John is a very nice guy, but that didn't mean he was a good teacher. He's a grad student (at least when I took this class), so he doesn't have a lot of lecturing experience. His lectures are often unclear and he writes out proofs and theorems in whole ass sentences, which I personally found very confusing and messy.

The tests are tough and it shows in the averages. Scores range from single digits to 100%, but I'm pretty sure the class is curved. He also puts a really hard question on each test where you pretty much have to write a (guided) proof, so you gotta know the material well. If your TA isn't helpful, find the good one ASAP and you'll understand what's going on way more. Expect to teach yourself a lot if you wanna do well on the tests.

The curve saved me in the end and but honestly I don't recommend him. This class could be more straightforward with a different professor.

Like the other review said, John's a really nice guy. He always has review sessions for an hour or two for each midterm and the final. He also always posts study guides for the midterm and final. But despite this, the class wasn't great. His way of lecturing was pretty confusing, and the fact that he writes stuff on the board in (basically) complete sentences was even more confusing. You end up self-studying a lot. The midterm and the final have super low averages. There's always a proof of some sort on the midterm that most people miss. And the final was brutal.

honestly i actually liked this class which i was not expecting. the material isn't that hard, it's just very different at times and hard to visualize for some parts. looking back a lot of my struggles in the beginning of the class were me being overwhelmed ( i had 25 units can ya blame me??) and just feeling defeatist. however that being said, my TA Zach was a godsend and explained everything (also drew pictures so we actually knew what the heck we were even looking at) in discussions and a lot of people I know that were dissatisfied never went to discussion because it wasn't mandatory.
the first midterm was rough for most everyone, but the partial credit was super generous bc on one of the proof sections I literally foiled out what they gave us and got 7/10 points. the second midterm was way easier and the final while not the easiest test ever, was definitely fair and doable.
overall i feel like if you actually did the homework, practice midterms, and the 50+ practice problems zach gave us before each test, instead of just copying it off of slader or glancing over it, you'd be okay in the class.
each test has a guided proof sorta thing but the one on the final was extremely straightforward and the second midterm one was for sure manageable. the class is also curved so the whole averages on the midterm/final were low thing doesn't end up mattering much besides making everyone feel stupid and useless. midterm one's mean and median were 59% and 60%, midterm two's mean and median were 79% and 81% and the final's were 62% and 64% .
in regards to john, he's a sweet lil helpful man that will always do his absolute best to make sure you understand it if you're not afraid to ask. he held reviews for us and he makes entertaining comments throughout lectures. he does a fair amount of examples and while sometimes the homework is way harder, he does his best to make it consistent. yes there were a lot of proofs and word-vomit on the board at times but they're actually suppper helpful to understanding the material conceptually instead of just computationally. in the middle of lecture though it's hard to see how they apply but if you revisit them after you kinda understand what's going on they're way more useful i promise. overall i probably could have done better if i had more time to devote to the class or just didn't constantly miss dumb points but also the curve was relatively nice to me in the end so it's okay.

i think its hilarious u kids talking shit about susice. u wouldnt say this shit to him at ms4000, hes jacked. not only that but he wears the freshest clothes, eats at the chillest restaurants and hangs out with the hottest dudes. yall are pathetic lol.
imo, john gets a lot of undeserved criticism for his proof heavy style of teaching. i thought his lectures were fairly straightforward. hes also a pretty wholesome person, often making jokes at his own expense during lecture. i thought his midterms and finals were fair, in that they tested more for conceptual understanding rather than computational prowess. fitting, considering the subject material. john also bumped up the first midterm scores by 15 in an effort to give people a better shot at maximizing his two grading schemes.

I had to repeat 32A after taking Arnold. Arnold was more proof based and thought we were all math majors so he was hard. Susice is a bit better. His first exam was hard but he curved to allow it to be fair. The second one was easy- all problem solving and everyone did so well. The final was hard. It was more critical thinking and proof based. I did good on both midterms but the final killed me. I got a 45% and the average was about a 70. I don't know how people did that well. I was expecting a B in the class but final kicked me to a C. I am just glad I am done.

Susice was a super nice guy who has the worst metaphor game I've ever witnessed. Make sure you conceptually understand what's going on instead of memorizing formulae and you'll be good to go. His curve is standard (25% A and A-). Homework is a pain in the ass but he allows you to drop 2 which was a godsend. While not the best prof I've ever had, susice was a good teacher.

Worst professor I've had at UCLA. Caused multiple people in my class to switch out of their majors and half the class dropped. Also caused a spike in biz-econ enrollment. HW optional but if you don't do it then good luck. If you do it then also good luck.

I had a pretty decent experience with susice. His lectures were pretty clear and I appreciated that he didn’t focus too much on proofs and demonstrated examples in class. His midterms and final were fair. However, I didn’t do too well on the final as it focused on a topic that I glossed over (oscillating circle), but if I had studied it, it really wouldn’t have been that bad. I would honestly take him again for another class as he’s a really nice guy, gives okay exams, and is reasonable.

I thought Susice was a straightforward lecturer, but he does try to make his test questions really tricky every so often. You get to drop one midterm and drop two homework assignments, which is really helpful. Homework is 10%, both midterms are 25%, and the final is 40%. The whole class really struggled with the first midterm, so Susice added points to everyone's exam score. The second midterm was not difficult and contained nothing unexpected. The class average for the final was in the mid 60s. Overall, I found the class manageable, and Susice is better than some other math professors I've taken. He's a really nice guy, too, and holds review sessions for students. Go to office hours and he'll hint at what's covered in the midterm exams.

Worst math professor I have had at UCLA. He is reluctant to give extra help to students or to hold review sessions. He often is rude and seems irritated when people ask questions and his lectures are often unclear. His first midterm was difficult, second midterm was fair, and his final was very difficult.