> Overall, Professor Sanchez has some strict rules but they were easy to get the hang of and the class structure made it really easy to learn the material without outside study. The class would be best for people who learn well during lectures and are detail-oriented.

> I understand why students would be frustrated with Professor Sanchez, she has a lot of very strict rules and is a bit rude to students who break them. But I found that if you just follow what she says as best as possible (it is hard sometimes) she's a fine professor. The class was easy and I feel like I retained a lot of the information. When she was rude in class it was often the student who started it by complaining about one of her rules, so just do your best to follow them without complaining and you'll be fine.

> She takes attendance randomly in lecture but discussion section attendance counts for extra credit so it's still easy to get 100% attendance missing a few lectures.

> In terms of the lectures, she gets turned around sometimes but overall the slides themselves are very clear and follow the book exactly. She does multiple-choice questions in class with color cards which some students found stressful but it doesn't count for anything so it's really fine. I actually found those questions super helpful because between those and the homework assignments I found I didn't have to study much to do well on the tests.

> For the tests she lets you have a full front and back cheat sheet with all the formulas so as long as you understood the homework (which is exactly like the book example problems) you'll do well on them. The hardest part is remembering formatting and details like writing down labels for the sets and events.

This is the first C that I have ever received at UCLA. Honestly, I couldn't understand anything that she or the TAs were trying to teach us due to their heavy accents. As far as her tests go, for our second midterm, 60% of the class received Ds or lower, and she would not curve. On testing days, she spends the first ten minutes trying to arrange everyone in the right seats, tries to make sure that all students have different test colors, and does not let us start the exam until all of the late students are sitting in their appropriate seats. Lab discussions/normal discussions are a waste of time because she expects the TAs to cover a lot of information in a short amount of time, and its impossible. The TAs just end up writing a bunch of answers/codes on the board and expect you to get it (aka this class is all about teaching yourself).

I don't understand why the Statistics department still chooses to retain Juana Sanchez as a lecturer for twenty years now in spite of the many complaints students have made about her. She is without a doubt the most ineffective lecturer I have had the unfortunate chance to encounter at UCLA.

Let me give you a rundown of just how horrible this class.

1) Lecture Notes

She assigns a bundle of lecture notes that is plagued with mistakes and typos. She is so severely disorganized that in week 8, she gave us a handout and told us to toss the one she gave in the last class altogether because it every page was filled with typos.

2) Participation

She made a "participation" thing optional for students who don't want their final grade to account for ~40% of his/her final grade. She requires us to "participate" in almost every lecture. The amount of "participation" she makes her students go through on top of the homework as he assigns (I'll get back to that later) is ridiculous. Some participations, such as the one that requires you to look for the k-means, can take 1-2 hours. Also, she is very vain with grading. In one unfortunate occasion, I wrote Var(Cx) and just started calculating the variance-covariance matrix. I got 0.7/1.0 even though the answer was right because I didn't write Var(Cx) again. I asked her for my 0.3 back since technically the answer is correct and I showed her all the steps, her response was "0.7 is not a bad grade".

3) Exams

Her exams are the worst. The amount of material she wants to cover in a 50 minutes examination is ridiculous.

She had multiple choice questions for both midterm 1 and 2 and required us to "give an explanation" to our choice. My explanation for the 2nd midterm wasn't enough so she ducked 0.5 points off even though my answer was correct.

She also makes us go through lines of codes and highlight things. I was unsure of what she wanted us to highlight for midterm 1 for the confidence interval code. I rewrote the section of the code manually. Turns out, she just wanted the numerical solution.

She held a cumulative midterm for the second midterm, which she held, a day after Memorial Day weekend ON week 9. My friends and I thought the questions would build on each other, I mean that's what professors usually do? Instead, she explicitly tests us on materials before midterm 1, EVEN though she also explicitly tests us on post-midterm 1 material. I am unsure of what she is trying to achieve by employing this technique.

She made us "Code" on the final and required us to code about ~4/5 questions in 2 hours. It was lengthy, difficult and time consuming.

