it's unfortunate that this class is almost entirely based on rote memorization. sure, it helps us understand the concepts and one could argue that all of the information is necessary in gaining a decent grasp on the vast realm of information that is communication studies. that being said, the midterm and final both require that students memorize minute details in order to achieve any sort of success. this wouldn't be so bad if the content wasn't so diverse and well, overwhelmingly abundant. i'm expecting an A- or a B+ from this class and i'm a straight A student at UCLA (only had one B before this class and that was during first quarter) and i'm already a comm major so i had to take this class. but for those of you who are looking for GEs, don't even bother. it is NOT worth it. get into comm and then take comm 10 so that comm 10 (which is designed as a weeder class) won't screw you over in your chances at getting into comm. frankly, i still feel like i haven't learned much. the reading is moderately interested but can get quite tedious as some of the content feels like it is the same thing reiterated over and over and over.... just using different words. just my 2 cents. otherwise, suman is a decent professor but far from the best.

My opinion of the class is quite different from other people. I think it is pretty good class, and Professor Suman did a pretty good job.
Lecture: First half of the quarter is interpersonal communication, second half is mass communication. The first half is really interesting. The lectures are mostly about daily life, the concepts are easy to understand and organize, and the book was practical. The second half is more academic, but approachable as he talks about mass media we encounter everyday. More concepts and more definitions to remember. One thing about lecture, you always have to take notes. Notes are no 1 thing in this class, so it may get painful.
Reading: not a lot, approximately about 100 pages a week, and the you read them quick. So nothing to worry about there cuz the TAs talks a lot about the books in discussion.
Exams: I guess you can say they are hard. Both the midterm and the final consists of short answers and essays. The short answers are defining a term and give an example. Someone wrote below that you have to memorize word to word. That is not true. If it happened to him/her, it's probably because he/she got a bad TA, cuz the TAs grade exams. For concepts, you just have to know what they are and express clearly, and those are not really complex concepts. The essays mostly requires you to use the concepts and apply them to a real-life scenario. I guess some people are just good or bad with these...For the final, prof. suman gave out two essay problems in class before the final for people to start thinking. I thought that was really nice.
Paper: you have to write an observational paper, 5-7 pages, not hard.
I guess I actually enjoyed the class. I havent got my final grade yet. I just know that, before the final. I am right on the edge of A-. Honestly, his curve is not that big. I think the only reason I didnt get an A is probably because I just totally slacked off after midterm.
So, not a bad class to take, learn a lot.

Do not take this course for GE credit, period. I would only recommend taking it if you are a Comm/prospective Comm major. Suman is a great instructor, and I learned a lot from this class, but I ended up getting a B- (my lowest grade ever at UCLA) after studying intensely for the course. I am a BusEcon major who took the class for GE credit, thinking it would be just another GE, and ended up working extremely hard and getting a very low grade. After getting an A on the midterm, I ended up getting a 9/25 on the essay (they grade the essay very harshly) and a B- in the class. Just check out the grade distributions for the class, and you will see how difficult it is to get in the A range. I have never seen a lower percentage of A's for a class at UCLA.

Bottom line - good professor, but don't take the course if you're not looking to become a Comm major. Also, people who are good at memorizing may do better in this course, as the course is mostly just about memorizing everything he writes on the board.

Although the concepts are easy to grasp, the tests are graded so harsh that the curves are low. You might think that this is good because it can work for you advantage, but the truth is that the majority of the students ended up with a D-, which thanks to the curve became a B-. My advise is to take the class if you are thinking of becoming a Communications major, but read the test essay questions very carefully and make sure to give examples for everything.

