Thies will really whip you into shape and teach you how to deal with arrogant, conceited professors. Don't take Political Science 50 with Thies. His lectures are completely worthless and he CONSTANTLY gets off-topic. The course is frustrating because you are given weekly reading quizzes that DON'T QUIZ YOU ON MATERIAL, but rather, insignificant details like "which country was mentioned in this example in this article?" The readings are dry, harsh, and painful to read at times. This quarter, only one of his TAs was remotely helpful. Go, Sebastian. You're amazing. If it weren't for him, I would have dropped the major immediately. The course material is interesting, but the course itself is unnecessarily difficult. Thies' syllabus even says "THIS COURSE IS MORE DEMANDING THAN MOST UPPER DIVISION POLITICAL SCIENCE COURSES."

I wouldn't doubt it.

If you are unfortunate enough to have Thies for PS50, define the ID's and form study groups. TALK TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE TAKEN THE COURSE WITH HIM BEFORE!

I got an A+, by the way.

Very hard class. Lecture is absolutely necessary. It's hard to know exactly what is going to be on the test, as he says "we don't test you on anything we didn't teach you". Therefore anything he says in class or assigns as reading is fair game. By the nature of the exams (very hard, the class mean was 52-54%) not everyone could get an A. There are losers and winners in this class unfortunately.
That being said, Thies does know his stuff. he does show up to office hours, even though he comes off as kind of arrogant person to person. Very interesting course material though.

This was a very hard class, to say the least. Thies' lectures are boring, and he goes on tangents, his review sessions are unhelpful. Thies had a tendency to lecture holistically, meaning that you can't just jot down what he says, you really have to listen for what he is really trying to say, what he wants you to get out of the lecture, because that is what the midterm and final will be about. The material on the midterms and final exams were expected, but again, lectures were very important in guiding you to the material, much of the readings did not even matter for the final and midterms (although reading must be done if you want to do well on the weekly reading quizzes). Cramming is definitely possible, as long as you attend lectures and do the readings, and have a general knowledge of what he covers in class, you could probably do well in his class.

His lectures are extremely boring though, I recommend drinking a 5 hr energy drink or coffee before you go. Otherwise his monotone voice and ridiculously sparse slides will put you right to sleep. It's very tempting to miss his lectures, but to do well in the class you have to attend, or at least get GOOD notes from a class mate.

This was the hardest class I have taken so far at UCLA.

The material itself is not particularly confusing or challenging, and the readings are not impossible to keep up with. The main challenge comes from the tests, which are designed to distinguish students on the basis of their attention to detail. You start with zero points and your answers are graded checklist-style - you receive points on the basis of particular details listed in your answer. There's no freebie points for trying. This makes it imperative to understand not just the general concepts of the class, but also the warrants and analysis that support them. This makes it necessary to 1) take incredibly detailed lecture notes, and 2) pay very close attention to the readings. You want to mine all of these sources for the details you need to comprehensively respond to test questions.

The tests are very, very hard. But they are not "unfair" in any sense of the word. Yes, the grading method is somewhat nebulous, since it's difficult to always know what the TAs are expecting to see. But that doesn't make it unfair insofar as 1) everyone is graded via the same objective methodology, and 2) it's graded via a curve that translates your cumulative test scores into a final grade. The average on the midterms was something like a 52% and the average on the final was a 62%. I scored in the top 1/6 percentile on all three exams and escaped with an A. But, Thies does not hand out A's and you'll probably need to be very consistent about scoring highly on the exams if that is your target. I consider myself fortunate to have escaped with my 4.00 intact.

If you don't like to put in a lot of effort into north campus classes, or if you have poor study habits, or if you have a high GPA you're not willing to jeopardize, I would stay away from this class and take it with an easier professor. It was a very interesting course, and Thies was actually a very interesting and engaging lecturer, but I'm not sure it was worth the constant stress over the exams and grades.

He's a very very smart guy, but he talks really fast and crams a lot into his lectures. His tests are formulated in a way in which basically nobody passes. He doesn't seem to care about the amount of time you put into working, he's just there to teach. He directs you to his TA's who are alright, but not even they know what he is talking about half the time. The preparation for the midterms and finals are horrible. I spent countless hours studying for these things only to realize it is near impossible to score over a 50% on his tests. Horrible grader, alright lecturer, but honestly. DO NOT TAKE THIS PROFESSOR. Hands down, you will be disappointed in his teaching style and overall lack of concern for you as a student.

I don't understand what everyone is complaining about. Maybe it's because North Campus majors don't understand the concept of a curve? Let me explain it out for you. You're not shooting for a certain grade on a test. You're shooting to score better than others in the class.
Thies is a great professor, I never found myself falling asleep in his class, and you really do learn a lot. He packs in a whole lot of important concepts while cutting out the excess fluff that other professors seem to love. Highly recommended.