This isn't a bad course to take for a writing II requirement plus two GEs.
Note: discussions and lecture attendance is mandatory.
Overall, lectures are dull. Before class, you have to read the related texts. Most of the time, these are studies that the guest lecturers conducted. Which is more than fine, but when they come in to talk about them, they rarely ever add anything to what their papers said. Most topics are interesting, however, and when the professors/experts do expand on the readings, the material can be quite engaging.
The discussions are also pretty useless. My TA was super nice and tried to keep us interested, but there really wasn't much to cover, in my opinion. Most were centered around discussion questions that students wrote as part of their homework. (Hopefully that gives you some idea of how banal they were.)
The papers aren't too hard, really. The first one especially. Just make sure you follow the rubric (its organization and what it says you need to define within the parameters of your paper) and you'll do well.
Your TA will tell you for the second paper that you'll have to cut down a lot because, if you pick your topic well, you'll just want to keep going. I, along with the rest of the class, dismissed this as BS each time it was brought up, but it's actually true. If I were an AppLing major, I definitely would've just kept going after turning in the shortened version. As it were, I wasn't that motivated, but the paper was easier than I thought once I got started.
All in all, this is a paper-based class, so how well you do depends on how much time you're willing to spend tailoring your paper to the class/rubric and how kind of a grader your TA is. All the TAs for my class seemed like they wouldn't be too harsh, but I guess you never really know. I had Ashley Micklos and I'd definitely recommend her, as a teacher and a fair grader.
In case you believe grades bias reviews, I got an A.
STAY AWAY FROM THIS CLASS. dont waist your time. you get nothing from him.
Audited a class with him when in attendance at UCLA last year.
I mentioned that I audited the class so you know there is no personal stake to settle, but rather a non-grade related performance evaluation.
Let me preface this by saying I have much admiration and respect for the linguistics and applied linguistics departments, including the majority of its staff and faculty alike. I am known for being honest, respectful, and typically easy on professor assessments simply so you know the degree to which Professor Bachman's personal tact and overall interpersonal skills are severely deficient.
Overall a terrible professor. Disconnected, uninterested, passionate/tenacious--but what good is that if he is not only a sub-par lecturer, but an intrinsically cruel personal individual with little tact in dealing with his students on an individual scope. Appears to have very little concern & interest in teaching and passing on knowledge than his research. Perhaps UCLA should allow research only oriented professors to be given the opportunity to do just that--research only...they should not be allowed to step foot in a lecture hall till they undergo social communications evaluations--as in Professor Bachman's case--the component which is lacking almost entirely.
Unfit for a classroom. Good luck with his classes. I feel sorry for his spouse or significant other. Might seem cruel and tactless myself to say the aforementioned, but no less on point. Don't think I've ever seen a professor at UCLA of which I would reserve similar harsh truths. Most are fantastic at UCLA...not Bachman, he is simply not in keeping with UCLA's tradition of excellence.