The best way to describe this class is that you are the audience and Suman is on stage, giving a three hour monologue to you each week. Although you may feel most classes are like this, in this class it is literally one long, 10 week monologue. He is a nice, approachable professor, but the class is so strictly formatted that it seems he has been using the same material ever since he started teaching the course (this is basically true: some of his references are extremely dated). My TA even described this as a definite weeder course. What the class comes down to is: a midterm, a final, and an essay. The essay is actually not that bad and interesting, it was the tests that are almost impossible to study for (unless you happen to have a photographic memory). In lecture, Suman will give 50 examples for every point he makes - don't think he's just talking to hear himself talk. Even little things you didn't pay attention to end up on the tests ("Give an example of what _______ means"). I filled up an entire notebook of lecture notes alone from this one class. There is no way to study for the tests other than reading and rereading your notes; I tried to make flash cards for the midterm, and they ended up being crammed replicas of my class notes (flashcards would be useful for the definitions, though). What he does is he makes lists of the topic (11 societal functions of mass media), which can lead to days of lecture on the same thing (we discussed how books were involved in the mass media....for three days). Towards the end, going to class is painful. It is necessary to go, however, because he does not write on the board/post lecture slides online. After the midterm he started writing words we needed to know on the board, so that was about 5% more helpful. The tests were made up of short answer questions and 3 essays; again, the only way to do well is by memorizing every piece of information he gave you. The curve I hear has been for awhile that an A ends up meaning getting an 80% and up in the class. It wasn't a terrible course that is impossible to handle, the tests are just really annoying to study for because there is so much information given.

Class Style: Lecture. Chalkboard is used. Supported by 2 books, in which one is tested by midterm and the other is tested by final. Additionally, in order to pass the class you need to serve as a guinea pig in some experiments or take related surveys. The alternative is write essays, so I advise you to take the former.

Exam formats: Fair share of vocab and short answer questions (known colloquially as "ID's".) This is accompanied by some essay questions.

Overall review: First half is largely interpersonal communication, second half is mass communication. This course at first gives a good impression since the interpersonal comm part is mostly about communication in romantic relationships. Be not deceived, my friend. This course is notorious for a stringent grading policy. You need to answer those ID's word-for-word. I heard that on one question, given the answer is "being confined in an isolated place", an answer of "solitary confinement" is marked incorrect. This class is also notable for the gamut of "lists" that you need to memorize, such as "list of 8 things people look for in relationships". You are expected to memorize the ideas presented in the two books you read, particularly the terms or phrases being used in said books. The professor tests only on the books and what he writes on the blackboard, but the extremist grading policy more than flips over that piece of good news. In my case, the grading means this:

Me: "For this essay, I got all eight things in the list. Why did I lose points?"
TA: "You wrote 'they' instead of 'Sarah and Betty'.."

Suggested Course of Action: Please do not take this class unless you like memorizing word-for-word and long lists. Even if you like to do that, you will find that the grading policy is not within reasonable boundaries.

WORST CLASS AT UCLA...please just please don't take it...it seriously was the dumbest most excruciatingly painful class

Despite the temptation, only take notes on concepts written on the board. I suggest underlining terms that he puts on there. With so much information to remember, you'd get overwhelmed otherwise. Also, be extremely specific. I missed correlation even though I got the concept because I forgot to state it didn't lead to causation, instead writing it didn't mean causation. For the essay portion, it's probably impossible to get full credit even if you understand everything, you'll probably end up with Ds. To increase your score, write a good intro and conclusion, be specific, and give more than one example for each thing you have to list. For instance, I wrote that Mary may have had a bad mood, which caused her to percieve the play badly, when I should have been more specific and listed the reason why Mary was in a bad mood. It's not easy to get an A in the class, but it is a very interesting subject, especially if you want to get into Comm Studs, and if you do get an A it will look good on your application to get into the major. That said, despite the 80-60-40 scale for ABC it's still a difficult class with a lot of memorization, so try to start memorizing well before the tests and test your friends, it'll help you memorize it more. And since the lists are otherwise impossible to memorize, use acronyms, from cspenn to melscramp, to help you know the lists, then write them out for the essays as soon as you get the test. Even if you do the readings meticulously, you will still end up missing questions, but read it very thoroughly nonetheless.

He's a really good professor because he outlines everything for you, and writes all the important points on the board. The first half of the class was very clear and concise and easy to follow. However, the second half of the class, it was a bit ambiguous what is important to take notes on, though he does specify that what he writes on the board is important, however, you're still doubtful. Its a lot of information to memorize, but it was overall a fun class. I got an A on my midterm and Term Paper, but the final is worth a lot, cause it brought me down to a B+ X_x make sure you study!

Don't take it as a GE. Wish I listened. Suman is a good professor, he really tries to make his lectures fun but sometimes they are flat out boring. Your grade really depends on your TA. Take it if it's for your major if not find somethin' else cause this class ain't that easy. Especially after the 1st midterm.