I feel like walking away from this class, I learned a lot about assembly and also learned really cool topics surrounding buffer overflow attacks and examining memory in complex ways. The labs were the highlight of this class for me, specifically the bomb lab and the attack lab, which I think both of would be very hard to cheat on other than just using someone else to do them for you.

Outside of those labs, I really struggled to pay attention or focus in this class whatsoever. I took smallberg in a completely virtual format in fall and nachenberg in a completely in person format in winter, and excelled in both, so you’d think a flipped classroom would be a combination of both of these and I would be able to focus well. Not the case. The pre class lecture videos are very mundane and are nail biters to suffer through, but they are where a majority of the learning will happen. In actual lecture time, looking around the room I saw minesweeper, google QuickDraw, working on other classes, and sleeping. I can’t blame any of these actions, as picking out what was actually useful or needed during lecture time was about as hard as finding a needle in a haystack. In class examples were very important to do well on exams, but I’d usually be so checked out at the completely random moments these were gone over that I completely missed them. I’d definitely enjoy some level of linearity or normal thought progression during lecture time rather than the scatterbrained nature of the class, and I think that would help to keep peoples attention to a much greater degree. I don’t think a flipped lecture is entirely the issue, but it did not work for this professor and his teaching style. It could work if the professor is very adamant about it being efficient, but I don’t believe it is the best for his students.

Exams:
Midterm was a shitshow, I think that’s very clear from other reviews and the professor himself. There was a slight lack of responsibility and a pointing finger nature at his students regarding this exam, but I don’t think this was the professors intention whatsoever. He definitely understood his mistakes, and this was clear from the final, where he even very generously re used a problem from the midterm that every sane student should have looked over and learned how to do.

The professor was a very knowledgeable and smart person, who was enjoyable to talk to about a variety of topics, however I think the exams and style for teaching need a harsh re evaluation and this quarter may have served as a wake up call.

In terms of getting a good grade, this quarter seems to have been an anomaly and I would say it’s a bit harder to get an A without studying or putting in too much effort like cs31 and cs32.

Now I understand why people always tell you bruinwalk reviews are polarized. I didn’t like the midterm it was too short (40 mins were given), and did terrible on it. However, I started reviewing for the final a lot earlier , I showed up to his office hours asking questions and I redid the projects. I found him very patient and helpful. Many others don’t think this way , but I actually enjoyed the labs (especially the bomb lab and attack lab ) , they’re pretty interesting and helpful in solidifying the concepts. I also showed up to all the discussions ( which I think should be made optional , as you have other better things to do sometimes) and eventually ended with an A+. I think Reinman definitely replaced my midterm with final. In terms of lab reuse , while I’m not a big fan of old labs being reused, I’m also against those who just googled it , at the end of the day it’s against your own learning(which really matters in the long run) if you simply look up the solutions online. I think I put in the hard work and I’m satisfied with what I got, I learned so much in this class

There will likely be a number of reviews for Reinman from Spring 22, so I will just briefly sum up the extensive problems from his teaching of this course:

Exams - The average on the midterm was a 49.54, and the final was a 62.82. Standard deviation was 23.39 and 20.76 respectively.

Reinman admitted that less than 10% of students got one of the 4 midterm questions correct--but rather than eliminating that question or taking responsibility for the low score, he doubled down, saying that he suspected students who were doing well on labs but not on the exams were cheating. This midterm question in particular was very similar to a homework question that we got a full week to complete, and only about 12 minutes to complete on this exam. A later announcement said he was "not satisfied" with the midterm and that he "wants you all to do better".

The final exam was a similar story, just with a somewhat better grading scheme--still, when 40% of people got a similar question wrong, he called it "a shame" and asked "whether you really did the labs".

Cheating Accusations - The average scores for the labs was close to an A+, while the combined exam average was a 56. Reinman repeatedly expressed that he believed the class was not truly doing the labs, suggesting that students were copying from others.

As a result of this, Reinman said that final grades would be curved based only on your improvement between the midterm and the final, stating that "Labs and homework are great, but I cannot have ensured that you worked on those on your own. So there is no replacement for the exams." Thus, the "only real measure of our performance" were two low-score, often unrealistic exams, one of which he admitted was "one of the lowest averages (if not the lowest) of any test I've ever given in my 20+ years at UCLA."

So--the dozens of hours many students put in to ensure that their lab grades were good enough to offset the unrealistically difficult exams? Probably cheating, says Reinman. It won't factor into your curve.

