All Ratings and Reviews for Harumi Kasamatsu
Can anybody say chicken scratch?! Well that's what comes to mind (along with cut & paste) when I think about the handouts passed out during class. UCLA dollars gone to waste sums up the course nicely. As previously stated, there is no organization. She jumps from one concept to the next without development as should be done in a upper division course. It was like LS3 all over again where they introduce a concept and really only "introduce it". The only difference being that the LS3 professor did not have an accent and would not stop after every few words. Her accent is acceptable and you can get used to it, but the unorganized lectures are pure torture. The tests are difficult because she DOES NOT tell you what to study. She introduces vague material and the night before the exam you will find yourself sitting somewhere with a classmate, examining her handouts, and wondering what you should pick out to study from the concepts she has thrown into her lectures. Thank God for Teaching Assistants.
I believe that Dr. Kasamatsu is probably the most horrible professor ever. I do not understand how she has stuck out so long in the department. Although I have had other instructors with an accent, that is not the point. She obviously knows the material but the way she presents it to the students is extremely boring. The workload that she assigned was ridiculous. Every single lecture we had 15 page handouts. Who has time to read and re-read and understand all of those experiments and theory. Obviously she was a viral molecular biologist or something in that area so she loved talking about viruses blah blah balh. I mean I am genuinely interested in the experimental basis of the science but the way she presented the lectures was quite horrible when she is a very senior professor in the department and by now should have acquired sufficient mastery to teach an undergraduate class for god's sake. In one lecture she began to state that she was an undergraduate student in Okazaki's lab and how she met Messelsohn, Stahl and Delbruck and James Watson ad nauseam--really! Also she was absent for a whole week and a half when she assigned 2 or 3 guest lectures--what a waste of time! We had 2 75 minute lectures but she cut them to 55 minutes or 60 minutes. Plus she flew past the handouts and was extremely brief and vague. Everyone was confused. Plus she seemed to give off an extremely unapproachable aura. I had Dr. Merriam and Dr. Jacobsen for LS 4--probably the better professors--at least they were approachable and their lectures made sense. Do not take any class that she teaches period. Stay away from her and her class--that is the opinion of all students. I am glad that at least I can express my opinion through cyberspace so that everyone can read it!
I don't really know where to start. Everyone on this board is absolutely 100% right. She is impossible to understand. She does pause after every 3 words and nobody had a clue what she was saying. Her handouts are equally impossible to understand. I don't understand how she is a professor at UCLA. At this moment, I am writing a letter to the department expressing my dissapointment in such a horrible instructor. She may be a great researcher, but my 15 year old sister could lecture better than her. Do not take her unless you absolutely have to, she is absolutely impossible to understand.
It's not all her fault MCDB CM176 sucked: the bureau bozos in the dept. had FOUR professors teach this class, which breaks any continuity between lectures. Anyway, she chooses good material to lecture on, but she just doesn't have the verbal skills to communicate . It's too bad too, b/c her tests aren't extremely difficult - nor is the material - but you just don't know what to study. Avoid taking her if you can, but it's not a disaster if you can't.
She is a horrible lecturer, although she organizes lectures decently with accompanying diagrams she can't explain them worth a crap, so DO THE READING. Be prepared to not understand what she's saying, and she's very impatient with questions or she'll answer the wrong question unless you are very very clear. She also likes to call on students randomly (to see if they show up), but she is confusing and doesn't tell you what you need to answer. It's all based on the textbook so I hardly went to class except to pick up old lecture handouts and tests. It's definitely a sleeper, even if you try your best to pay attention. The tests are exactly like the homework, and you need to know experimental procedures and general concepts more than memorizing proteins and mechanisms. If you really keep up and don't mind staring at her diagrams for a while to figure out their relevance, this class is cake.
Pretty difficult, it's the night before the final and I'm trying to figure out what all her slides are trying to convey. She draws her own slides! Please leave the art to artists who draw on computers so that they are easy to understand! It's hard to understand her figures because unlike a figure from say Lodish, there isn't an extensive summary for each figure she draws. She only provides a minimal outline and since we can not reference our textbook for several of the figures, it leaves most in the dark unless they feel like rummaging through journals on Google or BioMed library journal search. The material could have been introduced better and a reader would have been preferable to slides with minimal descriptions. Please consider this change for future courses.
Professors like her are the ones who lower ucla's academic reputation. No matter how smart she is, she can't teach the material. 144 was hard enough, she just makes it more confusing. Dude she uses overhead transperancy which is cool, but her pages were just low budget. She cuts and paste stuff on it and everything is crooked to make it worst she puts all pictures and graphs You just have to see it for yourself. Once that's over it even becomes worst agian when she explains the low budget material because her english is hard to understand. She pauses after every word for like 3 seconds literally! She might as well teach the class in japanese, because the language she was using sure did not make sense half the time. Stick to research lady! Spare us students from stress!! grrr... I'm also done venting!
I would have to say, without a doubt, the worst professor I've had at UCLA in my 4 years. She has a really hard time getting the point of the lectures across, and it's not because of her accent, it's her teaching style. She jumps around from concept to concept without notifying the class who is viewing the material for the first time, and as another student mentioned, her overheads are just plain ghetto. She scribbles them out in pen, and the handouts have some of the most ridiculous figures. They're pitch black, and you can't tell anything from the picture. The material is plentiful and the tests are challenging, but it would have been very helpful if the teacher could teach!! I would definitely recommend anyone who has to take this class to avoid Kasamatsu. For those that have to take her, just don't go to lecture, because it's just about the same thing as going.
Although it's obvious that she knows her stuff, she is very hard to approach. She didn't like to answer questions during lecture. Lecture was also very ineffective. The handouts were rather disorganized and hard to read. To top it off, she would fly through the material, without really explaining it ( and her accent makes it diffcult to understand what little she does say). Honestly speaking, I learned by reading the book and from going to discussion. Some of the questions on the test were poorly written, but they aren't that diffcult on the whole.
i never understand a thing from her lectures. basically what people write about her here is true. don't take any class taught by this prof as you will fall asleep in class and have to do most of the studying on your own. theres even more reason not to take mimg 176 or mcdb 176 with her as there are 3-4 lecturers in the class and they all have different styles of teaching. it kinda breaks the continuity of the lectures as they all lecture on different topics that each prof specialize in.
back to kasamatsu, she's disorganized and she makes handouts of diagrams and figures that are already in the book. i dont see the point of her doing that as most of them dont even print well and you can barely make out what the pictures are showing in the handouts. and like everyone says, she speaks a word at a time and runs out of time as a result.
final verdict, dont ever take her class as it could be the biggest mistake you ever make in ucla.
Did this review contain...
Thank you for the report!
We'll look into this shortly.