HIST 171
Variable Topics in Japanese History
Description: Lecture, three hours; discussion, one hour (when scheduled). Designed for juniors/seniors. Important topics in Japanese history, including political change, economic development, social questions, and popular culture, as well as media and arts, explored through extensive readings. May be repeated for maximum of 16 units with topic and/or instructor change. P/NP or letter grading.
Units: 4.0
Units: 4.0
1 of 1
AD
Most Helpful Review
Winter 2021 - Wow, I'm a history major and for some reason this class killed me. Her recorded lectures are very dull and lackluster, but there are 100% necessary to do well on the quizzes. Annoyingly, she has 2 quizzes that are almost impossible to prepare for I couldn't score over 17/20 despite studying. Her midterm is term and vocab-based--which she provides a study guide for. The final research paper was aggravating because she was quite unclear about what she wanted, and the rubric she provided was quite basic. I wouldn't take her again. The grading goes as follows. 20% midterm, 10% 2x quizzes so 5% each, 25% participation based on discussion boards, 45% final paper. Overall, a dull course with an unmotivated instructor who never replies to emails---which is super necessary for remote instruction. Took her 2 full weeks to respond to my email regarding a super quick question. Her teaching of history was remedial level and juvenile, not nurturing her student's analytical abilities. This is UCLA, there are better professors. Edited--since people want to comment on my intellectual abilities in other reviews. I feel the need to defend myself--I have a 4.0 from UCLA and was recently accepted into USC law school on a full scholarship. But hey "I guess I'm not really that smart" Way to be a jerk when other people are just sharing their opinion :)
Winter 2021 - Wow, I'm a history major and for some reason this class killed me. Her recorded lectures are very dull and lackluster, but there are 100% necessary to do well on the quizzes. Annoyingly, she has 2 quizzes that are almost impossible to prepare for I couldn't score over 17/20 despite studying. Her midterm is term and vocab-based--which she provides a study guide for. The final research paper was aggravating because she was quite unclear about what she wanted, and the rubric she provided was quite basic. I wouldn't take her again. The grading goes as follows. 20% midterm, 10% 2x quizzes so 5% each, 25% participation based on discussion boards, 45% final paper. Overall, a dull course with an unmotivated instructor who never replies to emails---which is super necessary for remote instruction. Took her 2 full weeks to respond to my email regarding a super quick question. Her teaching of history was remedial level and juvenile, not nurturing her student's analytical abilities. This is UCLA, there are better professors. Edited--since people want to comment on my intellectual abilities in other reviews. I feel the need to defend myself--I have a 4.0 from UCLA and was recently accepted into USC law school on a full scholarship. But hey "I guess I'm not really that smart" Way to be a jerk when other people are just sharing their opinion :)
1 of 1
