Did you discover any place, thing which we should show future Erasmus students?
• Lucerna a Vagon
• Zasekávák, a cozy café, several tea houses, the big botanical garden in Troja, the Zoo, Bohemia Boards and Brews, a board game bar
• Pilsner urquell factory tour
• Národní divadlo really cheap and really interesting, maybe concert places like café V Lese or Kasárna Karlin
• They should, for instance, organize tours where they explain the significance of each monument.
• STRAHOV 007! It’s a great underground venue where you can listen to punk etc. bands!
• Dogs bar
• Maybe it would be helpful to show some libraries to study! 🙂
• The memorial of Lidice.
• I really like the view from Vyšehrad. Also, I think I would have liked to go inside Karlštejn castle and not just looked at it from the outside.
• Maybe more great places in Prague
• Dogs bar is a unique place
• I loved discovering Vyšehrad and Karlovy Vary
• Maybe going to and inside the mensa
• Ice hockey match, some event at Kampus Hybernská
What would you like to tell the next generation of incoming Erasmus students? How should they tackle their problems? Would you like to warn them against anything in particular?
– Careful with apartments, you can get scammed easily. Get into a dormitory, otherwise you will be excluded from most social aspects of your stay. Learn how to cook, you can save a tremendous amount of money. Don’t feel rushed and obligated to go to every single party, you can rest a bit, trust me, there will be another one (probably the very next day)
– you might have to wait, a lot, but take this time to bond with fellow students and the time will pass a bit quicker.
– Revolut app for the currency changes.
– Everything works out at the end. The universities support Erasmus completely
– You will love your time in Prague. I really loved the Faculty and all the professor and the student life is amazing. It will be the time of your life. I wish I could relive it one more time.
– I would tell them that people working in the dormitories don’t know English and that the classes for international students are usually fairly easy.
– Prague is a very safe city, but it would be advisable to provide warnings, such as: noise is not allowed from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., drinking in the streets is prohibited, and extra caution is needed with the police, as they can be extremely brusque with tourists and foreigners. Additionally, providing tips on affordable restaurants serving Czech cuisine and other useful information would be beneficial.
– The changing fees for money are at some ATMs really high. Future Erasmus students should only change their money at ATMs of local banks like Česká spořitelna and Raiffeisenbank.
– Advise: I got fined at the tram because I miscalculated the time my journey would take. Just pay for the 90 minute one, it’s not that expensive.
– To me, oral exams and the concept of having usually 3-4 exam dates to choose from was new to me, so telling incoming students about that would be helpful. I would also recommend incoming students to take a beginners Czech language course as it helps in day-to-day life in Prague. And I would advise people to come to classes early since often not enough tables and chairs were available for everyone (is there a chance to get bigger rooms for Erasmus classes in the upcoming semesters?).
– Do no trust ISN in Prague because they’re a scam. Get the ESN card just so the plane ticket with free 20kg baggage!
– I would tell to show up really really early to pick up their student card if they don’t want to wait the whole day
– Good luck for the dorms, it’s an amazing experience, but the conditions of living are bad (cockroaches, showers, dirty kitchen…)
– The office works only 2 times a week and they should add more working days especially at the beginning of the semester. Be ready to be patient because the problem you will want to solve can take more than a day or two. Definitely write a lot of emails to teachers or the same Erasmus office if you don’t get the answer in a few days. If you choose hard subjects, then prepare to work a lot to learn them.
– That they will become attached to the city and never want to leave
– I found no particular problems in Prague, the city and the University are well organized and there are many things to discover
– I felt especially in the geoinformatics courses, but I heard also from other courses in geography and geology, that the teachers don’t really have time for the course and that it doesn’t matter what we hand in. So it was easy to get good grades bordering to getting good grades for almost no effort. I am not sure why, but my best guess would be, that the English speaking courses are extra for the Erasmus students and Czech students do not necessarily have to take them, so it is a extra load on the teachers. So I got the feeling, that the teachers didn’t want to bother with our assignments or the course in general. That undermined my motivation and excitement for the course(s) and also the purpose why I came to Charles University in the first place: attending interesting and demanding courses.
