Dr. Hill’s lectures were interesting and concise, though his material only covered about 1/3 of the course. He really emphasized experimental setups and thinking, which I believe is a critical skill for many, especially MIMG/MCDB and other LS majors. He did seem to be more backseat, as Dr. Pour served as the face of the course at most times. Exams were too long and many students struggled to finish in time, despite the concepts not being too challenging themselves. I extremely disliked how regrade requests were handled, as it was emphasized that putting in a regrade request would regrade your entire exam rather than a specific question, and that we may lose points — which is ridiculous, as it essentially sounds as if they are trying to discourage students from getting a fair grade. Overall enjoyed Dr. Hill’s lectures, but wish for some restructuring of exams.

I took this class with Hill and Parker during Fall 2020, so COVID online classes were a thing. Parker was very organized and helpful, however the exams are extremely intense. Parker teaches the first half of the quarter and Hill teaches the second half. Hill was extremely disorganized and would constantly forget to post lectures on time (the lectures are posted, there is not a live class). I would only recommend this class and this major for those who are EXTREMELY interested in studying microbes. I personally decided to switch majors after taking this class. The decision was mainly because I realized I had interests in a different field, however this class played a significant factor in making me want to switch majors. You go through about a years worth of material in a quarter and it moves fast. The only reason I got a good grade was because, in the end, Dr. Parker is very understanding of the difficulty and provides many methods of getting participation points and extra credit. However, the workload is INTENSE. For reference, I would spend roughly 20-30 hours a week on only this class.

I took this class virtually in Fall 2020 with Dr. Parker and Dr. Hill. The class switched professors Week 5. I felt that Dr. Parker's teaching was fantastic and talked about it on her page. Dr. Hill definitely left more to be desired.

The course breakdown:
Concept Inventories and Course Evals 20
Smartworks Pre-Class Assignments 125 (a few dropped)
Smartworks Post-Class Assignments 80 (a few dropped)
Discussion Section Worksheets 40 (1 absence allowed)
Discussion Section Participation 50
Exams 350 (2 midterms, 1 final)
Total 665

A couple things of note here:
- Like the LS 7 series, there are pre-class (every class) and post-class (weekly) assignments connected to a textbook which is very similar to Launchpad that I believe you have to purchase access to.
- Also like LS 7 series, there is a mandatory discussion where we go over application of concepts, although I enjoyed it. I think as an adjustment for COVID, as long as you went to discussion you would get all 40 points and then at the end of the quarter, you would get the remaining 50 points by grading how involved your groupmates were (and they would grade you).
- By the end of the quarter, you had the opportunity for around 30? points of extra credit from doing things like posting on the forum, doing evaluations, and going to the MIMG poster conference and reviewing posters.

Lectures were completely asynchronous and pre-recorded which I did not like. Dr. Parker published everything on time. Dr. Hill published almost everything late. He frequently uploaded the reading lists after lecture times, he uploaded lectures usually a day late, and pre-class assignments were uploaded probably a day late too. He did not upload one of the post-class assignments until two weeks later. This made it so difficult to stay on track in a class that has such a high workload. I felt constantly frustrated and was terrified of forgetting assignments, since they were uploaded randomly and therefore had random due dates. I wish this class had been live, because at least then the lectures would not have been uploaded late.

Unlike Dr. Parker's lectures, Dr. Hill's were not interactive and focused more on what I would call complicated material like biochemical pathways. I felt his material to be heavier, but I also did less reading when he started teaching, so that could be why.

Tests were very different from the LS 7 series. They were open-notes and free-response. Dr. Parker's questions had emphasis on being experimental, and while some of Dr. Hill's questions were like this, more were recall-based. This ended up making the tests easier because they were open-notes. I thought that the tests were clear but a bit of a time crunch -- the professors were aware of this and responsive and as a result, gave 3.75 hours for the final. The midterms and finals all had some extra credit, although medians (averages not published) were low. The median of the first midterm was 76% and 23% of students scored below a 60 (36% scored a 70 or lower). The second midterm had a median of 80% where 13% of students scored below a 60 (25% scored a 70 or lower). While these are low grades, they were boosted by numerous extra credit opportunities and points from other categories like discussion.

Probably the most intense part of the class was its workload. There was a lot of reading assigned every class and when you're taking this class, it is so easy to fall behind. The pre-class and post-class assignments rely on the reading but are not completely related to the class material (like Launchpad). I read and took notes on everything when Dr. Parker taught, which took maybe 2hr/night, but after switching to Dr. Hill, I decided to do much less reading and did not suffer, making me think that readings are not completely necessary. Dr. Parker also published learning objectives before each lecture, and that is how I guided my notes for the readings. Dr. Hill did not publish any, and when asked to, he told students to infer them from his slides.

