He is not helpful at all. He doesn't like to answer student questions after class, feels like he's just here for the salary. No practice materials for midterm or final, you have to find your own way to study for this class. There's nothing wrong with this course, I just took the wrong professor. Good luck!

Hopenhayn was very nice and he seemed to care a lot about students' learning. His lectures often included a number of examples and applications of the stuff he talked about, which was pretty interesting imo. He also assigns a few group projects that make you apply the material in different contexts, which I found pretty interesting. Note that a lot of the material is an extension of ECON 101 (and he spends a lot of time reviewing 101 stuff too); I wish that there was more of an emphasis on newer content since a few lectures were a bit boring. However, I do think that the class was a bit disorganized and it was hard to gauge your standing throughout. ForApart from the homework, none of the assignments were graded until after the final, despite counting for 25% of the grade. I had no idea I was doing something fundamentally wrong until Week 9. Further, for those assignments (and partially the homework too), there was very little guidance provided and it was pretty confusing to solve. The final itself (which is worth 50% of your grade) was also pretty challenging too. While a few questions were based off the practice final (which was just a repurposed homework we didn't get to on time), there were a few tricky ones too that he didn't really go over much. I didn't think it was the worst and most of it just required some critical thinking and reasoning during the final, but was definitely not the level of difficulty that was expected. However, the curve seemed to be pretty generous (I ended up with A after an 89 in the final and 10/20 in one of the group assignments).

Truly very unclear teaching style and the tests are hard for normal students. If you want to challenge your GPA, then you can consider this.

Hugo sucks. Disinterested and makes no effort to teach anything. Absolute snoozefest. However, the topic is fairly interesting and is basically just a continuation of 101

DO NOT TAKE THIS CLASS WITH HOPENHAYN
Hopenhayn is certainly a nice guy but that does not equate to a good professor. His lectures were not very clear and were heavily conceptual with a bunch of proofs, formulas, and graphs thrown on the screen with limited explanation. Rarely did he ever show how to apply certain concepts towards practice problems. When it came to studying for exams, he would post a few practice problem sets and you'd have to figure out how to do everything on your own from there. His slides also have tons of mistakes in them, that students end up catching and having to point out to him. I remember this happening probably at least 5 times throughout the quarter. Also in the few instances he would solve problems in class, there would frequently be mistakes. For example, he would forget to do basic things like setting MR = MC. I understand making mistakes, but it is a bit absurd when you're an experienced professor messing up this often.

Exams are also extremely difficult, probably because of the limited connection between concepts and application. He also never showed up to any of the midterms or final. He would just have his one TA proctor the entire class and answer any questions during the test. I think that truly sums up how much he cares for the class. Overall, it is poorly organized and did not provide a good learning experience. I signed up for this class as I found Econ101 concepts really interesting but this class honestly ruined it for me.

I was afraid to take his class after reading the reviews but actually, it was one of my favorite classes at UCLA. Prof. Hugo is a very nice person and is always willing to help students to understand the materials. Come to his office hour, he will explain everything. The final was not bad at all and the curve is pretty nice. Study and you will do great!

Just don't take this class. I had to because I messed up my first enrollment pass. Hugo is a really nice guy, but nice doesn't equate to good professor. The lectures are his own and have typos and do not explain the concepts, so you are relying on his explanation. He tends to go off track here and there when he lectures, and has an accent that can be difficult to interpret. If you learn better with examples (like me), you will really struggle because what he teaches is solely comprised of formulae and theory. Everyone did badly on the final, but there was a massive curve (it is hard to tell what grade you will get until they're posted). This class caused me more stress than it was worth, and the material was pretty useless quite frankly. Not an easy A by any means either.

I totally disagree with the comment below. His lecture is not helpful at all for solving homework, albeit those problems are in similar format with midterm's. We NEVER solved any calculative problems in class or was not even provided with enough resources to practice, and nevertheless we were supposed to solve these heavy math problems that took too much time. Also, he didn't give us 2 weeks, only 1 week for each problem set except for the last one. His lecture slides aren't clear and full of errors. The textbook choice was not good, but we didn't even use it anyways.

Honestly the worst problem of this class is that all three factors are not connected and failed to work together towards improvement in learning: Lecture, Homework, Exam. It's like, you hear something from lecture, are expected to solve something else for exam, and again get tested on some other thing.

Final Official grade came out okay, but the curve was so harshly done. Since everyone dropped towards the end, those single points from your homework became severely important to decide one scale. I was below only a few points from my peers and ended up with B.

It seems like he has changed the structure of the class or something, because the old reviews do not coincide with the actual class at all. The class is supposed to be a continuation of ECON 101, but in my case it ended up being a review since my 101 professor (Kung) covered most of the stuff Hopenhayn lectured.

He gives three problem sets that are very straight forward and gives you like two weeks to do them. These account for 30% of your grade, and they are the extremely helpful when preparing for the final. Also, he is always available via email or office hours, very helpful and caring for his students.

Like I said before the material covered in class was pretty much a copy of 101, I am not kidding. He can be a little bit confusing with his notation and lecturing, but not as bad as other professors in the department.

The midterm was very similar to the homework, I got an 80% and the average was 70%. Now, the final I though was extremely straight forward. Remember the MANDATORY problem sets? Yea, two of the five problems in the finals were copy pasted from there. I finished the final in an hour and half.

ECON 170 is one of the easiest electives I have taken in the department, the professor is fair, and the structure of the class is there to only help students. Best of luck.

All I can say about Hopenhayn is this: I did not score higher than a 72% on midterms or final and ended up with a legit A in his class. He offers a massive extra credit "game" as he calls it. DO IT. It will save you!! Not to mention that he holds a "lottery" at the end of the class. Whoever wins the game is entered into the lottery to win a boost in your grade (i.e. B+ will become A-). My team and I won the lottery :)

Overall, the material is EXTREMELY difficult to grasp and the exams are even harder, sometimes asking questions that were never brought up in class.

It's a struggle, but push through it and work / study HARD!!!