Good knowledge for the human

Excellent course !!!

Interesting course

Thank You

.

Although the content is really great, the technical aspect of the course made me almost give up.

Most of the course is based on "conversations" between the professor and expects on the field. My opinion is that it was more like long interview rather than a conversation.

That being said, most of the interviews were recorded in crowded places, with a lot of noise in the background. And for some reason, the interviews that were recorded in a quite environment, the volume was so low that I was straggling to keep up.

Finally, some of the questions on the tests were too long, based on story telling.

too long, too many materials to cover and too many readings while the quizes and the assessment was not on the same line. I prefer to have a project or case study rather than all these readings which are all(no exception) out-dated.

Audio problems are in all the clips with Peter. Ashvi is too all about attitude. "You know" is the word that I heard all the way from her. Otherwise the content was not that much of use or being useful. Interviews are not that much of help. Teach. Teaching is much better. I am here to learn. I can watch TV or read magazines.

Lectures were slow and kept putting me to sleep, no one is really taking the class so it takes forever to get your peer reviews done. Better off taking a data anyltics class

Intermediate and too many assignment. Question somehow leghty which make me confuse for time. This is my opinion

Until I submitted my assignment, I enjoyed the class. I am begrudgingly giving the class a single star as the individual who reviewed my assignment did so inaccurately and I am not sure how to protest this. If I can be satisfied, then my review may very well change. I am stymied that there is no easy method to question an individual's review.

The following are comments sent to my reviewer. I would appreciate instructions how I can remediate this situation.

1. As per instructions, "PROMPT

Please upload your detailed flowchart as a file attachment." The rubric, " Learner created a detailed flowchart (NOT a high-level flowchart).

Example of high level flowchart below:

MAKES NO SENSE!

2. "The flowchart is an accurate reflection of the actual process." In what way is my flow-chart NOT an accurate reflection of the process?

3. "Abbreviations were explained before they were used in the chart." This WAS NOT a criteria in the posted instructions - see details noted below. What kind of "TIE" is this??

9. The flowchart uses three or more decision nodes. The flowchart uses three (3) decision nodes noted in yellow. (1) "Is the Proposal approved..."; (2) "Is the Proposal recommended..."; (3) "Does TAC approve...".

10. The flowchart uses a decision node for something that was not a decision. Not an accurate review. Please note#9 above - all decision nodes were used - with Yes/No - accurately.

If this is a typical peer-review in this specialization, I cannot see the purpose to continue with these courses.

While I enjoy and appreciate the (paid) opportunity to learn and expand my knowledge with the highly professional team from Johns Hopkins University, I will not recommend it to anyone who wishes to gain the certificate. This specialization in general and the last course, "Culminating Project in Health Informatics", in specific are using the "peer-grade" method, which in theory is great. Still, it is not practical, so learners had to wait and bag in a shameful way for other learners to evaluate their work. Some "waiting to be reviewed" are over two years old.

That's very unprofessional and unethical. I have to submit $49 for Submitting a quiz now? Why is it so? I don't know If Anybody is reading this but I was enjoying learning the course and answering to the question but as soon as I finalized the quiz, They asked for $$$. Weird.