Being a math prodigy and having the ability to teach are 2 completely different things. Professor Boedihardjo's lectures are pretty underwhelming. He often gives non-standard proofs that he comes up with himself. The problem with that is they are generally hard to follow and we don't usually end up gaining any insight about what is trying to be proved. For example, his construction of the reals made no sense to me. I don't understand why he couldn't have just did the standard Cauchy sequence or dedekind cut stuff, but maybe I don't deserve to be in honors then. Also, the professor is quite unenthusiastic, so the lectures will be dry. Further, his voice is ridiculously monotone, adding to the dryness of the lectures. The last and really most important criticism I have is that he gives literally no intuition for any concepts. I left the class with no intuition for what compactness, completeness, etc are, except for what their definitions are. I know the guy is a straight up genius and will likely prove something substantial in his lifetime, but as a teacher I wouldn't recommend.

This prof is definitely one of the best at UCLA. He makes analysis manageable for the students. It is pretty important to go to lecture because it gives you all the information that you need for the test and also sometimes hints on midterm or final questions. In addition, his review sessions before each exam are very helpful.

Good professor, explains materials fairly clear. But the workload is extremely heavy, and the quizzes particularly annoying. Spent over 20 hours each week on homework, reviewing for quizzes and final, but when you get through them, you learn a lot.