Are courses aimed at those looking for a career change supposed to be less advanced?

I recently started a new course at masters level that was targeted for those looking to switch careers, and the course details said that you didn't need prior industry knowledge. As I was looking to study Computer Science, but my undergrad was unrelated, I didn't want to jump in at the deep end, so this seemed perfect for me.
Before starting the course, I found some free resources and began to learn Python in hopes of being more confident with the material. One of the first modules was an intro to CS and taught beginner Python concepts and coding. I found it mostly easy and super fun. I learnt a lot and was excited to learn more. However, the next module that included coding was sooooo advanced, I had no idea how they expected us to be able to do it. By the end of it, I managed to complete the work but heavily relied on tweaking code found online and ultimately, finished the project with 0 idea of how any of my code actually worked. I felt cheated. I wanted to learn, but instead, I stressed and threw together a C-grade piece of work that I didn't even understand.

I was super excited to learn programming concepts and code, and had planned to continue learning code afterwards until I was confident enough to pursue a job that focused on it. Now I am defeated and unmotivated, and I worry I will fail the course.
I don't understand how they went from teaching print, input, and for loops, to teaching K-NN, Trees, and multiple other complicated concepts in one single module and not only did they expect us to understand them all, but also be able to code them with original code....

I am now onto my 3rd coding module, and it is once again very advanced, and I am still burnt out from the last one. I've completely given up trying to understand all of the concepts and code because it feels pointless. Am I being dramatic? Is this the expected advanced level of a 'career switch' course? Or is this genuinely overlooked and thrown together badly for what was advertised? It's an online course, but it is still accredited so I expected better.

I recently started a new course at masters level that was targeted for those looking to switch careers, and the course details said that you didn't need prior industry knowledge. As I was looking to study Computer Science, but my undergrad was unrelated, I didn't want to jump in at the deep end, so this seemed perfect for me.
Before starting the course, I found some free resources and began to learn Python in hopes of being more confident with the material. One of the first modules was an intro to CS and taught beginner Python concepts and coding. I found it mostly easy and super fun. I learnt a lot and was excited to learn more. However, the next module that included coding was sooooo advanced, I had no idea how they expected us to be able to do it. By the end of it, I managed to complete the work but heavily relied on tweaking code found online and ultimately, finished the project with 0 idea of how any of my code actually worked. I felt cheated. I wanted to learn, but instead, I stressed and threw together a C-grade piece of work that I didn't even understand.
I was super excited to learn programming concepts and code, and had planned to continue learning code afterwards until I was confident enough to pursue a job that focused on it. Now I am defeated and unmotivated, and I worry I will fail the course.
I don't understand how they went from teaching print, input, and for loops, to teaching K-NN, Trees, and multiple other complicated concepts in one single module and not only did they expect us to understand them all, but also be able to code them with original code....
I am now onto my 3rd coding module, and it is once again very advanced, and I am still burnt out from the last one. I've completely given up trying to understand all of the concepts and code because it feels pointless. Am I being dramatic? Is this the expected advanced level of a 'career switch' course? Or is this genuinely overlooked and thrown together badly for what was advertised? It's an online course, but it is still accredited so I expected better.

Hi,
Unfortunately from my knowledge, some University masters courses are considered the step-up from the associated pathway in undergraduate, often expecting a base knowledge level. Regardless you may find that they teach you a refresh of certain programming languages as a reminder but expecting you to go off in your own time and the suggested "study hours" (you can often get the exact number from your module descriptor or lecturer) to perfect your skills in it. I completely understand that you've been hit in the deep end but it sometimes may be the case that perhaps the lecturer has even assumed that the class was comfortable and ready to move-on. Did the harder module cover a different programming language? Feel free to let us know more about which language/type of task it asked for in case anyone has any brilliant resources to pop over!
At A-level/equivalent you are often taught O-notation and basic data structures, then in undergraduate you may be taught to program sorts and be comfortable with working on different data structures (leetcode is amazing for this to practice with), finally moving onto masters where they assume you have this prior knowledge or "catch-up" before starting. Like mesub has mentioned above, it is super important you chat to your lecturers about your worries to see if they have any additional resources or time to support you. Masters can feel overwhelming to start with due to the crunch but If you're a career switcher and already come this far, you definitely have it in the bag! You're at the last stretch so keep on going, especially if it is accredited. I do recommend clarifying any material you do not understand in your own time through YouTube Videos, online tutorials and revision material. A course can only teach you so much sadly and often for masters much of the learning is expected to be done independently. Don't give up on concepts as they are a baseline and very important too! Take some time to yourself in-between too, burnout is horrible.
Do let us know if there is anything you are struggling with so we can all chip in on any resources to send your way. You've got this!
Aura (Uni of Staffs Student Rep, Computer Science)

Have you tried reaching out to the instructor to let them know you're struggling? They may be able to provide additional support or resources to help you.

Thank you for taking the time to reply, I do appreciate it.
I completely understand that at Master’s level there is an expectation of independent learning, self-management, and filling in gaps through personal study. I am actively doing that, and the majority of my study time has been spent finding resources independently because the module materials themselves assume a level of prior knowledge I simply don’t have.
However, my concern isn’t that the course is hard or that independent learning is required — it’s that the course was explicitly advertised as not requiring prior Computer Science or programming knowledge, with the only requirement being any undergraduate degree. If a course does, in practice, require students to already be comfortable with advanced concepts, then that expectation should be made clear upfront. Otherwise, it feels unfair and misleading.
Many of us came into this course in good faith as career-switchers. Going from introductory Python concepts (print, input, basic loops) to being assessed on algorithms such as K-NN, trees, and other complex techniques within a very short timeframe isn’t just a “step up” ...it’s a leap that realistically takes far longer than a couple of months to build properly. You can complete assignments, but not necessarily understand what you’re doing, which defeats the point of learning.
To put it another way: if a Mandarin course was advertised for beginners, covered basic greetings initially, and then jumped to complex academic sentences within two months, it wouldn’t reasonably be considered beginner-friendly. I don’t see why it should be different here simply because it’s a Master’s qualification.
What’s been particularly concerning is that many of my peers have struggled badly — some have failed modules, others have dropped out entirely — not due to lack of effort, but because the course content does not align with how it was advertised. That suggests a structural issue rather than an individual one.
I absolutely accept that a Master’s involves less guidance and more autonomy, I actually learn best this way and have excelled in the modules that do not require prior coding knowledge (unlike my mediocre grades received from academic structures that are less autonomous). But if the course is a conversion MSc, the responsibility still lies with the course design to scaffold students appropriately. Expecting people to acquire skills that typically take years within weeks feels like an oversight and, frankly, sets many students up to fail.
Even if I ultimately obtain the degree, it’s hard not to feel that something has gone wrong when the outcome is burnout, surface-level understanding, and a loss of confidence and enjoyment in programming rather than the passion and competence many of us enrolled hoping to build.
Again, I don't disagree with you that this may be the standard and appreciate you bringing it to my attention as a failure of entire academic structure and not just an isolated incident, but I also do not defend it. I think that advertising should be more transparent for prospect students. This would benefit the universities too, giving higher success rates.
If this course assumed a level of prior knowledge and offered an access course for begginers, I would have eagerly completed that first, setting myself up for success, and ultimately paying more tuition.