The 170E taught by the vice undergrad dept chair is definitely a unique experience to me. He skipped some material such as conditional pdf and expectations and said this will not cause any problem when we take 170S. He is a nice instructor who gave fair midterms and hard final(26-page long), and we indeed learn stuff from him. Unfortunately he does not teach the sequel. Not only I but also many of my friends began to miss him after finding those who actually give lectures for the sequel of 170E did a way less fantastic job than him.

For 266A, professor Roper is a great teacher and eager to help students, and he is generally clear on courses materials. He can be occasional late in class, but I find that understandable since he can be occupied by his daughter at times. The only con is that he seems never prepare for classes, and can sometimes confuse himself in some proofs (also higher possibility of typos in notes). The tests are fair for a graduate course, and I believe he curved a lot to give out more A’s.

Oml this class. Never have I ever expected that I would get above the median score for BOTH the midterm and the final (57% vs 67% and 63% vs 68% respectively) to receive a C+ in the class, below the median grade of a B-. I truly don’t understand it, instead of curving like a normal professor he decides to invent a grading scheme where he decides your score based on mastery of certain questions on the final, he didn’t even tell us about this grading scheme until AFTER the final. Grading for mastery would be fine, only if the questions were normal and the grading made sense. For example, for a question on the final we were given a differential equation that we were expected to solve then write the answer in the form y(x)=… I use the proper technique to integrate this problem, I integrate everything correctly, but because I didn’t isolate the y, I only earned 6.5/10 points, which according to him doesn’t show mastery, despite doing the integration correctly. Because I did was not perform the ALGEBRA of isolating the y correctly, this question did not count towards my mastery when calculating my final grade. It’s actually ridiculous. Pls don’t take this class if u care about your gpa, I’ve taken hard classes where the median grades are also a B- (ochem) and I’ve gotten an A in both Math 32A and 33A, I know this isn’t how a class should be. So much work and effort for nothing. Please choose a different professor to take Math 33B with.

The course load and level of understanding expected of students are ridiculous for a LOWER DIVISION math GE.

Every week consisted of three 10-15 question courses from Pearson that weren't reflective of the course content whatsoever because the professor doesn't teach based on the textbook. The problems given were also tedious and time-consuming for no particular reason, and the professor simply stated that he had "no control." We had a weekly quiz that despite the fact we only needed a 75% to score a 100% were extremely stressful and time-consuming to study for prior to class due to the harshness of grading and question complexity. The professor even said himself he wouldn't give us quiz-level questions on the exams because they were out of scope. To add on top of that we had 30 minute sometimes even close to 50 minute videos to watch before EVERY SINGLE LECTURE, and to thoroughly understand and take notes on the content, you obviously have to spend so much more time. Worksheets were given during class, and those were what helped me the most, but the caveat is that no solutions are posted and he doesn't even complete the worksheet during class. He skips questions or doesn't even finish. Overall, I believe this course is structured in a way that neglects the fact students are balancing two or more other equally difficult courses, and cannot dedicate every second of their free time to mastering the content.

While exams contained a mixture of questions with formats we'd seen before and harder conceptual problems, the way they were graded were so unnecessarily harsh that making 1 simple algebraical mistake would land you at a 6/10 or even 4/10 depending on where that mistake was made. This led to exam averages of 57% and a 62% respectively, which is ridiculous again, because this is a lower division math course. Furthermore exams were curved based on our "personal mastery" of the course topics which basically meant your grade was scaled based on how many questions you showed "complete mastery" over.

Students taking these classes simply do not have the bandwidth to cover the content expected of them, and my greatest advice is to wait until another professor who isn't Roper teaches the course. You will understand the content just the same and walk away with a grade that reflects the effort you put in.

This class was the most difficult lower div math course I've taken, I've never had such a hard time navigating a math class. His flipped classroom structure was horrible, he would post like 4-5 30 minute videos as pre-study for each lecture which would end up being super disorganized and unhelpful since he didn't spend very much time doing examples in these problems, and focused way too much on concepts. He also talked super slow in these videos I would have to play them at 1.75x or 2x speed. He never fully explained how he was going to manage the midterm and final grades (because the average was D/F range for both), but I feel as if the grade I received was harsher than the one I deserved since I felt like this class required so much work and little reward.

