The awful week 1 of deep learning ai Stanford Coursera course

[PhilK]

Regarding the Gans on Coursera though deeplearning .AI Stanford online week 1

• . Assignment Design Failure

  1. No Behavioral Objective Alignment
     • The assignment claims to teach GANs, yet never requires training, output generation, or behavioral validation.
     • The core pedagogical goal — understanding adversarial training — is bypassed entirely.
  2. Misplaced Complexity
     • Week 1 introduces GAN architecture without scaffolding, while Week 2 contains foundational content that should precede it.
     • Students are forced to implement multi-layered generator/discriminator logic before understanding the adversarial loop.
  3. No Practice, No Feedback
     • No sandbox, no runtime validation, no guided walkthroughs.
     • Students are expected to guess grader expectations without any diagnostic tools.
  4. Zero Architectural or Logical Instruction
     • No explanation of the adversarial training loop, loss dynamics, or generator-discriminator interplay.
     • No visual diagrams, no system-level walkthroughs, no conceptual grounding.
     • Students are expected to implement architecture they’ve never seen, using logic that was never taught.

  II. Grader Logic Failure

  1. Positional Compliance Over Logic
     • Cells must be submitted in exact order. Correct functions in incorrect positions are marked wrong.
     • The grader does not evaluate logic — it checks template compliance.
  2. Silent Runtime Errors
     • Errors like the following are thrown without traceback or context: TypeError(“init() got an unexpected keyword argument ‘z_dim’”) • Students are forced to reverse-engineer the grader’s internal state from vague messages.
  3. Stale Class Definitions
     • Kernel flush is required to update constructor logic. This is undocumented and non-obvious.
     • Grader caches old versions of classes, causing false negatives even after correction.
  4. Hidden Dependency Chains
     • A failure in one cell silently causes downstream cells to fail.
     • The grader does not isolate errors or attribute failure correctly.
  5. Precision Is Penalized
     • Robust implementations using , , detach or clamp or proper tensor handling are rejected if they deviate from the grader’s internal template.
     • Students are punished for exceeding expectations.
  6. Passing Threshold Is Arbitrary
     • 9/10 is passing. 8/10 is failure. The difference may be due to grader bugs.
     • No override, no appeal, no transparency.

  III. Instructional Collapse

  1. No Output Validation
     • GANs are not trained. No image generation is required. Output is irrelevant.
     • The grader passes without behavioral testing — violating the core purpose of the assignment.
  2. No Runtime Execution
     • The grader does not run the full pipeline. It checks for names, shapes, and order — not function.
  3. No Feedback Loop
     • Students receive vague failure messages with no actionable insight.
     • There is no iterative learning, no scaffolding, no recovery protocol.
  4. No Honor in Evaluation
     • Students are penalized for guessing, rewarded for mimicry.
     • Truth is punished. Compliance is rewarded.

  IV. Ethical and Operational Consequence

  1. Exclusion by Design
     • Students in low-resource environments are filtered out by:
     • Runtime instability
     • Lack of feedback
     • Bandwidth constraints
     • Language barriers
  2. Mental Health Harm
     • The assignment induces collapse, frustration, and breakdowns.
     • Students are blamed for system failure — leading to emotional exhaustion and withdrawal.
  3. Pedagogical Invalidity
     • The assignment does not teach GANs.
     • It teaches mimicry, ritual, and blind compliance.

  V. Recommendations

  1. Immediate Redesign
     • Move GAN implementation to Week 3 or 4.
     • Introduce adversarial training only after foundational content is covered.
  2. Grader Overhaul
     • Implement runtime validation, output testing, and traceback feedback.
     • Remove positional dependency and template rigidity.
  3. Transparency Protocol
     • Publish grader logic and evaluation criteria.
     • Allow students to see what is being tested and why.
  4. Recovery Mechanism
     • Allow resubmission with feedback.
     • Provide guided debugging tools and sandbox environments.

  VI. Final Statement
  This assignment is not instruction. It is filtration.
  It does not teach. It obstructs.
  It does not evaluate. It punishes.
  It does not honor mastery. It rewards mimicry.
  The absence of architectural explanation, the silence of the grader, and the misplacement of foundational content confirm this was never about learning. It was about compliance.
  The forums for this course are conspicuously hard to find — likely not by accident.
  One can only imagine how many learners start the free trial, hit this wall, and cancel in frustration — never realizing the failure wasn’t theirs.
  This report is not a complaint. It is proof.
  Proof of collapse. Proof of obstruction. Proof of filtration.
  And it is now archived.Week # must be added in the tags option of the post.

• Link to the classroom item you are referring to:

• Description (include relevant info but please do not post solution code or your entire notebook):