Professor Lipman was super accommodating during covid. The class consisted of group lab reports, a midterm, and a final. She was very clear in her lectures (and even uploaded them for asynchronous viewing). There is a lot of group work (hence, the group lab reports) which was difficult during covid because you had to do it mostly outside of class hours so it was hard to coordinate. I wouldn't recommend this class if you don't like group work. However, she offered an extra credit opportunity which was to read a book and write a short review. Overall, the content of the class was really interesting (it made me turn permanently vegetarian). I think everyone should take this class!

I know some people felt that the final exam was unfair and was tested on "small details" but I felt that it really wasn't the case. The tested material was on general ideas found in videos and readings- I know this because I literally skimmed most readings and I got a A on the exam. I felt that the tested material was fair because many times in her lectures she would stress that certain portions would be included on the exam multiple times. For example, she says to pay attention to numbers in a lecture and then those numbers are tested on the exam.

Objectively, this class is an easier version of LS7A and LS7B. The questions are a little confusing on wording but if you take your time and pace yourself you will be fine. I think too many people come into this class thinking that it will be an easy grade booster class, but you should take it seriously if you want to do well. Take it if you are truly interested in the material, and you will do much better than if you are passively listening.

Definitely not the best professor I've had. On the very first day of class with her, she gave us an introductory presentation explaining what we should expect for the class, what we would learn, etc...Then, she gave a whole speech about why we should not email her, and, if we do have any urging questions, to email X, Y, and Z because she does not want to receive emails from anyone. I've never had a professor not want to engage with their students through email, so that didn't sit right with me, especially given the fact that this class was taught during Covid so an email is one of the only ways you can contact a professor outside of class. If you find emails from students to be annoying or a burden, then maybe you're in the wrong profession.
As some other people have said in the reviews, her lectures are not very engaging. She won't shy away from talking about her own research during class, and she will throw in a theoretical question about it on the final. Her questions on the final exam were definitely too ambiguous. I know some professors have purposely made their tests harder during Covid since everything is online, but the questions absolutely could have been written better while still being challenging. What was most off-putting about her was her response to the frustration many students expressed because of the final exam questions. I believe one of her multiple-choice questions had two correct answers but only one of them was counted for credit. After many students contacted her about it, she finally gave in and awarded credit for those who selected either answer and then stubbornly claimed that her answer choice for that question was still the only right answer despite the fact that a research article she assigned to our discussion sections said otherwise. It was very obvious that she made a mistake but was not willing to admit that she was wrong. She then grew increasingly annoyed with the response from students and refused to answer anyone else's questions about the final, finalized our grades, and called it a day. Actually, she didn't respond to anyone for a good week after the final. She took the liberty of having an earlier spring break. Then, she came back saying she would not respond to students because of the large influx of emails she received about the final and that was that.

So far in my time at UCLA, I have learned there are two kinds of professors--those that actually care about their students and others who don't necessarily care about the teaching aspect but took the job for the great career opportunity and to perform their beloved research. I'm more pissed that this is not the first time I've encountered a professor like this at UCLA and that I worked very hard to get into such a respectful school only to be met with professors that are this wack. Do better.

Dr. Lipman allowed us to do group, open-everything exams this quarter. She has some really interesting stories, but I honestly thought that she was a boring lecturer.

I took EEB 100L with Sara as my TA. She's fairly new to being a TA for 100L so don't take her class. She's very picky and will nitpick your papers. You'll spend a lot of time collecting your data and she will mark you off for the littlest things. If you want an easy A class, don't take it with Sara. You'll end up feeling frustrated especially if your group members don't contribute much.

I loved this class with Dr. Lipman. Her lectures were great, and discussion sections were my favorite of any class taken this year. The class overall was engaging, the material was interesting and accessible, the grading was very fair, and I felt like I learned a lot. Definitely one of my favorite classes I've taken so far.

As for the class structure itself, there were two books: a traditional textbook and Half Earth by E. O. Wilson. Half Earth was required while the other textbook was not, and you do not need the other textbook. Lectures and discussion sections are plenty for the content. The class was hybrid where the lectures were over zoom and recorded while discussion sections were in person.

