HIST 154
History of California
Description: Lecture, three hours; discussion, one hour (when scheduled). Designed for juniors/seniors. Economic, social, intellectual, and political development of California from earliest times to present. P/NP or letter grading.
Units: 4.0
Units: 4.0
1 of 1
AD
Most Helpful Review
Summer 2020 - Professor Gantner's class is entirely based on the readings; the first day of class he told everyone their attendance and participation wouldn't affect their grades at all. The midterm and final (about 4 pages each) are based on topics from the readings, and they make up the entirety of the class grade. The due dates are pretty flexible, but that was a result of being incredibly vague (we were told different things on the syllabus, in class, and in office hours.) The class itself is interesting if you want to actually learn about California history (especially when Professor Gantner shows historic pictures) but entirely irrelevant if you just want to get a good grade in the class.
Summer 2020 - Professor Gantner's class is entirely based on the readings; the first day of class he told everyone their attendance and participation wouldn't affect their grades at all. The midterm and final (about 4 pages each) are based on topics from the readings, and they make up the entirety of the class grade. The due dates are pretty flexible, but that was a result of being incredibly vague (we were told different things on the syllabus, in class, and in office hours.) The class itself is interesting if you want to actually learn about California history (especially when Professor Gantner shows historic pictures) but entirely irrelevant if you just want to get a good grade in the class.
Most Helpful Review
Winter 2019 - I never do this. I'm not sure why I am doing it right now but I couldn't keep it to myself. Brian Kovalesky is an idiot. He is unfit to be a UCLA professor. He somehow managed to attend UCLA for his PhD- from CSUN- and clearly has an inferiority complex about it. All of his handouts and lectures have auspicious UCLA logos on them and he mentions how elite UCLA is in nearly every class. You do not need to remind us, Brian. We know where we are. Maybe he needs the reminder in the large font at the top of all his assignments because nobody would ever believe that an incompetent troglodyte like him could ever be a UCLA professor. In fact, by constantly reminding me of what a great school UCLA is, Brian inadvertently reminded me of how much he does not belong. I would say his lectures are boring, but in reality, a more fitting word to describe them is simply "useless." There are three quizzes in the class worth 30 percent of your grade. These quizzes are based, not only in large part, but entirely, on the readings. Attending class would be an exercise in insanity. Further, the quizzes are short, 10-13 questions each, and missing one question makes it impossible to score a higher grade. Besides the fact that missing one question on a quiz worth 10 percent of your grade effectively makes it impossible to get an A, he is also an impossibly hard grader and often edits for content, not just grammar. Professors do not have a say in the way that I communicate my message or my word choice... grades should be for accuracy of content and grammar only. Write the essay yourself if you don't like the way I write, Brian. I am sure Brian would brag about the fact that he gives ample opportunities for extra credit. This should have been a red flag from the beginning. In the future it is important to note that any professor that offers so much extra credit must be covering for his or her own teaching ineptitude. One should be able to earn an A by earning an A and not only by raising the grade through extra credit.
Winter 2019 - I never do this. I'm not sure why I am doing it right now but I couldn't keep it to myself. Brian Kovalesky is an idiot. He is unfit to be a UCLA professor. He somehow managed to attend UCLA for his PhD- from CSUN- and clearly has an inferiority complex about it. All of his handouts and lectures have auspicious UCLA logos on them and he mentions how elite UCLA is in nearly every class. You do not need to remind us, Brian. We know where we are. Maybe he needs the reminder in the large font at the top of all his assignments because nobody would ever believe that an incompetent troglodyte like him could ever be a UCLA professor. In fact, by constantly reminding me of what a great school UCLA is, Brian inadvertently reminded me of how much he does not belong. I would say his lectures are boring, but in reality, a more fitting word to describe them is simply "useless." There are three quizzes in the class worth 30 percent of your grade. These quizzes are based, not only in large part, but entirely, on the readings. Attending class would be an exercise in insanity. Further, the quizzes are short, 10-13 questions each, and missing one question makes it impossible to score a higher grade. Besides the fact that missing one question on a quiz worth 10 percent of your grade effectively makes it impossible to get an A, he is also an impossibly hard grader and often edits for content, not just grammar. Professors do not have a say in the way that I communicate my message or my word choice... grades should be for accuracy of content and grammar only. Write the essay yourself if you don't like the way I write, Brian. I am sure Brian would brag about the fact that he gives ample opportunities for extra credit. This should have been a red flag from the beginning. In the future it is important to note that any professor that offers so much extra credit must be covering for his or her own teaching ineptitude. One should be able to earn an A by earning an A and not only by raising the grade through extra credit.
Most Helpful Review
Winter 2023 - i have to start off by saying I'm not a fan of US history so maybe my review is a little bias but I thought his lectures erred on the side of boring. First off all, there was so much information he would give and I thought some were quite redundant. Hes also just not a great lecturer. Like he def knows his stuff and is really into history of california but hes just not a good lecturer. all he does is read off his slides in an alarming speed, one where its basically impossible for you to write it all down. he has no texts on his slides, his lectures are not recorded and so it makes it extremely difficult to get all the information down. he is really helpful in his office hours and in most cases seems like a nice guy but i wouldnt value that as being a good prof. i dont think i would consider his exams and papers difficult. he does tell you exactly what he wants from them and so if you follow that closely your more than likely to get a good grade its just that man was this class absolutely boring
Winter 2023 - i have to start off by saying I'm not a fan of US history so maybe my review is a little bias but I thought his lectures erred on the side of boring. First off all, there was so much information he would give and I thought some were quite redundant. Hes also just not a great lecturer. Like he def knows his stuff and is really into history of california but hes just not a good lecturer. all he does is read off his slides in an alarming speed, one where its basically impossible for you to write it all down. he has no texts on his slides, his lectures are not recorded and so it makes it extremely difficult to get all the information down. he is really helpful in his office hours and in most cases seems like a nice guy but i wouldnt value that as being a good prof. i dont think i would consider his exams and papers difficult. he does tell you exactly what he wants from them and so if you follow that closely your more than likely to get a good grade its just that man was this class absolutely boring
AD
1 of 1
