Based on 33 Users
Professor Levine really cares about his students and that is evident. His lectures really focus on the applications of the material, and how topics we are learning are related to upper-division chemistry. The homework assigned as well as textbook readings supported what was learned in class.
Personally speaking, you need to read the textbook and do exercises by yourself because he never provide sample questions or examples or format for any tests. Also, he sometimes tests something that he never thought in class, for example, high school physics. I get 95 in the first exam (Thanks my high school chemistry teacher) and 30 in second midterm (which focused on quantum mechanics he teached). But honestly, if you really read the textbook and do all practise problems, his test will not be a big problem. The problem is I am not that kind of person:(
If it wasn't for my boy Erick Harr, the TA of legend, I woulda dropped this class. All of the learning I did was from the textbook, I actually stopped showing up because I had no idea what Levine was saying in class.
This was one of the first classes I took at UCLA, and he was talking about upper div math classes as proofs of the "elementary subatomic/quantum tendencies". Okay, yeah, once I wrapped my head around them they were very logical concise and quite beautiful, but it DEFINITELY wasn't thanks to Levine that I learned.
I got a 5/20 on the first quiz in class, but was still above average. The next quiz was trivially easy and nearly everyone – who had the foresight to show up that day – aced it. The final was brutal, but I had studied a ton ( to the exclusion of my other classes) and I did extremely well.
I had a bad experience in this class, despite loving the material. This class low-key made me become a CS major.