I am taking Prof Johns' Intl Organizations class this quarter and I love it. I may be biased because IOs are my specific area of interest, but Professor Johns is a great professor, especially for being brand new!!
She's incredibly organized, clear and thorough. The class has a discussion where weekly quizzes on the reading are given. The two lowest quiz grades are dropped. These make up a small portion of the grade and so does participation. The rest is comprised of a mid-term and final, which are actual tests of short-answer questions, not essays. I think the final may have an essay component, but the mid-term did not. The testing is also straightforward. Basically, I feel like the grading components and the questions on them are really crafted to ensure that you're learning, comprehending and actually retaining the material. I feel like this rarely happens at UCLA, it's so easy to just get the grade and then immediately forget everything you've learned. That's not the case in this course with Johns, she gets it. She seems to really understand how to select readings, structure the class and the flow of the subject matter, as well as grade students in a manner that effectively teaches.
I really appreciate how well-organized and well-thought out the course is and I highly recommend Professor Johns. She's incredibly fair and approachable.

I have never felt compelled to write a review before...but Professor Johns is the exception. She is the worst professor I have ever encountered during my time at UCLA. It's not because her class is difficult - in fact, her class is simply an exercise in pure memorization, requiring no critical thinking or intellectual stimulation. I do not like this class because Professor Johns lacks any sense of self-awareness and emotional intelligence. She is also a coward and a disgrace to the field of international law. Here are a few examples:

1) When discussing a case, she imitated a Muslim individual involved in the case - her false reenactment was extremely uncomfortable to watch and had no factual relevance to the case at hand. When a peer of mine called her out for incorrectly portraying Islamic beliefs, she did not offer a genuine apology and was very annoyed by them.

2) When various students asked to discuss Israel-Palestine and the Uyghur Genocide with her during office hours, she flat out refused. You see, Professor Johns does not care about your academic curiosity or the importance of discussing ongoing violations of international law - in her own words, she does not want to be canceled. But the HILARIOUS IRONY is that she wrote to the Chancellor calling for disciplinary action against students and faculty who do not support the systemic murder of Palestinian civilians. Professor Johns does not value academic freedom both in and outside of her classroom.

3. She, with absolutely no shame, said that the U.S. should redirect all of their aid that's intended for Afghanistan (to, you know, relieve starvation) to Ukraine instead. The complete hatred she has for brown people is tangible. Speaking of Ukraine, on the first day of class, she repeated multiple times about how she cried and could not leave her house for two weeks when Russia invaded Ukraine. It was so obvious how hard she was trying to fake empathy to the point where it left the room visibly uncomfortable. Most people have the emotional intelligence to not make war crimes about themselves and conjure up something that clearly never happened.

Liked her a lot. We had one 2-3 page policy brief due every week and one midterm and one final. Midterm was long, just know vocabulary and real life examples of them. Final was shorter, again mostly vocab... I finished in less than an hour.

I didn't put a lot of effort in this class, which is probably why I got a B+ but if you study more than 2 hours for her midterm and final you should be good!

First of all, I am a PS major who has a sincere commitment to the major and curricula. I received an A+ in Prof. Johns' course, along with A+ in every other lower diver PS courses (with exception to PS 6 which I am currently taking). PS 20 isn't the easiest of lower div PS courses (I always believed 10 was) but I found the way Johns taught made it certainly the most boring. Caring about this class became the biggest challenge for me very early in the quarter, which is a shame since I have a real interest in IR.

Essentially, all of her powerpoint lectures are simply crude outlines of the textbook chapters (I think we covered 9 chapters of the Norton book, approximately 1 per week). The overwhelming majority of your performance in her class is dependent on how well you know the textbook's take on IR, rather than IR itself.

I don't usually contribute to this website but feel obligated in doing so for this class. I cannot stress enough how irritating Johns' teaching style is for PS 20 if you actually enjoy the subject. Rather than simply knowing trends, facts, etc. about international relations, the exams test how well you know how the book categorizes and organizes the necessary facts. You might know everything for the exam, but what is more important is how well you know the book/powerpoint lectures PRESENT the material (i.e. these 4 factors are what cause preemptive war; these 3 reasons why there is so much IMF criticism). In this respect, the exams leave you with pretty much no "wiggle room" to come up with your own original answer.

I know Johns is a very intelligent professor, and my guess is that she teaches this class in such a way to make it more juvenile and straightforward for younger students in lower div classes. However, this is no excuse for making the class boring and like a high school history course.

