The 170E taught by the vice undergrad dept chair is definitely a unique experience to me. He skipped some material such as conditional pdf and expectations and said this will not cause any problem when we take 170S. He is a nice instructor who gave fair midterms and hard final(26-page long), and we indeed learn stuff from him. Unfortunately he does not teach the sequel. Not only I but also many of my friends began to miss him after finding those who actually give lectures for the sequel of 170E did a way less fantastic job than him.

For 266A, professor Roper is a great teacher and eager to help students, and he is generally clear on courses materials. He can be occasional late in class, but I find that understandable since he can be occupied by his daughter at times. The only con is that he seems never prepare for classes, and can sometimes confuse himself in some proofs (also higher possibility of typos in notes). The tests are fair for a graduate course, and I believe he curved a lot to give out more A’s.

This class is a complete and utter joke. The grading is completely unfair and seemingly arbitrary. The class has unreasonable time commitments, and there is no discussion. Why on earth would anything think it would be a good idea to set up a course in this manner. I hope this class and professors ratings tank down to a 1 because that is truly what it deserves. Don't get me wrong, he's a very sweet man and he really really cares about us learning the content, but the way that he presents information in accordance to the prerecorded lectures is just very strange and its hard to know what you will really be tested on. Its like a teacher gone quirky mode where he literally just wants to do everything outside of the norm. Take quizzes that boost peoples confidence because YAYY!!!! everyone gets 100%!!!!!! But then come midterm and final, the medians were a 57% and a 62% respectively, and they are nothing like the practices because he says that if he gave us content that would be on the finals, that would be silly. Okay then why would I do this practice if it wont help me succeed. Side note some of the questions are the same but I'm just very mad about the way things were graded. He also states that the test grades you receive aren't actually yours and that he will reinterpret the work that you've done at the end and judge whether or not it shows mastery. If the grading scheme is not what's being presented to the students, the teacher ought to change it! What really sucks is the lack of discussion, because that time is so valuable at least for me to clarify expectations. He also gave us no information on what the curve would look like and is yet to respond to any of the things said on piazza. I know you wont take this class because only bad things were said, but if you do please be warned and go ahead and drop a 1 star for the futures when your dreams of getting a good grade are crushed.

I completely agree with the other reviews, this class was truly a nightmare. Out of all the lower divisions I've taken (32a, 32b, 33a, 61 and this class) this class was by far the absolute worst. I know that this class isn't supposed to be as hard as he makes it as well because I have seen what other classes are doing and although it's somewhat similar material, their assessments are very straightforward and computational - the opposite of a Roper exam. I think my main qualms with this class were 1. no textbook 2. Pearson homework's that were picky with formatting and generated ridiculous integrals that he even acknowledged (one problem had all this weird trig and literally took me over 2 hours to solve and he even had trouble with it in office hours and tried to laugh it off) 3. NO DISCUSSION SECTIONS 4. Pre-studies that are mostly useless, needlessly complex and took up way to much time. He clarified that he would curve our grades but I really don't think he did because I had a solid B and thats what I received, there was absolutely no clarity on how he planned to round, except that it would "not be a curve" and would be "based on learning goals." He would also joke in class that there is nobody to complain to as he is the vice chair of the math department, which made students feel unheard and trapped with him (in my opinion). Overall this class was such a waste of time and energy, although I feel that I got a very good grasp of material (because I had to put so much time into the class) it was honestly just such a draining and stressful experience.

