The earlier reviews make it sound like Farmer is the devil himself. I don't think that's a fair assessment. Econ 102 was difficult, but not even close to some of the other Econ classes out there. Farmer's lectures are not always interesting, but he explains exactly what you need to know how to do for the test. And the best part is: he wrote the book himself, so if you don't go to class you can still get all of the material on your own. I rarely showed up to lecture and I read all of the chapters the week before the final. I ended up with an A+ in the class.
I think Farmer's 102 class is pretty straight forward: if you understand the material, you will get a good grade. He has a great, no-fault midterm policy so your midterms can only raise your grade, but they can't lower it.
I didn't think Farmer was that hard; and in a department with some very bad professors, he's one of the better ones.

Farmer is probably one of the hardest econ professors ive taken at UCLA. i want to faint from his final already. i never felt so dumb in his class before. IT WAS HELLA HARD!! Seriously, I almost threw up in blood from studying practically his whole book, like 15 chapters or something. there are too many worksheets to look at and too many info to know, it was simply impossible. I mean we have other classes like MGMT that is more important that ECON to study for. Farmer made me realize more how much i hate econ. i would never recommend anyone taking farmer for 102. NEVER!! take ohanian instead. he is so much easier i heard. geez...now when i think about...i regret so much not taking ohanian.

Farmer's 102 class was by far the most difficult class I have taken at UCLA. The lectures were very simple and easy to follow, however the exams were awful. I can only recommend talking to TAs frequently. Even though the complex math may not seem important, be sure to know it. Also know the random internet articles that he wants you to read. You will probably be tested on them.

Professor Farmer was very knowledgeable in the subject of Macroeconomics, but I often felt that he wasn't very effective in teaching the students. His lectures tended to be based on theory, with examples that were more theoretical than mathematical. This made it difficult to do problems on the test which required us to use numbers. Personally I find it easier to learn from mathematical examples than theory, and a lot of the students in my lecture were also confused and lost because of his somewhat vague teaching style. He also wrote the textbook, which is also based on theory, so it requires a very thorough read to understand the material. I basically felt lost for the entire quarter, but because everyone else was lost as well (all at different degrees of lost-ness) getting a decent grade wasn't impossible. Farmer's grading basis is very kind to the students--in my lecture he took the score of your best midterm (out of 2) and weighted it with your final exam score. He then calculated what your grade would be if the final counted as 100% of your grade. His "no-fault" grading, and a generous curve makes him a good selection for students who care more about grades than learning. However, if you are one of those students who like a professor who draws on clear examples rather than theory, then you might want to consider another instructor. If you are brilliant in handling Economics, then you'll do fine with Farmer. Overall, an average professor.