28C00800 Financial Markets and Institutions ( )

Transkriptio

1 8C00800 Financial Markets and Institutions ( ). My overall assessment of the course =Not applicable, =Fair, =Satisfactory, =Good, =Very good, =xcellent Number of respondents: The teaching methods (lectures, labs, group work, online study, assignments etc.) supported my learning =Not applicable, =Strongly disagree, =Disagree, =Neither agree nor disagree, =Agree, =Strongly agree Number of respondents:

2 . I am pleased with my study effort on this course =Not applicable, =Strongly disagree, =Disagree, =Neither agree nor disagree, =Agree, =Strongly agree Number of respondents: According to the guidelines, one credit (CTS) requires 7 hours of student work. Compared with this, the completion of the course required =Not applicable, = Considerably less time, = Slightly less time, = The right amount of time, = Slightly more time, = Considerably more time Number of respondents:

3 . Teaching was =Not applicable, =Fair, =Satisfactory, =Good, =Very good, =xcellent Number of respondents: I achieved the learning outcomes set for the course.=not applicable, =Strongly disagree, =Disagree, =Neither agree nor disagree, =Agree, =Strongly agree Number of respondents:

4 7. What was good about the course? Which factors in particular supported your learning? Number of respondents: 0 Wide enough point of view. The whole system is covered. No nonsense details. Very good! Term paper and case were quite demanding, which was good. ntertaining lectures with good pacing, easy to follow. The projects were really interesting and I learned a lot in the process to complete them Term paper and case had both excellent scope Interesting content was covered. Timely manners, all lectures were connected with news around. I liked the lectures and the slides were good. I think I got a good basic understanding about financial markets and institutions and how they work. Hard to find anything compared to other courses in this school Some of the discussion at the lectures was interesting. Good overall view of the global financial institutions. Reallife examples were a plus. The structure of the subject on the course was easy to follow and clear. Also the recent topics handled were interesting. Unfortunately I could not make it to the lectures. I liked the guest lecture as it provided a different kind of angle towards our subject. Also the lecture slides were wuite understandable even afterwards readed when preparing to the exam. Kurssin aihealue oli mielenkiintoinen, huonosti käsitelty. Te examples were interesting Case demanded going deep into the subject which supported learning. I think that the overall subject was something that is very important for Finance student to know. I liked that we used several learning methods during the course: two group works, lectures, exam, and a movie. Also, it was a pleasure to listen Vesa Puttonen throughout the course. He certainly knows the subject of which the course is dealing with. The course was very informative and the contents were very up to date. In addition, the course encouraged me to read and follow recent news about uropean financial markets, which also kept me motivated and interested. Lectures were entertaining and interesting. Kurssi itsessään oli erittäin mielenkiintoinen ja varsinkin kurssin aikana suoritetut harjoitukset tukivat sitä loistavasti. 8. What would you change in the course and how? Number of respondents: More clear info about grading of assignments. Some inconsistencies with lecture slides, although very much in sync with the course book. Sometimes hard to pick up the most important points from the materials. > clearer structuring to slides. The methodology is too conference style, it would be interesting to make the class more interactive with solving more cases during class instead of going through a dense powerpoint presentation. The content is good but I always found myself lost after the first 0 mins The lecture slides could have been clearer and better structured. Now we studied slides for lecture 7 during lecture 9 Speak more about the exam, earlier on, rather than solely at the end. Make passing the final not mandatory because this is a recommended course for exchange students. They generally only get one attempt at the exam and if something unforseen affects their performance or if they just happen to have a bad day. They (unlike their Finnish counterparts) do not get a chance to retry the exam. Lecturer should speak louder and clearer during lectures. Nonrelevant exam questions, very weak assignments and rewatding bonus points for people who do not fulfill the assignment. Best case was 0 pages long with pages of text when the max limit was 0. Vesa directed that content matters, not length, yet he rewards assignments with paskanjauhantaa while summarized