This class was rough. The class average on the exams was in the low 60s, meaning the class average was not passing he said he's supposed to curve our exams based on topic mastery but he took forever to explain what the hell that even meant that our entire class was lost on what that meant. He assigns 3 homework assignments each week consisting of 10-15 problems were week that took forever to complete. The pearson website he uses requires an extremely picky format when you type in answer and also gives you really hard problems such as using 4 IBPs and 1 partial fraction that problem alone took the class an average of 5 hours to complete. The quizzes were annoying but fairly predictable and not too hard as long as you studied the worksheets briefly beforehand, just annoying to lose every Tuesday over a diff equ quiz when I could have been studying for my other 2 classes. The exams were unpredictable and were graded very harshly. Good luck getting regrade requests approved there was one question where i asked for a regrade request got it denied because my explanation needed to be word for word like my graph, which was 100% correct nevertheless got 1/8 for that question when any other math teacher at this school would have given me a 6/8 I believe. This class also has pre-lectures videos that are like 90 minutes long with dogs barking and kids screaming. They cover the same material as the lectures and are completely unneccessary to your overall learning in my opinion. He was extremely helpful in office hours but that didn't make up for his insane homework, insane lecture prep, and unfair grading. On top of all of this, professor never had the TA do discussion instead they were tutorial session to help you get points back on quizzes. I would have far preferred actual discussions and homework problems out of the textbook instead of pearson just like every other math class. I am writing this review before grades are posted because he is taking forever and I am an extremely impatient person. Anyhow, do NOT takes this class it will ruin your life and in order to even get a good grade you will need to priortize it meaning your other grades will likely go downhill which is what exactly happened to me. Secondly, if Roper says he is going to curve he will not so don't feed into that lie. No Math teachers here curve if you here that it is a lie. Man I've been too risky to myself and wish I had learned that earlier as Roper isn't the only one in my undergraduate career here at UCLA. For context these stats are probably a bit off, but since the average on exams was in the low 60s, around 45% of the class didn't pass and likely 5-10% may receive a subject to dismissal. So I hope Roper learned a lesson from those concerning statistics and improves his teaching big time.

I do not usually write class reviews but I feel like this one deserves it. Professor Roper is a very nice person but the way this class is run makes it extremely difficult and frustrating.

First, it is a flipped classroom. You are expected to watch pre-recorded lecture videos before each class. These videos were unorganized and spent too much time on proofs that we did not even need to know. They did not help me understand the material in a meaningful way.

In class we worked on worksheets which were somewhat helpful for learning concepts. However do not count on these to prepare for the exams. The exams were completely different and much harder than anything we saw on the worksheets.

Next is the homework. There were three Pearson assignments due every week and Pearson was terrible. The problems were not conceptually hard but the numbers were extremely confusing and the questions took forever to get through. It felt like busywork that made the class much more time consuming than it needed to be.

There was no discussion section either. Instead there were weekly quizzes and you only needed to get above a certain score to receive full credit. If you did not you had to meet with a TA. This part of the class was fine but it was still a hassle to have to study every single week for quizzes when students have other classes to be worrying about.

Now the worst part by far was the exams. They were not just difficult. They were completely unfair. They looked nothing like the worksheets or the practice exams which were the main resources he told us to study from. The grading was extremely harsh. I lost nine points on a ten point problem because of a small algebra mistake even though the rest of my solution was correct. The class averages were in the high fifties or low sixties for both the midterm and the final. Roper said there would be a curve but no one knows what it will look like or how much it will help.

The content of this class is not that bad but the way it was taught and tested made the experience awful. If you can take 33B with someone else do it. Avoid this version if you care about your grade or actually understanding the material.

Class content itself wasn't terrible but Professor Roper was not great. Here is why:

1) Flipped Lecture: You have to watch videos beforehand and come in for questions / review; not bad in itself but I personally prefer learning in person for math classes. He also does not even post the worksheet solutions because "he doesn't have the bandwidth". Really? You're being paid to teach; I think that is the bare minimum. especially if you aren't even teaching live and you're using pre-recorded videos from the past.
2) Weekly Quizzes: not bad either but some quizzes were not given enough time, stressful every Tuesday night.
3) Piazza: Piazza exists for getting quick clarifications but Professor Roper takes ages and sometimes does not even respond. What is the point of this then? This is the worst part. He additionally takes too long to post the lecture notes that include what the quiz content would be.
4) Homework: Workload is a good chunk; homework assigned PER lecture (usually 10 multi-part questions) so we had to like what 10 weeks x 3 homework each week. Not typical of any 31 series or 32 series I have taken.

Overall, he's not a bad person but he is just not organized nor responsible in having the student's learning experience in mind. This class would be bearable if he could just routinely post lecture notes right after class and respond on Piazza.

Nice prof and person. He did skip some material I thought was very needed. Questions were tricky and wording is ambiguous, but he explains them

Selling the book for the Math 3A class along with the solutions manual. The book is by Neuhauser 3rd edition. Text me at ********** if you wish to purchase.

One of the Best Professor I had at Math Department :)
GOAT!!