Professor is very kind. Flipped classroom structure is a little weird but for those who watch the lecture videos, supplement there learning with class attendance and practice it is not hard to do well. The workload was fine for reference here is what a typical week look like

3 Content Videos to Watch (MWF) each which may have subvideos but the total runtime of videos per week never exceeded 2 hours (it got longer towards the end for more complex topics). I watch them on 2x speed he goes a little slow

The exams were reflective of material taught throughout the quarter and the professor is very nice during office hours.

I do agree he should have been more transparent with the grading scheme.

Overall I feel like the class was pretty interesting. The professor did a flipped class so I ended up just watching the videos he posted, which were helpful but a little unstructured. The professor is nice and explains the concepts well, he feels average among the math professors I had classes with. Only downside would be having three pearson assignments a week.

The professor was nice, but his exams and grading were terrible. He refused to give more than a vague "explanation" for how he would calculate final grades; he only posted a breakdown of his grading after releasing final grades and seeing dozens of complaints on Piazza (and perhaps on this page, too). I feel betrayed by Professor Roper. He was being quite passive-aggressive towards students on Piazza, but I personally attended almost every lecture and spent more time on this class than on all 3 of my other math classes this quarter—combined. That was an exaggeration, but I earned an A in 32B, 33A, and 61 with relatively zero work or stress this quarter. I can't believe I spent so much time on a class, only to be let down by a professor who doesn't understand how important grades are to some students like me.

I do enjoy his handwriting. Also, he once mentioned that he performed experiments on a tank of zebra fish until they all died. Just some food for thought.

i made a bruinwalk account just to leave this review:

this class had the worst workload out of all the MATH3XA/B classes ive taken, and the assessments were disgustingly unfair in my opinion. the weekly quizzes did not at ALL reflect the difficulty of the midterm or final. the fact that there was homework attached to every lecture made for an insane workload, especially since the Pearson platform pulls the most inconvenient numerical values for computation out of its ass to the point where it would sometimes take me several hours to do one problem set. add onto this the fact that you had to watch flipped lectures before each in-person lecture (i.e. three times a week), and after week 5 ONE in-person lecture could correspond to THREE thirty-minute+ long videos meant that this class consumed a crazy amount of time for a lower division mathematics course. i went to 2 out of the 3 OHs every single week in order to keep up with the demands of the course, and clearly that wasn't even enough. additionally, the instruction in the course was meticulous but not at all in the right ways – a lot of emphasis was put on theory, when that time could be better used working on worksheets whose problems are actually in-line with the difficulty of the assessments worth 2/3rds of our grade. im not even sure what i could've done differently for this course if i had to take it again, besides not take it at all

This class is a complete and utter joke. The grading is completely unfair and seemingly arbitrary. The class has unreasonable time commitments, and there is no discussion. Why on earth would anything think it would be a good idea to set up a course in this manner. I hope this class and professors ratings tank down to a 1 because that is truly what it deserves. Don't get me wrong, he's a very sweet man and he really really cares about us learning the content, but the way that he presents information in accordance to the prerecorded lectures is just very strange and its hard to know what you will really be tested on. Its like a teacher gone quirky mode where he literally just wants to do everything outside of the norm. Take quizzes that boost peoples confidence because YAYY!!!! everyone gets 100%!!!!!! But then come midterm and final, the medians were a 57% and a 62% respectively, and they are nothing like the practices because he says that if he gave us content that would be on the finals, that would be silly. Okay then why would I do this practice if it wont help me succeed. Side note some of the questions are the same but I'm just very mad about the way things were graded. He also states that the test grades you receive aren't actually yours and that he will reinterpret the work that you've done at the end and judge whether or not it shows mastery. If the grading scheme is not what's being presented to the students, the teacher ought to change it! What really sucks is the lack of discussion, because that time is so valuable at least for me to clarify expectations. He also gave us no information on what the curve would look like and is yet to respond to any of the things said on piazza. I know you wont take this class because only bad things were said, but if you do please be warned and go ahead and drop a 1 star for the futures when your dreams of getting a good grade are crushed.