Computer Science Honours at UCT: Part 3

This is part 3 in my review of the CS honours modules at UCT. Read after reading part 1 and part 2.

Distributed Computing (DC):

There's confusion over the name of this module. It is often referred to as Distributed Components -- the notes say Components, but the official name is Computing. It's lectured by Ken and well, yes, it's not the most thrilling lectures you will attend. I just attended lectures, but never took it for credits so I skipped the assignment and exam. There is so much theory that is covered in this module. It's all thrown at you in huge chunks and it's not easy to consume. Most of the class take DC, but I'd be hesitant to recommend it. It's too much of this RPC stuff such as Corba and DCOM and then stuff on COM+, .Net and EJBs.

The assignment was on EJBs and I remember everyone scrambling to figure out how to get JBoss and EJBs to work! For those of you doing it next year, Sean posted some HOWTOs which seemed to be very useful. Ken, as in the past, kept pushing the deadline back and the demos were only done last month (for a first quarter module)!! Now this may sound cool, but it's not when you consider that it ends up interfering with the other assignments. Last year he never marked it -- everyone who handed in got 100%. The exam was apparently rather hand-wavy. So, up to you, but I don't recommend taking it.

Interaction Design (ID):

What is CS at UCT without lectures by Gary? He's simply the best at lecturing in the department, no doubt about it. I would usually be completely deterred from an HCI course as I find it mostly fud, but I could never miss a Gary lecture. He goes into all sorts of things to consider when designing an interface and shows cool video clips that keep you interested and add to the lectures.

This is another course I only took the lectures for and nothing else, and I think it was a good decision. Most of the class take this module, but unless you're good with design (and I'm not!) the assignment and exam are finicky. The assignment was about building a paper prototype for an RFID tag reader for a cell phone. You then had to implement a prototype that just simulated the interface without requiring functionality and write a report on it. The exam was apparently fairly decent and it's usually based on case studies, which means lots of writing.

Effective Virtual Environments (EVE):

EVE was an interesting module and I'm disappointed I had to drop it after two weeks. All the really good modules were run concurrently, which was a pity. EVE lectures are more like discussions on beliefs than lecturers -- the content covered is very much dependent on what the class finds interesting. It's taken by Edwin, who actually does a good job of the course. I was very surprised at the low numbers that took this module as I'd recommend it above other modules such as DC and NIS.

The course changes drastically year-on-year. Edwin tries to remove the need for an exam by pumping up the practical workload, although if the class prefers an exam he is willing to sway. This year there was one big assignment split into three and a essay on some papers. The assignment was about using Erlicht, a 3D games engine, to design a putt-putt course. The first part was a design document, which was fairly lengthy. Then you had to code it up using Erlicht and you were marked based on how closely your end product tied in with your design document. The final part was to test a hypothesis such as "Do textures increase presence?" You're told to get six test subjects, although you will never get a significant result with such a small number, so please get more people next year. It's not that difficult!

Databases (DB):

DB is lectured by Sonia and it is the only module for which I never attended a single lecture. That should sum up my interest in databases at such a level. The content is rather boring, although it's easy marks, mostly covering object relational databases such as Oracle. The class is usually fairly large, although I can't stand taking a module just for easy marks. Half the lectures were paper reviews presented in groups for marks. The exam is fairly easy apparently.

Can't say much more here, best speak to someone who did the module.

Computability and Complexity (CC):

Computer Science courses are very practical in nature, that's not going to change. However, I feel that it's necessary to break away a little. That's where the Mathematics of Computer Science modules come in. They're highly theoretical and have little practical application. You need a strong Mathematics background to get through these modules as not only is the content pretty tough, the pace is insane. Ever had a Maths lecture with slides? With CC, every lecture is based on slides - even the nasty proofs!

The module is lectured by Vasco Brattka, the best Maths lecturer I have ever had! He has a list of the course contents available here. He also has the course slides and tutorials there, but they are password protected. If you're considering the module then I can give you the password, although I'll have to do so privately. All the Maths modules are four credits, so they cover a lot of work. You get one period a week dedicated to discussing the tutorial questions before you have to attempt them. They can be tricky, although the help in lectures is decent.