Also, all the organizational things which can be written in SIS could be more complete, like times, rooms (also the address, not only building name and room name, in Jinonice I had to write an email to the teacher personally because this information was not in SIS). Also the Czech language class from the medicine faculty in impossible to attend if you don’t know someone who was already registered because there is no information about time and place.
– there may be a lot of problems/things to organize in the beginning which might feel very overwhelming but it will all sort out and they should try to not stress out that much
– Forget Duplex, go to Ankali <3
BIOLOGY
Antiviral drug Discovery Mgr. (Klára Grantz Šašková, Ph.D.)
– very sweet teacher and oral exam is okay. Nice content.
– very interesting course, I liked the fact
Advances in physiology and neuroscience (doc. RNDr. Jiří Novotný, DSc.)
– credits – one of the most interesting courses. Yes, it is not easy for a bachelor, however, the teachers were kind and tried their best to explain the topic and the paper that everyone would understand it. I liked that we were able to discuss the papers and how to fully understand them.
Advanced practical biochemistry course (RNDr. Ondřej Vaněk, Ph.D., doc. RNDr. Václav Martínek, Ph.D.)
– was really interesting, nice teachers, learned a lot about techniques in the lab, only had to write report in the end and the teachers did not expect too much from Erasmus students.
Advanced Ecology (doc. RNDr. Linda Nedbalová, Ph.D.)
– excellent – It was very stimulating for the bachelor student that I am to get a chance of following an advance class, I would not have gotten that opportunity in my home university, thank you! The only down point I could find was that some of the lectures were repeating content. Maybe the teachers should coordinate a bit more on the content.
Basics of evolutionary biology (doc. RNDr. Michal Vinkler, Ph.D)
– very interesting class, well taught, good presentations. Goes into a lot of content without being too specific. Multiple choice exam
– really introduce the basics but a lot of notions to memorize.
Biological Invasions (prof. RNDr. Adam Petrusek, Ph.D.)
– good- was very interesting but had to drop it due to timetable conflict
– oral exam – interesting lectures, general concepts and examples.
– excellent – the teacher was captivating; the presentation was great, not too much nor too little information on it; the format of the exam was very nice, with a presentation to prepare and questions on the course deriving from the presentation
Biomedical research (Dr. rer. nat. Robert Häsler)
– great and sweet teacher and very easy exam.
– I loved this course, clear, concise and very interesting teacher of bringing researchers to talk about their projects and the oral exam in the form of a discussion.
Diversity of Insects (RNDr. Jiří Hadrava, Ph.D.)
– This was one of my favorite courses. The lectures were structured and easy to follow. I learned a lot of new stuff.
Ecology of Cyanobacteria and algae (doc. RNDr. Linda Nedbalová, Ph.D.)
– Straight forward. I Was hoping for some more practical stuff, like in identifying algal groups, but I guess it was not that kind of course.
– oral exam, recommend it
Environmental geochemistry (prof. RNDr. Martin Mihaljevič, CSc.)
– very good – I enjoyed the format of the classes a lot. Discussions between the student and the professor were captivating and I had a fun time doing research beforehand. BUT I found the exam a bit disappointing in the sense that I had studied a lot and any scientific student could have taken this exam without having been to a single class.
Epigenetics (prof. Mgr. Petr Svoboda, Ph.D.)
– IMPOSSIBLE, the teacher gives homework that take hours to complete just to understand how to use the app. The exam you have 2 weeks to do but is simply impossible to do. You would need the whole time nonstop to do it by yourself and it’s just too hard – warn students of how impossible it is. The teacher is not from the faculty and 3 credits is RIDICULOUS for how much it should be. The teacher said he didn’t care.
– the programme is well explained, but the examination is too difficult even for a master’s level
– difficult subject and exam much too long and extremely hard
Ethology and sociobiology (prof. RNDr. Daniel Frynta, Ph.D.)
– teacher is hard to follow, oral exam quite easy but a lot to know
– I didn’t like because I find the approach too reductionist and the research was usually organized about experimenting with animals in artificial environments. The zoo trip for me was very disappointing because I find practices of keeping animals in confinements for human pleasure wrong. My background is in Philosophy and now i am more into Social Sciences but my institute in my home university had the Erasmus agreement here with Faculty of Science, so I was always critical for the content and methods of the course but didn’t share them loudly most of the time. But I really liked the efforts of the lecturers, I learned a lot of things from them. I think they are doing their best within their field.
