Indian
Post-Graduate
Programme – 2002-2003
(Second Year
Third Term)
Securities Regulations (SR)
Following are the questions on which the feedback has
been obtained on a ten point rating scale (except #7).
I. Course
1. This
course helped understand the subject matter effectively.
2. The
course achieved its stated objectives.
3. The course material (e.g. text, cases, readings, etc) were
helpful towards learning from the course.
4. The interactive processes of the course (e.g. class
participation and presentations, group discussions, project work etc.) were
helpful towards learning from the course.
5. The different components of the course had an evaluation
weightage in relation to the workload.
6. The evaluation was well paced during the course.
7. (Please see below)
8. All things considered, the course was excellent.
9. I took this course, since I had a strong prior interest in
this course.
10. This course enhanced my interest in the subject matter.
11. I would recommend this
course to future PGP participants.
|
Name of the course |
Ratings |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
Q5 |
Q6 |
Q8
|
Q9 |
Q10 |
Q11
|
|
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Securities |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Regulations |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
(0.5.Credit) |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
6 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
No. of |
7 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Respondents |
8 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
|
12 out of 15 |
9 |
4 |
6 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
|
|
10 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
|
AVG |
|
9.00 |
9.00 |
8.83 |
9.42 |
9.25 |
9.50 |
9.33 |
9.25 |
9.50 |
9.50 |
|
SD |
|
0.85 |
0.74 |
1.34 |
0.67 |
0.87 |
0.67 |
0.78 |
0.87 |
0.67 |
0.80 |
7. What is the time that you have put in for all activities of
the class, including the class time?
0.50 Credit:<25 hrs.; 25-35
hrs.; 35-45 hrs.; 45-55 hrs.; 55-65hrs.; 65-75 hrs.;>75hrs.
|
Q7
(hours) |
Mid-Point (1) |
Frequency (2) |
(1) *
(2) |
|
<25 hrs |
|
0 |
|
|
25-35 |
30 |
3 |
90 |
|
35-45 |
40 |
4 |
160 |
|
45-55 |
50 |
2 |
100 |
|
55-65 |
60 |
2 |
120 |
|
65-75 |
70 |
1 |
70 |
|
>75 hrs |
|
0 |
|
|
Total |
|
12 |
540 |
|
Wtd Avg |
|
|
45 |
II. Instructor
12. The
instructor was organized and well-prepared for class.
13. The instructor
was effective in communicating the concept in the class.
14. The
instructor stimulated interest in the subject matter.
15. The
instructor was approachable for interactions.
16. The
instructor was responsive to students’ learning difficulties.
17. The
instructor effectively managed the class time.
18. The instructor provided timely feedback on the various
components of the course (quizzes, exams, assignments, projects and class
participation)
19. All things
considered, the instructor did an excellent job in teaching this course.
|
Name of the instructor |
Q12 |
Q13 |
Q14 |
Q15 |
Q16 |
Q17 |
Q18 |
Q19
|
|
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Prof |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Sandeep |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Parekh |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
No of |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Respondents |
0 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
12 out of 15 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
2 |
4 |
|
|
7 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
7 |
9 |
7 |
|
|
9.58 |
8.92 |
9.42 |
9.58 |
9.67 |
9.58 |
9.67 |
9.50 |
|
SD |
0.51 |
1.24 |
0.67 |
0.51 |
0.49 |
0.51 |
0.65 |
0.67 |
The following feedback was
received from SR 2003 students.
Please write your open
ended comments about the instructor here:
·
One of the
most professional yet friendly /responsive instructor I have been taught by.
·
Very
enthusiastic
·
Good
selection of readings
·
Good range
of topic coverage during in-class discussions.
·
Effective
communication
·
All the
sessions were extremely good.
·
Excellent
instructor – made the classes really enjoyable and useful.
·
Good
industry background of instructor led to several practical insights which were
quite useful.
·
Professor
is very enthusiastic and active in the class.
He is appr oachable and well prepared in the class.
·
Made us
feel comfortable about the course and was very approachable.
·
It would be
useful to provide a summary/conclusion for each case; this would help in
revising the takeaways from the course.
·
The No. of
readings is high although they are not voluminous.
·
The course
is really exciting. The cases are exciting to read.
·
·
Extremely
relevant and practical with real life thoughts.
·
Quizzes
were great though I did not do well. Checked fundas very well.
·
The course
material (case material) organization is very confusing.
·
The
language of some cases was difficult to understand. It would be better if cases can be given in
concise form, e.g. as in the case: Smt. Urmila Bharuka V. Conventry Spring Ang.
Engeering Co.Ltd.
·
So many
case laws are not required. I suggest
only the conclusions would suffice. As it is the language prohibits
understanding the logic behind the judgments.
Also I guess a little more clarity is required from the instructor’s end
given that most of the class is having a first time exposure to legal matters.
·
Offer the
course next year make its 1 credit with more load + give more time for data
to sink in
·
Is it
possible to give us laws etc. in a slightly simplified language.