Dr. Lannan is a very strange professor here at UCLA. No curves, no mt drops besides a quiz that barely has any impact, and even homework is graded. Your extra credit only wimps out a measly 1.25% and ITS GRADED lol not to mention its an entire group project. His lectures are alright at best, but do not rely on them for the exams alone. His grading is absolutely awful, you will get marked down for the microscopic details you miss or do not explain to his liking and arguing with his rubric can actually lower your grade if you submit a regrade request which is a policy I never seen. Basically, if your answers are not direct quotes from his grading rubric you will not receive full credit. You can basically put the exact answer you see on a practice exam but if it does not match with his current rubric its over. I absolutely loved the content of this class but I dreaded his grading so much and did not receive the grade I wanted. Discussions were helpful, but I do not recommend this professor for how harshly he grades and how reluctant he is to cut some students some slack considering how difficult this subject is and can be.

As a fourth year who is just about to graduate, I never thought I would write a Bruinwalk review to be honest. Reading through Dr. Lannan's reviews on here changed that. I first took Dr. Lannan's 153A class in Winter of 2022, but dropped early on due to family stuff. At the moment, it was his first time teaching 153A and although you could tell he cared about teaching and the student's success, he seemed pretty overwhelmed at times during lecture. But really, that would happen to ANYONE.

Fast forward a year to this quarter, I thought he did a complete 180. His slides are incredibly clear, honestly, probably some of the best slides I have seen in my four years here. They have absolutely everything you need for the exam and they as a visual learner, when the words weren't enough, the pictures on the slides really helped me figure everything out. His lecturing skills also greatly improved since 2022, he was clear concise and I thought he did an incredible job explaining everything and answering any questions students had. Some of the reviews about his lecturing on here honestly dumbfound me because they are just so far from the truth.

Now the part that everyone seems to be complaining about on here: the exams. The exams were not easy. But like, obviously, we its an upper division biochemistry class at UCLA? There was a lot of information you had to know for each test, but the good thing was, all the information you had to possibly know was on the slides. On top of this, Lannan supplies the class with homework questions that look identical to the exams, week by week learning objectives detailing everything he could ask on an exam, and literal exams from past quarters that we could do as practice. People bashing Lannan on here simply did not put any effort into studying and did bad on the exams. He literally gives us the type of questions he will asks and his rubrics that he uses to grade them, I don't know what else people could want. I got all As on exams with probably 10 hours of studying for each of the midterms and 15 hours for the cumulative final.

Overall, some of these reviews on here are just wild, like I understand people not getting the grade they want, but coming on here and blatantly lying is wild to me. Lannan was great and based off what I have heard, he is one of the better 153A professors. Long story short, if you work hard you can easily get an A, I would take him again in a heartbeat.

Honestly, this class sucked. I got a good grade in here, went to office hours and studied like crazy, so please don’t think im just salty about my grade lol. The dude is just super unorganized and seems confused a lot of the time. Does he know his biochemistry? I would sure hope so, the dude has a PhD in it! But let’s be honest, that doesn’t mean you should teach it. Yeah we get it, he got “unlucky” this quarter but it kinda sucks when my professor’s incompetence affects MY grade. The first midterm and final were a complete disaster. Honestly were they hard? No, not really. But i (and my other 500+ classmates) dont appreciate getting points off when we LITERALLY wrote the correct answer (not even exaggerating). Yeah this could be solved with a regrade request, but OH WAIT!! Theres no regrade requests for the final! Yippee!!! So now my hundreds of classmates and I are jipped USELESS points for literally NO reason. Things were very unorganized and honestly it really didn’t seem like he cared that much about our concerns.

Bottomline, if you're looking to take this class in like 2035 or something when he doesnt confuse himself in lectures/office hours, doesnt have mistakes in his lecture slides and just has a speck of competence- go for it. Its honestly not that bad (if you dont get points off for writing the correct answer). But if you’re looking to take this class within the next like 6 years, may God help you. You’re gonna need it.

In writing this review I find myself conflicted. Ryan has, I think, the ability to lecture well, but his backwards attitude and disrespectful, ego-driven attitude prevents him from doing so. Please don't disregard all the negative reviews thus far and attribute them to spiteful pre-meds who got bad grades. I did well on Ryan's tests but still am able to see very clearly that he did not teach well or facilitate a friendly learning environment this quarter. And from what I heard from past students, this was not an isolated incident.

