Professor Johns seems so approachable and makes the subject matter seem so straightforward and easy in class, but she (or her TA, I'm not sure) is a ruthless grader. For a class where there is not always a clear right or wrong answer, it was surprising that even after filling up the entire page for short answers that it would be given 0/10 points. The weekly quizzes on the case studies are easy points, and that might depend on which TA you get. The exams are curved tremendously though. The final exam was quickly turned into a take-home assignment consisting of 4 short answer questions, with "no clear right or wrong answer" and I spent hours doing it and still got a 66%, which was curved to 83%. In the end I got a B+ (the first ever non-A in my time at UCLA). Also, she sent out quite an insensitive email regarding too many people asking for help/extensions in response to COVID-19, which threw a lot of students off. Take this class at your own risk.

This class was brutal! I loved the content but omfg, her exams. Her TAs literally told us that she wrote them in a specific way to mark down as many people as possible. Her midterm was significantly easier than the final.

LECTURES
She doesn't record lectures or post her slides online. She doesn't cover all of the chapter material in the lecture, so she expects you to read and study the textbook after she's done. She usually hints at exam questions during lectures (some are red herrings, though).

MIDTERM EXAM
The midterm was significantly easier than the final. With that being said, it wasn't easy at all. You need to cover every line of the chapter, every vocabulary term on the sheets, and every case study for section to have a fighting chance at a good grade. She included an extra credit question at the end worth 5 points. The questions were worth so many marks: one short answer was worth 12/50 marks.

FINAL EXAM
The final was genuinely hellish. She had questions about things never covered in the lectures and only found in a tiny table in the chapter. The exam was literally made to deflate grades and keep a low average. I don't understand how it was fair, but that's just her style, I guess.

DISCUSSION SECTION
We had to read cases and answer a 3 question quiz every week. You could miss one quiz. Section was the least offensive part of the class.

OVERALL
I loved the material covered, but the way the class was graded and structured just killed it for me. If you think you can devote most of your time to this, then I would recommend it. I wouldn't encourage you to take this class unless you're ready to listen to her spout her often offensive political opinions and face her excruciating exams...

Very easy class, the textbook isn't really even needed as long as you go to lecture. Free points from weekly quizzes and midterm/final are both extremely easy, took most people around 1/3 - 1/2 of the total time. Johns is quite funny and hated on unnecessarily

Only take this professor if you actually have to. She doesn't post her lecture slides so god forbid you have an 8am like I did. The professor if not very helpful and almost finds joy in her students not doing well. I say this because she makes seemingly simple questions for her exams and proceeds to grade the answers insanely harsh. As in, she could as for a definition and you answer can be describing the word pretty accurately, but since it didnt have a specific word used in the textbook, you are getting docked majority of the points on that answer. Majority of my class flunked the midterm to the point where she had to curve our grades almost 20% up. She's also zionist and very conservative. Hated hearing her spread misinformation and have such a clear and blatant bias that I stopped going to class. Honestly, use your TA's as much as possible because overall this lady is a huge weirdo and big trumpie.

do not take this class with professor johns. unfortunately i had no choice </3. i will preface by saying that although i did well, this class was still bs and so stressful for an intro level polisci class. her lectures are dry and bland and she's made a few problematic and insensitive comments that made people like myself feel uncomfy. first day of class she talked about how we get two free absences from discussion and nothing else because she doesnt like to do unexcused absences because she doesnt want to hear about your grandma dying (my grandma literally died a week before this--she couldnt have known this but it just shows how insensitive she is).

she doesnt record lectures or post slides, which was horrible because this class was at 8 am, and there were a few exam questions that were not from the book and she briefly discussed in lecture for 2 seconds. she disagrees with the book during lecture sometimes which can get quite confusing when reviewing for the midterm.

there was no clarity about the midterm. go to the cpo test bank and look at old tests to see the format. that's how i did so well. before the midterm she said to keep answers brief and theres no need to write a lot. but when we got grades back, the class did horrible because she had such unrealistic grading standards!! she was looking for excessively and unnecessarily specific wording that was verbatim from the lecture or book. points were docked if you didnt use the exact wording, even if you use synonyms or paraphrase. this is such a poor way to test students on their knowledge. luckily they offered regrades--and the tests are curved.

there's no homework assignments besides chapter reading quizzes that are open book and open note. they are all due on the day of the final so you have all quarter to do them. stay on track on readings! i think that played a big role in me doing well in this class. the readings can be quite long and convoluted though. go to section too and participate at least 3x. our ta's tried to help us as much as possible and you can tell they really felt for us.

please listen to other reviews about this class with johns. it is absolutely not worth your stress. youre better off taking it with min or ying.

Do not take this class. Please.
She doesn't record her lectures or share her slides, yet expects us to remember extremely specific examples we saw in lecture for like 30 seconds for the midterm/final. Questions on both the midterm and final were poorly worded and were pulled from outdated textbook material from older textbooks. She expects hyper-specific wording from our answers in the midterm and final; it's basically impossible to get a perfect score unless you memorize literally every detail in the textbook or lecture. Our TA, Josh, who was amazing, gave her a list of reasonable requests that we all had from the midterm, such as a study guide or practice final, or releasing the lecture slides, or just some sort of guidelines as to what her expectations are, and she basically ignored his request.

The class before our midterm she made it clear that we can keep our answers short and concise and we would get the points, yet when we got our scores back, the answer key answers were 4-5 long, complex sentences that we basically had to know word-for word or else we wouldn't get the points. She also made a very misogynistic comment during the class before the midterm, saying that "girls tend to go on and on and ramble more than boys" when making a point about keeping your answers precise. This is a professor who does not care about her students' well-being.

