ANTHRO 210
Analytical Methods in Archaeological Studies
Description: Seminar, three hours. Preparation: one term of statistics. Data analysis procedures in archaeology. Emphasis on conceptual framework for analysis of archaeological data, beginning at level of attribute and ending at level of region. S/U or letter grading.
Units: 4.0
Units: 4.0
1 of 1
Most Helpful Review
This is the single worst class I have ever taken at UCLA. It is not hard or complicated, but this professor does not care about her students, and does not encourage class discussion, her assignment to interview a "latino customer" person and a "korean store owner" is absolutely ridiculous and frankly was insulting because of the racial slurs and stereotypes it actually ENCOURAGED. Her lectures are biased and she displays hints of racism if not surface level biases that she attempts to brainwash the class with. This class was insulting because she is racially insensitive and she frequently blurts out biased opinions in her pointed remarks. She has said stupid things like "second generation koreans do not study as much because they are more american," or "what does it mean for koreans if they all become ministers" (while laughing because she thinks they should "become lawyers and doctors instead"). Do not take this class or any other class with this professor, she does not represent anything related to Asian American studies because it is an amazing major. NOTE: i did NOT take an anthro class with her but i took an ASIAN AM class with her. for some reason I cannot change that on the course selection.
This is the single worst class I have ever taken at UCLA. It is not hard or complicated, but this professor does not care about her students, and does not encourage class discussion, her assignment to interview a "latino customer" person and a "korean store owner" is absolutely ridiculous and frankly was insulting because of the racial slurs and stereotypes it actually ENCOURAGED. Her lectures are biased and she displays hints of racism if not surface level biases that she attempts to brainwash the class with. This class was insulting because she is racially insensitive and she frequently blurts out biased opinions in her pointed remarks. She has said stupid things like "second generation koreans do not study as much because they are more american," or "what does it mean for koreans if they all become ministers" (while laughing because she thinks they should "become lawyers and doctors instead"). Do not take this class or any other class with this professor, she does not represent anything related to Asian American studies because it is an amazing major. NOTE: i did NOT take an anthro class with her but i took an ASIAN AM class with her. for some reason I cannot change that on the course selection.
AD
Most Helpful Review
This is an evaluation for her M E STD 50 class. The class consists of one final paper, a midterm, and a final. You read four books over the term of the course, but you don't have to read them through and through to get a good grade, but some of the questions on the exams go into detail about the books. Her exams are a combination of lecture and the books. There are weekly assignments due to the TAs which are just a page analysis of the readings for that week. Her lectures are very disorganized, she does a lot of random talking, and goes all over the place. She does not communicate very well to the students. Overall, its not a bad GE if you do the readings (which were interesting imo, except for one book). But lecture will probably bore you.
This is an evaluation for her M E STD 50 class. The class consists of one final paper, a midterm, and a final. You read four books over the term of the course, but you don't have to read them through and through to get a good grade, but some of the questions on the exams go into detail about the books. Her exams are a combination of lecture and the books. There are weekly assignments due to the TAs which are just a page analysis of the readings for that week. Her lectures are very disorganized, she does a lot of random talking, and goes all over the place. She does not communicate very well to the students. Overall, its not a bad GE if you do the readings (which were interesting imo, except for one book). But lecture will probably bore you.
1 of 1