5 assignments who have the same key points mentioned do not even get full points. Could have discussed institutions outside Western world e.g. huge Asian markets (Chinese central bank, Abenomics). Not useful course and very unhappy! The course was good overall, but I don't think the exam really measured my basic understanding of financial markets and institutions. Some questions were good, but I didn't realise that I was e.g. supposed to learn whether Aktia or Nordea is more costefficient. I would have understood the question if we had focused on that during the course (like with Deutsche Bank and Monte dei Paschi), but now it just felt really irrelevant. I think I learned a lot during the course but just did not have the chance to show it in the exam. Maybe the exam would work better if there were more questions, so if you missed something you wouldn't lose that many points straight away (like in the truefalse sentences). If there are so few questions, then they could be more broad; for example asking about bank's costefficiency overall rather than comparing two significant bank's ratios. First of all teaching by mr. Puttonen was bad. This is mostly because the lecture slides were horrible. Slides were not suitable to university course material in my opinion. There was lot of concepts that were poorly explained or not explained at all. Secondly, the exam was too fiddly. That would not be a problem but the fact that Mr. Puttonen said several times that students should understand rather than commit to memory. One example was the true/false question "Central banks were invented in 7th century because nations needed funding for war and for their debts". Really? this was one sentence in 00 page document that was about what central banks learned from the crisis. Doesn't sound to me that this was something we needed to "understand". Overall, I'm really disappointed to the course and I'm hoping that there will be huge impairment at next years course... The final exam was a disgrace. Not only were some of the questions irrelevant (does Aktia have a higher costtoincome ratio than Nordea) but the answers were not included in the course material. Case and materials; Get rid of the ridiculous questions in the exam asking to compare Nordea's and Aktia's C/I ratios cannot be considered to be an essential part of the learning outcomes of the course. For the case work, a common ppt layout could perhaps be provided to make the slides comparable in terms of with you can actually fit in them. Maybe try to get the term paper more closely related to the subjects of the course or somehow it felt like it was just something extra to do. Luentodiat olivat vähintään huonot, liian täynnä, liikaa kuvaajia etc. Lähtökohtaisesti vaikeita seurata jos diat liian täynnä. Panostaisin laadukkaisiin dioihin. Kurssitentti ei mitannut mitenkään sitä, kuinka kurssin asiat ovat hallussa. Toisaalta jos oikeasti mittasi, itseltäni meni 00% ohi, mitä kurssilla oli tarkoitus oppia. Tentin tulisi olla opetustapahtuma ja itsessään tentti on viimeinen asia, joka kurssista jää mieleen, huono tentti ei tue oppimista. Itse en näe mitenkään relevantiksi kysyä esim, Nordean ja Aktian costtoincome ratioita yms. marginaalisia ja merkityksettömiä asioita. Mielestäni tentissä ei siis tulisi käsitellä kuvaajien alatekstejä vaan keskittyä kokonaiskuvaan, kukaan ei kuitenkaan nippeleitä v päästä muista, kokonaiskuvan voi muistaa. Casetehtävä, jossa tuli tehdä diaesitys.. Parhaat pisteet saanut ryhmä oli ainakin omasta mielestäni (ja monen muun) tehnyt aivan hirveän huonon diasetin. Valtaosa oli tehnyt vastaavia, sillä olivat kuulleet kurssin jo käyneiltä, että vastaavilla saa hyvät pisteet. Itse diaesityksenä se oli aivan surkea, eikä millään tavalla ''esityskelpoinen''. Yleisesti ottaen mielestäni saman tehtävän olisi voinut tehdä mielummin samaan tyyliin kuin term paperin. Jos sinne halutaan niin paljon tavaraa kuin tässä ''parhaassa casessa'' ei se ole hyvä diaesitys. Väitettäni tukee kaikki kurssit, joilla on käsitelty hyvän esityksen rakentamista. Tämä paras case näytti meidän ryhmän luonnokselta... The format for the casestudy was a powerpoint slideshow. But when looking at the example of the best case, it was actually nothing like a good slideshow should look like. If the idea is just to get as much information as

6 possible, then why make students even try to fit in 0 slides? The exam questions were too specific taking into account that there were 00 slides to read and you had to remember specific parts on one slide and got minus points if you did not remember it correctly. The exam had some quite precise questions. I think that they didn't test if the student has actually achieved the objectives of the course, i.e. knowing what kinds of institutions there are in the Financial markets, how to read financial news, etc. But overall, the course was good. ven though the whole course concentrated in understanding the big picture of the uropean financial markets, the questions in the first test focused too much on small details and definitions of the course material. Some of the questions were so detailed that I questioned their relevance in terms of the whole course. Hence, the test could be improved by setting up more questions that test the students' understanding of the uropean financial market instead of whether they have studied Nordea's and Aktia's balance sheets by heart. The exam's true/false questions were particularly annoying. You effectively lose 6 points if you answer wrongly to a question that is somewhat unclear. For example was the Swedish central bank truly established to fund wars? This is something I cannot learn from the lecture slides, the course book or the web pages of Swedish central bank. The web page only mentions that it was used to fund a war, but not if that was its original purpose. Tentti jätti erittäin pahan maun suuhun, se mittasi todella kömpelösti opiskelijan osaamista (marginaaliväittämät monivalinnoissa..). Mielestäni tentissä olisi hyvä olla pari laajempaa esseekysymystä, jotka mittaavat opiskelijan kokonaisymmärrystä. The exam seemed to focus on trivial matters, and had a significant amount of marks for questions that have no real meaning for financial markets and institutions, but are just there to trick students.