If you want an introduction to the mathematical theory behind macroeconomics, then this class is for you. Professor Guerreiro's lectures mainly consisted of a collection of theoretical topics that were explained by a lot of messy and tedious math. At times, the lectures were confusing, but going to office hours with the professor or the TAs always helped. The 4 problem sets given required a lot of the math used to derive the macroeconomic models in class, but they weren't too bad since the lectures and problem sets gave pretty clear directions on what to do. The tests were also pretty fair, as they were mostly similar to the homeworks and practice tests he gave. Overall, I learned a fair bit about deriving macroeconomic models and using math in macro, but the application to real-world concepts part was missing.

This class is awful, and he does not care about teaching. He goes over worked out solutions during class, instead of working them out live to give better understanding. He is so illogical that he doesn't even show up to proctor his own midterm to ensure academic honesty. He is not even a good lecturer either. He was super unconfident, would go on random tangents, and was a bad explainer. Do not take this class! He should be fired after his awful performance, but that won't happen because UCLA doesn't care to get someone new! Save yourself the pain, and don't enroll in this class! You'll thank me later! Professor Guerreiro if you are reading this, you should rethink your teaching style to not harm kids in the future!

This class was not an enjoyable experience, at all. While this was Professor's first quarter teaching, and I am sure he would improve, the homework and lectures were incredibly difficult to get through. He struggled a lot in delivering his lectures - his slides were lengthy (and unhelpful, they were hard to understand on their own and often skipped steps in the math). He also did not record his lectures, and listening to his lectures were not helpful in completing the problem sets regardless. Additionally, homework was graded inconsistently. I would often get points taken off without explanation, while it seemed like the rest of the class was graded on completion. The TAs and Professor were often not on the same page, providing different answers to the same questions asked. The midterm was on the easier side, as it mirrored the practice midterm almost entirely. The final had the same sentiment, but was a bit more difficult with more original content. The exams in general were ridiculous, being more a lengthy math test that was incredibly disorganized as each part would have several sub-questions to answer. If you can, I would try to take this class with Surro instead.

Relatively straight forward. Professor's slides aren't that clear but still manageable. Tests are pretty forgiving. Pretty much the same as the practice tests. You get 10% free for going to one discussion, 20% pretty much free from homework, and then the remaining 70% is largely dependent on the final.

Pluses:
-his practice tests are very similar to the real exams.
-seems like a cool guy outside of teaching

Negatives
-uses slides and you have to condense the info for yourself. a lot of the info on the slides were irrelevant to the tests.
-doesn’t record lectures
-the 4 problem sets he gave were pretty difficult and required a lot of time and help from ta’s.

Overall study his practice tests and go back to the lecture slides that correspond to the topics on the practice tests and you’ll be fine