The following comments were typed by Sujata Davis from written student comments. They have been slightly edited to protect the identity of the student. If any students recognize their remarks and wish to have them removed for any reason, please ask Sujata (not the instructor) to remove them.

The comments were given here so that students considering this course can have a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the course and of the instructor as perceived by previous students.

• He had difficulty in explaining some of the material. He should put more useful comments on the homeworks and tests.
• As much as Harvey says he understands how difficult the material at hand, he doesn't. He expects you to be able to understand something on the second pass. I'm afraid to ask questions in class, for fear of a demeaning response, or if I'm lucky a "you should know this," or "this is really transparent by now." He adds a "problem session" which is really just another class period. I don't know about University policy, but this seems unfair. He makes his students feel stupid with such comments as "I don't expect you to understand this" (then why bother saying it is not to confuse us?) and looking at someone's homework and blurting out to the class "well you obviously made a mistake." I feel that although he has written his own text for the class, it would be better taught by someone else.

• The weekly summaries were a waste of time. They did not help learn the course materials, and his responses to them could be much better. The book itself is okay, but it needs to be a little clearer in some areas.
• The workload is obscene. Completeing (sic) some of the assignments from Tuesday to Thursday takes over 5 hours. For all that he considers us ignorant undergrads, I sometimes feel like I'm in a graduate course.
• The book structure is rather confusing, the questions at the end of the chapters should be listed instead of given in paragraphs.

• I think he did an ok job of presenting the material considering how difficult the subject is. However he can be difficult to get along with as a person. I think he expects a little too much of his students. Also he often makes you feel stupid because you'll ask a question and his response is "It's simple, you can do it in one line, I don't see what's so hard about it." I feel like he is a stereotypical physicist who knows lots about the subject but has no people skills. He also gives confusing answers when asking a question in class
• Gould was rather helpful when I got him outside of class. Presentation of material in class was ok but often hard to follow - items could be covered in odd order and in pieces, but sometimes was very clear. His preassembled set of notes that served as primary text were well organized but a tough read.
• Harvey would like to be an amazing teacher, and he would like his students to develop a strong and in-depth understanding of the Physics he is teaching. His efforts to allow his students to construct their own knowledge of the subject matter are commendable; I greatly appreciate that he really wants us to understand the fundamental physics behind phenomena rather than just being able to regurgitate (sp??) mathematical formulae. Where he fails in promoting the confidence and self esteem of his students. His belittling comments - although not intentionally so - do not encourage learning, they hinder it, in fact discourage so. For example, responding to a students question, "that is easy, it's simple, you should know how to do that," does not change the fact that for the student it may have been difficult. As a result, the student only feels inept and uniteligent (sic), and is turned off by the topic. Harvey does 90% of what he does right - but the missing 10% is particularly unproductive.
• I think Professor Gould is a horrible instructor. His lectures are god awful (sic) boring and don't teach me anything. I feel the way he teaches is not effective at all. He mumbles his speech and it is often difficult to follow his sentences. He thinks we should know the answers to every single question and then if we ask him about the question his response is usually, "you should already know that," or "I'll answer that later" which he never gets around to. I feel as if I would know so much more about this material supposedly covered in this course if I had another instructor. I feel as if I wasted my and my parents hard-earned money on this course because of the lack of knowledge I gained from it, especially since it is for my major. The only reason I stuck with this horrible course was because it was required for my major. Overall, I think Professor Gould should not be teaching here at Clark. I feel he might do better possible (sic) at another institution but not at Clark. I am greatly disappointed in him and this class.
• Harvey is a very smart man and has an incredible understanding of the material covered in this course. The main problem is that he fails to see how students can not. His teaching style is very interactive with the class which is good in principle but carried out the wrong way. If he expects students to figure material out and reason through it on their own, he needs to be constructive rather than demeaning when we ask questions. Saying "you should know this" when someone asks a question is pointless; clearly they don't know if they're asking. It seems that subconsciously, his method of teaching is strongly tied to making students feel like idiots, which makes class a pain to sit through.

