While I was surprised at his grading scale (C- average or so) from hearing about grades from other classmates, if you do well on the final and show a big improvement from the midterm, he WILL give you what you get on the final as your overall grade. I pulled off an A- even though the my rank in the class put me somewhere at the 24th percentile just by getting an 88% on the final (from a 38% on the midterm, which was just below the 40% average). He will reward you if he sees you putting in the effort to improve!

His grading scale is worse than Abidi's but he does examples and you learn a lot, and he cares about students and responds to emails, I like him, hard but good

Was in top 15% of the class and ended up with a B+...

I've never written a review on Bruinwalk but I decided to for Professor Moloudi because I feel he deserves some respect. I should begin by saying that I got a B+, which from the sound of things is better than most people but still shows you that I'm not some super genius that aces every class. In fact, I do average in most classes, including in EE10 and EE110. Right now, though, I going to call it how it is.

Professor Moloudi is a shining example of what professors should be. He is BY FAR the best EE professor I've had at UCLA. His lectures were excellent, meaning they were either thoroughly planned or he's just naturally gifted at teaching. Either way, it reflects positively on him as an instructor. He encourages his students to ask questions, and he expresses genuine interest in the students' learning.

The examples he gives are clear, as are his explanations. He sometimes uses analogies to convey the concepts being taught, and simple as they are, they do provide deeper understanding of the material. He will call on students during class at random, which for an 8 am class is a good idea because it keeps students focussed in fear that they might get embarrassed not knowing the answer to one of his questions. At the beginning of the quarter, he would call out/heckle students who walked in late, but he sort of stopped that after the first few weeks of the quarter, presumably because an 8am class of 175 is bound to have some stragglers.

The homeworks are LONG. I pulled all nighters for three of the five, not finishing one of them. This was mostly my fault though, as I waited until the day before they were due to start them, since I had a schedule with a heavy workload and couldn't get to them much earlier. That being said, the material in the problem sets is very much representative of the material that shows up on the exams, and I found that re-doing the homework really boosted my confidence for the exams. For the final, I also did the practice problems he suggested in class, which I think were easier than the exam problems but did provide some feedback to how well you know the material.

The exams were fair, and although he didn't let you use a calculator, if you were doing the math correctly, all the numbers should work out beautifully. This is actually really helpful, because if you begin to have non-integer answers, you know that you did something wrong and can go back to fix it. On the other hand, grading was pretty harsh on some questions, but it was harsh for everyone (hence the averages being in the 40s).

Moloudi's overall grading is NOT NEARLY as harsh as Abidi's. If it were, there is no way I would have gotten a B+, because I was in the top 25% and scored in the 60s on both the midterm and the final.

My advice to you, if you have the pleasure of taking Moloudi's class, is to:

(1) Attend every lecture; Moloudi's lectures are certainly worth the time and/or sleep deprivation. Anyone who says otherwise never gave them a chance.
(2) Do the homework on your own; And by on your own I don't mean copying the solutions, which some people did. It sounds cliche (and it is), but doing the homework will prepare you for the exams
(3) Throw away the textbook; it's pretty useless, since Moloudi doesn't follow it. Instead, study the lecture notes.
(4) Ask questions: Moloudi wants you to ask questions, and he will never criticize you for asking one.

That's really all there is to it. No jokes, no exaggerations. If you're considering taking a class with Moloudi, I would HIGHLY RECOMMEND doing so. I just hope that the EE department does itself a favor and give him tenure, as it could really benefit from his contributions.

Moloudi is a hard-ass. Look below and you'll get a feel for how a lot of students felt in the class. I both agree and disagree with the other reviews. I got an A (which it doesn't sound like he gave many), so listen up if you want to know how to do well.

He is in the top tier of EE professors in his lecturing. He teaches a lot by analogy instead of by proofs, which I found a good change of pace.

I didn't read the book much except for a little reference. Take very thorough notes in class - this is the key to doing well in his classes. You must do the (4) homeworks although they take 5-10 hours each because they are the practice problems you need to know how to solve for the tests.