The 6 "policy briefs" are very straightforward and are a pleasant break from the textbook curriculum. I wish this "current events" aspect of the class had a bigger present.

Prof. Johns initially comes across as a hard ass. That said, she is a great professor. Unlike many professors, her lectures, quizes and tests reflect the assigned reading. The grade is comprised of a midterm, final, discussion participation and seven quizes (with the two bottom grades dropped). You will leard a lot in her class. As so far as easiness, I wouldn't say it's easy, but I would agree with the post before mine, in that is a very manageable A. I managed to get an A by only reading the discussion section reading. I would absolutely recommend her and I would take another class with her.

This class was pretty much straight forward. It consisted of a final, midterm, discussion grade and weekly quizzes. The midterm and final weren't easy but they were doable. The key to her exams is to attend lecture and take good notes. All of the ideas she lists on her study guides are fully explained in the notes. She doesen't put her lectures online and she goes through the material pretty quickly during lecture, so attending class and being attentive is key. A positive aspect of the exams is that they are made up of short answer questions. No multiple choice or long essays. The first midterm was 12 short answers and the final had 17. She makes the exams extremely difficult, but curves very very generously. The quizzes in discussion were very easy. She assigns weekly discussion readings, that are usually anywhere from 15-25 pages, and then there are three questions from the reading that are on the quiz. She also drops your two lowest scores from the quizzes. The class is designed to have you learn and not to kill you. It's fair and great choice for Poli sci and IDS majors.

Straight forward class. Quizzes and participation were a very easy 30% buffer.

The tests were short answer and were reasonable. Attending lecture is pretty much all you need to do in order to do well (although I feel like the final included some more in depth reading questions). She outlines the reading well.

I didn't learn a great deal, but some aspects were interesting. Very manageable A.

Very easy lower div pol sci class/GE class. Class consists of a midterm, final, 6 2-3 page write ups (lowest 2 grades dropped), and attendance at section. Hardest part of the class was showing up to section, which i found to be a complete waste of time. She is a good lecturer and takes info straight from the book (which is good if you dont go to class cause you can read the book and get the same info since she does NOT post her lecture slides online). I chose to go to class and never opened my book and that worked really well too. The write-ups required minimal effort and i usually did them an hour before they were due. Overall easy class and she has a pretty nice curve too just in case.

It's a fairly straightforward class on IR, with a very general overview of conflicts, bargaining, trade, development, and financial + monetary institutions and interactions.

You should go to Professor Johns' lectures. It'll be worth your while since you won't need to even bother with the textbook unless you're confused about something. You will have to read the supplementary articles she posts online though, since you're tested on some of them and they won't necessarily be discussed in-depth in lecture.

Grading was pretty simple...midterm, final, attendance at section, and six policy briefs. The exams are both generously curved and the policy briefs are pretty simple if you spend an hour or so doing research. I got an A+ with relatively minimal effort, but take that with a grain of salt since I was already familiar with a lot of the material beforehand. If you know nothing about IR it may be somewhat more challenging.

Professor Johns is also very available and happy to help students. I had to make alternate arrangements to take the final exam, and she was more than happy to accommodate me after I discussed the issue with her during office hours.

Good class overall, would definitely recommend it to anyone interested in IR.

Professor Johns is an effective, engaging professor and I thoroughly enjoyed PS20. That being said, I had a great interest in the subject matter to begin with. As was noted in other reviews, Professor Johns's lectures are pretty much outlines of the textbook chapters. However, while this meant that some of my classmates never went to lecture and did read the book, I always went to lecture (and read the book anyways, which was thoroughly redundant), because I found Professor Johns's knowledge and enthusiasm for the subject matter infectious. And, hey, who ever said being able to get through a class without opening the textbook was a bad thing?
The major flaw of the course is, as another reviewer wrote, when it comes to exams, "You might know everything for the exam, but what is more important is how well you know the book/powerpoint lectures PRESENT the material (i.e. these 4 factors are what cause preemptive war; these 3 reasons why there is so much IMF criticism)." Still, such "4 factors" or "3 reasons" will have been clearly enumerated in lecture.
Fortunately, the other form of evaluation for the course, 6 2-3 page "policy briefs", really tie the more conceptual material from lecture to real world and current events, and, in my opinion, make the class.
Overall, Poli Sci 20 was an interesting, relatively easy class. Without killing myself, I received an A+, and my interest in the subject matter only deepened.