Alright, let me get this straight. This man is so mad that students at UCLA are doing better on his weekly quizzes than the other community college he teaches at that he PURPOSEFULLY makes the midterm exam more difficult. (BTW, he changed his midterm the night before giving it out, so there were numerous typos that made it difficult to understand questions, and had a few questions that had multiple answers that were correct when only 1 was marked as the correct answer). Also, he REFUSES to accommodate other students when we simply asked for a little bit more time than 5 minutes on weekly quizzes (he eventually FINALLY caved halfway through the quarter and gave us 1 extra minute to answer even more vague questions he puts on his quizzes). He instructed his TAs to grade our final paper on a strict grading rubric that was EXTREMELY vague since the beginning as it was supposed to give us "creative freedom," yet he enforces a strict grading policy???

Let's talk about the final I just took. He claims that due to his fears of students cheating during online teaching, that he puts in place sequential testing (where you can't go back to check answers after you click to go to the next question, and you can't skip ahead to another question). This was an okay policy, personally; I can deal with that. Yet while he says he's afraid of students cheating, he puts a question on the final that requires you to look at your notes for the graph or just straight up guess because it's such a random detail from one of his lectures. There is also no graph to go alongside the question to help you answer it, so you either guess, or quickly look through your notes on a closed-book exam. I guessed and probably got it wrong.

The interesting topics that this course goes over were completely ruined by this professor's weird test-taking policies and strange stubbornness to accommodate students DURING A PANDEMIC. I actually really like sociology, but it is not my major and I took this class as a GE. DO NOT TAKE THIS CLASS FOR A GE. It's not worth it unless you take P/NP.

I would actually rather write 5 papers like the other sociology professor does than take this class again with Villarreal. This class was STUPIDLY hard for no reason when the topics were actually interesting. I know the core concepts for this course (as stated by the learning objectives in the rubric), yet what is actually tested are random, fleeting details from lecture. Awful all around.

Class grade breakdown:
Midterm: 25%
Final: 25%
Weekly quizzes (lowest 2 dropped): 20%
Essay: 20%
Participation: 10%

This class was definitely really stressful but it's kind of offset by the fact that the workload is so light. Lectures were asynchronous (about an hour and a half total for each week) and were based straight off the textbook with a little extra information thrown in. Weekly textbook reading is recommended and it is helpful to skim just because not all the vocab makes it into the lecture. There's a weekly discussion question that's due every Friday and sometimes a discussion memo written in a breakout room during discussion (I believe we had a total of 4-5 memos throughout the quarter, so it's not every week). Quizzes (5 questions; 6 minutes total given; no going back) worth 20% of our grade (lowest two scores dropped) were also due Friday and were quite simple MC based on the lecture material.

Midterm and final (each 25% of your grade) were both 35 minutes for 25 MC questions, with no going back after moving to the next question. Essay (20% of your grade) was due later on in the quarter.

Quizzes were simple reading comprehension (if you watched the lecture and took good notes then you're totally good to go) and you get full points on the memos if you just take the time to analyze the topic + write a full paragraph. The discussion questions were graded on participation, so that was an easy 30% of your grade secured right there.

I do agree that the midterm was overly punitive given the scope of the class + the format of the midterm. The exam was closed notes/book and we didn't have the option of going back to check your answer, which sucked majorly since the exam was timed. I ended up making the mistake of rushing and didn't do so well. The prof ended up giving back points for some of the questions with ambiguous wording (I think 3-4 questions total), so the average did go up to 85 according to one of the TAs. As someone else mentioned, apparently the midterm was made to be easier but was then changed because of how high our quiz averages were. There were definitely confusing wording/questions, but he did give back points so I believe it evens out.

My TA mentioned that the prof asked them to grade the essay down to a B average, so if you take this class, try to organize an office hour with your TA or the prof to discuss the prompt and the direction of your essay. A lot of the comments/feedback I got were extra topics I could have discussed (not really covered by the prompt). I wasn't too happy with my score but it ended up curved up by two points at the very end.

The final was a lot, lot better. I rewatched all of the lecture videos and redid all the readings (final wasn't cumulative so it was only about five weeks of lectures) and scored really well. While we still weren't allowed to go back and check answers (Prof said this was the alternative to Respondus), none of the questions had ambiguous wording and they were all answerable based on what we learned in the class. Average was around 85 again (no adjustments).

All in all, I don't actually think this was a bad class to take at all. There isn't a lot of cushioning if you screw up on one of the big portions of your grade (midterm/essay/final) and there isn't extra credit, but I think it's definitely doable if you really work to understand the details and themes of the course. Prof. Villarreal did try to accommodate us based on our feedback (increased quiz times by one minute; final was less confusing) but I understand why people are a little frustrated with this class. Taking it in-person would probably be better as you wouldn't have to deal with the no going back policy on quizzes/exams, but if you put a little more time in, I think this was definitely manageable as an online class.

The professor is super genuine guy, he is just slightly boring when he lectures. I would definitely recommend this class, it is a super easy GE! No homework, tests are multiple choice, one essay that you can have your TA basically outline for you.

