Literal GOAT.

181 with Sherstov is a class everyone should experience. If you've become disillusioned with education or the institution of education (ahem), this class is your best shot at changing that. His enthusiasm and genuine passion for the topic is absolutely contagious. Similar to cs m51a with Rich, you build machines from basic principles, all the way to a full model of computation. You won't care by the end that the class was all theory (you'll have the rest of your life to go program), you'll just be glad you learned how to learn again.
---
Lectures - Really engaging, one of the few classes where I looked forward to and attended (almost) all of them. He writes all his notes and encourages (not requires) participation
---
Homework - Graded on completion, usually as hard or harder than the exams (i think at least), so if you can do these you are probably fine for the exam
---
Exams - 4 non-cumulative exams throughout the quarter. Might sound like a lot, but i'd it taking over cramming 4 weeks of material for one exam. Also more opportunities to redeem yourself. They can be difficult, but honestly they're really fair. Nothing on there comes as a surprise. He really does his best to provide everything you need for the exam. For each exam, he provides 2 practice exams; they are definitely your best shot, as all his exams follow pretty much the same format and question style
---
It's honestly difficult to explain what the class even covers, you just need to take it with him (if you can) and find out. It is abstract, but he always grounds the material in an intuitive sense, and his explanations are clearly well thought out without feeling artificial. Just go take 181 with Prof Sherstov take it if you can, no better choice.

Sherstov is hands down the greatest lecturer I've taken at UCLA, not just UCLA CS. Be warned, the course is hard, the material is abstract, there are 4 exams (one every other week almost). But it's all worth it and satisfying at the end when you sit back, reflect and marvel at Sherstov's care, clarity, enthusiasm and brilliance. The final lecture is so profound it almost got me 🥺 An absolute legend, the 🐐 for sure.

Sherstov is the best professor I've had at UCLA. He is: brilliant.

Professor Sherstov is an excellent professor, no doubt about it, and the content seems to make sense when you learn it, but applying it during the exams is a whole different story. Our quarter had the highest percentages of As on exam 1 and exam 3 in the history of the course, and so most of the reviews will probably be very positive (since we had a lot of smart people), but just keep in mind that this is one of those classes where you are either creative enough to solve the problems on the exams or you aren't. Several of the concepts from the course, including creating RegEx / Disambiguating a grammar have no clear algorithms to help you create them, they solely rely on pure creativity, and if you don't have that, you are SOL (as long as you write something down that is kind of on the right track you can get some partial credit at least). For some of these concepts though, no matter how many practice problems you do, if you didn't get it initially, you probably won't get it after doing a ton of practice. Another thing to mention is that while this class isn't technically curved, the TAs do grade more or less harshly based on the difficulty of the exam (gauged by how people are doing) which is technically a curve. However, since there is no formal curve, if you screw up an exam, you basically have to score perfectly on the rest of the exams to get away with an A.

I like Professor Sherstov but I very much disliked this class, and unlike what others have said, the 4 exams over the quarter makes it so that (if you aren't naturally gifted), you are basically constantly doing practice for the exam every other week. Keep in mind that while the reviews for this course are super positive, by no means do they imply that this course is easy (if you are somewhat of an average student). I saw the amazing reviews for 181 with Sherstov and took that to mean if I worked hard enough, an A would be basically guaranteed, but this is not the case at all, so definitely choose wisely.

Last thing, the professor says that the grading scale is a straight scale, which he says is the standard UCLA grading scale, but since UCLA doesn't really have an "official" grading scale, here is the scale that he uses:
[A+ 96.66], [A 93.33], [A- 90], [B+ 86.66], [B 83.33], [B- 80], [C+ 76.66], [C 73.33], [C- 70], [D+ 66.66], [D 63.33]

Probably the best CS professor I've had so far. He works extra hard so students don't have to. His exams are not cumulative, he uploads all his past exams along with solutions, and the homework is only graded on effort. He encourages students to ask questions in his lectures which are very engaging and well paced. I've never found myself lost in lecture.

the BEST professor I had! Strongly recommended!

Before I took this class I read the reviews about Sherstov and I thought that there was no way this guy is as good as everyone says. After taking this class I can confidently say that this professor is truly the best professor I've ever had in any course at UCLA. The material for the class is truly difficult and abstract, and it would be easy for any professor to just dump proofs and theorems given how theory heavy this class is. Sherstov, however, painstakingly goes through the effort to articulately explain every aspect of each proof, and provide examples to illustrate exactly how the proof applies to the problems at hand. His passion is for the subject is tangible and he truly wants every student to leave the class with a deep appreciation for the subject, which I have. Honestly this class is one of those classes that I imagine could have been a nightmare to take. With the material being so difficult and abstract, I imagine taking this class with a different professor who didn't care as much could be hell on earth. Yet Sherstov managed to take the material and present it so lovingly and simply that it has no choice but to make sense. I found myself excited by the prospect of drawing automata and writing regular expressions. Even writing proofs became more fun and interesting, since for the first time at UCLA, I felt like I actually had all the tools and knowledge to write a decent proof, instead of writing some bullshit I didn't even believe. If you can take this class with Sherstov, you must do it, it isn't a class so much as an experience. If you can't take this class with Sherstov, good luck and I am truly sorry for you.

