Based on 14 User s
I thought Professor Garrison was an animated lecturer and clearly very passionate and interested in the material. That was super helpful for me, since I didn't find it as interesting but his energy helped me stay engaged. The lectures were pretty clear and well paced, but the exams were a bit difficult. The course was a bit chaotic because Professor Garrison taught the first four weeks, Professor Smith taught the next four, and the Professor Garrison came back for the last two weeks of the quarter. Because of this we did not get our midterm scores back til a bit later. Professor G gives prelecture quizzes for almost every lecture on the textbook readings, which ask very specific questions but you get unlimited attempts. The labs were easy and the TAs were incredibly kind and genuinely wanted to help students out (they even held a career panel for us where we could ask questions about research, grad school, working, etc.) The only things for our grades were pre-lec quizzes, the labs, the midterm, and the final. The two tests are each 25% so I would study early, and actually read the textbook because its helpful in filling in greater details that we don't have time for in lecture.
I generally felt like this class was decent, but I wasn't a big fan of the grading distribution and structure of the class.
25% of your grade is participation, which involved attendance, a discussion section presentation, and answering questions in lecture. No attendance was taken after I think week 2, so basically everyone got all the points here if they did the presentation (which was easy, and while we never got grades for it, I'm pretty sure it was graded very easily).
20% of your grade is from two quizzes, which were of middling difficulty. These were on week 3 and week 5. Most people I talked to got decent grades on them, but not good ones. They are timed, multiple choice and short answer quizzes based off of lecture. Because the lectures cover so much information, the quizzes can be a little difficult. It is open note, but again you have a time limit that really prevents you from fully looking up questions. After week 5, there are no more exams, so you can basically check out and not pay attention to lectures anymore. The rest of the grading is on projects where you do your own research, so while lectures can help, they aren't particularly important going forwards.
20% of your grade is from two short assignments, which was a memo (3 page short essay) and a 2 minute speech/testimony. You worked with a partner. Both assignments were on the same topic. I thought the grading was mostly fair, but you had to work for an A on these assignments.
35% of your grade was the final project, where you worked with a group of 5-7 people. 25% was for the final paper and 10% was for the final presentation. The final paper was 20 pages max and was a super detailed research paper about a given topic. You have a good amount of time to work on it, and the large group made it manageable. He gave you feedback on your outline and then your draft. He really wants citations and numbers, so you have to do a large amount of research. I think our paper had almost 10 pages of double spaced citations by the time we finished. The final presentation was 10 min long, and it was difficult to condense all of the info in the 20 page paper into a 10 min presentation. Time limits were strictly enforced. I never got my grade back for the paper and the presentation, but given my final grade and my grades on the other assignments, I think I did decently well. I think that the grading is probably strict but generally fair given how much time and feedback you receive before the final draft is due.
I found lectures to be somewhat dense and not helpful at all after week 5, and discussion sections didn't even meet half of the time. There were also a lot of weekly readings, but I didn't think they were important and didn't do them. I thought the class was interesting enough, but the second part of the class was stressful due to all of the projects. I think it's a decent class to take if it fills a requirement for your major/minor.
This was a fun class taught by Professor Garrison and Professor Paulson. There were a lot of relevant topics and the professors try really hard to tie most of it in with California or LA. Professor Garrison's lectures are fast paced so you do have to pay attention if you want to catch everything. He does post his slides, but the timing of this is unreliable.
Overall a very interesting professor and cool class.
Taught by Professor Garrison for majority of the quarter, two weeks on conservation biology by Professor Tom Smith, and a few guest lectures throughout the quarter. Professor Garrison is very friendly and helpful in office hours, h is always willing to help. The class material wasn't the most interesting but he did a great job at always keeping the lectures engaging. Tom Smith was interesting, his lectures included a lot of information and stories from his time doing research in Africa, heavily in the Camaroon. If you are an environmental science major you will likely have to deal with Professor Garrison for many things in the future, so might as well get to know him.
