I wrote an earlier review of this class but I guess when Kovalesky was writing his own review for himself down below he flagged it as inappropriate. He was the worst prof I ever had at UCLA.

1. The students did not have a sense of entitlement, we just expected to be graded fairly and not mocked in the comments we got back on graded papers. I accidentally kept a contraction in one of my papers and he called me a CHILD and said that I should know better than to make such a stupid error. IT WAS A DRAFT.

2. The "easy 15%" paper topic assignment was not easy. He told us just to have proper grammar and write what our paper was about and we would be fine. Instead he took off random points and roasted us in the comments. I am the only one out of 4 friends in the class that got an A on that assignment. On one of my papers he literally called me "unnecessary"

3. He did offer extra credit but it was .3pts every week and one time I submitted for it and he didn't give it to me??? But he gave it to all the men that submitted. Interesting.

4. The quizzes sucked. I did well on them but they were incredibly detailed. Even after actually doing the readings I didn't know the answers because they were so detailed. There were also usually only 12 questions so if you missed a few your grade was in the toilet.

5. The readings weren't interesting and his lectures were pretty useless. They were so boring that staring at a wall was more interesting than listening to his condescending voice.

6. He was incredibly pretentious and felt a constant need to prove that he was smarter than us. Like yeah you have a phd and are teaching us, none of us are claiming to know more than you??? Going to CSUN really gave him a chip on his shoulder. He also mentioned time and time again that UCLA was prestigious and if we said something incorrect he would act like a UCLA student shouldn't be making mistakes and talk to us in a condescending tone. He was especially picky when girls spoke and would pick apart their responses and make them feel dumb.

7. He locked the doors after 5 minutes of class because he couldn't stand students that were late. Although he was super late and submitted our final grades 13 minutes before they were due after having our essays for weeks!!!

To conclude, he was awful and condescending and I hated every minute of his class. I ended up doing fine but the stress was not worth it and his mean comments on papers really illuminated his deep rooted insecurities. He acted nice at first but then turned into a dictator on a power trip. Don't take his class, that's the bottom line.

So I made an earlier review and someone decided to flag it as 'inapropriate.' So here we go again. This was the worst class ever. The professor is sexist and discriminatory. He looks down on all his students and aims to make this class hard and make fun of people that he has prejudged to be unintelligent. He is hypocritical and not a good teacher. Coming to lecture was a waste of time and I wish I had dropped this class when I still could. Overall, please don't take this class because he will mock you and be unprofessional the whole time. Unless of course, you are a man that he decides is 'smart.'

I was not expecting to find such biting reviews about Kovalesky on here, and boy is the sense of entitlement high! It is not impossible to get an A in the class, in fact, if it wasn't for late deductions on my final paper (about 10%), I probably would have gotten a A or A+. Determination of your grade is set up in a way that gives you autonomy. There are no exams, attendance is not required like we are in some 5th grade class, and participation is moot which is good for shy students. All you have to do is read for quizzes and focus on writing 1 good paper based on a theme Prof K covers in lecture. The paper grade is broken up as well, first with a statement of you paper topic (easy 15%) and then a source comparison (20%). He even gave extra credit for taking your source comparison to the writing center, as well as the same opportunity for the final product (which I did not take advantage of). This helped me begin my paper early and his feedback showed me what I needed to work on/what I was doing well. We also got to choose our topics and create something we wanted to focus on (which I'd rather do than torture myself by studying for a test filled with info I'm likely to forget/not care about). Lastly, 3 quizzes make up 30% of grade and you get an hour to do these online. Most of the answers are in the readings, except for some exclusive to lecture. I did not get all As on these quizzes and missed answers. The assigned texts were interesting, current, and not from a textbook. What helped was actually READING the material in advance (I did about 70 %) and underlining key info/arguments. Id rather do this in the comfort of my dorm/home than be worried with in-class tests that are often subjectively graded. This prof was not pretentious at all (like many others at UCLA) and was not 'sexist.' I'm a female and he treated me with respect. I went to his office once and he gave me some of the best writing advice I have gotten thus far in college. Overall, if you like being treated as you would in the REAL world, like reading about issues within CA history, and like writing about what you find interesting, take his class.

I found Kovalesky to be quite disingenuous. He made the course out to be straightforward, but grades were given out randomly and those grades were often low. His lectures made me feel like I was in middle school because they were so basic, but then his quizzes were oddly specific and rather difficult. The grades I got back, even the high ones, did not help me learn anything. He did not leave comments telling me what I did well and what I should expand on, but then on assignments that I did poorly on, his comments were so nit-picky and rude that I felt defeated.
I don't believe that he is completely incompetent as a professor, I just think he has some sort of complex and thinks that he needs to prove something to us. It was clear that he suffers from imposter syndrome, but instead of letting that humble him, it turned him into a tyrant. I did not enjoy this class and I would advise against taking any course taught by him.

I never do this. I'm not sure why I am doing it right now but I couldn't keep it to myself. Brian Kovalesky is an idiot. He is unfit to be a UCLA professor. He somehow managed to attend UCLA for his PhD- from CSUN- and clearly has an inferiority complex about it. All of his handouts and lectures have auspicious UCLA logos on them and he mentions how elite UCLA is in nearly every class. You do not need to remind us, Brian. We know where we are. Maybe he needs the reminder in the large font at the top of all his assignments because nobody would ever believe that an incompetent troglodyte like him could ever be a UCLA professor. In fact, by constantly reminding me of what a great school UCLA is, Brian inadvertently reminded me of how much he does not belong.

I would say his lectures are boring, but in reality, a more fitting word to describe them is simply "useless." There are three quizzes in the class worth 30 percent of your grade. These quizzes are based, not only in large part, but entirely, on the readings. Attending class would be an exercise in insanity. Further, the quizzes are short, 10-13 questions each, and missing one question makes it impossible to score a higher grade.

Besides the fact that missing one question on a quiz worth 10 percent of your grade effectively makes it impossible to get an A, he is also an impossibly hard grader and often edits for content, not just grammar. Professors do not have a say in the way that I communicate my message or my word choice... grades should be for accuracy of content and grammar only. Write the essay yourself if you don't like the way I write, Brian.

I am sure Brian would brag about the fact that he gives ample opportunities for extra credit. This should have been a red flag from the beginning. In the future it is important to note that any professor that offers so much extra credit must be covering for his or her own teaching ineptitude. One should be able to earn an A by earning an A and not only by raising the grade through extra credit.