• NYCU Computer Science, class of 116 (Enrolled in 2023)
• Only courses with fewer homework grades are fully listed
• Classroom assignments can be referenced on GitHub
• For any further questions, feel free to leave a comment below the article or email for inquiries

Logic Design

Course Nunber: 515110
Type: Required
Instructor: Zhang Tian Xuan
Department: College of Electrical Engineering

• Experience
  • The professor is very serious, and manages the pace of the lecture slides well, but somehow the course progressed very quickly and ended two weeks early.
  • Quizzes were not too difficult, slightly easier than the homework, with only a few challenging questions.
  • There was an extra credit assignment involving Verilog on HDLBits, just solving some easy problems for extra points.
  • Generally, as long as you do the homework and pay attention in class, it’s not hard to get a good grade.
  • The latter part of the course was a bit more challenging and required some extra effort to prepare.
  • This course, like Digital Circuit Design, should not be taken by Computer Science students; the department office said it cannot be counted, and I was the fool.
• Grading
  • HW (20%), Mid (22%), Final (23%), Comprehensive Exam (30%), Attendance (5%)
  • Grade Adjustment: Overall grade + 0.8
  • Average: 81
• Grades

  HW avg	Mid	Final	Comprehensive Exam	Total
  96.8	96	87	86	A+ (93)

Introduction to Computers and Programming

Course Nunber: 515502
Type: Required
Instructor: Huang Jing Qun
Department: College of Computer Science

• Experience
  • Although this course is titled Introduction to Computers and Programming, it mainly teaches programming, and the exams are practical programming tests.
  • The professor’s teaching pace is oddly slow, with the teaching assistants covering pointers while he was still on loops.
  • The teaching assistant’s English was not very good, but slides were available on e3, which you could study on your own.
  • Each week’s practical session generally involved the teaching assistant reading through the slides, followed by up to three practice problems for everyone to work on.
  • The latter half of the course included an Online Judge (OJ), but it was either crashing or took forever to return results, so don’t get your hopes up.
  • The course forced the use of Visual Studio, which cannot be installed on MacOS; although the teaching assistant seemed to offer alternatives, homework grades were either based on OJ results or run on the teaching assistant’s Visual Studio, and if it didn’t run, you got zero.
  • Practical exams still required the use of computers in the computer center, so it’s necessary to familiarize yourself with how to use Visual Studio.
  • During practical exams, you could download the slides and your previous code before starting, but some questions were a bit harder.
  • Due to a below-average midterm score, the professor decided to give everyone a fresh start, and the highest two of three practical exams would count as midterm and final exam grades.
  • Classroom attendance contributed to the total grade, adding up to 6 points; if only I had known to attend all the classes.
• Grading
  • HW (40%), Mid (30%), Final (30%)
  • Grade Adjustment: Not disclosed
  • Average: 75.9
• Grades

  Lab avg	HW avg	Mid	Final	Extra	Total
  100	100	85	100	x	A+ (97)

Linear Algebra

Course Nunber: 515503
Type: Required
Instructor: Yi Zhi Wei
Department: College of Computer Science

• Experience
  • The professor is very approachable for discussion, although the course pace is really slow and often didn’t cover all the material before exams.
  • Possibly because he knew he often couldn’t finish, there were online recorded lectures available on e3 for self-study.
  • The classroom was always full before roll call, but attendance dropped by half after.
  • The teaching assistant was excellent and very considerate of the students, and apparently very straightforward when asked for grade adjustments.
  • Each quiz had a maximum score of 50, with the highest four of the first five quizzes plus the average of the sixth quiz counting towards the exam grades.
  • Grading was typically all-or-nothing, which required careful attention to avoid careless mistakes.
  • It was beneficial to thoroughly work through the exercises in the textbook, and remember to check the discussion forum set up by the professor as some quiz questions were drawn from there.
• Grading
  • Exam Scores (90%), Attendance (10%)
  • Grade Adjustment: Grades above the pass line are adjusted between 60 to 98
  • Average: Not disclosed
• Grades

  Quiz1	Quiz2	Quiz3	Quiz4	Quiz5	Quiz6	Total
  34	50	45	39	50	32	A+

Introduction to Computer Networks

Course Nunber: 515508
Type: Elective
Instructor: Wang Xie Yuan
Department: College of Computer Science

• Experience
  • No roll call, yet the classroom is always full, quite a magical professor!
  • Paying attention in class is rewarding as it’s very informative, and the tests are reasonable.
  • The instructor is well-organized and poses questions that make you think, sometimes supplemented by practical examples or additional information like tracert, TCAM, etc.
  • Test content includes not only slides but also topics discussed in class.
  • Midterms and finals felt significantly harder than the practice exams, with each question feeling like an enhanced version, making the tests feel like writing essays.
  • Practical labs, if attended, are typically easy to ace and quite enjoyable.
    • Lab1: Wireshark tutorial and packet capturing practice.
    • Lab2: Making network cables, remember to install the sleeve before crimping the cable, or you’ll end up with two movable sleeves.
• Grading
  • Mid (25%), Final (25%), Lab (10%*2), HW(10%*3)
  • Grade Adjustment: None
  • Average: 76.1
• Grades

