ASTR 6
Cosmology: Our Changing Concepts of Universe
Description: Lecture, three hours; discussion, one hour. Exposition of ideas about structure and evolution of universe and its contents. Special and general relativity; black holes, neutron stars, and other endpoints of stellar evolution. Expanding universe, cosmic microwave background radiation, dark matter. Big Bang and inflation. P/NP or letter grading.
Units: 4.0
Units: 4.0
1 of 2
Most Helpful Review
Professor Arisaka has a rather heavy accent, which made his lectures fairly difficult to understand for the first couple of days; however, like he said, we soon got used to it and understood most of his lectures. What I like about him is that he seems to listen to his students; for example, for the first couple of meetings he lectured from the overhead. He went really fast, not giving us enough time to copy down all his notes. When some students complained, he decided to make copies of all the transparencies in a thick packet to be passed out in the beginning of every lecture. That's like 30 pages + per packet and per lecture! It probably isn't completely necessary to go to every lecture, but be warned: on the tests he throws in a few questions to which you would only know the answers if you had been in class to listen (he didn't put them in the assembled packet of notes). The textbook was called "The Big Bang"; I don't think many of us actually read the book at all. All you have to do is study the lecture notes. He didn't pass out practice tests for or class until the final came around, but if you get them, definitely study them (most of the answers are on them). If things don't make sense in the beginning or the middle of the class, they will by the final. Arisaka is good at tying things up (or, as he calls it, showing "the big picture"). If you can, get Mark McGovern as your TA. He answers every e-mail in-depth and is very helpful in office hours.
Professor Arisaka has a rather heavy accent, which made his lectures fairly difficult to understand for the first couple of days; however, like he said, we soon got used to it and understood most of his lectures. What I like about him is that he seems to listen to his students; for example, for the first couple of meetings he lectured from the overhead. He went really fast, not giving us enough time to copy down all his notes. When some students complained, he decided to make copies of all the transparencies in a thick packet to be passed out in the beginning of every lecture. That's like 30 pages + per packet and per lecture! It probably isn't completely necessary to go to every lecture, but be warned: on the tests he throws in a few questions to which you would only know the answers if you had been in class to listen (he didn't put them in the assembled packet of notes). The textbook was called "The Big Bang"; I don't think many of us actually read the book at all. All you have to do is study the lecture notes. He didn't pass out practice tests for or class until the final came around, but if you get them, definitely study them (most of the answers are on them). If things don't make sense in the beginning or the middle of the class, they will by the final. Arisaka is good at tying things up (or, as he calls it, showing "the big picture"). If you can, get Mark McGovern as your TA. He answers every e-mail in-depth and is very helpful in office hours.
AD
Most Helpful Review
I took Physics6A with Fitzgerald. He is a good lecturer I admit. But his exams are extremely hard. And they are not at all predictable. Some times you see like one question in the exam that's the same or similar as his sample exams. But his exams are soooooo challenging. And his homework and sample exams don't prepare you well for them. The average for the final exam was like 56%. And his curves don't do you any favor either. Apparently he inflated the curve for people who got below a C- after he realized he failed too many people probably. But this is a very difficult professor. Don't take him if you don't want to have a hard time and a poor grade, unless of course you are a natural in physics.
I took Physics6A with Fitzgerald. He is a good lecturer I admit. But his exams are extremely hard. And they are not at all predictable. Some times you see like one question in the exam that's the same or similar as his sample exams. But his exams are soooooo challenging. And his homework and sample exams don't prepare you well for them. The average for the final exam was like 56%. And his curves don't do you any favor either. Apparently he inflated the curve for people who got below a C- after he realized he failed too many people probably. But this is a very difficult professor. Don't take him if you don't want to have a hard time and a poor grade, unless of course you are a natural in physics.
