Here's the truth: if you don't do well in his class, something isn't clicking in your brain. I don't like chemistry, or science at all for that matter and I still did well. He curves the tests and quizzes so hard that you should really be doing well even if you attend half the lectures. He even drops a midterm, offers extra credit, and drops two quiz scores. Although lectures are not that engaging, I think he does his best to teach you in ways that are helpful (e.g. providing useful mnemonic devices and whatnot). He isn't the best professor on campus, but neither he or his reputation deserves this kind of slander. He genuinely cares about student grades, or else he wouldn't hold 6 review sessions in the last two weeks before the final. Stop blaming others for your lack of work ethic.

Papazyan is a great guy, however he believes that you have prior knowledge to chemistry before you enter the class. Each week you finish 1-2 chapters of chemistry. Over the 10 weeks, he flew by 15 chapters. There are 7 quizzes every week and they are hard but you need to do heavy studying. He curves everything heavily and gives 2 midterms and drops the lowest one. Office hours didn't really help.

Honestly, when I was confused about a concept, my TAs were the only ones who could really help me understand. I tried going to the professor's office hours quite a few times, but his method of teaching is confusing and difficult. Instead of explaining something when you are confused, he keeps asking you what you think about it (which is not very efficient; I understand that he wants his students to critically think about the concept but in all honesty, it's hard to critically think about something you're confused by). Grading was not difficult; it was divided between quizzes, midterm, and final. The quizzes allowed corrections so it was really easy to do well on them even if you bombed it initially. Do the recommended homework questions to do well on the quizzes. We took two midterms and the lowest one was dropped, midterm questions weren't that bad. The final was hard because the professor did not plan the course correctly and the students had to cram in five chapters on their own. It's the professor's first quarter teaching, so I can't really blame him for how badly the class was structured. It definitely could've been taught in a way that didn't force the students to teach themselves most of the material. Kind of a frustrating class, but the professor took all of the design flaws into account and made sure it didn't reflect harshly in the student grade (midterm and final were both curved, and quizzes were normalized so it could only help your grade). The class was definitely more difficult than it should've been because it had a messy structure. He did post all of his slides online though which was pretty cool (it was easy to catch up even though I missed his lectures a lot).

Yes, the workload is insane. And unless you were on top of your stuff, you’re going to fall quickly behind. His lectures are not the best. He is basically just reading off the slides, which students have access to. Of course going to lecture, you are able to ask questions. I would recommend coming to class prepared, having read over hid slides before class, that way you’re not so lost in class. I often missed lecture, which I probably shouldn’t have. The weekly quizzes are not bad at all. As long as you do the end of the chapter problems, you will do good on the quizzes. With that being said, the professor is a kind man that is genuinely cares about his students and their success. He would have office hours three times a week, and would even offer to come on to campus upon request. Office hours are important, attend as much as you can. And the review sessions are extremely helpful. He does problems and explains everything really well. If you don’t want to attend lectures, you’ll still be fine as long as you attend discussions, office hours and most importantly the review sessions.

He's a nice guy if you go to his office hours and interact with him there. However, in terms of teaching the course, he could do a better job of engaging students with the lecture. The quizzes weren't that bad in terms of material. That being said, it was totally unfair to have an arbitrary amount of time allotted for the quizzes. The time allotted for the quizzes ultimately was dependent on the time perceived by a certain TA. Though the other TA did allot the same amount of time to each section, so your quiz grade depended on who your TA was. The midterm and final were not too difficult, as long as you put the grind in, but they were highly disorganized. Overall the class wasn't too bad, especially since I had no chem background. Would I recommend you to take this class with Dr. P? Honestly, I would because his tests weren't too bad, and as long as you put the work in, you should be fine.

This professor made basic chem so much harder than it had to be. You will end up doing all the work yourself. The practice problems that he gives you are way different than what is actually on the quizzes which makes the quizzes extremely difficult. The tests are not as bad as the quizzes but keep in mind that he doesn’t actually teach. He simply reads off slides and no one understands it since he goes too fast. Do yourself a favor and take this course with a different professor.

The class was much more difficult than what was expected and what it should've been. I learned on my own more than I did during lectures because the speed of the class was insane. We went through about two chapters a week while having a quiz every week that was two chapters behind the current lesson we were on. Discussion wasn't much help since we were rushed through it to get to the quiz the last seven minutes of class making the content all that more difficult and unfair. To top it off, we were thrown with four chapters on week ten which will be showing up on the final. I can appreciate that he gave us three midterms and will only count the best score but it was an overall overwhelming class.

I am Dr. Papazyan, and I would like to address some of the inaccurate comments here. Sorry about the length.