Oh, and Reinman was so mad about his poor evaluations from this quarter that he took the time to send us an announcement addressing an evaluation from a student that he copied verbatim from MyUCLA (as a reminder, Evaluations of Instruction claim to be "anonymous and confidential" and require students to sign off as such.) Some quotes from this announcement:
- "One student complained that they learned nothing from the class - which I find hard to believe, at least they should have learned not to take a class with me again"
- "It is pretty hypocritical for someone to cheat on the labs and then tell me that I don't care."

Overall, my hard work didn't matter (I got curved up by a single point), I spent countless hours trudging through assembly code just to be accused of cheating with no evidence, and Reinman still thought it necessary to complain about his poor reviews. Don't recommend.

To be honest, from the very start of this class and to the very end, I absolutely despised this class. As the quarter went on, the class just continued to take and take from me. It took my sanity, it took my time, it took my sleep, it took my thoughts, my hopes and fears and dreams and aspirations, anything that I had, was gone into the endless void that is CS33.

So why did I give this class and Reinman a 5/5 here on the Walk of Bruins?

I truly believe that, as difficult as this class is, if you put in the work, you'll get the grade you want. (woop dee doo, what a shocker)

The class, and I believe I can speak for many of my peers, started to truly go downhill right after the midterm, when the 'original' average for the 8 pm midterm was a 48% (which was brought up to a 67% after partial credit was given out), but I think seeing such a ridiculously low average really shocked everyone (including Reinman) into really busting their chops for the final.

I got a literal 10% on the first midterm because I made the mistake of not submitting more detailed work to squeeze out that partial credit.

So, with promises of a generous curve, a readjustment of weights for the exams, and extra credit on labs, I decided not to drop the class.

Well, I'm not gonna tell my whole story since it literally involves me sitting down for hours a day just rewatching lectures, practicing labs, and doing the LA worksheets.

Fast forward to the final, I managed to pull out a 64% on the final, with the class average being something a lot higher probably, since some of ya'll are just assembly geniuses, but for the below average assembly person like me, I was very happy with my grade.

I was honestly expecting to receive about a C to a C+ since the exams category is a whopping 50% of your grade

I ended with a B+ in the class.

And the big shocker too, Reinman decided not to curve the class this quarter since apparently half the class got A's.

I'm unsure of how he allocated the final weights, and how much the extra credit counted for (I did all of the extra credit btw), but my uncurved grade was a B+, after a terrible midterm and a mediocre final.

So all in all, yes this class is pretty difficult, but this class definitively epitomizes the notion of "you earn the grade you work for."

I don't feel that I cheesed a B+ or I lucked out with a B+, because I know I sat down and studied as much as I could for this class, it would not have been possible to get a B+ had I just cruised my way to the final.

Overall, take Reinman. This was the last quarter online, so of course your experience may differ from mine, but one thing stands whether its online or not, TAKE REINMAN!!!

No idea about everything he said

I scored an A in CS 31 and 32, yet a B- in this class. Here's why.
Reinman uses the backwards-classroom approach, which you've probably read about (watch a video before each lecture, and the lecture discussion is about the video).

First of all, the class was at 8 AM on Monday and Wednesday, and oftentimes I simply did not have the time to watch the video in the time frame he gave us (he would upload it roughly a day before the class).

What made this class extremely difficult for me was the lack of clarity in what Reinman was saying in his lecture videos. He used vocabulary loosely and did not explain things in the way that the computer understands them. Smallberg, on the other hand, was a master at introducing concepts in a way that conceptually makes sense with the computer.

Thirdly, most of the content (which is a BUTTLOAD of work) is not even on the exam!

It was really frustrating to see that I put in a lot of hard work and have the CS intelligence to do well, yet failed in my standards (B-). I honestly believe this is the fault of the professor though.

NOTE: If you decide to take this class, FOCUS ON THE LABS!! I made the mistake of studying for the final by making sure I understood and memorized every detail of the videos instead of practicing the labs.

CS系的Haofei Fan！我就问还有谁？？？ 拉面人万岁！！！

I'll just put it this way: when you think other classes are hells this one is heaven! It is literally that big of a difference. Holly Reinman!

You got this class, you got the best deal ever.

Chose "Snazzy Dresser" as a tag because "arms like tree trunks" isn't an option.

As to whether the lectures are engaging, honestly that probably depends on how interesting you find the material. I personally did, and Prof. Reinman himself is a very capable lecturer. Lecture slides were very clear and informative, to the point where I solely needed those to study to do well in the course.

Programming-type assignments were fairly graded in my opinion, and I wanna say I *think* test cases were open source? The only reason I say this is because I remember noting specifically that Nachenberg didn't do that for CS 131 later on. If I recall correctly, the later assignments did sorta have solutions that built upon each other, so if you were stuck in the beginning, you may have been out of luck.

That being said, the exams were *extremely* fairly written in my opinion, and if I recall correctly, open book and open note. If you did well on the projects and had printouts of relevant sections of the lecture slides, you're adequately prepared.