The distribution on his midterm and final was basically 20 people each got in each decade. So ~20 people got 0-9%, ~20 people got 10-19%, ~20 people got 20-29%, etc. I thought the midterm and final were completely reasonable and he taught us how to solve every of the problems. His grading was tough though, so you must put in the time taking good notes during class and doing the homework outside of class.

Very good lecturer. Explains everything very clearly and had no problem understanding the material. The grading for this class was ridiculous though. I was in the top 10% before the final (which I didn't do well on) and ended up with a D+ in the class?

I've got to second the reviews below. As an instructor Moloudi is a boss. He is extremely knowledgeable on the subject(look at his patents list) and explains everything in a very clear, step-by-step way. He knows which parts of circuit analysis are tricky for students and he spends time on these, instead of expecting students to get it on inspection like some profs. Straight up, I'll have to say he's the most effective teacher I've had since smallberg freshman year. The only downside was he takes things too seriously. At times he seemed snappy and irritable, and this dissuaded me from approaching him with questions. To his credit though he does invite questions constantly. I didnt do too hot on his exams(avg on mt about 13 points above on final) but they really arent that bad. If you do the hw carefully, do a lot of practice problems and keep a clear head during the exam you should be able to do very well. The low averages were probably due to students not putting in effort outside class(was guilty of this myself). That and the class being too early, and circuits being a subject that's inherently tough in an exam scenario.
And that brings us to the sticking point: grades. His curve was miserable. I got top 42-43 percent and got a c+. Initial reaction was wtf and reading these reviews it seems i narrowly dodged a c-! It seems that like abidi, he expects you to perform on an absolute scale. You're not getting a good grade unless you get solid scores(Id guess 70+) on the tests. It makes sense in a way. Cant claim to deserve a b when i scored the way i did on his reasonable exams. Giving good grades despite the poor performance in such a crucial class would make ucla a diploma mill. Otoh it blows for avg students who do their work and just want to get the class over with

As others have said, Professor Moloudi is a great professor if not the best I've had at UCLA. He explains concepts very well and he tries to make sure everyone understands a concept before moving on. As a teacher I give him an A.

Now as a test giver he is extremely stingy, barely giving any partial credit. In addition, I do not understand why he does not allow calculator on the exams. For example, the final had some pretty tedious and ugly calculations. However, I believe his exams were for the most part extremely fair. I mean if you went to class, did your homework, and understood all the concepts covered in class then the exams are very straight forward. However, I feel that on the final exam I probably lost a lot of points not because I did not know what I was doing but rather because I did not get the final answer in the sense that I was unable to do the tedious calculations. So if the final was graded anything like the midterm I probably got like 2/30 points even though I was doing all the rights step, I just didn't arrive at the answer he wanted.

This takes me to how he distributed the final grade. I did, in my opinion, pretty decent in his class given that I bombed his midterm. I was ranked near 50 percentile but for some reason he gave me a C-. For any other class this would have been a B or B-. He is very very stingy with grades.

A professor that yells at you for falling asleep in class, or pause the lecture and just stare at you when you're even like 2 minutes late.
His teachings are yes, pretty good. I understood more about diodes and transistors than ever. But ohyy when comes to grades, he is the same as Abidi. Very unfair distribution and very stingy with grades. An average student (ranked 50% in the class) should expect around a C- (maybe even a C). Very impossible to get an A.

Yes, he is great at teaching and lecturing. He does explain concepts well and his tests wouldn't seem difficult if you go to class and study.

However: I regret not attending most the lectures (only went to 4 or 5 since its too damn early), or taking time to thoroughly read the material. I only skimmed through problems and a bit of the book. I was personally disappointed for ending up at the 44% of the class. Naturally, I expected a B... but he gave me a C+! After asking around, I heard people at the 25% got B-, so should I be happy with my C+? Also people at the 80% got D-'s. I like him as a professor and all, but if I knew how UNgenerous he is with semi-decent grades, I would've forced myself to wake up for class, or take 115A later. And I'm really hoping these grades are an April fools joke.