– One of my favorite courses, because it is a field where I had almost no previous knowledge. I learned a lot.
– good – unfortunately, I found the organization of the classes quite confusing and I believe I am not the only one. The content was great though.
Evolutionary genetics (RNDr. Radka Reifová, Ph.D.)
– very good –
Fluorescence spectroscopy in biology (doc. RNDr. Radovan Fišer, Ph.D.)
– credits – it was different than I’ve expected, but it was worth it. The teacher did a great job explaining the topics and why do we use different kinds of methods for each measurement. The main difference between this course and my university would be that it was held only for 4 days and the theory we had to learn ourselves.
Hot topic of environmental science (prof. Mgr. Ing. Jan Frouz, CSc.)
– essay – all lectures within one week given by a professor from another university (this year Spain), topic changes every year, very basic information, deadline of essay was not communicated.
Immunology ( prof. RNDr. Jan Černý, Ph.D., RNDr. Karel Drbal, Ph.D.)
– easier exam than it seems, the presentations are a bit confusing sometimes when the sentences don’t make sense, some questions of the exam weren’t in the presentations but only in the 120 pages book which should be read. Easy and fun read
– Exam – it was a difficult course because the immunology itself is a difficult thing. The main thing that I did not like that the information was not fully structured, every time we had different topics but it was a bit of a mess because you will get a lot of information from different mini topics (example: the topic is about signaling and at the same time you will get information about the adaptive immunities advantages). Somehow I passed, but I had a lot of reading to do not only from the book we had to.
–Drbal is horrible in teaching (he cannot explain, in a lot of lectures he just talked about random information and almost nothing that was important for the exam), we had to learn everything by ourself and read a whole book and study it ourselves), a lot of questions in the exam were the same as in the google drive
Immunology-practical course (doc. RNDr. Magdaléna Krulová, Ph.D.)
– credits – it was an interesting course but disappointing that it only lasted 4 days and not the whole semester (in my university the practical courses are together in one subject with the theory so the practicals are held each week). But the teachers were great and be prepared for killing and dissecting a mice.
– really interesting, they did not expect us to know a lot beforehand, just had to do a poster in the end to pass
Introduction to polar ecology
(doc. RNDr. Linda Nedbalová, Ph.D., prof. RNDr. Josef Elster, CSc.)
– Pretty good course. The amount of time we spent on discussing life on polar stations seemed a bit too much though.
– written exam – female professor good, male professor struggled with his English (also on the slides) – generally interesting topics
– class and exam okay. Not really for biology students
Introduction to plant systematics, evolution and ecology
– very good – Very nice teachers, thank you! The first lectures on the algae were a bit complicated to follow, Jana gave a lot of information and it was difficult for us to filtrate what was relevant to learn and what was not.
Innate immunity (Roswitha Elisabeth Schmickl, Ph.D.)
– interesting, teacher could go a bit less into depth but is reachable and the home written exam is easy.
Molecular mechanisms of regulated cell death (RNDr. Ladislav Anděra, CSc.)
– teacher boring, talks by himself reading his slides. Content is okay and exam is fine.
– exam – at first it was difficult to understand the teacher because he talked mainly under his nose, but at the end it got better, and the subject is interesting and useful. The exam was difficult because we had to know specific pathways and molecules that are involved, but the teacher is really kind and helps if you have any questions during the course
– We learn the basics well but sometimes a few too many diagrams so it’s difficult to extract the essential information but I liked this subject.
Neurobiology (RNDr. Jiří Růžička, Ph.D.)
– okay – it was too dense in information, got overwhelmed by the sheer amount of it.
– teachers go way way too fast and some of the content is too specific (extracellular matrix and specific protein names)
– exam – did not like the teachers, women was better, but still did not like their teaching way. The guy talked way to quickly and a lot of information was not on the slides or only the name was mentioned (example: electrochemical potential and there were only formulas and no definition of this process). At the end you will have to learn everything by yourself from videos or books.
