I would drop some of the cartoons. They are funny but they seem to distract Bryan and overall it's distracting for us students too.

Good overview of the reality of the challenges in data science. A glaring miss from my perspective was any real focus on the challenges of ML/AI based analysis. This module was really focused on traditional statistical modeling

This is a recommended course where you understand what are the requirements for a data engineer, data manager and data scientis

Good learning

It's an excellent course. I have learnt a lot.

Not that engaging content.Too much theoretical approach.

GREAT COURSE!!!

Interesting for a Non-Data Science Executive despite some minor spelling errors in video transcripts.

Great practice example, great team at Zillow, and that to DataCamp

I found this course to be notably worse than all of the others in the series. There is very very little practical content provided within the lectures. Way too many summaries or over-views of what's to come next without really getting into the nuances of what is discussed as a course topic. Way too much repetition of the exact same content, there is even repetition of content in this course that was presented in another one of the courses in the series. Many of the examples are purely meant as a comedic aside rather than actually functioning to discuss the topic with depth. E.g. - talking about statistical modeling and putting up a picture of Ben Stiller from Zoolander - then keeping the picture up there for the entire explanation. There's literally a Nic Cage example provided for the confounding factor lecture only for the instructor to say directly after "This isn't actually the best example" - then proceeds to not explain why it was brought up aside from mentioning there's a spurious correlation. Way too much repetition of similar examples - showing photos of a muscular v. skinny Christian Bale. This pop-culturey reference isn't needed in the first place and doesn't need to be shown in triplicate. I don't mind repetition if there is additional nuance or content provided through them, but that isn't the case in this course. I find there is too much focus on side tangents, where the instructor seems to change thoughts mid-sentence but forgets to come back to the original idea. I think that every single video could be cut down by 25%, purely by being more concise, and should include more nuanced descriptions. I found it particularly odd that instrumental variables were noted as a rather clever technique, yet an explanation was intentionally avoided, however an example was still provided. Bringing up a topic, intentionally refusing to define it, then providing an example directly after just doesn't make sense. I think that more time needs to be spent refining the lectures so that they're designed to teach content. It has the feel of someone who's talking about a field to get people interested in it rather than a practical training course. Many key terms are very poorly defined with examples (on many cases the audience is referred to wikipedia for explanations) in which the basics are repetitively explained while the nuances are glossed over. There seems to be an odd theme where summaries and over-generalizations are far too frequent and yet the key terms and how they relate to examples are an afterthought. I don't think the summaries are necessary given the fact that users can literally re-watch every single video and there isn't enough total content to justify a summary in the first place. Additionally, this course also seems to deviate from the others in that there is an assumption that the student has a heavy amount of programming experience already built in (or that's my assumption since many of the term explanations aren't discussed too heavily). Prior lectures break down the basics more and indicate that potential managers should pursue the data specialization courses.