Grade breakdown: 15% discussion participation, 20% midterm, 40% two papers, 25% final. Discussion was honestly pretty fun and my TA (ulysses) made it easy to participate. This class was pretty boring though, and overall I never want to take an archaeology or anthropology class again. The papers in this class absolutely demolished me. I felt like every fiber of my being was being ripped to shreds as I had to write them. The citations on the papers are REALLY important. They will knock you a whole letter grade. Seriously, have a rough draft for the TA's to look over before you turn it in because the grading on the essays has absolutely no rubric and is completely up to the TA. I got a 40/50 on my first paper and 50/50 on my second paper, but even though my scores were good my morale was super low and I absolutely despised writing those papers. The midterm was the easiest thing ever if you watched the lecture (which is bruincasted!!!!), and the final was a little harder but still pretty easy. She offers up to 5% extra credit which, in my opinion, is really vital in securing an A in the class. I wouldn't take the professor again because honestly, I thought the class was so boring and I was never excited to come to it, but I can't tell if it's because of the professor or the content. If you're just fulfilling a GE then please just find another one.

1) GRADING: midterm 1 (20%) paper 1 (20%) paper 2 (20%) discussion participation (15%) final (25%) + up to 5% extra credit from visiting a museum

2) MIDTERM/FINAL: all MC, pretty straightforward if you attended lecture and took notes. helps to make a timeline of events. she reuses some midterm questions on the final. i got B+ on both by just studying a couple hours the night before

3) PAPERS: your TA grades your paper, so difficulty will be up to them. For both papers, you have to read two articles, summarize them, compare and contrast them, and answer 3 questions using them

4) HOMEWORK: reading due every lecture (3x wk). they were really long :( you can probably get away wo reading them but sometimes specific questions pop up on exams

5) LECTURES: prof is a good lecturer, tries to add humor into it. they're also bruincasted

6) TAs: I had Jamie Vela, and he was super chill. I probably wouldn't have done as well on the papers if another TA was grading them.

This was the first GE I took at UCLA and I was very happy with the class. All the information that you need to know comes from her lectures which are Bruincasted. There are two papers which are compare/contrast. The best way to do well on these papers is to go to office hours and have your TA check them before. For the midterm and final, the questions are memorization based and you will need to know a few key dates. There is extra credit which can add up to 5% to your grade. With each lecture there is an associated reading, but you only need to know what she goes over in class. DISCLAIMER: This class does not cover content regarding dinosaurs and there is very little about Egypt/mummies. Overall, I thought the material would be more interesting, but it was still a good, easy history class.

I personally loved taking this class with Professor Smith, but I know many people who did not like it. The class was very heavily reading based, the lectures are always based upon the reading that was assigned for that day. Her exams are very straightforward, the tests are essentially "what is in your notebook", literally nearly every question on the exam is in your notebook so if you study it religiously you'll be fine. We had two essays, neither of which were particularly difficult, and the TAs will move their office hours around to make themselves as available to help as possible. She uses Bruincast and there is no participation points in lecture, which makes being absent a little easier, but I do strongly suggest actually using Bruincast to catch up on missed lectures because of the exams. Overall, I would definitely recommend this class to other students, especially if you don't have an issue with reading.

I did not enjoy this class at all, and it made me hate archaeology, which I have continued to dislike from upper div classes. This class was so boring, hard to focus in, and the material was not made more interesting. Expectations were vague. I do not recommend it. Wait for a professor with better reviews and take it from them!

Overall, this was a good class. Professor Smith was clear with assignments and grading. Lectures were sometimes dry, but overall the content was interesting (at least to me). Discussion sections were mandatory, but I think I learned the most insightful information there. Tests were easy if you went to lectures, paid attention, and read class material. Papers were graded somewhat harshly, but Smith offers extra credit that really helped my grade. Overall, this GE was on the easier side and I would definitely recommend it to others.

I loved this class, which made me add an Anthro minor. Her class is very interesting and her tests are very easy if you pay attention in class and read. She also gives you two papers, where she (and her TAs) grades them very harsh, but with the extra credit she provides, you can easily bump your grade up to five percent.