This class became incredibly frustrating when Dr. Hill began teaching because he uploaded everything late. If this does not change, I don't recommend taking the class with him, but I am hoping that he will adjust for this as he becomes more familiar with online teaching. Otherwise, this is a pretty interesting class that honestly does involve a lot of work.

This class made me a bigger germaphobe than I already was. You really do learn a lot of cool things in this class!
I got a 75% on the first midterm written by Dr. Parker, an 89% on the second midterm written by Dr. Hill, and a 96% on the final. I thought Parker’s material was the hardest, but also it was my first MIMG class so I think I grossly underestimated how difficult the exams would be. This wasn’t an easy class but certainly not the most difficult. I never went to office hours but sometimes I posted questions on the discussion forum. I thought Parker’s pre-lecture quizzes were super annoying because you had to devote considerable time to read the textbook first before you could know the answers to the quiz. Some answers are on quizlet and some aren’t. I never went to Hill’s lectures; thank god for bruincast at 1.5x speed. Didn’t read the textbook for his portion of the class. SO this isn’t a chill class but also it is doable like not trying to scare anyone. I really encourage people take this class because of the cool material.

Dr. Hill taught the second half of MIMG 101.
His portion of the exam was fair and not difficult. (The former half of the course taught my Dr. Parker was much more difficult)
He is friendly and helpful during office hours, would recommend going. I feel that he cares about his students and tries to get to know you.
He presents slides and lecture is bruincasted.
I would take a class with him again.

I took the class with Parker and Hill in Fall 2019. The counselor advised me not to take this class since I am a second year, but honestly it wasn't that bad, so if you have the pre-reqs, take it! This is my first upper division, and the style of the course was drastically different from any under-divs (ie LS7). You can find the textbook online for free on Library Genesis, so don't pay for it.

Dr. Parker taught the first half of the course, and she required readings before lectures, quizzes on ccle before lectures, and also clickers during lecture. I would say I did the majority of the reading, though some days I just skimmed the content. She is very open to advice and critiques as long as you do so in a polite manner. The first midterm was probably the hardest test I've taken, in that the style was completely different than what I was used to. It was around 6-7 pages of free response and a page of multiple choice, and you had 1 hour 50 minutes to complete it. I thought I failed it because the multiple choice was so hard, but I somehow guessed them correctly (they were so random though that I still don't know why the answer I picked were right...) Essentially, all the free response questions required you design experiments or outline how a process works, and you really don't have a lot of time to think. I started studying around 3 days before the exam, and I reviewed all the lecture slides, her pre-class reading pdfs (some of them contain information), and the quizzes. I didn't bother with bruincast or answering her learning outcomes because I don't tend to use study guides.

Dr. Hill taught the second half of the quarter, and because he didn't require clickers and pre-class quizzes, basically everyone stopped showing up to class. The lectures are bruincasted, but I never bothered to watch them. I also didn't do any of the readings he assigned, since he assigned A LOT of reading and half of it didn't seem too relevant. I started studying for the exam about two days before it, and I did so solely through going over slides and "old exams" that can be found at the test bank. I did worse on this midterm because I completely misread a question and lost 6 points, and I definitely did not put in as much effort as the first midterm, whoops.

Again, I didn't attend a single lecture starting from when Dr. Hill started teaching. I studied for the final for only a day, since I had another final on the same day that I really needed to do well on. To do so, I reviewed all the new slides (70% of the test) and went back to read a few of the old slides for parts that I wanted to brush up on (30% of the test). We didn't get our test back, so I have no idea where I lost points, but the test wasn't too hard and you have plenty of time to complete it (compared to the first midterm).

The professors also gave a decent amount of extra credit. There was extra credit on every exam. Because of the Getty fire, one lecture was canceled so they made one of the pre-class quizzes extra credit (5 pts). You can also post a microbio related news article and comment on other people's post for a max of 8 pts. The only thing is they forgot/didn't add this to our final grade, so for about a day I had an A-. I emailed them multiple times, and they finally replied a day later saying they'll look into the error, and then sent out an email to the entire class saying they messed up and will recalculate grades. They did fix my grade, but it also left a mark on my transcript saying "grade changed 12/20," which is kinda annoying since I emailed them before they submitted the "final grade" yet they ignored/didn't see it.

Here are my scores for reference:
Midterm 1: ~A (the highest score was a 98/100)
Midterm 2: ~B (the highest score was a 95/100)
Final: ~B
Everything else (participation, quizzes, discussions): 100%
Raw Score: ~92.5% (A-)
After Extra Credit: ~95% (A)

So obviously I started doing worse after the first midterm, but I also put in a lot less effort and a LOT less time for Hill, so I'm okay with the trade-off. My advice is to do all of the extra credit that is offered, and do them early. Make sure you know how to do the discussion questions by yourself and that you're able to do them quickly. It helps if you work in a lab, since you should already be familiar with many of the procedures and problem-solving process. For Parker, do the reading and take advantage of all the buffer points from her quizzes and clickers!! For Hill, I don't have much to say since I never attended lecture, but I will say his slides are kinda confusing since he uses a lot of abbreviations, so make sure you read the carefully. If this class is required for your major, take it with Parker and Hill. If you are looking for an easy upper div GE, this ain't it.