– very interesting but a lot of information to memorize
– interesting but the male teacher talked really fast and not with a good English so you could not understand a lot and the slides were difficult to understand on their own, the female teacher was really nice and her lectures and slides were much better to understand (but most of the lectures were held by the male teacher)
Parasitology (RNDr. Jana Bulantová, Ph.D.)
– very good – it was interesting, sadly there’s no similar subject back home, so i was glad i could attend.
– exam – course itself was quite interesting, however, the exam evaluation system is not a good thing. All or nothing evaluation is really difficult to pass and it would be better to have something like immunology’s system were you get minus points for answering wrong or not a full answer.
Plant Physiology (prof. RNDr. Viktor Žárský, CSc., RNDr. Petra Mašková, Ph.D.)
– very good – the laboratory seminar was excellent, back home our labs are underfunded, we are constantly reusing stuff like glass slides for microscopes. They were interesting, engaging and informative. Immunology – good – sadly i couldn’t attend due to timetable conflict, but the slides were informative enough to pass the exam.
– very good- Very nice teachers, I got the opportunity of retaking the exam to improve my grade. The only down point was the speed during some lectures. We were all lost, it was too fast.
Population biology of plants (prof. RNDr. Zuzana Münzbergová, Ph.D.)
– Good course, probably the hardest of those I took. But we pulled over time, so I always had to leave before we finished in order to get to my next course… So I always missed the part where we discussed a paper we were supposed to read, which made reading them feel quite useless.
Population biology of plants (prof. RNDr. Zuzana Münzbergová, Ph.D.)
– written exam, essay, 2 presentations – really interesting lectures not covered in other courses, slides often difficult to study with, a lot of requirements for (in my opinion) not enough credits (4 Credits)
Practical basics of scientific work (RNDr. Jan Petrášek, Ph.D.)
– some really useful information but a lot of times the lectures were really boring, you don’t need to go to the lectures at all, easy to pass
Practical class in Quaternary Palaeoecology (doc. RNDr. Petr Kuneš, Ph.D.)
– Probably my favorite class, because of all the practical exercises. The trip to the Bohemian paradise was very exciting! We got to do practical projects in groups, so that we learned all the methods properly. Pollen determination feels like something I will definitely get use of in the future!
Protein dynamics in development and cancer (Mgr. Lukáš Čermák, Ph.D.)
– teacher messy and didn’t send all his slides. Easy exam but the oral part is way too long, 15 minutes per person so if you’re 15th you wait 4 hours after a 10 minute written exam.
– exam – the course itself is chaotic. The teacher tries to explain everything, but it is hard to understand, the slides don’t have a good information and the answers for the questions you have to find it yourself. The teacher thinks that everyone knows all the pathways and every protein that is involved in them, each time you think that you will hear the information on the slides named after the lesson (1st, 2nd, 3rd and etc.) but he jumps from one theme to another and one time he decided to show new slides with new pictures and didn’t upload them for weeks. I know he tried, but the lectures were like a random thing, you will never know what you will get. More structure is needed.
Stream ecology (Tyler Joe Kohler, Ph.D.)
– oral exam, paper presentation – interesting lectures, a lot of information, American professor so good English
Transposable elements: from junk DNA toad to Prince Major Driver of biodiversity
(doc. Clément Lafon Placette, Dr.)
– the teaching method was very effective and interesting
Vertebrate diversity (doc. Mgr. Pavel Munclinger, Ph.D.)
– excellent – just great, thank you
Xenobiochemistry (RNDr. Věra Černá, Ph.D.)
– teacher did not really care about Erasmus students, the course was only taught in Czech and even though she said that we would have consolations about the topics, we did not have them for the last three topics.
GEOGRAPHY
Advanced earth observation for urban and population studies
(doc. RNDr. Lucie Kupková, Ph.D.)
– good overview over the topic – short-term cancellation of final presentation (like literally on the day in class), although it could have been postponed or an alternative date found (it was two weeks before Christmas, there were three teachers teaching this course and we were 6 students. There were so many options to find a different date, even on the same time one week after, or ask a different teacher etc.)
Advanced GIS and Database Techniques for Urban and Population Studies
(doc. RNDr. Přemysl Štych, Ph.D.)
