･
Review 1
･
Average rating 2.0
- A lecture that covers general CS knowledge, but the knowledge gained is shallow I think the name of the lecture is more appropriate as “CS Major Knowledge Notes for Interviews” than “CS Knowledge Essentials.” It may be helpful for those who are preparing for an interview in a hurry without any major knowledge or those who know nothing about CS and want to know the general outline. It doesn’t seem to be helpful for others. I know that it covers CS in general and only tells you the important things briefly so that it’s not boring. So I don’t have any complaints about the shallow content itself, but there are many other regrettable points. # Regrettable Points - Explains only easy content at length When explaining, it lists explanations like wiki articles. It’s not always like that, it explains easy content at length and just lists things that are difficult to understand at once. I wish it didn’t make lectures about things like binary that can be understood with just one Google search. It feels like the quality of the lecture is low because it’s explained at that level. - The lecture is crazy When you turn on the PPT and lecture, you habitually underline, circle, or arrow every part while reading the text, so it’s crazy. Even if it's not related, you habitually hit it. I wish you would just highlight it. Also, you repeat the interjection and use a lot of unnecessary words. Please only use interjections like "Okay" and "Look." once and do not explain the same thing repeatedly. Since this is a recorded lecture, not a real-time lecture, if the student doesn't understand, they can watch it again. - Inappropriate examples When giving examples to explain something, the instructor uses a field of interest. I can understand the content, so the example itself is fine, but I'm worried that someone might not understand, so I explain it again. Since it's a short lecture, it would be better to give examples that everyone can understand at once during the time it takes to explain it. - Drips I can sense that you're trying to make the lecture fun, but you're using more drips than necessary in a lecture that should be short and concise. If it were a long lecture, you would have made it less boring, but since the lecture is short, it's just a waste of time. I don't want to know the instructor's TMI, tastes, or favorite memes. In particular, I hope you refrain from using drips like M (Ami), "AV"L. If I heard it on YouTube, I would have laughed, but when I listened to it in a lecture where I was paying to learn, I felt like it was a waste of money. - The textbook is insincere The textbook is insincere overall. I thought it would be similar to the book “CS Major Knowledge Notes for Interviews” that the instructor gave me, but it seems like a notebook that a college student made for his own study. Please write it in either a modified or descriptive format. When giving a lecture, please do not attach a scribbled picture like a doodle, but create a separate document and attach it. - The textbook is frequently revised It seems to have been revised about 6 times in the past two months. Those who take notes in the textbook and listen to the lecture should find out which parts have been revised and compare them to check. It is good that you are consistently interested in the lecture, but I wish you had released a complete textbook from the beginning. If it is not urgent, rather than paying for this lecture, check out the well-organized list of CS questions for interviews on GitHub.
A lecture that covers general CS knowledge, but provides shallow knowledge >> Among the CS lectures available on the market, the most are 178 lectures, 21 hours long, explaining deep things deeply and shallow things shallowly. For example, my lecture is the only one that explains refresh tokens and access tokens for jwt tokens, and that lecture goes beyond concepts to "examples" and actually implements them. Also, the network lecture is 7 hours long... It can never be considered shallow in any aspect. I wish they didn't make lectures about things like binary that can be learned by just typing it into Google once. I feel like the quality of the lectures is poor because they explain things at that level. >> At first, there was no lecture explaining binary. However, there were students who didn't understand binary, so to solve that, I added a lecture that explained binary in more detail so that they could understand it more. There are lectures that are easy like binary, but they also explain difficult concepts. Especially M (Amy), “AV”L, etc. >> I was talking as if I was making a joke, but there was a part where the pronunciation was explained as M~, and I just told you that wasn’t it. The textbook is not sincere overall. >> It’s a textbook of about 340 pages.... I put my heart into it, and it’s not just filled with big pictures, but with a lot of text. I explained it so that you can sufficiently review it with the textbook. Also, I think you’re saying that the textbook is not sincere because it doesn’t unify the modified and descriptive formats, but when it needs to be modified, it’s modified, and when it needs to be descriptive, it’s descriptive. Usually, it ends with ~하다., but when it’s modified, it ends with a noun such as ~하다., etc. For example. The Black Swan Protocol is explained like this. Black Swan Protocol If the system goes down, the Black Swan Protocol is issued and the following rules are followed. 1. Check the affected system and the relative risk level of each system ... As explained above, ~ follows. And the list list is checked, etc. When giving a lecture, please do not attach a doodle-like drawing >> I reviewed the entire textbook, but the only drawing that looks like a doodle is the deadlock explanation part. The deadlock drawing should show a person killing another person, but it was just drawn cutely. The textbook is frequently revised >> Of course, I understand that the process of comparing the textbook is cumbersome as it is revised. That is why I also try to do updates all at once and minimize revision notices as much as possible. However, if the student gives feedback that ~~ is needed, I think ~~ should be added. Isn't a lecture that doesn't do that a worse lecture? I think that additional work, an update process that reinforces the existing lecture content and makes it more detailed is necessary. Thank you.
