BIOENGR 167L
Bioengineering Laboratory
Description: Lecture, two hours; laboratory, six hours; outside study, four hours. Enforced requisite: Chemistry 20L. Laboratory experiments in fluorescence microscopy, bioconjugation, soft lithography, and cell culture culminate in design of engineered surface for cell growth. Introduction to techniques used in laboratories and their underlying physical or chemical properties. Case studies connect laboratory techniques to current biomedical engineering research and reinforce experimental design skills. Letter grading.
Units: 4.0
Units: 4.0
1 of 2
Most Helpful Review
Winter 2024 - Logistics: 2 Lab Reports (long lab reports for multiple labs) 1 free response Midterm Final group project + presentations I LOVED THIS CLASS AND LEARNED SO MUCH. Professor Jun Chen and his TAs are absolutely amazing and this was one of the best and most interesting classes I ever had. He is super passionate and his only goal is to help students learn. At first, I thought this is going to be a boring class but I loved learning about his research which is with MEGs and TENGs. He is always willing to work with students and understands if something comes up and is willing to give extensions. His lectures are also very engaging and interesting and all the labs are extremely fun and informative. Overall the workload is very manageable and this is a perfect class to take just to destress from all other BE classes. 100000% would take any of his classes.
Winter 2024 - Logistics: 2 Lab Reports (long lab reports for multiple labs) 1 free response Midterm Final group project + presentations I LOVED THIS CLASS AND LEARNED SO MUCH. Professor Jun Chen and his TAs are absolutely amazing and this was one of the best and most interesting classes I ever had. He is super passionate and his only goal is to help students learn. At first, I thought this is going to be a boring class but I loved learning about his research which is with MEGs and TENGs. He is always willing to work with students and understands if something comes up and is willing to give extensions. His lectures are also very engaging and interesting and all the labs are extremely fun and informative. Overall the workload is very manageable and this is a perfect class to take just to destress from all other BE classes. 100000% would take any of his classes.
AD
AD
Most Helpful Review
Spring 2023 - This class at UCLA has been an extremely disappointing experience, ranking among the worst courses I have taken. Dr. Meyer and his head TA, Michael Bogumil, make for a disastrous combination. Firstly, Dr. Meyer's approach to teaching is lacking. Instead of lecturing, he relies on student presentations while only making class announcements. Inconsistencies arose, as attendance was initially disregarded but later enforced in week 8, without any mention in the syllabus. It felt as if Dr. Meyer was merely a placeholder, oblivious to the chaos unfolding in the lab sections due to the incompetence of his head TA. The lab sessions were consistently plagued with issues. Our cell cultures were never ready on time, resulting in incomplete experiments and confusion about the lab sequence. Michael's inability to seed the cells promptly meant our experiments suffered from inadequate cell densities. When I approached my TA about this, she acknowledged the negative impact but stated that it was expected at this point, leaving us to anticipate mistakes from our TAs, which is unacceptable. Changes to the protocols were frequently made without consulting us, leaving us feeling powerless. When I raised these concerns with Dr. Meyer, he seemed genuinely surprised by the last-minute changes. Furthermore, the grading of assignments and tests was abysmal. Reports lacked a clear rubric, and receiving feedback was a struggle, with minimal comments provided. Completing the reports was a time-consuming task, given the excessive number of questions and required observations. The exams were a nightmare, bearing little resemblance to the course material that was never properly taught by Dr. Meyer. The questions demanded specific answers that could only be known if one had seen the test beforehand. The grading process was the most frustrating aspect, as my initial score of 46/75 dramatically increased to 67/75 after pleading for a recount. Such discrepancies should not be tolerated. Dr. Meyer's lack of organization is evident, and it would benefit him to experience this class anonymously, gaining a firsthand understanding of the challenges we endure. Unfortunately, his head TA has yet to take responsibility, severely hindering the students' educational experience.
Spring 2023 - This class at UCLA has been an extremely disappointing experience, ranking among the worst courses I have taken. Dr. Meyer and his head TA, Michael Bogumil, make for a disastrous combination. Firstly, Dr. Meyer's approach to teaching is lacking. Instead of lecturing, he relies on student presentations while only making class announcements. Inconsistencies arose, as attendance was initially disregarded but later enforced in week 8, without any mention in the syllabus. It felt as if Dr. Meyer was merely a placeholder, oblivious to the chaos unfolding in the lab sections due to the incompetence of his head TA. The lab sessions were consistently plagued with issues. Our cell cultures were never ready on time, resulting in incomplete experiments and confusion about the lab sequence. Michael's inability to seed the cells promptly meant our experiments suffered from inadequate cell densities. When I approached my TA about this, she acknowledged the negative impact but stated that it was expected at this point, leaving us to anticipate mistakes from our TAs, which is unacceptable. Changes to the protocols were frequently made without consulting us, leaving us feeling powerless. When I raised these concerns with Dr. Meyer, he seemed genuinely surprised by the last-minute changes. Furthermore, the grading of assignments and tests was abysmal. Reports lacked a clear rubric, and receiving feedback was a struggle, with minimal comments provided. Completing the reports was a time-consuming task, given the excessive number of questions and required observations. The exams were a nightmare, bearing little resemblance to the course material that was never properly taught by Dr. Meyer. The questions demanded specific answers that could only be known if one had seen the test beforehand. The grading process was the most frustrating aspect, as my initial score of 46/75 dramatically increased to 67/75 after pleading for a recount. Such discrepancies should not be tolerated. Dr. Meyer's lack of organization is evident, and it would benefit him to experience this class anonymously, gaining a firsthand understanding of the challenges we endure. Unfortunately, his head TA has yet to take responsibility, severely hindering the students' educational experience.
1 of 2