"It was much harder than it needed to be":
The actual purpose of Chem 17 is a rigorous preparation for the General Chemistry series for the STEM students who come with a weak background in chemistry. It was never meant to be the only and final chemistry class for psych (and other?) majors. This has somehow been allowed, which is completely inappropriate and beyond my control. The cynical way for a professor to deal with it is to go through the preparatory curriculum in a superficial, "just memorize these solutions for the coming test" kind of way, and focus on entertaining and appeasing the students. The psych majors (who shouldn't be taking this class) would pass with decent grades learning absolutely nothing (and frankly very little of the curriculum is worth their time) and be happy. The disadvantaged STEM students who desperately needed an actual, rigorous preparation for what's coming would have fond memories of their fake "success" in Chem 17 and proceed to be failed by the system next quarter. They would be pushed out of the STEM path they chose, and their dreams would be rudely broken. They would be the part of the miserable statistic I saw before I was given the task of teaching (emphasis: actually teaching) the Gen. Chem. prep course Chem 17. "I pretend to teach, you pretend to learn, everybody is happy" setup does not end well for the student Chem 17 was meant for. And I won't do that.

"He is disorganized":
The course was actually well-planned and structured to maximize knowledge retention by students. There was no disorganization but there were two snafus in the entire semester that could give the "disorganized" impression to those who have the dubious ability to ignore the rest of the quarter (timewise probably more than 99% of the term). One was the second midterm that was printed by my TA single-sided by mistake. Mistakes happen. In the event, despite software crashes as I was trying to remedy the error, I calmly extracted the missing questions and displayed them on the screen, while the clock was ticking, minimizing any anxiety the students might feel. Nevertheless, to ensure that my students were not negatively impacted, I gave a makeup for the second midterm. Many students didn't even take the makeup because they were happy with their second midterm grade, snafu or not. The second snafu was the final exam missing the information page containing the periodic table and some constants. That was an uncharacteristic mistake on my part, as a direct result of my overstretching myself, in the days before the final, in order to provide an extremely generous amount of office hours and review/practice sessions. The information page was delivered shortly after the final exam started. The students were instructed to first work on questions that didn't need the sheet. There was zero negative consequence for the students. Another source of trouble was the persistent resistance by my TAs to actually and correctly implement what I designed for the quizzes and the associated homework. It wasn't exactly rocket science, but it was new. I understand. But I will insist on implementing the same structure in the future, even if it takes micromanaging what happens on the ground.

"{insert complaint/gripe} ... office hours":
Seriously. If a student has any (and I mean, any) gripes about the caring, attentive treatment and clear explanations they received during office hours, all I can say is I am saddened, but probably not for the reason the complainer might think. I don't give up if the student doesn't give up. Nobody leaves my office hour still confused. Unless they choose to.

"The course had a bad structure":
Compared with what? "I pretend to teach, you pretend to learn, everybody is happy today" kind of "structure"? The structure was "bad" only for the unteachable or for the non-science majors that should never have been forced/misled to suffer Chem 17. For them the "good" structure would in some way supply the set of test questions and the answers they need to memorize (and immediately forget). The disadvantaged STEM students (the true audience for the course) would then be practically doomed to fail in the next chemistry course. The course had a very well-designed and thoughtful structure and accomplished its purpose of preparing people for the Gen Chem series. I verified that from the work I saw in the exams. As for the psych majors, I am sorry that you were led into the wrong course, but that's not my fault.

"He curves the grades a lot":
I know that's supposed to be good for "customer satisfaction", and some students here mention it as a positive, but it's not really what I do. None of the grade adjustments are in response to a low average. They are pre-determined and integral part of the system I devised based on incentives and psychology. I gave my students a ridiculously complete explanation of the entire system early in the quarter. And it has nothing to do with a "curve". I count a few questions on each test as bonus, not to "curve", but to compensate for the "silly mistakes" that most people make under test conditions. If the average ends up being high, it simply means the students did well according to the predetermined standards. And I always normalize section-specific grades to the highest section when I have multiple sections under me, be it discussion section quizzes or lab reports. It's not a "curve". It's the best way to ensure people don't feel unfairly treated due to uneven grading schemes in different sections and instead focus on doing their best. Again, this was made clear. Incredibly, there is a complaint on the unfairness of different sections being treated differently.

"You have to learn the material yourself":
This begs the tongue-in-cheek "say it ain't so". In any serious course you have to do much much more than show up to class with expectations of entertainment and downloading of information to your brain while you check your phone. Especially in a serious science course, the absolute best that can be achieved in three 50-minute lectures a week is a basic familiarity with the concepts and methods and a sense of what's important and what's not. And wouldn't it be nice if those lectures were available online to study at your own pace (hint: they are, in the form of my slides posted online). What the complainers mean, of course, is not that they were deprived of learning during lectures. What they mean is that they weren't sufficiently entertained during lectures, and were not given (or allowed to find) the questions on the next test. It is disturbing to see, in a place like UCLA, so much obsession on how "engaging" (read: entertaining) professors are. To anyone reasonable, my lectures should come across as at least dynamic, and yes, engaging if one has any interest in science at all. But I am not a showman or an entertainer. And my purpose in this course was not to recruit people into sciences. It was to help those who at least have an interest in science. My humor is light, subtle, and occasional. Especially in a course that is supposed to be more in the spirit of a "boot camp" to prepare the students for the next stage, I focus on providing the best pedagogy for deserving, attentive students who are anxious to accomplish something. If you are looking for light infotainment, you indeed should avoid taking such a course with me.