The class was taught mainly by professor Garrison, he was an engaging lecturer despite lecturing on pretty boring material. The second half was taught by professor Smith who taught on biodiversity and by professor eagle who lectured on climate change and the oceans. I wouldn't recommend taking this as a ge, since it does require a lot of reading, and 2 short writing assignments. I overall enjoyed the first half of the class more than I liked the second half. I really didnt like that it was taught by multiple professors but it was an overall doable class.
I'm selling the Environmental Geology book by Carla W. Montgomery 10th edition for $30, needed for professor Garrison's portion of the class. If interested text me at (323) 407-1927!
Environment 10, in my opinion, is not a great introductory course for those just getting into the Environmental Science major. The class was poorly organized, and I felt like there was just too much going on in the 10 weeks we had. The things we did in this class just didn't seem to mesh together very well. For example, some of us participated in optional Writing Workshops, as we thought they wouldn't be too bad. They were actually awful, and they ended up counting for our final grade, even though these workshops had nothing do to with environmental science. We also had a field trip, which was fine. Exams were super disorganized. For the midterm, we had 50 minutes to answer multiple choice questions and short answer questions. We then had to answer the multiple choice questions again in a group. We had 50 minutes for all of this, and it was just chaotic. Garrison does offer midterm extra credit, which was pretty cool. The first portion is taught by Professor Garrison, and was mostly about earth science, space, etc. Super boring stuff. The middle half was taught by Professor Smith, which was about biodiversity, conservation, etc. This was the most interesting part of the course to me. The last section of the course was taught by Professor Eagle, which was about climate change, the atmosphere, etc. This part was just okay. The class isn't terribly hard, but I wish it was organized a lot better.
The first section of Env 10 is taught by Professor Garrison. It is a brief overview of Earth Sciences. Clicker participation is 8%; Repeatable reading quizzes are 8%; Final research paper is 15%; Lab is 24%; Midterm is 20%; Final is 25%. 70% of exams comes from individual multiple choice and free response sections. 30% of both the midterm and final comes from a group retake of the multiple choice portion. Some exam questions come from the reading. There is no curve, but extra credit was offered for attending a field trip.
As a class, ENVIRON 10 was okay but very hectic. They seem to change it a little bit each year, but when I took it, it was divided into 3 sections in the following order: Earth systems/processes, ecology/conservation, and geology/earth science. The focus of the course however is geology, and you even use a geology textbook. And for the record, this class is nothing like APES; APES is more comparable to LS7B tbh. Overall, the material can be somewhat interesting, but if you take this class kinda late into your career (even as early as 2nd year), you will find that some of the material is not new. Also, I don't blame anyone, but I also second that the course was pretty unorganized and had too much going on. I think that if you had no clue of environmental science, this is a great class to explore its different fields, but otherwise, I personally don't see a need to introduce us to so many topics in one class.
The first section was taught by Professor Tripati. She wasn't too engaging to be honest, but she was nice and approachable. She pretty much just read off the slides, and because her section was a review of AOS 1/2, I pretty much just screwed off during lecture. We also had a couple of cool speakers come in that really emphasized on the implications of environmental science on society, which was a really unique perspective. Tripati taught up until the midterm. There's a group portion and an individual portion, where you basically take it alone first, turn it in, then retake the same exam with your group. Make friends and choose a smart group, like seriously. Also, we all got shafted hard on the midterm because there were quite a few questions on obscure details about the guest speakers, and because they were so few questions, I didn't do so hot.
The next section was taught by Peter Kareiva, the director of the ioes, and he too was alright. He might initially come off as a critic of leftist politics/values, but he's more so trying to reinforce the importance of skepticism and not taking things for face value. He covered a lot of irl social justice movements that showed up on the final, and his slides have very few words on them. He also had a football that he would randomly throw into the lecture hall, and whoever caught it had to answer his question. I think it's definitely worthwhile to know him and at least attend his office hours, since he's a high profile individual. Oh, he also low key had a lot of reading and bamboozled us with pop quizzes, which he later revealed to just be no-harm extra credit. I did the reading for the first one and did well, but the second one didn't actually happen and was just a ploy to get us to read. What a guy.