• It seems fine, very difficult though
• Organized well with the weekly summary and generally helpful homework sets. Problem sessions, which were required, were after when the work was due, though this may have been due to scheduling issues. Homework was generally one-try, providing as disincentive to try again after problem sessions
• The course, although difficult, with lots of homework and reading, has taught me a fair amount. If I had more time I might really enjoy it, but as of now, with four other classes, it is difficult to devote enough time to. All in all, its okay - you might as well enjoy it, because if you 're taking it you're a physics major, and you have no choice. P.S. - Don't be late.
• This course was possibly one of the worst courses I have taken in my time here at Clark University. I feel the assignments did not help me whatsoever in my learning of new knowledge. The tests were ridiculously hard and the lectures and the notes he gave us were impossible to follow. That poorly written "book" he wrote was so difficult to follow and I felt as if it assumed the reader had a vast knowledge on the subject already. I feel as if I learned nothing from this class and think the whole course needs to be revamped. Now I have read the comments from previous years about Gould and this course and I see no improvement. if you are going to make us write these and "value" them for your evaluations then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. That was one of the most frustrating things I have dealt with all semester that everybody in the past hated him and this class, yet it remains unchanged.
• The subject matter is very interesting. I very much enjoy the grading policy on the homework. Sometimes I feel assignments are lengthy and tedious, but for the most part, they're not bad. My main problem is that Harvey claims to "frontload" this course by adding extra classes in the afternoon for the beginning of the semester. In actuality, these extra sessions have continued throughout the semester, not just for the first part. If he wants to meet 3-5 hrs/week, he should initially schedule the class for that long.

• Dr. Gould certainly knows the material and is able to present it satisfactorily through his notes and going over the notes in class. My main complaint would be that he takes off points on the exams without explanation and sometimes seemingly on parts that do not warrant it
• Terrible handwriting, knows the material, randomly takes off points on the exams, encourages his students to read outside of class, as boring as the reading might be, does not encourage swearing in class, sometimes uses a poor word choice, uses a blackboard as opposed to a white board.

• Some of the homework problems were helpful while others were annoying and not very helpful. Most problems were in between. Some of the problems should be rewritten so they are clearer. The e-mail policy, which consists of us having to email Dr. Gould weekly on our progress, is a weekly annoyance that added absolutely nothing positive towards the course. the problems on the tests that require written answers should be eliminated or at least improved to make them clearer
• It would be helpful to know what our grade is based on. the summary via email is very annoying and not only not helpful but rather annoying. The (originally not scheduled) extra sessions make it difficult to like the course. Making students write a physics paper on unclear subject is not a good idea.

• I don't think I have ever had a conversation with Harvey in which he didn't insult me or say something amazingly rude. He claims to love being asked questions - for how can one learn if they don't ask questions about things they don't understand? Yet despite this desire, if one is so bold as to ask Harvey a question, they are immediately put down, insulted and made to feel like less of a person. Overall, I hate being in class with him and having to deal with him on a regular basis.
• Harvey is an excellent teacher, but his teaching style needs to be tweeked. This class is difficult to understand and probably even more difficult to teach. However, many missing components of the book as well as a general absence of an introduction to this material hampered my progress in this class.
• Very enthused to teach. Very open to comments. Helpful.

• This course was very difficult. Harvey claims that this is due solely to the subject matter, but I believe the subject is not too difficult, but his horrible teaching makes it nearly unbearable. I truly hope never to take a class with Harvey again.
• The book needs to be worked on to create more of an outsider-friendly read. It may seem pretty easy for a physicist to derive a multiple sum-over-states, but to many people its a little hard to visualize entirely in your head.
• A little more cleaning up with the text, nothing much needs improving.

