The professor is nice. Her lectures were engaging and clear. Her office hours were very helpful as well. But I think the grading is kinda problematic -- she curves down your grade, receiving a 93 will gives you an A-. Overall I think she made the class pretty enjoyable and manageable. I appreciate it. But I think receiving an A depends on luck somehow even though you paid great effort and did well.

Professor Kovacova is very nice! She offers very organized lecture notes and explains them in detail in class. Her homework assignments serve as good practice for better understanding the concepts and preparing for the exams. Usually, she provides 5 questions each week, and we choose 2 of them to complete and upload. Nevertheless, homework only accounts for 10% of the grade (even though it should be graded based on completion), and the majority of the score depends on the 2 midterms and 1 final. The tests are straightforward and are similar to the homework questions, but currently, the midterms are out of 22 or 26 points, so even if you only got a few points deducted, the percentage decreases quickly. Not sure how the final grade will turn out, but I think taking the course with Professor Kovacova is still a very good experience! Another slight note is that she offers limited office hours (2 hours on odd weeks and 1 hour on even weeks) and didn't really accommodate when I said I have another class that requires attendance during her office hour time.

She is amazing! I agree that this class is kinda difficult, but that's not her problem. She tries her best to make sure we all understand the content. She constantly stops in class and asks: am I clear or have I lost you completely? The exams and homework are strictly content from class, but sometimes much much more tedious and long, but her grading is lenient.

Professor Kovacova is a super sweet professor that tries her damn best to accommodate to the needs and questions of her class. She knows her material well, is confident, and I found her to be an extremely engaging lecturer. Her homeworks are not difficult as long as you go to the office hours and ask questions for hints... some people said the homeworks were difficult but I didn't think so. The only thing she has to improve on, which I believe she will because Fall 2023 was I believe her first time teaching, is that her tests are very difficult. Most of the tests will have 1-2 problems that can't be solved by the average math student within the time given (they're like hard-ish homework problems that maybe take 20 min per question?). I get that she's trying to differentiate students, but that kind of flings a lot of hardworking students into low Bs and Cs if they can't crack that one problem (I'll self admit I couldn't do those questions), and she doesn't really curve. But I do think that you'll actually walk away educated and confident in the course material after you take her class.

One of the best professors I have had. I think the first few reviews are from the same person raging at doing poorly so don't be misled by her low average here. She is an excellent instructor. Her grading is very reasonable in my opinion. She has two grading schemes, drops homework and a quiz, allows cheat cheats, and the final was very friendly in my opinion. Would take a course with her again happily.

Great prof. Fantastic lecturer: always checking for understanding, will answer all questions with a lot of patience even if its kind of stupid question, very clear. She posts lecture notes on BruinLearn so I was fine skipping a few lectures. Sufficient office hours. Homework was reasonable and doable, office hours helpful. Biweekly quizzes which were also super doable and helpful for incentivizing you to keep up with the class. People were critical of the lack of curve but tbh that's just the UCLA math dept for you lol

I think the positive reviews are from lucky students or the professor. She is not bad at teaching but the level of difficulty in homework and class material is not close to that on midterms or final and even some quizzes are hard. A lot of people expected a curve and there was none. The few people who got an A- are defending her but most people got in C and B range. Her grading is quite harsh.

tough; bad at negotiate grade

tough exams, curve up grades. you will not learn what you expected and get the grades you expected

Not bad class and fairly good follow up on 174E as per material.
There shouldn't be much to wrong. However, she did make it confusing a bit.
She didn't curve at all, tests were ok. The TA (Chu, R) was super harsh with grading. Basically no partial credit and harsh/stupid grading, the average grade I think was B-/C+ and she didn't curve at all. He (TA) I think also likes to discourage regrades (and ignores some), and did end up lowering some scores for my peers after initially increasing them (absurd). In terms of this, super unaccommodating and not understanding, definitely one of the worse ones I've had.
Homeworks were just 1 question out of a selection, though the HW didn't make a large portion of the grading.
It's definitely more interesting and useful than 174E as we use more math. We learn Brownian motion/Weiner process, dynamics (diff eq), Black Scholes Model (the actual PDE and it's applications/proof), option greeks, volatility, Monte Carlo, Value at Risk, portifolio optimization and CAPM model. The CAPM wasn't tested on the final since she was out of town, but we still learnt it by Dr. Voss and it seemed useful.