For some reason the debate on Ryan's abilities as a professor became polarized as the course went on, which is probably why there are so many impassioned reviews with wholly opposite outlooks. I have nothing against Ryan, and am judging him based solely on how well this course was structured/taught.

His tests were graded very harshly, especially when the questions did not lend themselves to such exact answers. He expected punctuality yet was late to classes, uploaded homework/study materials very late, and overall displayed an abhorrent lack of preparation. His leniency for aspects of the class relating to COVID were rigid and unforgiving (all my classes including a lab offered a fully hybrid option except this one).

That isn't to say that he never improved over the quarter. During the last few weeks, he seemed nicer and more understanding. BUT, I have a nagging suspicion that this was because he saw how negatively he was viewed and was hoping for better end-of-quarter reviews. He even gave us a ~5 min spiel during one of our lectures telling us to give him better scores than he deserved so that he could continue teaching (a sign of the times, maybe). So any improvement mentioned in these reviews should be taken with a grain of salt.

Also, he lives near me and lemme tell you, homie walks like a punk.

do not take 153a with Lannan if you can afford to...no matter how much effort I put in I do not do well on his exams and as others have said you get points off for having the right answer (I circled the right aa on MT 1 and didn't get points for it lmao). it's really discouraging to know that your professor doesn't care about any feedback we have or decides to dump extra material on us 2 days before our midterm. what sucks too is that we aren't given any resources or practice questions other than a study guide that doesn't reflect his exams and questions written by the TAs (god bless them). honestly, lannan has the potential to be a great professor, and it's a shame that most of us are struggling so much right now. i personally know several people who have dropped the course because they couldn't take it anymore, so the reviews we're leaving are accurate. don't know how this class can be redeemable at this point imo

Professor Lannan is a good lecturer and is pretty decent at explaining conceptual stuff; however, I felt that his class needed much more clarification and had many areas for improvement. The class is incredibly fast-paced, and he doesn't slow down, making it difficult to keep up. He talks during lectures as if you already know everything, often just gliding over some concepts and then making the most difficult questions out of them for the midterm. His office hours were useful at first, but they became useless after the first four weeks. He has ADHD, so he's always saying, anyways, you guys know this, while no one knows what he's talking about. He also talks so fast, which adds to the confusion. The exams are brutal, and your wrists and hands will hurt after each midterm. He is a harsh grader, and there are a lot of mistakes while grading the exams. Unfortunately, he is not open to improvement and seems to think everyone is in love with him, while in reality, almost everyone dislikes him. He has no sense of awareness about this.

The TAs are also poor graders, and the regrade request process is absolutely unfair. He deducts points from you if he receives too many requests because he can't review them all. Well, nobody forced him to implement the regrade request system. Additionally, he doesn't accept requests for 0.5 points, which is problematic if there are multiple grading mistakes on these smaller questions. He is an awful grader, extremely non-responsive, and rude towards students. He is very mean in emails and tries everything to single you out, often insinuating that you are trying to cheat in the class. I really hated this class. It gave me so much anxiety, and I am a chemistry major, so I have been through the hardest chemistry classes at UCLA. Another major issue is that he sets you up for competition against other students and has clearly stated this many times on CampusWire. While it's understood that eventually, you're evaluated against others, this is not something that should be explicitly stated in class for 800+ students. Each class should be structured in a way that you're being valued based on your own knowledge at least.

I think other professors, such as Gober, should be brought back to teach biochemistry rather than Lannan. While Lannan has some strengths as a lecturer, there are significant issues with his teaching approach, grading policies, and overall attitude that need to be addressed.

CHEM 153A with Lannan was definitely not easy but if you really study it is definitely possible to get an A. I would recommend reviewing the learning objectives and rewatching the lectures because he expects you to know things that he mentions, sometimes just in passing. I would also highly recommend going to his office hours, they're really helpful. And the reviews which complain about the specificity with which he grades are accurate, he expects a lot of detail in his rubrics, so honestly try to write down every little detail you can think of on the tests. I liked Lannan though, he was tough but mostly fair and very concerned with student learning.