  Lab avg	HW1	HW2	HW3	Mid	Final	Total
  100	96	94	100	93	88	A+ (94)

Introduction to Database Systems

Course Nunber: 515605
Type: Elective
Instructor: Peng Wen Zhi
Department: College of Computer Science

• Experience
  • The professor’s lectures were often hard to understand, and the slides required some ‘psychic’ ability to decipher.
  • No roll call, thus the classroom was usually half empty.
  • Studying past exam papers was somewhat helpful, although many did not have answers.
  • Homework assignments were quite informative and recommended for those with strong self-study skills.
  • The final project involved choosing a topic for a group, creating a webpage connected to a database supporting CRUD operations.
• Grading
  • Mid (15%), Final (15%), HW (5%+15%*3), Final Project (20%)
  • Grade Adjustment: Final (+14)
  • Average: 74.5
• Grades

  HW0	HW1	HW2	HW3	Final Project	Mid	Final	Total
  100	110	90	90	95.8	87	75	A+ (94)

Academic Research Ethics: Principles and Case Studies

Course Nunber: 561053
Type: Core Curriculum Instructor: Pan Xuan An
Department: Center of General Education

• Experience
  • Essentially about listening to stories, very enjoyable.
  • The instructor was an excellent speaker and the presentations were well made, offering insights beyond just academic scandals.
  • All assignments (presentation reflections, project proposals, etc.) were submitted through Turnitin and required proper APA citations.
  • The final report involved analyzing a classic academic ethics case not previously discussed in class.
  • Grading seemed generous as everyone I knew in my group received an A+, although specific assignment grades were not disclosed.
• Grading
  • Presentation Reflections (15%), Classroom Performance (15%), Group Project Proposal (25%), Final Presentation (35%), Peer Review (10%)
  • Grade Adjustment: Not disclosed
  • Average: Not disclosed
• Grades

  Reflections	Classroom Performance	Group Project	Total
  Not disclosed	Not disclosed	Not disclosed	A+ (91)

Exploring Robotic and Artificial Intelligent Systems

Course Nunber: 561502
Type: Core Curriculum
Instructor: Chen Yong Ping
Department: Liberal Arts College

• Experience
  • Course materials were the instructor’s self-compiled notes, which he thoroughly enjoyed discussing.
  • Some classes included reflection writing, asking for your opinion on topics like the Joseph Needham question, typically about 400 words.
  • Responding to questions during class contributed significantly to grades, making it suitable for active participants.
  • Regular attendance was crucial as missing too many classes could lead to severe penalties.
  • The course was relatively easy-going; you could do your own thing as long as you attended classes and did not participate, with attendance/performance grades starting at 80.
  • Groups had to have at least four members with a maximum of two from the same department, so be mindful if planning to group with friends.
  • The final report involved choosing one of the topics discussed in class to develop into a detailed presentation lasting 20 to 25 minutes.
  • The poster competition involved turning the report content into a four-panel comic, with group evaluations determining scores of 80/85/90/95.
  • The poster competition was exploited for dramatic performances, making it a potential choice for those who excel in acting.
• Grading
  • Attendance/Class Performance (30%), Reflections (30%), Group Report (20%), Poster Competition (20%)
  • Grade Adjustment: None
  • Average: 85.4
• Grades

  Attendance/Performance	Reflections	Group Report	Poster Competition	Total
  80	88	90.4	80	A (85)

English Reading and Discussion

Course Nunber: 562017
Type: Language & Communication
Instructor: Zhang Yue Jing
Department: Language Teaching and Research Center

• Experience
  • Highly recommended; just bring a joyful heart to class.
  • Each week focused on a topic, with a short article to read before class (up to 2 pages), followed by a quiz (5 to 8 multiple-choice questions) on the article content; if you’ve read it, you could score well.
  • Another article on the same topic was discussed in class, with each group completing a learning sheet (collaboratively edited Google document).
  • Midterms and finals were straightforward, consisting of vocabulary matching and reading comprehension tests, all multiple-choice.
  • The oral report involved choosing one of the topics discussed by the instructor and extending it into an 8 to 10-minute video by the group, followed by peer evaluations.
• Grading
  • Course Attendance (10%), Quiz (10%), Course Participation (10%), Peer Evaluation (10%), Mid (15%), Final (15%), Group Oral Reports (15%*2)
  • Grade Adjustment: None
  • Average: Not disclosed
• Grades

  Quiz avg	Oral1	Oral2	Mid	Final	Total
  91	94	90	97	94	A+ (94)