He's an okay professor. Lectures are fun because he has an interesting, catchy voice and shows lots of pictures. The subject material of the class and what he chose to focus on was very interesting. "Labs" involve going to a classroom, writing down what the TA says, and turning it in. SO EASY. My TA was horrible so I found the "labs" to be completely pointless but hey, at least they were easy. I was very annoyed when I got a C on the midterm and a B in the class because this should not have been such a hard class--it's Geography! He's apparently a very hard grader and must not give out many As, which is annoying. Take Geography 5 for sure (great GE), try to avoid him--but if you can't, just take him. He's okay.

Took him for Cities of Europe. If you don't already know quite a bit about Europe then you're going to be a lost, well at least I was. There is no textbook, just lots of photocopied chapters from books. The whole class is pretty unstructured and unorganized. Nothing in the class seems to connect. Many students just never know what he is talking about. I wouldn't suggest this course at all, sounds a lot better than it even comes close to being.

Lectures and readings are helpful. Review them for 15 minutes daily and do the study guides and you can get an A. He is an awkward lecture which is great since it makes class funnier. Though a little awkward, you can still understand him, making the class pretty simple.

Nice guy who seems to be very genuine, but it's obvious that he hasn't had very much experience as a teacher. He gets really nervous sometimes, and he stumbles a lot. There is a lot of note taking, and sometimes they're hard to follow because he goes through it very quickly. The course itself isn't too difficult, but don't expect to be amazed or anything. The reading was annoying because it gave too much unnecessary information. The labs were a joke. If you want an easy GE, take it. Unfortunately, you'll have to pay the price of bored all the time.

Good professor and lecturer. Geo. 5 started-off with a few chuckles at Sivak's awkwardness the fist day of class, but he became more comfortable as the quarter progressed. This is a relatively easy class that is an easy Lab requirement (Labs are really just discussions). Reading helped with the course but wasn't too overwhelming; the Midterm and Final were very straightforward. I enjoyed Sivak and would be happy to take a class with him in the future.

Sivak was an ok lecturer, but you could definitely tell that it was his first time teaching because the course in general was pretty disorganized, and he and the TA's did not communicate well. The format of the final was changed about 3 times in the last 4 days before the test was given, which was extremely frustrating. However, his lectures were pretty straight forward and the material was interesting. I think he just needs a little more practice and experience, and then he will be fine. On the other hand, i heard terrible things about every single one of the TA's in this class, including my own; none of them knew what they were talking about, and were absolutely no help at all.

This class was hard! Prof. Sivak is a very awkward guy but a great professor overall. There are a lot of readings in which he expects you to know the key points well. The lectures are well organized and insightful.

I thought I could half-ass this class and get an A but I ended up with a B overall. This isn't a class for slackers.I hated the readings and I hated all the materials he expected us to know. It was like 5 classes in one.

RE: Cities of Europe

His lectures can be a bit confusing, but his enthusiasm is real and he is very approachable.

Overall, a solid urban geography primer, both on the level of the individual city, and in the sense of world cities. Excellent for anyone interested in urban studies, or European history with a city and trade focus. There is much cross-over with Urban Geography, and I recommend this class over the latter.

Geog 140: Political Geography

Man I hate politics. I hated doing readings for this class and I hated going to lecture. But I got an A on the midterm and a B on a paper that I turned in two days late with a 10% reduction, meaning I probably got an A on it. It wasn't me--the TA was Rob and he is a really approachable guy who grades easy and Sivak seems to grade easy as well. I didn't do much reading (basically at all, except for the paper), but I did go to about 75% of the lectures and focused my studying on that. His exams were the same for both the midterm and final. Blue book essays, pick two out of 5 or 6 topics, so as long as you are solid on a few key points and authors/readings, you're good for the exams. He set the midterm and final in class, though, so that means you have 50 minutes to write two essays. The paper was 35%, the midterm 25%, and the final 40%. Sivak himself is awkward in lecture, yes--but the 50 minute time limit makes him (and the topic of politics) bearable, and going to lecture is most definitely worth your while.

Took Political Geography in Spring 09. Readings were on the heavy side but not impossible, but you did have to read since the lectures were structured around them. Sivak is approachable, nice guy but as a lecturer, he's a bit unclear. I think it's the way he explains things but I typically walked out of the lecture, having a rough concept of what's he's talking about but never entirely sure. Definitely go to lecture, or else you won't be able to study for the tests. He breaks down his lectures, which helps, and roughly connects it back to the reading but I think you really need a firm grasp of urban planning or general geography in order to call this an easy class. The tests are in-class essays, which limits how many he can assign. He's a fair grader, but there's no curve. If you take this class, be ready to go to every lecture, take notes, and do the readings.