Side note: In week 10, she introduced us to Gibbs sampling/MCMC/etc. 2/5 of the final examination questions required us to code the material she introduced in week 10, which she failed to explain and give us sufficient exercises on.

4) Homeworks

Every other Statistics professor at UCLA that I have encountered require us to Knit our homework to pdf/html. Juana Sanchez, is unfortunately, an outlier. She requires us to use an Rscript and copy paste our code to CCLE. On top of the difficult coding assignments that she just throws at us, she would require us to comment on everything and have it compiled with NO ERROR. She doesn't even give us partial credit on anything with an error. Well, if she wants an error-less chunk of code, why doesn't she implement a pdf/html submission???

5) Final Grade

The final grade my friends and I got in this class was ridiculous. Some of my friends "aced" the final by scoring way above the curve and ended up with a B-. I scored right above the mean during the final, below the mean during the second midterm and above the mean for the second and ended up with a C. Does this mean 50% of the class got C or worse?? Isn't this a reflection of how she failed as an instructor?

Fun fact: 50% of the class dropped after midterm 1. But since she is the ONLY instructor for spring and it isn't offered again until Spring 2019, I had no choice but to endure her.

I could go on and on about how this class was the absolute worst for students' mental health and learning experience but I would like to move on with my life. I just wanted to say one more thing, I came to UCLA because I wanted to learn and was open to the idea of making mistakes. The material for 102B was actually interesting. I spent some of my free time reading about it. But her way of teaching makes it SO DIFFICULT to appreciate the material or take away anything meaningful from the class.

Juana Sanchez fails to embody the UCLA spirit and has failed us for an instructor. It is such a pity that UCLA's Statistics Department has tolerated her for 20 years now.

I've never bothered to review my professors on BruinWalk, but Sanchez really needs one.

Don't take her class. Avoid at all costs, unless you're taking it for fun or on P/NP, because you'll be so thrilled during the quarter for all the points you're losing for no reason. Those of you with weak hearts should consider avoiding her because you'll either get a psychological problem or heart attack being her student.

I'm a senior, and Congratulations to Prof. Sanchez for making it to the top on my WORST professor list. She cares more about useless stuff than her students actually learning. Her lecture style is acceptable (as in easy). But her goal is not to have you learn the material. She's there to make sure you have a miserable time looking at your gradebook.

Points are deducted for everything. Some examples:
- She randomly calls on me to answer a question (reading from the roster) and completely messes up the pronunciation of my name. I didn't know she's calling me. Points off. (for HER mistake.)
- Forgot to comment a super-self-explanatory line of code in homework. Points off.
- Couldn't fit a whole problem on one sheet of paper. She ignores everything on second and count as I didn't finish. Points off.
- Have a graph/example on your cheat sheet? Points off.
- Homework not stapled? Points off.
- Came to class late on a homework day? Points off.
- Emails her about grading problems? No response, and POINTS OFF, for the syllabus saying you have to do it in person.
- Phone beeps in class? Points off.
- Brought a laptop to class and have it on desk? She'll smack it close WITHOUT ASKING, then points off.
- Have a wrong answer in homework? Maybe no points off if she doesn't see it!
- No second chance for the above. Ask her once, answer is no. Ask again, threatens to take points off.

She also ignores email SENT outside business hours. So essentially, if you can't find her in her office, then you won't find her via email either! Want to set up an appointment? Good luck trying to do it by email! In fact my TA even couldn't get a hold of her outside of class and had to catch her during office hours! I don't think it's possible for any professor to get more irresponsible than that.

Having said all that, her lectures are okay and the material's not too hard, so if you follow her instructions (those written on syllabus, on homework, talked about every single lecture, and those in her mind that you have to read) and get lucky (which is far more important), you might get an A.

