Although he is leaving soon, I just want to thank Andersen for a really great 33A class. This is literally the best professor you can possibly have -- uses gradescope, really, really good lecturer, super clear, very knowledgeable, crazy fast at grading + answering questions @ piazza, gives very reasonable hw, but has additional practice, posts detailed study guides + discussion worksheets, etc. Only think I wish he did was post a practice final / midterm, but honestly this is nitpicking. Andersen made me excited to go to class everyday, and I think the whole class did too -- the classroom was literally always full the entire quarter.

The midterms and final were pretty easy, I think a lot of people got an A. But we learned a lot, especially compared to other 33A classes like Das / Hlusckanka (however u spell it). We started eigenstuff week 6 vs week 9 for the other classes, which really allowed us to learn them thoroughly. Overall, if you ever get Andersen (although this will probably only happen @ another university), consider yourself lucky. He is the best professor I have had yet at UCLA and probably will be for a while.

Basically just wrote proofs on the board for an hour straight every class. Like the other posters said, he went pretty slowly through the early, easier material (midterm 1), and the material in the second half of the quarter felt rushed. Midterm 2 was a fair bit more difficult than midterm 1, mostly because it's harder and more theoretical concepts. There are mandatory quizzes in discussion sections each week. He had kind of a weird grading system where your better MT was worth 28% of your grade and your worse was worth 12%, which I really liked. The final was fair but the numbers that we had to manually calculate on the problems were completely ridiculous (I'm talking finding the least common denominator for fractions like 1/213 and 1/327, wild radicals, and other stuff you could do as a middle schooler but just takes forever and sucks). He made his grading scale like this:
70-75: B
76-79: B+
80-85: A-

So grade-wise it's not too bad. Overall solid professor but probably not the easiest for 33A.

Angelopoulos actually dicked me every class with super long, boring proofs, nothing like what I expected out of my first math class at ucla. This man is the real greek freak. Super helpful in reviews and office hours tho, gotta give him props for that. I worked hard for the final and salvaged my grade (which was about to be a C), so its definitely not impossible to get an A.
Bottom line, try not to take him, but if you do, work hard from the onset.

He is a pretty clear Lecturer, and his tests are not hard. But I did not understand why he cared about brackets and those details so much!
I missed two points during the whole quarter because of not writing the brackets and not indicating which one is Q and R for QR factorization. Because of this I missed A+ by 0.3%!!!! He is a harsh grader, he made 94% to be A and 98% to be A+. Just be careful about those brackets when you take him he is a fun of brackets!

Absolutely amazing professor. He's excellent at what he does, easily clarifying even the most difficult of concepts. I've never been good at math, especially conceptual math as opposed to applied math, but Ben Neria made the class enjoyable, interesting, and funny.
I did acceptably well in this class (A-), but for someone whose average math grade is between B and B-, it's actually pretty good, and speaks well for the professor.
I would absolutely take the class again.

The lectures moved fast, so at times students were scrambling to keep up/write stuff down. The average for the first midterm was a 35/40, and was in the lower B range for the second midterm and final I think. Her exams were generally reasonable, the hardest part was the True/False, which required a deeper understanding of concepts and applications of theorems that one would not know unless they had spent a significant amount of time working through many problems (and even then, one might not completely get the problem). There was an issue with how she graded the second midterm's true/false section, giving 2 points for a correct answer, 1 point for no answer, and -1 points for an incorrect answer. According to her, the reason behind this was to discourage people from simply choosing an answer without truly knowing the reason behind it, but it actually punished the people who may have put effort into studying but just arrived at the wrong answer (tricky questions) and benefited those who may not have put in the effort to study, did not know the answer, and therefore just left it blank. There is no way of distinguishing those who simply circled an answer for the sake of guessing and possibly earning points from those who knew their shit and just arrived at the wrong answer for any other reason. Still, the final was reasonable if one truly knew the material, and she was very generous with the final grading (generally rounding people who were in between grades up; the grade distribution was better than that of the average math class at UCLA). Out of the homework that Bhaskar assigned, only a few (generally trickier problems that required a lot of thought) were mandatory to turn in weekly. No quizzes. Would recommend!

The least empathetic professor I know. Do not take.

This one probably the most dysfunctional class I have ever taken. No one paid attention and random students were calling out in class, disrupting class, and acting like idiots for most of the lectures.

Every single day the entire class would just talk to their friends and she just kept right on teaching. Whenever she tried to get everyone to pay attention they would just ignore her.

If you want an easy A then go ahead and take her. At the beginning of the class she said, "If you guys all deserve an A then I will give you all an A and I will just deal with the department myself." Then she made the average on her tests like 80%+ so we all ended up "deserving it". She was a very easy professor.

If you want to learn the material then maybe don't. She has a great graphical insight to the math she is teaching but can't get her point across if no one is listening anyway.

I haven't really been to the lectures, but I think what I disliked most of him is his curve. Unlike the previous math courses I've taken, Prof Burke's 33A does not give As to all in the top 25%. I lost 2points for the first midterm, ranked 6th in class for the second midterm, was in the top 25% for the final and yet I got a B+.

Well I don't regret taking him since I had to choose between Dearricott and him. At least Burke's midterms and finals are reasonable and simple. The only issue in addition to the harsh curve is that he deducts tons of points for calculation mistakes even if the method is right. Anyway, just my two cents worth.