Prof. Reinman's office hours were extremely helpful too, and I got everything from clarification on concepts to his views on the state of the software industry. CS 33 is definitely really detail-oriented so it'll be tough for people who hate that, but taking it with Prof. Reinman is a strong recommend.

The professor's teaching approach raises concerns. The course material, including lectures and assignments, appears to be directly sourced from Carnegie Mellon University, with no original content. Students may find more value in the original CMU lectures, as they cover the same material in a more effective manner. The exams are challenging and primarily multiple-choice, which might not adequately evaluate students' understanding. Additionally, the professor's attitude comes across as condescending, diminishing the learning experience. Despite having numerous teaching assistants, the support provided in discussion sessions is not effective. This course experience contributes to the perspective that some college classes may not offer significant value.

I agree with the other reviews from Spring '22 that this quarter did not go so well, and I'm surprised Reinman has such good reviews from previous quarters.

This class used a flipped classroom approach. Normally, I'm okay with (and even prefer) flipped classrooms, but in this class it was not executed well. Before each in-person lecture, there would be a prerecorded lecture (usually between 30-70 mins). The prerecorded lectures were extremely dense. In the in-class lectures, Reinman would go over some content from the videos, answer questions, and do examples. The in-class lectures were extremely disorganized; I definitely got more out of them by watching the recordings afterwards instead of attending live. That way, I could watch the unimportant parts at 2x speed and focus more on the examples, pausing and making sure I really understand them. The in-class examples are super important for exams, so be sure to focus on those. Definitely don't try to memorize every detail of the pre-recorded lectures, because that won't help you for the tests (though still understand them). The midterm and final both contained questions that were very similar to the in-class examples. Overall though, the flipped classroom approach was extremely inefficient. Despite Reinman's insistence that the flipped classroom approach doesn't require more time, we'd be spending 5-6 hours per week just on lecture, and only some of it was relevant for the exams or labs. I'm sure there must be a more efficient way to teach the class.

There were four labs, each worth 8% of the grade. I'd say the order of difficulty, from hardest to easiest, was data lab, bomb lab, attack lab, and parallel lab. Basically, the labs got easier as the course went on. Bomb and parallel lab had extra credit. I found bomb and attack labs to be quite fun! It's important not to procrastinate -- start labs at least 2 days in advance. I learned this the hard way by ending up in the hospital due to a stomach ulcer from drinking too much caffeine the day parallel lab was due because I falsely assumed it would be super easy and procrastinated on starting it, lol. The deadlines on labs (and homework) are very firm, so you won't have as much leeway as you did with CS31/32 projects. Unlike the CS31/32 projects though, you can definitely get 100% or more on each lab since all the test cases are provided, allowing you to know what grade you will get before you submit. It's possible to do the labs using brute force and other tactics, but I'd strongly recommend against that since you won't be able to do that on the tests. Attack lab and particularly bomb lab are emphasized on the final, so make sure you truly understand each step on a deep conceptual level and don't over-rely on the debugger.

There was one homework each week. The first homework was super difficult for some reason but the rest were fine. They are graded on completion, but don't slack off on them because they are important for the exams. Some test questions were similar to homework problems.

Discussion was mandatory, which was annoying, but overall I kind of liked it since we can get an easy 10% of our grade by just attending. I found discussion, particularly the LA worksheets, to be very helpful. The worksheets are graded on completion and our LA's compiled a document with in-depth solutions and explanations.

The exams were very tough. We only got 40 minutes for the midterm, which wasn't enough, and I found the questions to be quite difficult. The class average was 50%, the lowest Reinman had seen in his 20+ years teaching at UCLA. He accused us of cheating on the midterm since we had done well on the labs, which I personally thought was a bit unfair since we had 2 weeks to do each lab vs. 40 mins for the midterm, so of course we would have done better on the labs. However, I really like how Reinman replaced our midterm score with our final exam score if we improved a lot on the final. That really came in clutch for me. I got a 40% on the midterm (53% after the TA's gave out partial credit). It was the worst I'd ever done on a test in my life and it really motivated me to grind for the final. To redeem myself, I started studying two weeks in advance of the final and created an intense study routine which involved reviewing my lecture notes, making flashcards, redoing homeworks, redoing LA worksheets, and redoing labs. I was scared that the final exam would be super difficult and that my hard work would end up being all for nothing, but I was pleasantly surprised. The final was quite doable and we got the full 3 hours. I managed to get an 83%, and since that replaced my midterm score, with Reinman's generous curve I was able to get an A in the class. I found the class to be quite stressful and it took a toll on my mental and physical health, but it ended fine and I learned interesting stuff.