“He just reads off the slides”:
An easy way for me to avoid the “he just reads off the slides” comments would have been to not put in the huge effort and time to make those slides and simply talk about all that missing stuff in lecture, looking spontaneous and “engaging”. And throw in a few jokes and anecdotes. Those who came to the review sessions know I can do all that jazz. Good note takers would be ok, and the most vulnerable students would once again suffer. All in the name of looking good. Not my instinct. Look for the real things, not glitter.

"Work load was way too much":
Again, Chem 17 is a Gen Chem prep course, desperately trying in my case, in one quarter, to bring STEM students with insufficient background to a level where they can survive what's coming, and hopefully thrive. I told my students what the purpose of the course was, and that the pace was going to be intense. I think I did use the term "insane" myself a couple of times. So it's a "feature", prospective students, not a "bug". There are pathways, even in an elite university such as UCLA, that don't involve STEM courses. You can still get your shiny diploma with relatively little effort or gaining of skills. Just not on the STEM path. Avoiding the hard work in Chem 17 makes it that much harder in the next chemistry class.

"He covered 15 chapters in 10 weeks" / "4-5 chapters in one day"
The last lecture covered a few important topics selected from Ch. 11-15 of the book, again to ensure that the STEM students continuing to other chemistry courses had exposure to those important topics. The entire set of slides for that lecture was actually the shortest of any lesson. In other words, the infamous "wow, he zips through chapters" myth is based on the lightest of all lectures. If only the propagators were actually present in the lecture. Since it would have been crazy to read or study those chapters in their entirety, I emphatically recommended that the students focus on what was actually covered by those slides. Perhaps the other myth that I recommend against using the book got a boost from that hearsay/misperception. Which brings me to:

"He didn't want us to use the book and pushed his slides on us"
Of course what I actually suggested was to use the book as a reference source when solving the suggested end-of-chapter questions. Starting from what was actually covered in the slides and then using the book as needed was the most efficient way to go for my students. The validity of that advice is immune to uninformed opinion. Of course they always had the option to treat chemistry like psychology or biology and memorize whole chapters in a linear fashion. After all, the resulting mediocrity in their achieved results can always be blamed on the instructor here in the spirit of "Look ma, it wasn't me; it was him".


I file all of the above under the 285th Ferengi Rule of Acquisition, which I violate all the time:
"No good deed ever goes unpunished"
;-)

In the future Chem 17 might be turned into a light "chemistry survey course", hopefully with a different course number to prevent confusion (but again, I have no control over that) for non-STEM students. If I end up teaching such a course, you can be sure that the rigor and the coverage would be appropriate for the cohort it is supposed to serve. I would get a kick out of teaching a "soft" survey course as much as a rigorous Gen Chem prep course (what Chem 17 is supposed to be at the moment, if taught properly). I will always do right by my students, never resort to cynical ploys at their expense to make my life easier, and always err on the side of the students. Hopefully that's good enough for the prospective student.

There you have it. I hope I won't have to come back and address further "creative" takes on my instruction again. Best wishes to you all in your studies.

ATTENTION: I AM SELLING THE TEXTBOOK FOR THIS CLASS!!! I'm selling it for $50 (that's a little under half the price I bought it for, still in great condition). EMAIL ME: *************....Everyone ragged on this professor but his class was very easy. You don't even need to attend lectures, just learn from the textbook and your TA! I stopped coming to class as a freshman after week 2 my first quarter at UCLA and still got an A. It's basically a review of high school-level chemistry with a little advanced material added on top. I took this class to brush-up on chem before taking chem 14a, and it served its purpose. My issues with this prof were:

*He graded the quizzes too harshly and didn't curve them (this was solved after students complained)

*His lecture slides were basically so messy they were impossible to read and lectures were agonizing to sit through

*He gets FRUSTRATED when you ask him questions (I was the only one who went to office hours every week all quarter and he basically called me dumb at every meeting)

*The final was IMPOSSIBLE! I'm an MCDB major so I tend to do well in science classes, but I KNOW I bombed that final. He must have curved it really heavily tho, because I still got an A.

I usually don't make bad comments about instructors, but I have no choice but to make an exception for him. That is what I learned the most from him.