Do not take this class unless you absolutely have to. It is not taught well, the professor is extremely difficult, you will study way more for this class than any other class, and it is a very big stressor for an introduction level course. Take it with another professor or take another class. But if you do take it, here is what you need to know:
Professor does not record lectures, does not post slides, constantly disagrees with the textbook, has a ridiculous rubric for the exams, does not know all of quiz answers, does not give study guides/review sheets/study questions, is very difficult in general, and does not tell the TAs anything. Professor has boring lectures, emphasis on finance/trade/economics, and does not teach the course in a way that is easy to follow with the textbook. The professor stresses no technology in class (IE handwritten notes) but you can use a laptop. Highly recommend you do! Write down everything she says, even if she says not to. You will need to know how she thinks, not how the textbook or TAs think, for the exams.
To succeed, go to every lecture (she sometimes gives extra credit for participating in the games). Know everything (memorize) from the lecture; there was a question from the midterm that was only lecture, not textbook (external power vs internal power). Go to every TA section and talk 3+ times, your grade is based on whether you talk/contribute to the discussion when you go. Study the quizzes-AKA take pictures of the questions-some question may appear on the midterm. To see the quiz questions you got wrong or quiz questions in general-because you cannot see the questions, correct answers, or incorrect answers after you take it-go to office hours for either TA or professor. Go over the lecture slides with the TAs and with the professor if you do not understand something. Understand everything, memorize everything, learn everything. That is how you do well on the exams.
The textbook is 668 pages but you do not need to read chapter 1 or 11 or 14. The textbook is extremely hard to get through. It is boring and long and typically has many unnecessary examples. However, it does a good job of explaining the concepts, just not in an interesting or succinct or simple way. Read it, definitely read it if you are confused, but rely mainly on the professor's notes.
For the midterm, definitely study the lecture. Notice the terms she linked to other terms and make sure to mention every single term you can on the midterm that relates to the question. Even if you have the definition of the term, you will not get full points, you need to say the term name. For example, if a question asks to compare preventive and preemptive war, you cannot say the definitions and explain how they are different from each other. You must mention that they both stem from commitment problems, which was a bullet point in the lecture but not emphasized in the textbook.
For the final, know every single thing she went over from lecture and she bullet points she used to explain certain terms, not how the textbook explained it. I would say there are certain things that you can skip for studying but I'd be lying. Study everything, know everything. There will be a curve, like the midterm, but do not rely on it.
25% participation in sections (you can miss up to 2), 25% quizzes (11 total, 15 minutes, 10 questions, multiple choice, 1 try each, quiz is hidden after taking), 20% midterm (12 mcq, 9 saq), 30% final.
Please do not take this class. Good luck if you do.

Johns does not prioritize the success of her students. From not posting lecture slides to unreasonable exam expectations, I got the vibe that she purposely felt the need to attempt to make her students do poorly. What bothered me about her was that she was looking for hyper-specific wording from her lectures and the exam textbook. She would take massive amounts of points off if you did not use the book's exact wording, even if you correctly demonstrated knowledge of the concepts. This does not translate to a professor who wants her students to succeed but instead takes joy in seeing them fail. As well as hyper-specific wording not being a good gauge of student learning, her expectation for hyper-specificity without posting the lecture slides is twisted, especially considering the course was run at 8 am this quarter. Professors like her, who seem to have a chip on their shoulder and something to prove about their intelligence, are insufferable, and I would not take a class with her again.
She probably feels the need to prove her intelligence, given her blatantly Zionist views. As other reviewers noted, she does her best to sound intelligent about her views even as she contradicts the textbook (which is already right-leaning).

Professor Johns consistently demonstrated deeply problematic behavior and political bias throughout the course. Her lectures did not reflect an objective or balanced view of world politics, but rather a personal agenda that was often racist, transphobic, Zionist, and overtly conservative.

From the very first lecture, it was clear where she stood politically. She praised Donald Trump for renaming the Gulf of Mexico and compared that action to transgender individuals changing their names—a comparison that was offensive and completely inappropriate in an academic setting. Two minutes later, she doubled-down on this egregious claim, and asked Mexican students what the Gulf of Mexico is called "down there," because according to her, it's "only called the Gulf of Mexico in America." These remarks immediately made it clear that this course was going to be a way for her to get on a soapbox about her political views. In fact, here are some quotes highlighting Johns' personal beliefs, straight from her Twitter (@PoliticsIntlLaw), that were unsubtly hinted at during lecture:

“Should people with gender dysphoria—a mental illness—serve in the armed forces?”

“Are Jews ‘America’s New Blacks’?”

“[Israel] hasn’t stolen land or ‘murdered’ children.”

Aside from her political bias, Johns was a horrible professor. Her lectures were frequently contradicted by the assigned textbook (which itself reflected her political leanings), and the midterm exam was both vaguely worded and graded with excessive specificity. She does not post lecture slides or materials, because her biggest fear—which she liked to tell us often—was her course material "ending up in a Frat house's cabinet."

If you do end up taking this class, which I heavily advise against, I recommend revisiting the material afterward or educating yourself beforehand through more reputable, balanced sources to gain a more factual understanding of world politics. While political alignment in a professor may not be a dealbreaker for every student, it becomes deeply problematic when it overrides facts and when lectures feel more like indoctrination than factual learning.

Do not take this class if you value your sanity. It's easy enough if you do the readings and the TAs are super helpful, but this professor is a nightmare. She will say false things in class (the textbook will contradict her) and skews the class towards her personal political views (which you can find easily enough on social media). Regardless of your political views, having a teacher that literally lies about history is not ideal. If you take this class, I would skip lecture (you just need to read the textbook and go to section to learn everything). If you go to lecture and want extra credit, participate in her game theory examples. Also, her exams are super vague (to the point where the TAs didn't know what she was asking) but thankfully heavily curved.