– quite chaotic – again, a three-teacher format but one in which two of the three modules are built upon each other, but the teachers didn’t know what the teacher before has done. So, out of 6 weeks we were 4 weeks without access to the database or with fragmented access to the database. The assignments were quite easy to pass, because of group efforts of the students and also because the teacher helped us. There was quite a large gap of the motivation of the teachers.
Cultural landscapes (RNDr. Zdeněk Kučera, Ph.D.)
– every week we would cover a different aspect of landscapes. I liked the diversity but not every topic was that applicable in real life. The poster presentations were interesting, and allowed us to put our theory into practice, which was nice. The oral exam was also totally fine, I have never had an oral exam, so I didn’t know how prepared to be. Nevertheless, I passed it without any issues, so poster and oral exam are fine as requirements. I have already followed a landscapes course at home, but it was way more focused on the physical: soil types, land use, climatology. For this course we went on a weeklong field trip to get soil samples and do several assignments for a bigger project.
Environmental issues, background examples and solutions (RNDr. Petra Horká, Ph.D.)
– online exam of 15 questions, really nice introduction of several subjects
– exam (online) – name is misleading: more about problems than about solutions, only intersting when you like biology and chemistry, broad knowledge from different environmental topics (positive) – exam is quite easy because its online
– Very varied, some lectures I didn’t like, others I really loved. A lot of very different topics, so we went into stuff I had no previous knowledge on – I especially liked the parts about aerosol. The classroom was way too small for the amount of people taking the course.
– Written online exam – 6 different lecturers who upload slides all on different platforms so very chaotic, some slides in Czech, completely different topic in every second lecture
– exam difficult but also interesting with different lectures alternating
– very interesting, final exam too easy, easy to cheat because online
– interesting
Environmental migration (doc. RNDr. Eva Janská, Ph.D.)
– very interesting, and a nice format: 3 separate blocks. All the teachers had a different perspective and expertise. The small class size was also ideal for debates and discussions. A test after each block was also a nice examination format because it would allow us to immediately test our knowledge and move on to the next subject. The course content could also be taught at my home university, but it would have even more ‘blocks’ and examination would be an essay and a short factual test.
Exploring contemporary migration trends ( doc. RNDr. Eva Janská, Ph.D)
– i really liked the subject overall, all were really good prepared and the exams were also great. All subjects had interesting topics and all professors were professional and kind.
Flood risk management (prof. RNDr. Jakub Langhammer, Ph.D.)
– it was good and useful, a very short essay and a fairly easy exam was the evaluation criteria.
– exam (written) and little essay (3 pages) – content of different lectures to close (not much new input), lectures are monotonous, one brilliant lecture with the former mayor of Prague (more important than all others together), textbook for the course much more important for exam than lectures (examination relatively easy)
Fundamentals of demography (RNDr. Tomáš Kučera, CSc.)
– a new teacher would be good
– I really liked this, very kind teacher as well. However, I would suggest another time for the lectures because Thursday evening isn’t great. The exam is quite easy. I already took a population course at my own University, but in Prague it was way more detailed.
Introduction to polar ecology
(doc. RNDr. Linda Nedbalová, Ph.D., prof. RNDr. Josef Elster, CSc.)
– written exam of 15 questions, recommend it also.
Heritage of Cultural Landscape (RNDr. Zdeněk Kučera, Ph.D.)
– really good course
– It was something quite different than at my one university, but I liked it! The requirements for the exam are fine and not too difficult.
– Exam very interesting and coordinator very helpful
– final exam and a poster presentation on a chosen topic, the presentation felt more like a high school project since we could choose anything and just talk about it for a bit. The exam was oral, and the course material was rather basic compared to home.
High-impact Weather Phenomena (RNDr. Miloslav Müller, Ph.D.)
– a new topic for me, meteorology based, overall informative and interesting. The format of several topics was nice, but sometimes things were very specific, this is also something many people struggled with during the exam. I do find is useful because I now understand a bit more about the weather around me. I had to study very many specific things for the final exam, and I still haven’t forgotten them. For me the exam was fine, but I know that many people had to take it multiple times, due to the type of test format: specific questions and process questions. This type of course could not be given at my home uni because it would be too narrow, we for example have had a physical geography/climate course, but we never solely focused on weather.