Maybe I killed someone in my preexistence, and she was sent by Jesus to make me atone. I don't know what to say about her. Seriously, DON'T TAKE HER CLASS. I don't think there is any language in the world that can descript how bad her class is. Her homework is 100 times more difficult than climbing Mount Everest, I'd rather feed the pigs in some kind of yields. Her exams are one of the top 3 tortures in the United States, and the rests are the hw and watch her class video. She requires an attendance quiz. If your answers are wrong, you get 0 on participation. How should people suppose to know what she is saying with her horrible handwriting and get the quiz answers correct? And she doesn't do curve.

I am taking STATS 100A with Prof Jauna Sanchez over Summer 2020. She made it compulsory for us to dump $95 to buy the book 'Probability for Data Scientists' written by guess who? Herself, Juana Sanchez. The book has online content just to make sure that you absolutely have to buy a new one. And then she also gave us the spiel on the importance of copyrights and that the university takes copyright infringement seriously.
I respect authors and their rights to their intellectual property. However, making it compulsory for your students to buy an expensive book that you yourself wrote, at a time when the university administration has been pushing for professors to offer classes that either do not require a compulsory textbook or have a lower-cost alternative. And then being self-righteous is just ridiculous.
I would have dropped the class if I had the slightest option to delay taking STATS 100A any longer.
I'm sure the other reviews are already convincing enough on why you shouldn't take this class. But if you need another reason, here it is. So unless you absolutely have to take this class, I'd suggest finding an alternative.

Professor Sanchez was a real pain in my ass this quarter and I honestly regret taking this class with her even though I did alright. Her lectures almost always went overtime and would be full of participation quizzes that you would have to do on your own time before next class if she didn't get to them and her homework assignments were full of dumb technicalities that weren't even relevant to the course content that you had to make sure to follow if you didn't want to get a 0. The class itself wasn't that difficult (especially if you had taken a statistics class in high school or community college) but some of the assignments could be pretty long (in particular the ones that she assigned over Thanksgiving break and the week of the final). My advice would be to take this class with a competent professor that is reasonable about the workload and the grading and if you absolutely have to take this class then be prepared to do a lot of extra work. Oh, and don't waste $95 on the textbook--you can find it online for free.

Professor Sanchez was...a lot. She was not too bad she was manageable but I am not sure if that was because this class was online or just her regularly. You are forced to buy her textbook and a cognella quiz thing to take some chapter quizzes but this thing looks EXACTLY like ccle!! AND its mostly extra credit other than like 3 or so that are graded! Which I thought was a waste of money honestly but no matter. Her teaching was not too bad, she had slides and sort of went through it, you really have to read the book to get a good understanding though, a lot of these questions on homeworks and exams require some sort of practice. Her exams were not too bad either, except that for the first midterm she tested on material that we had literally learned the lecture prior. She is a very kind lady but she is also not the best so just keep that in mind

Well in short, if you want stressful and hard class to pass or get good grade then this is your professor.

My grade isn't reflective of how heavy the workload for this class is. I am an individual who is super passionate about statistics so keep that in mind as you read this review.

- Her lectures were very intense because she had this whole ritual of pre-lecture readings with post-lecture slides to review for HWs, Quizzes, Exams.
- We had about 15 HWs through the quarter (so more than 1 per week) and they would take a while, especially if you were not engaged during lectures (which is entirely possible).
- Participation quizzes accounted for 25% of your grade...not bad right? They were a pain to answer because every lecture had a quiz you had to finish, a few had like 20 Qs (idk why she didn't just call those HWs).
- Midterm and Final were timed, which isn't a problem because frankly I prefer that, and her questions were fair and not impossible. Our distributions were how you'd expect them to be for a stats class with this large of a syllabus for 10 weeks.
- She did offer EC opportunities but those were in the form of more quizzes, which I was done with and did not attempt (to be exact I attempted 20% of ONE quiz out of 10).
- Her grading scale was that you needed a 95% for an A, so if you were not on top of your game from Day 1, you're likely going to heavily depend on a thick curve for one of the tests.

Finally,
Take this class if you have to, its not unbearable if you are passionate about stats and need it as a prereq for more computational upper-divs. But if this class is one of four, maybe five classes in the quarter and you just want to explore the field...hold it off for the next quarter.