Taken in Fall 2019*

Took this class with Parker and Hill. Both had their strengths and weaknesses. Parker set harder test questions but didn't require memorization. You had to read the textbook for her lectures because she will assume you have read it and lecture off the readings. Read. The. Textbook. Do it! I honestly really enjoyed her lectures which was really engaging, especially her clicker questions which were super tricky but helpful, and she's also super receptive to feedback (she asks for questions from readings before every lecture!). Everyone says the tests were tough because you cannot memorize for them and they were more intuitive, logical thinking-based experimental design rather than hard memorization, so please don't memorize for her lectures, actually try to understand them or you will find yourself having a hard time. Go to TA office hours religiously and make it a commitment - this is a large class and almost everyone is fighting to ask their questions with the limited number of TAs they have one week before exams, while almost no one goes for OH when it is not exam season. Answers for worksheets are not provided so dragging your ass to OH consistently will pay off well! Honestly I liked her exams even though they were so much harder than Hill's, mostly because they did require some actual thinking and application of the concepts and experiments rather than pure, boring regurgitation.

For Hill, his test questions were much easier, at least for the second midterm. He bases his questions more on memorization of his lecture content rather than experimental design, though he does cover some experimental design that you should try to understand thoroughly after MT2. The final did test some experimental design questions which weren't as straight-forward as the ones he set in MT2. Not sure if he was influenced by Parker, ha h a. Tips - try to memorize everything he writes in red or boxes in red on his slides, chances are they might come up on exams. Also, textbook isn't necessary for his lectures, but I still read it anyway because it made going through his slides the day before much more comprehensible. I wished he went through the experiments much slower though, but that is really onto you to go to OH and clarify any concepts you don't have a good grasp on because he has to cram so much details into his slides.

Overall, consistent effort will pay off for this class. Go to office hours and don't let your questions snowball, they build upon one another and everyone will be competing to ask their questions during exam szn. Drag your ass to ask for the answers for worksheets and practice questions because asking last minute on the forums will not help and everyone will be too busy to answer you. Learn to understand the experimental techniques and try to think of situations where you will use them and what they are specifically testing for. Make notes on the things you have to memorize and review them everyday. I found that useful when trying to remember a ton of obscure bacterial names.

Professor Hill was, in my opinion, the best of the 3 professors that taught MIMG 101 this Fall 2017 quarter. It was very very annoying to have 3 different professors since we have to figure out 3 different teaching styles. Professor Hill was the clearest and most engaging lecturer out of the 3. The tests in the class were a little difficult but doable.

Hill was the better of the 2 profs for MIMG 101. He is way more organized with his lectures. His exam questions are very based on his lectures. Sometimes the exam included an exact copy of a slide from lecture and you had to fill out the blanks. MIMG 101 is not merely memorization. you need to understand the experiments discussed in class so that you can apply it to different scenarios. The exams are very experimental/research based. Understand the experiments, why a certain experiment is used to test a particular hypothesis, know the controls, and intricate parts of experimental designs. For Hill also know facts included in the lecture. I didn't use the book and got a B. discussions helped me a lot. I only went twice to Hlll's office hour and no more because other students' questions wasted my time. I used the forum for additional questions. Also, for the 1st midterm which included pathways for carbon assimilation, he told us to memorize the pathways but no pathway was covered on any of the exams. Im not saying skip them, but just letting you know that memorizing those pathways was a waste of time. I guess better focus on understanding the experiments and when to use them. for pathways know the names, whether they're reductions/oxidation runs, enzymes used… I'd recommend Hill. He's concerned about students and throws in couple easy questions, and is very organized, tests lecture based. HIs lectures tend to be fast paced but sometimes end early. I'd recommend using the audio for his lectures but those may be cutoff.

I seriously don't get why UCLA would always have two professors for MIMG101. This just makes the class super unorganized. I went to his office hours on the set time, but since he is a PI, he spent more than an hour talking to his graduate student. He saw me outside waiting for him since i knocked, but he didn't seem to want to end his discussion. This didn't make any sense to me because I went to his office hour during his designated office hours. Shitty professor! He made students memorized super small details in his slides and if you're a conceptual person, you would find it hard since his test always asks you list 2 reasons here and 3 reasons there, but instead, during lecture he only told you ONE REASON! Not a great professor who you would expect!