– I found it interesting, although i am not into physics that much and it was relatively physics-heavy. The exam was the only criteria for passing but it was quite hard.
– exam (written and oral) – the structure is very good, interesting topic when you want to know more about the physic and meteorological backgrounds of how weather phenomena come up. Requirements for passing are relatively high (weird questions in examination, not much to do with the arise of weather phenomena)
– I liked how the teacher’s focus was on the basic mechanisms in the exam, I learned a lot about meteorological basics, final exam
Hot topics in physical geography (RNDr. Dagmar Chalupová, Ph.D.)
– I really liked the subject overall, all were really good prepared and the exams were also great. All subjects had interesting topics and all professors were professional and kind.
Human Geography Research of Czechia (RNDr. Jiří Vágner, Ph.D.)
– The assignment here was to make a paper. I think it would be good to specify the requirements a bit more, because people from different countries have different experiences with writing papers so I saw a lot of differences between (for example) people from Germany/Netherlands and Spain. The lectures are nice, but to be honest I think people aren’t really paying attention because it doesn’t really matter for your paper.
– really liked this course and how we could write about anything we are interested in. I learned a lot here. The lectures were rather interesting in general than useful for my final paper. Llecture series with a good overview of the human geography research done in charles university. Requirements for passing the subject were fair for the ects (article review, paper and presentation). Although it would be better to update the syllabus for the paper, because I felt like it was necessary to compare the city of Prague to another city (if writing something about urban topics) what was not written in the syllabus.
Remote Sensing in Physical Geography (doc. Mgr. Jan Kropáček, Ph.D.)
– Course, which raised more questions than answers, because the description of seminars (practicals) was vague and we didn’t get any feedback about our work, and the applications (SNAP and EyeOnWater) often didn’t work as planned, so we had to improvise. Usefullness – depends, it was pretty useless for geologists, unless you want to hear about some possible techniques for measuring snow or NDVI, or water underground, but instead it would be way more beneficial to learn how to do some remote sensing things on your own. Exam – oral, discussion with teacher about the covered topics, for example, I was asked about how to determine urstromtals, grabens, NDVI etc. and it requires reading about these topics beforehand, so you would have way more to say. And, of course, submit all your seminars.
Special topics in political geography (RNDr. Libor Jelen, Ph.D.)
– I really liked the subject overall, all were really good prepared and the exams were also great. All subjects had interesting topics and all professors were professional and kind.
– this course was very new to me since we don’t have Geopolitics at home. The final essay feedback was detailed which is great and the lectures were interesting. I didn’t like the weekly summary because it felt like adding useless work after I already red the article. I’d rather work with the article, as in discuss and answer some questions rather than just summarise it. Other than that I liked the course!
– a totally new subject for me, which I enjoyed. Every week another topic, one that also fits in current context: for example the Gaza Israel situation. I liked the different subjects and lectures, although not all of them were good speakers. The essay is good examination for this course, because it is so diverse and each topic is so complex, a test wouldn’t suffice. At home do not teach politics like this, we only discuss politics in other context such as governance and government.
Urban Social Geography: Key Theoretical Approaches
(prof. RNDr. Martin Ouředníček, Ph.D.)
– very different topics were addressed, some already known to me, and others were new. Overall I liked that we had multiple teachers, and there was someone who covered the Czech context. The required readings and assignments were useful, although not all of them. The short tests and the essay were both very doable, however I would have liked to review my essay to see what I could have done better. At home we would have combined the two courses of urban social geography: theoretical and practical. So we would have had a field trip, a test and a project/ essay.
– I really liked the subject overall, all were really good prepared and the exams were also great. All subjects had interesting topics and all professors were professional and kind.
– I liked the course very much, although it was only theoretical. To pass we needed to do small weekly assignments and had an exam, that was relatively easy. Also attendance was mandatory.
– The teachers were good, workload was compared to my home university the same. It would be nice to discuss the assignments a bit more in class.
– very basic course in urban planning, didn’t learn much since it was basix approaches, but I liked the lectures and the essay examination, I never had that at home. I also liked the practical second parts of the lectures! The course actually helped to gain some deeper understanding of basic urban planning theories, especially through writing a small essay and discussing the literature every week.