Most Helpful Review
Winter 2019 - I really loved this class honestly and I tried so hard but still ended up getting a B+. But that all comes down to my performance and less about where the professor's falling short. The weekly homeworks are doable but sometimes very confusing but then again TA's office hours would be a huge help which I could never wake up early enough to attend even though it was at 1pm on a wednesday. honestly he's such a great accomplished funny professor and i would've done better in this class if i wasn't battling some other issues. everything draws from the lecture, no more no less so you wouldn't have to go home read some textbook and learn things yourself. i think this class also helped me develop a good habit of taking lecture notes and reviewing my notes. although the material is still pretty complex and takes a while to really digest the information and understand the why and how. maybe its not even necessary to get a deep understanding but i tried.
Winter 2019 - I really loved this class honestly and I tried so hard but still ended up getting a B+. But that all comes down to my performance and less about where the professor's falling short. The weekly homeworks are doable but sometimes very confusing but then again TA's office hours would be a huge help which I could never wake up early enough to attend even though it was at 1pm on a wednesday. honestly he's such a great accomplished funny professor and i would've done better in this class if i wasn't battling some other issues. everything draws from the lecture, no more no less so you wouldn't have to go home read some textbook and learn things yourself. i think this class also helped me develop a good habit of taking lecture notes and reviewing my notes. although the material is still pretty complex and takes a while to really digest the information and understand the why and how. maybe its not even necessary to get a deep understanding but i tried.
AD
Most Helpful Review
Winter 2018 - DO NOT TAKE MALKAN FOR ASTRO 6 ... I REPEAT ... DO NOT TAKE MALKAN FOR ASTRO 6 ... I am currently sitting in Week 6 of Malkan's class, and let me tell you, it will be the worst class you have ever taken at UCLA. In the beginning, he claims that the class is designed for nonmajors (I'm a polisci major) but is taught in similar ways as he teaches his astronomy major classes, which is the first red flag. However, I thought I had a general enough knowledge of math/science to get through this class (I took AP bio, chem, calc BC, and stats in high school). Boy was I wrong. It wasn't until later in the quarter that I realized unless you have taken college chem and/or physics, you are absolutely screwed for this class. He claims this is not a math-based class, but literally the whole free response is complicated math problems which he doesn't even teach. I have not taken physics, and I was literally screwed for almost all the free response. Mind you I had a 4.46 GPA in high school and took 10 AP classes and 2 community college classes, and I al afraid I'm going to fail the class. Don't put yourself through this.
Winter 2018 - DO NOT TAKE MALKAN FOR ASTRO 6 ... I REPEAT ... DO NOT TAKE MALKAN FOR ASTRO 6 ... I am currently sitting in Week 6 of Malkan's class, and let me tell you, it will be the worst class you have ever taken at UCLA. In the beginning, he claims that the class is designed for nonmajors (I'm a polisci major) but is taught in similar ways as he teaches his astronomy major classes, which is the first red flag. However, I thought I had a general enough knowledge of math/science to get through this class (I took AP bio, chem, calc BC, and stats in high school). Boy was I wrong. It wasn't until later in the quarter that I realized unless you have taken college chem and/or physics, you are absolutely screwed for this class. He claims this is not a math-based class, but literally the whole free response is complicated math problems which he doesn't even teach. I have not taken physics, and I was literally screwed for almost all the free response. Mind you I had a 4.46 GPA in high school and took 10 AP classes and 2 community college classes, and I al afraid I'm going to fail the class. Don't put yourself through this.
Most Helpful Review
Physics 6A: Sakai was a decent lecturer. Everyone gets perfect or near perfect scores on the homework and labs, so your grade is basically determined by the two midterms and final. Her tests were all very straightforward, and if you did the homework and the study guide you'll do well on them. However, because of this the average on the tests were very high, so the curve was useless. I got perfect scores on both midterms, did slightly above average on the final, and ended up with an A-.
Physics 6A: Sakai was a decent lecturer. Everyone gets perfect or near perfect scores on the homework and labs, so your grade is basically determined by the two midterms and final. Her tests were all very straightforward, and if you did the homework and the study guide you'll do well on them. However, because of this the average on the tests were very high, so the curve was useless. I got perfect scores on both midterms, did slightly above average on the final, and ended up with an A-.
AD
1 of 2