Pros
- Exams sometimes recycle old questions
- EC project at the end of the quarter helps buffer grade
- Campuswire will be your best friend for answering questions and getting reputation tiers for extra credit
- Generally, I found section to be so-so, but mostly I never paid too much attention ; I think my TA, Cindy, was very knowledgeable though
- Review sessions are held where concepts are discussed and it's more of a Q&A/workshop hybrid format
- He drops a quiz
- Homework helps with general concepts
- I would say past exams are reflective of the real deal (he will post a practice exam from a previous quarter)
Cons
- I feel like I neglected my time in other classes because this class had so much information and knowledge to memorize/understand/apply
- Grading is very harsh
- Sometimes Lannan is passive aggressive towards people who have questions - he kind of brushes them off and tells them that he'll answer their questions during office hours, and mind you I never asked questions, but I just observed his behavior and it came off as rude/inconsiderate sometimes
- Grading is very slow sometimes. When it comes to quizzes, there wasn't even a point in me missing the last quiz because I didn't know what I got on the other 2/4 (so I still studied for the last quiz)
- I know this class moves very quickly and there's a lot of information to memorize, but it seemed like we were all thrown in the deep pool when all of the disruptions happened. Nothing was necessarily "easier" per say for exams. We honestly were dangling and wondering if we would even have our Midterm 2 on Monday of Week 7 because there was a lack of communication and we were just assumed to show up on campus and see how the day would go, even if it felt unsafe sometimes.
Final Thoughts
This class is a fever dream. Idk how I got an A+ tbh but my biggest recommendation is to make sure you're writing out paragraphs for exam questions to get as much points as possible. You need to be detailed in your responses and making sure you touch upon every single part of a question. Taking a look at his past exams also helps with the format and what to expect. I think the homework was alright for preparing for exams, but it's definitely not as application-based (homework is generally a content review) as exams. Be prepared for scenarios (Lannan likes to make sci-fi questions where you're on XYZ planet and some biochem related problem comes up) where you will apply your knowledge. This class is not easy, but if you put in the work and time, you should be fine.

Professor Lannan is a very fair lecturer, with tests that take a bit of getting used to. Once you learn the rubric of the exams and what he expects out of answers, it becomes more manageable. His lectures are engaging and mandatory, and the discussions were helpful as well. At the end of the quarter, there is an extra credit project, and all of the extra credit totals to around 2% which is generous. The homeworks are for the most part completion based as he only grades one of the questions, and the quizzes are pure memory. It really comes down to the exams, but once you get the hang of it, it is a fair test. Overall, I would recommend taking Lannan for 153A.

Overall I think Lannan is a safe choice for a biochem professor, so if he is an option, take it. His lectures are engaging and clear, and the overall flow of content from the beginning to the end of the quarter makes sense at building on top of each other.

You can tell he's super passionate about the subject, and he's fairly young so there's a bit more engagement and energy to things. Personality-wise he is also fairly geeky and and can be funny, plus posts pictures of cats on Campuswire, so I think he can keep morale up. I respect him for sharing his views too outside of class on UCLA Radio during the time of the encampment, I think it showed his education about world events and also not just a soulless STEM professor.

It's true his rubrics for exams can seem strict, but honestly I think they're not outrageous. The medians for Midterm 1 and 2 were 75% and 85%, respectively, and that is definitely within the norm for a STEM class like this, so I disagree with assertions that his exams are "tougher" than any other similar upper-div class.

When you're doing exam questions, just always make sure to ask yourself "Why?" or "So what? and write down the answer. I think a lot of people (at least when you're not used to the rubric) make the mistake of writing something like "Thing A makes Process 2 stop", but they miss the rubric point about how Thing A actually made Process 2 stop. Make sure though that you understand the wording he uses in his slides/lectures, and that you really understand the consequences of processes that you learn. He likes to ask questions that make you apply content to a completely different context (e.g. how would this alien's cell membrane be different from Earth's).

Speaking of aliens, there's a extra credit group project at the end of the quarter about creating your own alien organism based off unique biochemistry that's varies from biochemistry of Earth (i.e. stuff we learned in class).

For our lecture's final, a third of the questions were literally the exact same as the ones on the practice final (which he gave the answer sheet to).

There's iClicker (mandatory lectures) and assignments. The assignments are not too bad but they really do force you to review what you learned well.

Discussions are fine (and mandatory), really specific to the TA whether it's good or not (shout-out to Katie!).