and guided R examples in order to aid comprehension.
автор: Alois H•
May 21, 2017
After a brilliant start of the specialization with courses Introduction, Inference and Regression, the Bayesian course comes as a harsh disappointment.
Weeks 1 and 2 give a useful introduction to Bayes' rule. However, I haven't learnt anything of significance after that. The main instructor's explanations are unclear, and in almost every single video there's a point where there's just too much confusion to get the overall message. This is extremely frustrating and, as mentioned, in sharp contrast to the other courses.
In my opinion this course would urgently need to be re-recorded. Preferably, with a lot more input from Dr Cetinkaya-Rundel, who's an extremely gifted teacher.
автор: Paul J•
Jul 02, 2017
Quizzes are not related to videos. There is very limited practice problems (the best way to learn math subjects).
автор: Tom D•
Aug 05, 2016
This course is not well-presented. Lectures are unimaginative, and there isn't enough supporting material or readings.
автор: Marina C R•
Jul 31, 2017
Unlike the first 3 courses of this specialization, which were excellent, this one is not recommendable at all. As many other students have reported, the teaching material is not enough neither to understand the subject nor to do the graded material. I am really disappointed because the problem seems to come at least 4 months ago but the teacher (which by the way is far to be as good as Mine) has not replied. Instead, mentors have suggested to use the forums to make questions but it is neither affordable nor acceptable.
автор: Chengyu H•
Jul 21, 2016
I don't understand how come this course can get such high reviews. My experience with this course is horrible. First of all, most quiz are poorly designed, lots of mistakes. For instance, there are 10 Qs in week 1, 3 of them have mistakes. Wasted me tons of times.
Lectures are also difficult to follow. Instructors usually just give formulas without further explanation. I forced myself to go through them until week 4, I finally give it up. I feel like it is a waste of my time. I need to find a better course on this topic.
Most coursera courses are very well designed. This one is the worst I have ever experienced.
автор: Markus S•
Sep 07, 2016
About two years ago I completed Dr. Mine's course "Data Analysis and Statistical Inference" and was quite impressed by it. I always hoped that there'd be a follow up on bayesian statistics, so I was really excited when I heard that a course on this topic had finally been created. However while attending the course I became more and more disappointed. Dr. Mine does a nice job explaining things, other teachers in this course aren't as talented. Most slides / videos are quite useless for teaching because they skip over important steps without giving appropriate explanations. Also I was quite disappointed that this course pretty much only focuses on conjugate priors. MCMC is only skimmed over and the introduction to MCMC is more than questionable - instead of showing a simple example, MCMC is squeezed into the topic of bayesian model selection. Another point is R - this course doesn't really teach bayesian stats with R. It teaches how to call one-liners like bayes_inference (from package statsr) or bas.lm (from package BAS) instead of lm. This is totally disappointing. I wish this course would skim over conjugate prior methods and then focus on MCMC sampling methods by teaching how to build interesting and practically useful models using JAGS/STAN/PyMC/whatever. For anyone interested in bayesian stats I'd recommend reading "Doing Bayesian Data Analysis - Using R, JAGS, and STAN" and "Probabilistic Programming and Bayesian Methods for Hackers". These books are actually cheaper than this course.
автор: Eszter A•
Sep 13, 2016
This course needs much more work from instructors before it gets offered to the public. It is poorly assembled, offers hardly comprehensible material with no or very few resources to turn to. Reading material is listed, but they are useful for people already skilled in Bayesian Statistics. Exercises are worded such, that even the questions are a challenge to understand. Quizzes contain material never mentioned during lessons. Discussion forums are left unanswered by the teaching staff - or if they reply, they do it in a very negligent manner. No support on the merits. A major disappointment.
автор: Donald A C•
Apr 09, 2017
The first three courses in this Duke series were superbly well done. I have taken numerous courses from Harvard and Johns Hopkins, and none of them compare in quality of execution of the first three Duke courses in this series.
And then there was Bayesian Statistics: much of the "instruction" in this course was truly awful. The quality of the slides and video and so on was still excellent, but the "teaching" was horrible. Vast amounts of totally unexplained jargon and very extensive equations were thrown at the students with the apparent assumption that the course was a review for postdoctoral statistics students. When material is beyond the scope of what perspective students can reasonably be expected to understand, faculty members should be honest enough to just say so rather than pretending to teach the subject matter.
I appreciate very much what the Duke faculty achieved in the first three courses, but the treatment of Bayesian statistics that I have just suffered through was shameful.
автор: Jeffrey W•
Jun 03, 2018
Unclear information, too vague, incomplete presentation of ideas.
автор: Chen Z•
Oct 26, 2016
I get really frustrated when the tutor doesn't explain lots of concept/symbols in the materials.....
автор: Ben R•
Apr 08, 2018
A frustrating course, especially when compared to the other courses in this specialization. Lectures alternated between over my head and not giving enough information. Projects seemed designed for someone with a better grasp of R. I will probably look for another course on Bayesian statistics, because I feel my grasp of these concepts is still weak.
автор: Lee E•
Nov 20, 2016
The first three classes in this certification were excellent; this course was anything but that. There seems to be a significant disconnect between the first three courses (probability, inference, linear regression) and the fourth course (bayesian). I do not have a strong statistics background but I felt the first three classes in the certification challenged me, while providing an adequate level of support and thorough / articulate examples; the pace was perfect. Yet, with the fourth course I believe that either: 1) there needs to be a bridge course that prepares you for the bayesian course, or 2) the material needs to be taught at a slower pace with more specific and well presented examples / frameworks to work from. Although I was able to complete the course, I will now have to find an alternative source to learn from in order to really understand bayesian stats.
автор: Cosma A•
Feb 15, 2018
1St problem speed of teaching, also other students complained
2With such a speed, material was too condensed for such a broad subject
3Not sufficient explanations for a statistics beginner
Jun 30, 2019
A huge leap from the other courses in the specialization, which are all extremely well-constructed. Terms are not introduced and explained properly, and the whole course seems very haphazard.