The class is mixed with Computer Scientists and Mathematics honours students. This year only three of us CS students took the Maths modules along with two Maths students. The computability stuff can be scary for a Computer Scientists, especially when the Maths guys catch on fairly well. The module is packed with proofs, including some that were open standing problems for decades. The proofs in the complexity section are more algorithmic and so it switches around to the CS students understanding better. The module culminates in showing why the P-NP problem is so hard and that under certain assumptions is provable to be unprovable either way!

The exam is slightly easier than the tutorials, although it is closed book and therefore rather challenging. However, if your Maths background is strong it's not so bad. I would definitely recommend the module to anyone that majored in Maths. Since it's a four credit course it gives you more choice with what CS modules to pick from and lets you get away without doing the crappy assignments. I still attended many of the lectures for the other CS modules, although it's nice having the comfort of dropping out of the ugly ones.

Cryptography and Complexity (Crypto):

Vasco used to offer a Quantum Computing (QC) module, which expanded on the work from CC. However, he went on sabbatical for the second half of this year and so it was replaced by a new course. If QC returns next year, and it most likely will, it might replace this course. Although I never got to do QC, I've heard from previous years that it is very good and if CC is anything to go by I can believe it.

The new Crypto module was split in two parts covered by different lecturers. Christine Swart took the first half, covering topics on public key cryptography. There's a lot of number theory involved, so don't expect it to be like a CS module. It's fairly practical compared to the rest of the CS of Maths modules. You learn all about factorising very large numbers efficiently and showing that cracking the RSA algorithm is equivalent to factorising such numbers. The Diffie-Hellman key exchange is also covered and it's shown that cracking it is equivalent to the discrete logarithm problem.

Holger Spakowski takes the second half, covering topics related to complexity of cryptography. This section goes back to where Vasco left off in CC. It's all about probabilistic algorithms that can be proved to produce the correct answer with a given probability. From this the concept of probabilistic Turing machines are developed and this leads into a whole new area of complexity classes. This then leads into proving various classes equivalent to one another and a number of inclusion relations. It gets highly theoretical, although it's a great module for those interested in Mathematics and Statistics.

Christine was very bad with the tutorials and we only had one that was marked in the end. Holger gave us three, which were fairly challenging as a Computer Scientist. The exam is next month and since it's a new course I can't comment on it. Overall I would recommend the course. The cryptography section should appeal to a larger number of CS students than CC. The major problem with this course is that the second half continues into the project time. So while the rest of the CS class is enjoying no lectures to work on their projects you have to worry about tutorial hand-ins and so on.

Summary:

So I've summarised my experiences of the honours modules and given my comments for you. Make sure you've also read part 1 and part 2. Remember that this is just my thoughts on the modules and that I have very different interests to many people. If you're going into honours I expect you to take what I said with some common sense.

Take a look at the Graduate Handbook, especially the section on the modules as they provide module descriptions. Bear in mind that the modules on offer are likely to change next year, so don't go out of your way to settle on a selection. If you want to decide early try find out from Anet who will be the honours course convener next year and ask that person what the module list is looking like. You may also find that looking through my exam archive might help ease the decision.

Something that no-one mentioned to us last year and that I found critical was that your choice depends largely on the timetable. You can get our timetable here (with ITE added in at the same time as Agents, GA and II). As you'll see, many of the content-heavy courses such as DC, DB and ID are all grouped together at the same time, which makes it difficult to skip them all. I think the basic timetable remains the same each year, but make sure by asking the course convener.

The way I personally tackled the decision was just to attend all the lectures. For each module I attended at least a quarter of the lectures and by that time we usually got through enough to understand what the assignment involved. If the assignment looked icky, I dropped the course, otherwise I continued with it. It might sound like a lot of extra effort, but you're there for some lectures so you might as well just check the other maybes out. I found it worked really well as I got to choose given first hand experience of what the lectures were like. After four lecturers you generally get a gut feeling. You just have to make a rough selection at the beginning of the year, which can easily be changed any time by notifying your course convener.

So that's that! If anyone wants to chat further, I'm only around until mid-November. I'd be happy to have to discuss it though as it's a crucial decision. Very little word goes around about what the modules are like since most people ask so late. I might add another post on the honours project, but I need to know who would be interested? If you want to hear my thoughts on the project or anything else please let me know.