I want to preface this review by saying that the professor really is a nice guy, and I found the class content much more interesting than Econ 11. That being said, I did not enjoy my experience with this class. The first midterm had about a 58% average, the second about a 40%. I'd say I genuinely guessed, as in had no idea what the question meant and picked a random answer, about half the time during his exams, especially on midterm 2. I didn't really understand how to study and be prepared for these exams, and I'm assuming most people felt the same way, as a 40% average meant nobody knew how to do the exam. After midterm 2 I genuinely considered dropping the class and just retaking it a different quarter, but I ended up seeing it through and got a B (I didn't want to drop after dealing with it for 8 weeks already if I didn't have to). However, if I'd known the class was going to be like this, I would have waited to take it a different quarter. The final was much more fair, and I think if the whole class was structured like the final exam was, it would've been a better experience (still difficult, but better). But for some reason, he gave us these questions that I think would've been difficult for econ PhD students, let alone sophomore/junior undergrads.

We also didn't have a lot of material to prepare for the exams. The lecture slides were alright, and we had weekly problem sets, but I don't feel like the practice exams were an accurate representation of the real exam. One out of two practice exams he posted before the final didn't have answer explanations, which made studying from it useless because you couldn't learn how to get the right answer from a question. This made the exams even more frustrating, and made studying feel extremely futile at times.

What also frustrated me about this class was his attitude towards the difficulty level. It seemed like he really didn't care or didn't understand how bad the class was. After midterm 2, he emailed us saying it didn't really matter how bad we all did, because he'd just curve the grades anyway. I don't think he understood how awful it feels to study all week for an exam, just to have to guess on over half the questions anyway. He followed up with an email saying he thinks a 55% is a good average for an exam, and that he can't give a lot of students As because he has to "preserve the reputation of UCLA's econ department." Additionally this class was graded on a ranked curve system, so you were just competing against everyone else in the class for a good grade, which is fairly typical of UCLA econ classes but I feel is also unfortunate.

Overall, I think he has the potential to be a really good professor, but the class this quarter was insane. If I knew it would be like this, I would've taken 101 another time.

Remember that most people in this class are really smart, I am taking this review based on someone who just barely passed the class. So those who got A will of course says he good, but that is not everyone. This is my review of this professor.
Pros: Probably one of the nicer professors at UCLA.
I am sorry this is where the pros end. : (

Cons :

This professor's slides always have errors in it.
The professor's slides are also just overwhelming with a lot of unnecessary words.
The professor's slides do not provide enough derivation for the formula.
The professor always writes things on the slide making them harder to read. Just write on latex or something.
So the slides have a lot of information but then the actual lecture just goes on a tangent.
You will also see that some lectures slides are placed in the wrong order making the lecture all over the place. (Man this class makes me reevaluate UCLA sometimes)
With things going so quickly, the professor does not really give you good enough examples to prepare you for the midterm and homework.
This will make you watch Youtube just to understand the material which makes UCLA ruins the reputation of the number 1 public school.
As well, the professor's diagrams are also bad which makes you more confused about the material.
The professor a lot of times just skips the slides so what is the point lmao.

If you got this point of the review, there are way worst and also mad respect.

Like with the lectures, the professor's homework is pretty difficult and messy.
As well, the professor's homework does not prepare you for the test material since it is usually materials that were on the slides.
This will eventually make you reevaluate your choices in the major.
That you have to watch youtube AGAIN to actually understand the problem.
There are also errors in the homework so good luck going back and having to resubmit the homework.

Oh boy the worst part of the class: midterm and finals.

So if the lecture material and homework did not make any sense at all what about the final and or midterms?
Sorry I have pretty bad news.
This professor's midterms and finals are so hard that studying for weeks can lead to instrumental and damaging amounts of disappointment.
To realistically pass this class, you can get like a 50 on one of the midterms and a 30 on the final to pass this class.
So yeah the averages are so bad that getting a 50 will get you a degree.
When I said the homework and lectures have errors, well unfortunately there are also errors in the midterm and finals that you want to go up to Bunchee and jump.
These midterms and finals also want to make you reevaluate your major or even do research, which is a bad representation for a school that is number 1.
Well, this class is number 1 for making me reevaluate my choices in career and self-esteem.

I believe this professor can be good but right now DO NOT TAKE this professor.

Very, very difficult class. Slides, problem sets, and practice tests felt useless when trying to study for both midterms. Quite hard to gain motivation to study for the final when it felt all luck based. I am not a huge fan of microeconomics to begin with, but this class probably killed any sort of passion I had left for it. Professor is extremely nice and I feel bad writing this review because of that, but I do not think I would take a class again with him unless his expectations of undergraduate students is lessened.

He’s a good guy but this class is just not it. Your grade is basically based off how good you can guess on exams because you will never study enough to be ready for his tests. I only got an A because I had luck with guessing. This class is no better than Econ 11, except for that I was able to guess easier on the exams. The best you can do is hope that you score at/above the mean. He literally told us that he makes his exams so hard so that he can find the exceptional students and write them letters of recommendation.

Listening to Dr. Haanwinckel's made me want to start cutting myself again.

the worst professor i have ever had

This was one of the worst classes I have ever taken. The professor's slides and lectures were incredibly hard to understand and the problem set and exam answers often had mistakes. Furthermore, the exams were so fucking hard for no reason - as I'm sure you've read already, most students guessed on the majority of the questions as the difficulty level far exceeded anything we ever saw in class or for homework -- I believe the average for the second midterm was a 44%. Then, to justify the ridiculous difficulty, he claimed to be the arbiter of excellence for the UCLA Econ department, saying that its reputation would suffer if he gave easier tests, which in and of itself makes zero sense. Due to what I believe were an inordinate amount of complaints, the final was slightly easier than the two midterms but the average was still around a 60%.

Take someone else pls

Love him. King. Pro-Daniel movement rise up

It seems like the professor has acknowledged his past reviews and has improved a lot this quarter, giving more fair tests and giving a lot more practice material overall. The class isn't too bad, and conceptually, it's one of the more interesting Econ classes I've taken, and it's one I would definitely take again. My main criticism would be that a lot of questions aren't worded well, I've lost some points on assignments and tests that I maybe wouldn't have lost points on otherwise. Overall, good teacher and definitely much improved from Winter 2022.

He definitely changed his style of teaching in recent quarters. Material was super light and he provided a lot of content that were helpful for studying like all of his annotated lecture notes/videos and exams (though the older versions were definitely a lot more different and harder than the newer ones so I don't really recommend that you bother with those). Was an engaging lecturer, and he only made you do like a 10 question problem set every week. As long as you knew how to do those and did a bit of review of the old exams, this class should be an easy A. Do note that the final was a bit harder than the two midterms though, so be a bit prepared for that.