Anthro 136 with Professor Hollan was a solid class overall. He’s a nice and talkative professor, but his teaching style is definitely old-fashioned—no slides, no visuals, just him lecturing with a piece of paper in hand. While the material is interesting, the lectures can feel a bit monotonous at times.
The grading is straightforward: three essays (but you only need to complete two), two take-home exams, and attendance for discussions are required and are worth about 10% of your grade. The assignments are all pretty manageable, and as long as you stay engaged, it’s not too hard to do well.
Even though the class could be more dynamic, I’d take it again for an easy grade.

I took this class as I needed a req and the grade is based on two essays out of three which are based on books, and you can choose which ones to do 70%, two exams 20%, and participation 10%. If you show up to lecture you will be fine. I honestly barely did the readings for this class because he goes over it in lecture anyway. Nothing is recorded so if you show up and take notes you will pass. Since grades depend a lot on the essays which are 4-5 pages you must incorporate readings but his whole lecture is based on them anyway so I would say this class is easy and would 100% take it again. He is also so funny in a way that he does not even realize. Sometimes he will say "This topic really turns me on" and I don't think he realizes what he's saying.

This class was is of the most interesting and best classes I have taken at UCLA. We read three books, none of which were too difficult or dense, and wrote an essay about each one plus had two short exams. The essays weren't graded too harshly and the idea was more to engage with the books than to argue a thesis. Hollan is really thoughtful and also works as a psychoanalyst so his approach is pretty fascinating. I got a lot of out of his lectures, and the coursework, not only on an academic level but on a personal level. Some people complained that he does not use slides and does not carefully bullet point concepts in lecture, but it's not really that kind of class, it's more about being legitimately engaged with the materials. My only complaint is that the way he lists out the readings and weekly focuses on the syllabus is pretty confusing!

I really enjoyed this class! There were three books we had to read, the first I found a little harder to understand than the later two. After each book we wrote a paper that tied the book to smaller articles that were assigned. The grade breakdown was as follows:

Three short essay papers: 70%
Two short-in section exams: 20%
Discussion Participation: 10%

In addition to the papers we had "short in-section exams." In reality these were just defining terms from lecture and the articles, super easy!! The lectures were initially not recorded, but he decided to record them a few weeks in. Even though the lectures just consisted of him talking with no powerpoint I found them easy to follow and engaging! Overall, the class did have a good amount of reading, but I thought it was a super interesting and easy class!! Definitely take!!

My TA was awesome, but Hollan's lectures put me to sleep nearly every class.