Fall 2017 - This is one of the more overrated classes. Coming into the class, I have such high expectation for learning something useful instead of some old school stuff from Eggert. However, I don't think anything other than design patterns are that useful, and there are so many good online resources and practices for design patterns. To get an A, you need to score almost 100% on every homework, quiz and exam, and get at least median on all parts of project, which is pretty difficult.
Winter 2022 - AVOID THIS PROFESSOR AT ALL COST! You would never know a graduate course will give you some of C just because this professor personally does not like you and your work. This course includes a tool presentation, a paper presentation, a project and a final. All of them are group based. Ridiculously, she granted different scores among group members, in terms of she likes and she does not like. For my presentation, she gave a 3.4/5.0 of paper presentation for the members responsible for algorithm/methodology part and evaluation, and her comments are "dry" and "boring", while she gave a 4.0/5.0 for the one talking about introduction and outline because it was interesting! She rudely disrupted student's presentation and asked some questions she DOES NOT EVEN KNOW, and then blamed students that can not answer the question, saying that they are the problems we should think about even though she does not know! Also, she did not carefully review the group project, and she just randomly commented something from project presentation and report, and randomly assign some scores differently with "peer evaluation" she got, without any justification of her reasons of the scores she assigned. Her handwriting is scribble and messy, and we could basically understand nothing from her comments. Her final is ridiculously as well. There are two essay questions, each worth 10/100 of the final exam. The questions needed us to summary three key points from one paper, and analyze that to another paper which does not have a strong relationship with the first paper, and used that to improve the framework in the third paper. The average of final is only 52. She neither provides any solution of the final, nor CURVE! What's more, we used GradeScope for the final at home. If you get in the GradeScope one minute late due to technical issues, you will get 10% deducted! Even though we all have 180 minutes to finish and GradeScope will automatically close your exam, she said she is aim to make it FAIR to everyone. As a result, the highest letter grade I know about is only B and there are some students like me getting C in her course, which means we failed her course. She basically taught nothing. Only 3-4 lectures at the beginning of the quarter, and all of them are from her CS 130 course. After that, they are all student's presentation with her rude disruption, unreasonable comments and unconsidered challenging questions!! She taught this course because she does not enjoy her life, and she would like to give low letter grades to students for fun to fill the void inside her heart. Letting us beg her for a passing grade will make her life more meaningful because she is neither a great professor and even nor a human being that behaves normally! Her academic standard largely harm the reputation of UCLA CS program. Her grading is ridiculously strict without any classification and criteria, like 90-100 to get A or 80-90 to get B. You will never know how you get your letter grade. All you got are a low final exam grade, and some presentation scores out of 5 with some random comments which has nothing to do with computer science!