AI & Data Analytics for Legal Professionals

very good

The mentor was supportive, clear in their guidance, and encouraged active participation throughout the process.

Thank you for good lecture

The Mentor was late to the Day 2 session and spent over 30 mins of the 1.5h session either disconnected entirely, without her screen visible, or simply not saying anything while staring at a webpage with no communication as to what she was doing. She was not prepared at all for this workshop as over half of the links she tried to use were not available or were under construction (something that could have been checked ahead of time).

It was requested at the end of Day 1 that she share a list of tools that we would use on Day 2 so that we could prepare ahead of time so that we could follow along, and this was not done either.

Somehow on Day 2 we ended up talking about a vector annotation program and converting DNA sequences to mass and molarity - this has nothing to do with the course content of metagenomics and AMR. And she did not cover the last 2 points on the syllabus for the day at all.

The Mentor was not prepared for this workshop at all - adding notes from google AI summary DURING the session, not having a computer capable of running the programs she is meant to demonstrate, not having a stable internet connection, not knowing when she is sharing her screen or not. A significant portion of each session was spent just checking whether or not we could see what she wanted us to see.
The Mentor should have prepared notes in advance, shared lists of programs with students so they could be prepared in advance as well, and made sure she had access to all the tools she planned to showcase.

When presented with any of this feedback directly during the session the Mentor was defensive, often talking over participants before they had finished their question, and outright denying that she missed covering something. She was adamant that she had covered all topics from Day 1 when in the recording of Day 1 at the end of the session she promises to go over the missed topics on Day 2 - she did not ever go over these missing topics and raised her voice at the participant when this was brought up on Day 2.

The syllabus promised "hands-on" experience, which at least should mean demonstrating how each of the analysis tools works. Instead what we got was the presenter going to a github page and saying to install the tool with conda - nothing about how to actually run the tool, or what we could expect as output from the tool itself. There was no guidance provided about which options to use for each tool, she just read straight off the webpage for each one. This does not count as hands-on experience or even a demonstration.
She did open specific scripts on the github for each tool, but these are the internal workings of the tool and not at all necessary to run the tool - and in fact not useful at all when doing metagenomic analysis. This demonstrates she has no knowledge of how these tools work or how to run them.

The Mentor was late to the Day 2 session and spent over 30 mins of the 1.5h session either disconnected entirely, without her screen visible, or simply not saying anything while staring at a webpage with no communication as to what she was doing. She was not prepared at all for this workshop as over half of the links she tried to use were not available or were under construction (something that could have been checked ahead of time).

It was requested at the end of Day 1 that she share a list of tools that we would use on Day 2 so that we could prepare ahead of time so that we could follow along, and this was not done either.

Somehow on Day 2 we ended up talking about a vector annotation program and converting DNA sequences to mass and molarity - this has nothing to do with the course content of metagenomics and AMR. And she did not cover the last 2 points on the syllabus for the day at all.

The Mentor was not prepared for this workshop at all - adding notes from google AI summary DURING the session, not having a computer capable of running the programs she is meant to demonstrate, not having a stable internet connection, not knowing when she is sharing her screen or not. A significant portion of each session was spent just checking whether or not we could see what she wanted us to see.
The Mentor should have prepared notes in advance, shared lists of programs with students so they could be prepared in advance as well, and made sure she had access to all the tools she planned to showcase.

When presented with any of this feedback directly during the session the Mentor was defensive, often talking over participants before they had finished their question, and outright denying that she missed covering something. She was adamant that she had covered all topics from Day 1 when in the recording of Day 1 at the end of the session she promises to go over the missed topics on Day 2 - she did not ever go over these missing topics and raised her voice at the participant when this was brought up on Day 2.