Professor is a nice and smart guy. However, he is very soft-spoken and monotonous which makes it hard to be engaged. I would recommend watching the posted pre-recorded lectures rather than attending in person. The pre-recorded lectures are often much shorter too. The average on the first midterm was like an 80%, and it was relatively easy (just 32 multiple choice questions) but had confusing wording. The weekly reading is entirely summed up in the slideshows, so it's not super necessary to do it. In section, we do a lot of busy work and don't really expand on the ideas, but it's fine. We had a short paper which helped salvage my grade since the mean grade was an A. Overall, not a very interesting class, but not bad either if you need to knock off a GE.

This class is so easy, I read the textbook just because I am always anxious that, if I don't read, then I'll fail the exams. But I got an A on the midterm and final. The class content was so easy ... it was like "what is racism?". The TAs across UCLA went on strike in the second half of the course, but the effect was nonexistent. Prof Villarreal is intelligent, but his microphone is so weak and he mumbles sometimes so its really hard to understand/hear him sometimes. Most classes I would just take notes on the lectures and not pay attention to what he was saying. ALSO. Oh my god. The WiFi in that lecture hall was so horrendous people would be rage quitting left and right because they couldn't connect to their Google Docs to take notes and he would move on to the next slide. Overall, so so easy. Take it if you need it.

Super easy class if you actually go to lectures and do the readings, and the prof is a really great guy

TL;DR A solid, if textbook (figuratively speaking), introductory course for sociology. Also consider taking the companion seminar (SOCIOL 89), if offered.

I took this class as a GE (with a bit of interest in sociology, but not a ton), and speaking from that perspective, I was reasonably satisfied with this class. This is not a class that will blow anyone away, but at the end of the day I did not regret taking this course.

The format of this class is very traditional - two (optional, slides and past recordings provided) in-person lectures and a discussion section (attendance required). Professor Villarreal's lectures adhere very strictly to his slides, and I know some of my classmates found them very dry. The content of the lectures (and lecture slides) is virtually identical to that of the textbook as far as I could tell, and I do mean identical. To his credit, Professor Villarreal made efforts to include updated statistics in his slides, and would occasionally pull up external websites in lectures to illustrate specific points; that being said, speaking solely in terms of the learning objectives of this class and the knowledge that was tested on exams, the lectures did not do anything beyond presenting the material in the textbook (conversely, there was nothing in the textbook you needed to know, that was not covered in lecture).

As far as the discussion sections went, my discussion sections typically followed the same format - the TA would review/re-present the [key points of the] lecture material in class for the first 30 minutes, and then have the students write one-page reflections (graded for completion) on a provided question for the last 20 minutes of discussion.

In terms of homework, the only homework for the semester was responding to weekly discussion questions posted on Canvas (usually asking about lecture topics in a modern context). We also had one paper (5 pages max) due around week 8, asking students to write about an example of inequality they have experienced, witnessed, or read about. Due to extraordinary circumstances at the university, our papers were ultimately never graded, so I cannot speak to how they would usually be evaluated.

We had two exams for the quarter - a midterm during week 5, and a "midterm 2" during week 10. (The exams were non-cumulative, i.e. "midterm 2" only tested on the content taught after the first midterm [weeks 6-10], hence the name.) Both exams were multiple choice only, consisting of ~32 questions over 75 minutes. The exam questions adhered very strictly to the material taught in the textbook/lectures, and were generally very simple, straightforward, and (in my opinion) reasonable; very few people used the full time allotted.

Overall, I was satisfied with this class and the understanding of basic sociological concepts that it provided me. This course will not wow you or radically transform how you view sociology, but it will provide what it says on the tin (Introductory Sociology).

PS: In addition to the primary SOCIOL 1 class, Professor Villarreal also had a companion seminar (SOCIOL 89) during the same quarter, which I opted to take out of curiosity. I would not recommend that seminar to anyone who isn't interested in sociology (it does not feed back into the main course), but I do recommend it to anyone who is interested as a means of getting a bit of experience reading sociology research. I can't say whether it will be offered in future quarters, but it may be worth looking out for. (Note: The course title says Honors. However, as far as I can tell, there are no requirements to enroll, and certainly none from Professor Villarreal.)

Though lectures were not super engaging, this was an overall very easy course and I would highly recommend it to freshmen getting started on their GE credits. Though there is weekly readings, and group write-up's (which may sound like a lot), it is extremely manageable. Also, exams are very easy and straightforward--it is a series of multiple choice questions and no short answers or essays. The class was boring at times, but very do-able in terms of work load and exams.

I took this class asynchronously with an in-person discussion. Honestly, it was pretty easy. The class is based on a textbook and the professor's lectures basically repeated everything from the readings. I found the tests to be fairly easy by taking detailed notes on the readings and reviewing them the night before, as well as going through the TA's practice questions. There were 2 midterms and no final, and the midterms were not cumulative! The midterms themselves were pretty simple, just multiple choice asking about concepts from the readings on a somewhat basic level. The readings though were a bit long and could take me a long time to get through, but given that it was just 1 chapter a week and a few lecture videos, the workload was really low and I could knock everything out in a day. My TA was Roxanne and she was super nice! Really lenient with the discussion assignments and very approachable.

My lectures were online recorded, so I did not interact much with the professor. There was two multiple choice midterms (no final), one 5- paged essay, and each week there was a group memo and a discussion. Instead of just knowing the definition of the vocabulary, you have to properly apply the terms.