Don't take Kung. Tests difficult, no partial credit (lazy grading scheme I guess).

Edward is a good professor. His lectures were very clear, and he provided us notes which included all materials. Also, the tests were very easy! If you understood every HW questions, you will no doubt earn a good grade. Take him! I spent a little time on Econ 101 and earned an A+!

Good instructor overall. His lecture is optional because he posts all the detailed, well-formatted lecture materials to CCLE. Midterms and final were basically derivatives of practice problems, and on the same level of difficulty. They were absolutely doable if you can handle the practice problems by yourself. He covered a lot of game theory materials, which were quite interesting to me being a computer science major. Fair grading. Ended up with an A+. I would recommend Edward Kung to you.

I really did not like Prof. Kung's teaching style at all, because he made the material seem much more difficult and showed the lengthiest way possible to solve the problems. Not to mention that the tests are worth so little points that any mistake can cost you big time.

Also, don't expect any help from Kung himself because he is literally the most unhelpful and uncaring professor I have ever had at UCLA so far.

And those of you coming from Econ 11 with Sproul, just wait to take 101 with Sproul.

ECON101

His lectures are exactly the same as the notes he posts online and the homework questions are not graded. Before exams, he gives out extra review questions, including both multiple choice questions as well as short answer ones. His exams though can be a little tricky so it's important to really understand the concepts rather than memorize them.

Pros: The material we cover in the class, especially game theory, is extremely interesting and something that is not even covered in Professor Sproul's 101 class. In addition, the tests are very fair. As long as you are able to do the practice problems and follow the lectures, you should be fine taking the exams.

Cons: Compared to Econ 11, this class goes at a much more rapid pace. In addition, the material covered in the end, assymetric information was probably the most challenging aspect of the course and unfortunately, it was covered too quickly for many students to get a firm grasp on the concepts. Also, if you do not have a good TA and you are having trouble with some of the week's concepts, it is very easy to fall behind in this course. Also, although his exams are very fair, they are out of very few points (around 22-25 for midterms, 44 for final). If you make a little mistake, it can often cost you the difference between an A and a B on an exam.

Overall: All in all, I think Professor Kung is the best Economics professor I have had at UCLA and someone I would take again for a course. If you want an easy A, I recommend taking Sproul, but if you want to get your money's worth for a class, then Kung is the guy to take it with. Biggest advice is to make sure you find a good TA in this course because they are the ones who will have time to explain the practice problems if you have trouble with them.

Pros: Kung provides/writes his own lecture notes, so you don't really have to go to class or really read the book. He also gives weekly HW questions that somewhat resemble the free response questions on the test. His review sessions before each test during lecture help with the conceptual questions.

Cons: Zero partial credit on tests, he talks very quietly and explains things in a very confusing fashion. His tests are also very minimal and somewhat unpredictable/out of low points, so you miss a longer problem and you went from an A to a C/D real quick. The free response questions are not difficult if you know what to do, but that is the hardest part.

The material is actually interesting compared to 11 and his notes are pretty good (albeit wordy and too lengthy sometimes). He strictly follows the department curve, and the low point values make it hard to get a good grade.

He is definitely an OK Econ professor, but that isn't saying much.

I actually took his Econ 101 last quarter.
Professor Kung is a good instructor overall.
The course itself was very interesting. Professor Kung provided detailed study notes with pages of explanations and long examples. Each lecture involved many concepts, and not all of them could be understand in the lectures. I really suggest people to read his notes before lectures.

Though his material was great, his teaching style was kind of boring. He always had his notes in hand and tried to write down only the important topics and names of the concepts, without definition in sentences. It could be hard to refer to those concepts without having your notes printed or showed on your laptop. He has no accent, he talks really slow and his voice usually drives half of the class asleep.

Like many other Econ classes, you don’t have to turn in your homework. But they were not easy to complete. TAs would show the answers in weekly discussions, and basically had no time to talk about other things. His tests were quite similar to those homework problems.

His grading is standard, 25% As, etc. But people usually got close scores since the each midterm was worth 25, and the final was 50. I’ve heard that in my class 76/100 of the final grade was the cut off between As and Bs.

Good class, Kung is pretty laid-back and chill.
With that being said, you'll need a good TA. Vitaly Titov was very capable ( funny as well).

Professor Kung is a very great communicator. With that being said, he spent too much time on the simple concepts and packed in the most dense material in the last 2 weeks of the quarter. The first midterm was fine, but the second one was a little tricky. The final had a lot of material on it and was not easy by any means. He doesn't require you to buy a text book, and his lectures are word-for-word what is posted in the lecture notes on CCLE. The lectures are kind of dry, he frequently skips steps in solving problems, and he doesn't offer many numerical examples in lecture (which is what you are mostly tested on). He's great about showing proofs, but doesn't really elaborate on their applicability. Not the worst professor, but definitely not the best. The problem sets are not graded, so it takes a lot of motivation to do them on your own. These problem sets (roughly) resemble material you could be tested on, but still do not offer enough practice. I had to rework each PSET about 3 times before I felt sufficiently prepared. Also, I emailed him 3 times during the quarter to meet with him and he never replied to me... so I can't say he's the most helpful individual out there. This class is hard, but you'll survive.