The grading scheme of this class was focused heavily on exams and quizzes. The exams were open for a day and were collaborative if you chose to work in a group (although you didn't get to pick your group). The questions were multi-part short answer. Overall the tests seemed very fair, and if you knew the content, I thought that they were decently easy to get through. You also had to make a study guide, and there were evening study sessions ran by the TA, so I definitely felt prepared. The quizzes were short and 5 questions, given at the start of discussion sections. They were easy and really just there to make sure you did the weekly work (reading the chapters of Half Earth, reading the assigned journal article, watching the weekly film, and lecture content).

The rest of your points came from discussion section. A small amount was just pure participation. You also had two presentations, but those were informal and easily graded. You also had to volunteer, which was basically free points.

Overall the grading scheme felt fair with a decent buffer from the discussion section. If you do the work, you should feel prepared and get a good grade and learn a lot. Again, I highly recommend this class!

Honestly an awful class. Just so many random awful assignments and group oriented things. Not to mention the ridiculously slow pace of the lectures. I could not stay awake. Just take another class

I would not really recommend this lab honestly. It’s not that it’s insanely difficult, it’s just a lot of work and it can be annoying when you have a bunch of other things going on. I had Sara as my TA and I liked her a lot, it wasn’t too difficult to get an A, just make sure you meet with your TA often and ask for lots of guidance on your group project. Also, almost your entire grade is based off of one big project/paper and you can’t choose your group members so make sure everyone is contributing equally and you’ll be fine.

This course is TA-taught. The only interaction my group had with Dr. Gorlitsky and Dr. Lipman was through an hour-long office hour they held, in which we received optional feedback for our initial research project idea. Because the class is TA-taught, your grade will heavily depend on your TA, and the professors will only be accessible if you request extra meetings with them (the professors seem to often be busy, as my group emailed a meeting request and did not receive a response). The course revolves around a group research project in which you write a prospectus (proposal) for, present on twice, and write a final paper for. This class was more work than I expected as several of my group members did not pull their weight, and the only consequence for this is a lower group participation grade, which is a small portion of the grade.

Prof. Lipman did conservation work before becoming a professor, so her lectures are fascinating to listen to and are always illuminating, especially from someone as passionate about the subject as her. Her slides are relatively clear and include videos, though she sometimes assigned them as homework if lecture ran behind. There were pop quizzes in lecture, but they were based on completion and acted more like an attendance sheet. Plus, we were given an extra credit diary assignment (~1.8%). It wasn’t too bad, and I’d recommend doing it.

For the discussion section it's pretty free, though you do have to work a little bit for those points. Participation points are only given if you actively engage and speak during discussion. There are weekly quizzes based on the lecture material and a weekly documentary + research paper. At the start of the quarter, you are assigned to groups. With your group, you are given the entire quarter to read a book and give a presentation plus book report. Additionally, you have to volunteer at a local NGO and give a presentation on that volunteering event. Now the book report and volunteering event wasn't too bad, but it is too much for a class worth only 4 units. So make of that what you will.

Now getting to the exams, you have a midterm and final which are group-based, open-ended, and short-answer. Sounds pretty good, right? Well, since they are open-ended, each question has multiple different correct answers. The issue is that the grader appears to be looking for one specific response, and if you put anything else you lose points. And no, the question stem doesn't even lead you towards the "true" correct answer. There's no rubric, no guide, no nothing for how the grader takes points off. It's just a crapshoot to hope you add in the right keywords, and you lose points for missing the littlest of details.

And this issue is only exacerbated with how uncompromising Prof. Lipman is with the grading. While the TAs are helpful and will advocate for you, Lipman has the final say and is so combative against the concept of a regrade request. In her syllabus, she literally dubs it "grade bullying." Most grades are final, even if the exams lend themselves to getting subjective responses and subjective marks. The fact that the problems I've mentioned have been raised in previous Bruinwalk reviews since 2018 (since I was in middle school!) should speak for itself.

The tests, which are the class' biggest and only major problem, would be so much better with more direction and clearer grading standards. But Lipman just chooses not to change and doubles down. Her announcements about regrades often come across as defensive, and the extra credit assignment is frequently cited in response to grading concerns, despite not addressing the underlying lack of clear grading standards.

Prof. Lipman clearly cares about the course topic, and each lecture is always interesting and informative. But the exams and grading are so asinine and opaque that it's honestly not worth the stress and you should avoid the class as a whole. Cool lecturer, bad professor.