– good theoretical introduction, overview over urban theories – really fair requirements for the amount of ects (weekly assignment and exam), I really enjoyed the strcture of the lecture with a theoretical part and an interactive part at the end.
GEOLOGY
Environmental geochemistry (prof. RNDr. Martin Mihaljevič, CSc.)
– oral group exam really really easy, the class is a discussion
– I did not learn much from this course because the teacher did not follow a specific program and you don’t have to study for the exam
– I did not learn much from this course because the teacher did not follow a specific programme and you don’t have to study for the exam
Geology of construction materials (prof. Mgr. Richard Přikryl, Dr.)
– oral exam really
Geothermal energy (prof. RNDr. Tomáš Fischer, Ph.D.)
– written exam (really easy) and attendance, I didn’t do the exam because too much numbers and calculation lol
Hydrology (není jasné, o který předmět jde, usuzuji, že Hydrogeology)
– exam very hard and difficult
Hydrogeology (doc. RNDr. Jiří Bruthans, Ph.D.)
– excellent – well the only down point was that the practical’s were scheduled after the beginning of the semester and I ended up not being able to attend which made the passing of the exam a bit more tricky. Other than that, the course was great and I would never had the opportunity to enroll into such a specific class in my home university, given that I am a biology major and only in my Bachelor.
Limnology (RNDr. Veronika Sacherová, Ph.D.)
– exam, very interesting and helpful from course coordinator
Microscopy of sedimentary rocks (prof. RNDr. Stanislav Opluštil, Ph.D.)
– practical work difficult but enjoyable
Microscopy of rock – forming minerals (doc. Alessandro Fabbrizio, Ph.D.)
– Attend lectures, study thin section there and also on your own and learn how to describe them for the exam, where you are doing all that on 2 thin sections.
Petrology of metamorphic rocks ( prof. Ing. Shah Wali Faryad, CSc.)
– Depending on your background in mineralogy, but it seemed too difficult to me, so I decided not to take the exam. Do the practicals, study and delve into it, if you feel like it.
Soil Mechanics (Gianvito Scaringi, Dr., Ph.D.)
– pretty difficult course if you don’t have a background in Engineering Geology, Hydrogeology etc. In my home university it is taught as an master’s level subject, where it requires background in Engineering Geology, Hydrology and other courses. Lectures tend to get really difficult to comprehend, there are some practical’s (calculations in Excel, no laboratory work) and test sheets available, but I didn’t see any feedback from the teacher about results. Exam – written, can use all your resources, but you should merge all presentations into one. Learn how to draw Mohr’s circle and the pole, summarize all formulas for the exam etc. and you will be able to pass, if you know where to dig and where to find your answers, so, please study for it.
Stream ecology (Tyler Joe Kohler, Ph.D.)
– oral exam maybe the teacher is more strict with the grade but it makes it easy with slides (he showed the highlights to know perfectly)
Urban geology – excursion (prof. Mgr. Richard Přikryl, Dr.)
– awesome, but not enough communication from the teacher before the excursions, and about the final task
OUT OF STUDY FIELD
Czech course
– really nice, written exam really easy but it costs.
Data analysis in R and Python
(prof. Mgr. Vojtěch Janoušek, Ph.D., doc. Mgr. Ondrej Lexa, Ph.D.)
– Great course, but Python part was often way harder than R part. Very useful, if you have some measurements on field and you need to visualize them, do some basic statistics, etc. And at the same time, professors give feedback to your work, so you understand what do you need to fix in your code. Requirements for exam – submitted and corrected work.
English Language Seminar for Teachers
– top tier – best teacher I’ve ever encountered, can only praise him
– top tier – same as the previous
First Aid Course (Mgr. Radim Kuba)
– excellent – helped me refresh my knowledge, gave me confidence. The hands-on teaching was really good, a short frontal info, then trying the techniques in drills.
– awesome
Physical education
– credits – was a good swimming lessons but for the new erasmus students, know the teacher you have to go to, because there are a few different ones and at the end you will be taking another teachers course. My university does not have these types of courses so it was nice to learn how to swim properly and for free