Maybe it was because he was new, but he was extremely jittery and seemed anxious. Every lecture was pretty much out of the book. I could have never gone to class and would have gotten the same grade. The midterms were really easy (which he realized) then the final was okay, because it had more proofs worth a lot of points. He's not bad, just needs more experience being a professor.

You could tell that he was really trying to help students learn, but he said on the first day of class that this was his first large lecture class and it really showed. 90 percent of what I learned came from the textbook, which I though was pretty good. His lectures were still worth going to to get a sense of what was going on, but not much more.

We had a sub at one point (can't remember his name) and I honestly learned more in that one week than I learned from Burke the rest of the quarter.

His tests are pretty easy and very straight forward, but he made the first midterm way too easy, and his grading scheme coupled with that first midterm mad the entire class basically just based on the final. Most people therefore got between a c and a B+. You basically needed to ace a final (with your raw score) on a final with and average score of 65 to get an A in the class, which made and easy class actually very hard to get a good grade.

Overall, he was new and it was obvious. I really hope he improves because he seems like a nice guy who's really concerned with his students learning.

You could tell that he was really trying to help students learn, but he said on the first day of class that this was his first large lecture class and it really showed. 90 percent of what I learned came from the textbook, which I though was pretty good. His lectures were still worth going to to get a sense of what was going on, but not much more.

We had a sub at one point (can't remember his name) and I honestly learned more in that one week than I learned from Burke the rest of the quarter.

His tests are pretty easy and very straight forward, but he made the first midterm way too easy, and his grading scheme coupled with that first midterm mad the entire class basically just based on the final. Most people therefore got between a c and a B+. You basically needed to ace a final (with your raw score) on a final with and average score of 65 to get an A in the class, which made and easy class actually very hard to get a good grade.

Overall, he was new and it was obvious. I really hope he improves because he seems like a nice guy who's really concerned with his students learning.

I haven't really been to the lectures, but I think what I disliked most of him is his curve. Unlike the previous math courses I've taken, Prof Burke's 33A does not give As to all in the top 25%. I lost 2points for the first midterm, ranked 6th in class for the second midterm, was in the top 25% for the final and yet I got a B+.

Well I don't regret taking him since I had to choose between Dearricott and him. At least Burke's midterms and finals are reasonable and simple. The only issue in addition to the harsh curve is that he deducts tons of points for calculation mistakes even if the method is right. Anyway, just my two cents worth.

He should be more concerned about his teaching skills and even his ability to do arithmetic right. I can't agree more with the first commentry

Prof Burke seemed very concerned about our ability to learn, but can't teach to save his life. I spent the majority of the quarter watching Khan academy videos and banging my head against the wall despite attending all of his (disorganized, rushed, error-ridden) lectures and tutoring. You're at UCLA, paying for an education - find a prof who can actually teach.