Game Theory Wrapup
Today I finally had a chance to read the end-of-term evaluations from the game theory course that I taught in the fall term. Overall I was very happy to read the evaluations; it definitely feels that the time which I invested into course preparation and helping students was well-spent.
On the back of the (anonymous) evaluations, the students have space to write free-form responses to various questions like “What did you think the instructor did well?” From the following responses on one of the surveys, I can be sure that my students have a (nerdy) sense of humour.
Question 3: What did you think were the strong points of the course?
(written response) : strong domination
Question 4: What did you think were the weak points of the course?
(written response) : weak domination
(Why is this funny to me? These are technical terms that were used repeatedly in the course. Well almost, it’s strict instead of strong, but this is close enough. Let x and y be strategies for a player. We say that x strictly dominates y if using choosing x is always better than choosing y for that player, no matter what the other players do. We say that x weakly dominates y if, informally, y is never better than x and x is sometimes better than y.)
I was also glad to hear that someone liked the paperclips which I brought in to play the game of Nim. Or maybe they just like paperclips, it wasn’t clear.
Filed under: co456, teaching | Leave a Comment