Class,
Lecture 3 was a fast paced one. It combines almost 1.5 sessions worth of material (under the original schedule) into 1 session. So if you felt this lecture was a tad fast, you wouldn't be alone.
I got asked today about why I am trying to cover 'so much' in the compressed schedule. I think it is another aspect of the lecture-3-speed-will-continue syndrome. The agenda laid out in lecture 1 - the 6 major tools - that is all I intend to cover and that IMO is the bare basic of what an MBA class should take away from a MKTR course, especially when it is the only MKTR course they will do in the course of their business masters.
Also, if one scans the textbook for like 10-15 minutes before class (the summary, key definitions, key classifications) from the relevant textbook chapter before class, the class won't feel so fast paced and overwhelming, perhaps.
If too many people turnup for the R tutorial (unlikely I know, going by the poll results so far), we can have another identical session but that is a far cry at the moment.
Sudhir
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dear Prof Sudhir,
ReplyDeleteIn lecture 3 you did mention that you are planning to remove Conjoint and Perceptual maps from the course syllabus. I would like to admit that these were two out of the three topics for which I opted for the course. The third one was survey design.
I am sure that there would be many students who would want to really learn these topics. Right now in the class we are talking about a lot of definitions. Would it be possible to compress them a little bit so that we can talk about topics such as Conjoint and MDS? I sincerely feel that there would be more fun in doing those topics as compared to the basic definitions.
Thanks
Hi Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteTks for the feedback. Conjoint will be covered quite extensively in courses in term 6 and 7, I have reliably come to know. Hence, my coverage of conjoint will not be extensive, indepth or hands-on.
Perceptual maps, I fully intend to cover.
Wouldn't want folk who have bid precious points to take this course to be let down. At the same time, there are constraints that will make well nigh impossible to please everybody.
I took a middle path with R - made it optional and promised code - precisely because there were folk who had come to me saying they were hoping to see quant coverage in the course.
Anyway, those are matters for another day.
Sudhir