• Professor Gould assumes that each student possesses or should possess more knowledge than he/she has actually attained. ex. "You should know this," "You know this." I am a student that needs feedback in order to learn. In this class, the only feedback received was either a large red "X" going through an answer or "No." This didn't allow for any learning from mistakes. The justification for this lies on the presumption that students should ask in class in order to aid other students with similar questions. This was the reason for my impending doom.
• He is an excellent teacher whom was enthusiastic about teaching, tho this fluctuates thru out the course. However, to expect students to know the material at each class is a bit much. In fact, it is because of this that his enthusiasm seemed to flag. He did become somewhat condescending at times. But, I believe this is due to a failure of his expectations of us. Each student learns at a different pace and method and for such a small class he should have modified his teaching methods. He should not expect the student to be so quick to understand or know something which he has had much experience.
• Professor Gould knows the subject incredibly well. However, I feel that his way of teaching is not very effective. It seems that for the amount of time that I put into this class I should know it cold but I don't. It is very frustrating. In the few instances where I have gone to him for help I have been very intimidated and I have been scared to ask him questions. However, he is always willing to help.
• Harvey does a really good job helping students to understand the problems presented in class. However, his high standards often make students feel helpless or foolish. Comments tend to start with "You should know this ..." Comments like this one tends to make students feel like morons (especially, if the answer is simple).

• This course, as taught by Professor Gould, was anything but an easy undergraduate introduction to stat and thermal physics. The material went by very fast, and anyone who missed a concept that would be the cornerstone of the remaining class, was left in a daze. Many of the problems in the book didn't help me at all, answers would be very helpful. Answers to problems are also a teaching tool.
• Put all problems at end of chapter. For those problems which are relevant to what the chapter is about, turn them into relevant examples. Place more examples with a step by step explanation of how to do these problems. If problems are too important, place links to the section. In this way there is less clutter. Create a summary section which contains the core ideas. This section should give students an idea of what to look for and force them to go thru the chapter to determine the rest of the concepts and their uses. This course should be a year long with more time devoted to each section to ensure understanding.
• I think Professor Gould's teaching style is not good. I have never had a professor like him. The homework assignments are effective, but are rather lengthy. The exams are fair for the most part. I think writing a paper is a good idea. I just wish I had more time to devote to it.
• The reading handout should be passed out earlier. There were several times when I was ahead in the reading handouts,but once I was done, I waited for the next set. As soon as the set was handed out the class covered the first several topics. This procedure can set a student back.
• The book is structured badly, doesn't usually describe things well, it focuses on too many details and not a unified approach, especially in chapter 4. Everything is interesting, but the book is unnecessarily tedious in some sections.

• Very thoughtful and clear presenter of material.
• I find him to be an excellent instructor. I like the way he makes the course extremely interactive. His enthusiasm about improving the course is great. I don't know whether he does this purposefully, but he teaches the students the importance of self-discipline and self-motivation. If you don't have those, you would not be able to grasp the concepts well enough and the results would not be quite satisfactory. This course requires a lot of work and effort.

• Problems assigned were very helpful (well chosen exercises); however if I became stuck, I would feel hesitant to ask, which made these problems useless. Problems involving the computer should have applets or sim's prepared, because figuring out how to do them slows things down unnecessarily if a student doesn't happen to be in the habit of programming (even though the programming would be simple). An attempt to at every step state - or ask - what are the assumptions and domain of applicability of derived (or posited) relationships would be the most helpful alteration of the course and text.
• I wish we had more problem-solving sessions with the instructor or with a graduate student. I would also have liked to have a year-long course, rather than a semester long. It just seems that a lot of things were discussed quickly or were not looked at.