Sherstov is a great guy, and his lectures are truly some of the best I've ever had in the department (I still love my man Smallberg, and Eggert's always a party). He really, really, really tries to make this topic interesting, and to present it in an engaging way. I think he succeeds in being engaging in his presentation, and helping you understand the concepts.

However, nothing can shake the sheer boredom the overall topic introduces. It's basically a giant deluge of theory, with little practical use in sight (don't get me wrong, this stuff's important - I just wish the class was arranged so that we did more practical stuff alongside the theoretical). I just was not interested in the stuff. By the time we got to the more-interesting material on turing machines, my senioritis had kicked in and I'd started to calculate what I needed to do to just grab my B and go home. This is genuinely one of the classes where I loved the professor, yet hated the material.

The class itself is challenging, as it's spread into 4 exams that happen essentially every other week. Homework is worth 10%, and is graded entirely on effort. Getting a B is relatively easy: I did all the homework, and got progressively worse scores on each exam - going from a 100% on exam 1 to a ~55% on exam 3. I pulled it up and got above an 80% on exam 4, but my B was pretty much set in stone by then.

In all, I'd say Sherstov is the man to take 181 with. If you're not inclined to like the material, it's going to be a slog no matter who you take it with - but Sherstov is the one who will grab your hand, and gently guide you through it all. Truly a legend.

Ok let me start off by saying that I hardly ever write reviews on BruinWalk - I only write for those who are exceptionally bad or exceptionally good, and I think for the very first time I've had the opportunity to take a course with someone of the latter category. Sherstov deserves this review - those extremely high ratings you see up there are accurate.

I think one thing he told me in our last office hour meeting really stuck with me (paraphrased) - "I firmly believe that research and teaching are completely disjoint skills. A lot of times students, faculty, and administration believe that those who conduct important and compelling research can naturally teach subjects well, but this really is not true. A teacher must really keep the students' best interest and understanding in mind, but in many cases professors do not necessarily care about this since their first and foremost interest is their research. Even textbooks are often written from a researcher's perspective rather than a student's perspective, and thus again the student loses."

When it comes to teaching, Sherstov really does teach with the student's perspective in mind. He explains his material VERY clearly with a good number of examples to back up every single new concept he introduces. Furthermore, every concept builds upon what has already been learned, and thus the flow of his lectures is very smooth and....I'm not quite sure if this is the right way to phrase this....but natural. He truly loves his material as well, and that passion is clearly evident in his delivery of the material. He always encourages students to ask and answer questions and always responds with "brilliant!" when a student arrives at a correct conclusion in class. I was honestly eager to go to lecture every day and learn something new - I feel that love for learning and teaching is something that really is being slowly lost among students and faculty alike. I'm glad Sherstov was able to bring it back, even if only temporarily.

The HW's for this class are graded based on effort. I do believe is a great way to encourage students to work towards actually understanding material. Above all, it is ok to make mistakes! Once the solutions are released (did I mention that the prof went out of his way to make the publishers release solutions?), I appreciated being able to correct my mistakes and improve my understanding without paying a penalty for it, which seems to be the case in A LOT of other classes I've taken at this university. Yes I'm sure people also do it at the last minute because of this, but ultimately that decision is up to you.

There are actually 4 exams for this class - each exam is for a different part of the course, and they are not cumulative. I never found myself cramming for any of the exams because I already seemed to have a decent understanding of the material from the hw's and the lectures, which I found to be very comforting. His latter exams do have slightly more difficult questions, but it never seemed overwhelming. To be honest, I actually rather liked taking some of these exams since the problems were just interesting to tackle! BE PRECISE IN YOUR ANSWERS THOUGH!! Otherwise, you'll find yourself arguing with David Felber all the time....you will get the points back eventually, but it honestly is just really annoying arguing with Felber since he follows a fairly rigid grading criteria.

If you are not happy with the way your exam and regrade requests were evaluated, you have the right to approach Sherstov directly and ask him to re-evalute it! He is the only professor I have ever seen in my entire career as a student who actually encouraged students to do so if they were dissatisfied - like I said, thinking from the students' perspective. He will hear every bit of your argument before making his decision, and in many cases it will be successful if you have a compelling argument! Again, very different than many other departments and individuals I've approached (yes Econ department, you guys are the worst of the lot).

Take Sherstov's class, and you will absolutely not regret it. You may or may not be that interested about the material coming into the class, but I guarantee that your perspective will be different when you leave. As Sherstov put it, you can call yourself a programmer simply by writing code, but you cannot call yourself a computer scientist without having a more fundamental understanding about the theoretical principles that form the core of computation. And of course, do not accept what I have written in this eval as accurate. Take the class and find out for yourself if you choose to believe these words or not.