I really loved McEachern as my 10A professor. Yes, she does talk fast, and you do have to scramble to write everything she says, at the end of the day, she knows what she's talking about. She unpacked 10A and made me love the text, that would otherwise be dry and confusing. I went to her during her office hours, and she really helps you look at things a different way. McEachern teaching 10A was honestly the deciding factor in me declaring English as a major.

I am not a fan of older literature. Nevertheless, the Prof made lectures relatively engaging and explained tough readings in a way that was more digestible. I also really loved my TA, Aric Diamond--he did give section quizzes, but his rambling lectures were very interesting to listen to and, frankly, took the pressure off of us to participate as much in discussion for works that most of us probably didn't feel too passionately about. The final, while hard, was definitely fair.

The professor takes an incredibly complex, and honestly boring subject and brings light to it. I was very weary about taking this class as the material seemed to be incredibly dense, but the professor really makes the class more engaging and relatable than I thought would be possible. I really enjoyed her lectures, and felt that they broke down even the most confusing text in a very comprehensible way. Her knowledge of the historical and social context of the texts was integral to my understanding of the material and her charisma during lectures made it all the more interesting to learn about. I would HIGHLY recommend her as a 10A professor.

I though Prof McEachern was a really engaging professor. The readings for 10A can be a bit of a drag because the language is so confusing, but I loved the prof's analysis, background, and explanations. I would recommend her as a professor for 10A because she makes the readings a lot more understandable and I found myself really engaged with the readings during lecture. Plus she makes the occasional joke which can lighten up the mood at 9:30.

She doesn't use slides really except for the occasional one so you really have to pay attention to what she says. The final was easier than I expected – you pick 8/10 passages to ID and write about 1.5 pgs of analysis on the passage + text it comes from. It's really long and tiring, but not that difficult if you've been paying attention to lecture.

Overall, she's definitely a good professor and I'd take another class with her.

The readings in this class were tough, but I liked Professor Mceachern. She's knowledgable and gives really detailed analyses of the texts, though she has no slides and so you pretty much have to write down everything she says. The final was pretty tough – I filled up two blue books with IDs and analysis, but the grading wasn't too harsh.

McEachern was definitely not my favorite professor ever. She had some good points, and was really passionate, but her lectures in the survey course were all over the place. It might just be that in the survey class she didn't have time to get into depth with the material. The tests are fair, though :)

A nice professor and a generally interesting class. I was a bit concerned at first because some of the lectures seemed to lack an overarching theme/message (she does talk very fast and can be all over the place) but she does manage to pull everything together by the end of the quarter with her Milton lectures, which I loved and were by far the best.

The reading is a lot, and you are kind of expected to attend all the lectures if you want to do well. No midterm, three papers (one is a rewrite) and a final based solely on lecture. The final is passage ID (10/12), mostly from the passages she discussed in class.

I really wish I could say I enjoyed this class more because the material really is interesting (made much more so with the help of the professor) but I had a horrible TA who didn't know what he was talking about, couldn't facilitate discussion except by saying "that's very good", and seemed to give grades without having read the papers. I ended up with the same grade on all my papers (even the rewrite), even when I made the changes he asked me to when I went to office hours. Make sure to get a good TA; your grade is really dependent on them.

The professor seemed nice though when I emailed her about my concerns. She agreed to look over my final for me, and I think that's what helped my final grade.

Overall, this is not an easy class, and it is VERY time-consuming. The final is definitely fair, but I cannot emphasize the importance of getting a good TA.

Professor McEachern obviously knows what she's talking about. That's a plus. However, the reading for this class was just too much, especially when we had a paper due the same day freaking half of Paradise Lost was due. The class format was 3 papers - the first and third were original papers, and the second was a rewrite of the first. The grading was weird because I never received a solid grade. It was always A/A- or A/B+. Well, WHICH ONE is it?! It was just frustrating at times because you literally don't know what your grade is in the class until she posts it on the gradebook online 2 weeks after you take the final. At the end of the quarter, you don't even receive the final grade of your last paper or your final exam grade. All that's posted is your final grade so you'll never know how you truly did. That sucks.

Another thing that really bothered me was that she passed out the final exam and then LEFT. The TAs remained for the full 3 hours to collect the exams and she just left after she passed them out! I felt so disrespected, especially since I've had other professors in the past who at least had the decency to stay with us for the exam.

It's a shame though, because the material she picks is quite interesting, and her lectures are good especially with her sarcastic remarks. She just needs to change her attitude about teaching in general.

All in all, if you truly read everything and work hard on your papers (consult with your TAs!) you should be able to pull off an A-. This isn't an easy class, though. It's a very time-consuming class.

I completely agree with the previous poster - DO NOT TAKE SAMIR SONI as your T.A. He started off the first day saying that just because we may have received A's in other English classes at UCLA, we should not expect an A in English 10A. Well, excuse me, but getting an A is not just the student's responsibility, but also depends on the ability of the professors and teaching assistants and how well they teach. In any case, it was not a very encouraging way to start the quarter. I ended up dropping the class, but would have loved to stay in it because of the professor...she was really smart, funny and approachable. I thought she presented the material and made it fascinating and easy to understand.

A decent professor; she has a really dry sense of humor that nobody seems to get early in the morning, but my friend and I would usually chuckle at her jokes. At one point my friend said that a lot of what she says sounds like it comes from Sparknotes, and it's quite true; I don't think I ever glanced at my notes before the quizzes my TA gave, I just made sure to review the reading on Sparknotes. Can't say she made the reading a whole lot more enjoyable, but she was always pretty clear on what she thought were major themes in what we read, which was nice, as some other profs have a tendency to run circles around you and assume you know what the author thinks is so important about their own writing. The final was a series of explications (like 10 out of 12), and she emphasizes that what she expects you to write is a regurgitation of lecture if you can't afford the time to write something new and novel. Make sure you know all the historical background of the works for the final, like date, author, context, genre, characteristics of that genre, how the work is representative of that genre, etc. Major hand crampage occurred, but the passages were mostly easily identified and manageable.

But I hated my TA. If you wind up taking a section with Samir Soni in anything... Get out while you can. The man HATES giving out A's, and he's really, really vague and unhelpful during conferences. Plus sections were almost entirely him talking; there was very little actual discussion of material. I had the chance to get out at the beginning of the quarter to even out discussions; I sorely regret not having jumped at that opportunity. He said at one point, after we'd lost three or four people, that he thought students had dropped because of the reading material, which at the time was Canterbury Tales. He said he didn't think people dropped because of him. AHAHA.