• A reasonable instructor who has a solid knowledge of the subject. The problem is in presenting material. The course matter is very complex therefore more work on the board would be more useful, than just having class discussions. Although it was taught with enthusiasm it lacked clarity.
• Harvey is obviously very concerned with helping people to truly understand the material in his course. The only problem is that he's not sure what the most effective method of doing that is. I find the course style to be a very challenging. The style is largely question driven which forces me to prepare more for this class than for most other classes I've had. Harvey is a compassionate man who will always help anyone who does not understand something. Overall he is a good teacher who tries very hard and ends up conveying information very well.
• Very enthusiastic about teaching. He could prepare a little bit more before class.
• Harvey often breezes through material and expects a lot from student. But that, I think is his way of pushing students. I actually enjoyed the lectures because we had a chance to go over stuff and ask questions. One had to have done the reading and tried to understand it before going over it in class. Otherwise you would feel like an idiot. Harvey expects a lot from his students in a good way though, I liked that one class where we talked for an hour about the future in physics. Harvey should take his time to explain things more. One advice would be slow down. Otherwise a great guy.
• Prof. Gould's style of teaching is unconventional, but extremely effective if done correctly. Rather than straight lecture, we read from a draft of a book which he wrote, answer questions in the reading, and ask questions in class. If he were to just lecture us, it would be difficult to absorb because it is always difficult to concentrate on the subject and copy notes at the same time. By reading the draft beforehand and trying to understand as much as possible, it allows us to use classtime to clear up any confusion about the reading. As long as the reading is done before class, this methods works perfectly well. Because of this informal class styled coupled with the reading, I believe that Prof. Gould has an incredibly effective teaching strategy.
• He is hard to understand: he uses too many analogies instead of definitions. However, he is good at giving examples about the material; they are mostly practical, real examples, about the application of the material on the real world. He always makes us to go after the information and develop our own concepts, and that is a great quality, because it improves our learning. The only problem is that he usually does that by assigning homework about a material which has not been covered yet.

• The notes need a lot more simplification. As a sophomore I faced several difficulties understanding the notes. The same notes were being used by grad classes so it is clear that they weren't easy. Not enough examples were given in the text. Exams were useful and a lot of work was required for them. Weekly journals helped keep a track of how the course was coming along.
• I don't think the exams should be take-home, although I am too much of a coward to say that in class. More than half the class took too much time on the first exam but doctored their logs, which I think is really unfair. One student even approached me about one of the questions but I told him nothing. In class exams would get rid of these problems. If they are take home people should be able to work on them as long as they want to.
• I did not like the journal requirement. All other aspects of the course were quite effective.
• There should be a back up reference other than harvey's text. Reif is good. Assignments were good. Loved the exams. Overall a good class.
• The problems assigned in the text were the most valuable/effective aspects of course because I had to think critically in order to solve them. I believe that the structure of the course is ideal given the complexity of the subject material, and I wouldn't change it.
• The course puts together simple concepts like temperature and probability and tie them all together, expand beyond any previous experience. Although I have seen some of the material, I feel like I learned everything from scratch, because the material is introduced on a totally different point of view. The homework is very helpful to understand the material - on this course, using the material to solve the problems is sometimes the only way to actually learn a lot of the material.

• He is entertaining, and he taught the material well.
• Not very clear.
• Overall, not bad but his demands are not very reasonable. Example: we were asked to plot complicated graphs while the basic idea can be obtained by sketching. Being late for nine o'clock class is counted as absence. And his comments on homework are less than thorough. His questions in homework and exams are too open ended, and its very unlikely that you'll answer in the way he wants.

• Hard to figure at first, but the material became better understood after some of the details were removed and the main body of information became clear.
• Need to be improved: clarity of the lecture; better preparation for exam and more time on in-class exercises and problems; no text book.
• Overall, the course is interesting, but we should go over it in a more organized way. Not just scan through the notes. And I wish to see more mathematical details.

• Professor Gould is hard. He expects a lot from his students and consequently works us pretty hard. I have found it difficult to follow him in class and found myself getting very discouraged. However, this course has forced me to think harder than I ever thought before - it really "stretched" me. Outside of class, one-on-one, he's great, though, and it's gotten me through a few hurdles. We need professors who work their students hard like this because it is 1000 x harder in grad school and the real world.

• The flow of the course should be faster.
• Could have been a wee better organized or at least presented more clearly.

Please send comments and corrections to Sujata Davis, sdavis1@clarku.edu.