Professor Garrison taught the last section, which was very heavy on geology and water. Although he's a good professor, he goes extremely fast and covers a lot of terminology, so it's important to read beforehand. He also was like the only one to use clicker questions, and he had quizzes that we had to do on CCLE before every lecture.
I can't say much about the final because it was toned down in response to COVID-19, but there were just a lot of random facts that I didn't think I'd need to know down the road. There's also an essay during the middle of the quarter, and the workshop was made mandatory, but it wasn't that helpful tbh. We got bamboozled again, where the first deadline was just so that we'd have a finished product for the writing workshop and could receive feedback.
Don't worry about the labs; they're really easy, and the TA's are helpful if you're lost. However, we did a presentation that had a time limit for one of the weeks, so if that happens again, you should probably rehearse it before you present.
So I personally did trash on all the assignments, getting an 80% on the midterm, a high 80 on the final, and a mid 80 on the essay, but I still managed to get an A+? Still perplexed about this, but I guess I shouldn't complain. Oh, part of this is probably because there's an extra credit assignment at the end of the quarter, and an A+ is like a 96% and above. But yeah, you gotta take this class if you're an environmental science major, and even if the content isn't the best, make friends, get to know the professors, and give it your best, because this won't be the last time you'll see these people in your undergraduate career.
I took this class online over summer during A session. The class was broken down in the following manner during my term:
20%- Attendance/Short Summaries: You had the option of 1-watching the recorded lectures and writing a short summary about the material, or 2- tuning in to the live lectures. Very easy points. Lectures in general were very fast-paced. Garrison uses slides, which help outline his expanded talking points.
30%- Short Response Papers: There were two 3-page papers, so 15% of the grade each. They were each about a current environmental issue of your choice that related to course concepts. I found it helpful to talk to Garrison about the topics chosen. I also made sure to pick topics that had strong connections to particular legal/policy issues, as it is a governance/politics class. There were three student examples provided. Garrison would also send your papers back to you with commentary after grading, which was super helpful!
40%- Final Policy Memo: This was maximum 6 pages. You could pick a topic/issue of your choice, as well as an administrative body that it is addressed to. It required a decent amount of background research to complete. This was the first policy memo that I ever had to write, but Garrison provided an outline of what he expected, as well as a number of resources for additional assistance. There were also three student examples from previous terms to look at.
10%- Final Presentation: Ranged from 3-5 minutes and covered the issue discussed in the policy memo. It required a powerpoint or some kind of visual aid. This was submitted as a video, so it was pre-recorded. I did mine on zoom, and did multiple takes to get the one I finally submitted. You could choose to have the pre-recorded video presented on the last day of class or not.
Textbook: This class had a required text and a reader. I found the textbook extremely easy to read and understand, despite the somewhat-dense material. The two short-response papers required you to cite the class texts, so they were mandatory to have, despite no quizzes/tests on the material. Overall, I feel like the readings complimented the class well and deepened my understanding of the historical context, but took quite a bit of time in comparison to their utility.
Professor: Garrison is not an easy grader but not terribly hard either. I feel that he really appreciates in-depth research, so I think it's worth it to spend a bit more time really understanding the legal/environmental contexts of issues when writing about them. Garrison would also provide commentary on your papers and send them back to you, which was super nice. Outside of his grading, I found Garrison to be very approachable and helpful. You could ask questions in class, and he was always receptive to them. You can tell he's very knowledgeable and passionate about the subject matter. He was also very accommodating during office hours/making time to meet with students.
Overall: This was an organized class that was honestly quite enjoyable and engaging, but not the easiest on campus. I never felt terribly stressed in this course, and also felt like I learned something every lecture that was worth my time. I would highly recommend this course if you are remotely interested in the history of the American political system regarding environmental issues.
I took this class with Noah, Rob Eagle, and Tom Smith. Noah taught the first five weeks on earth science, Tom Smith taught two weeks on conservation biology, and Rob Eagle taught the last three weeks on atmospheric and oceanic science. I think Tom Smith's portion of the class was the best for lecturing, engagement, and interesting material, whereas Rob Eagle's presentations could get too analytical and dry at times. Both the midterm and the final exam were both more difficult than I was expecting, being a lot more specific than the lectures were on certain topics.