In my opinion the bad reviews are unwarranted. Although it was Professor Tung's first quarter teaching, he definitely deserves credit for the effort and dedication he put into teaching this class to the best of his ability. My advice for passing this class is simple : LISTEN in lecture, take detailed NOTES, attend DISCUSSION, and review CONCEPTS. I never had a problem with the way he utilized lecture time. If people actually bothered to pay attention and listen to what he was saying, then his lab demonstrations made sense and the concepts were easier to grasp. Some reviews argue that he spent too much time deriving formulas, but I have to disagree. He skipped over tedious calculus that was used to derive the formulas, and instead used the formulas to show the relationships between parameters (i.e. proportional, inversely proportional). This was actually very useful in multiple choice problems in his exams. I did put in effort to take notes during class, but even if I hadn't, on CCLE he posts NATHAN'S NOTES which are his own written notes that covers everything he says during lecture. Moreover, I found discussion to be extremely helpful. I think many people struggled with this class because we did not see many problems during lecture and mainly focused on concepts. However, discussion is where we actually got to see problems relating to the concepts. With this said, out of the 38 enrolled spots in discussion, only about 10 people actually bothered to show up weekly. I think this lack of attendance definitely contributed to negative reviews for this class. Anyways, my discussion TA reviewed important problems that were reflected on midterm multiple choice problems and helped me grasp concepts even better. In regards to the midterms for this class, I was also blindsided by the first midterm. Nevertheless, just writing down everything you know scores you points. Even if it was a hard test, if you truly understood concepts, then you should be able to score 1 or 2 points above average. As for the second midterm and final, they were completely fair. Professor Tung held review sessions that covered everything he expected. All in all, this class wasn't terrible and I feel like anyone can pass this class if they bother to listen in class and spend time understanding concepts. (Make sure to sit up front to see the board).

This is Professor Tung's first quarter teaching 5C, he got his phd in the spring form UCLA and had TA'd here before. Despite all of that his class is impossibly hard. For the first midterm the average was 50% and he sent us an email saying if you got more than 4 pts below average you were in danger of not passing the class. In his syllabus he says that his exams are nothing like the homework or lecture so he can really test your ability to do physics. He never got mastering physics to work either so if you didn't already have it then it was a total waste of money because the homework is completely optional. The only useful thing in this class so far was the midterm 2 review session. I would completely recommend AGAINST this professor. He has no mercy even though he literally just started here

Physics 5C was very interesting in regards to the information but the class was very poorly structured and taught by the professor. He derives a lot of equations but won't do example problems on the board to help students apply the concepts. The exams had questions that weren't properly reviewed in class and expectations of the students in this class did not match that of what is being taught in lecture, not to mention the class averages for midterms were really low. I strongly advise against taking this class with this professor.

I think the negative reviews here are really unfair. The first midterm I scored a few points below the average which was a 20/40. Yes that's a 50% but he scales your scores... And after receiving much complaint and concern from students he made many more resources available to us, gave us review sessions which he led himself instead of the TAs, and the second midterm and final were way easier and had questions that came straight from his lectures and review session (just changed a sign or direction of a force/field). He's super passionate, super understanding, really wants his kids to learn and understand physics. With this having been his first time teaching straight out of his PhD, I think he did really well adjusting to student feedback and comments, always encouraged us that we could still do well in the class no matter our past scores, as long as we kept working at it. Idk why y'all mad, I got a 45% midterm 1, 85% midterm 2, and landed an A in the class which I'm really happy about considering that first score.

Professor Tung is one of the best physics professor I ever had! As a person he is clearly very passionate about what he is doing and he actively tries to make his class easier for the students by alleviating any concerns they have. His class structure is essentially 2 midterms, a final and the lab component (we got full points on hw because Pearson wouldn't work).

I see so many negative reviews against him and I just want to point out several mistakes: 1) we didn't get explicit 'extra credit' but he did hint to us some of the questions on midterm 2 and the final so if that doesn't scream 'extra credit' I don't know what does (its a physics class; you ain't getting shit if you don't work for it AND its difficult to hand out extra credit for A PHYSICS CLASS as opposed to a life science or south campus class. 2) I can't see past the 5th row-> sit closer. Seriously. Tung is a really nice dude so if you can't see, raise your hand AND TELL HIM instead of choosing to be ignorant of the material. 3) his syllabus stated that the tests are nothing like the lecture or hw -> while it did say that in the syllabus, Tung has told us/hinted MULTIPLE TIMES in class to focus on certain examples or topics and if you payed attention in class, you can clearly tell which problems came from which sections once you get your test. 4) provides little examples -> absolute bullshit; he provides as many examples as he can whenever possible. 5)averages are low -> have you been to a physics class? ROFL; dude a 65% is high for a midterm score; my previous physics class were essentially at a 50% for both midterms so stop whining-.-

So in conclusion, I just want to say that Tung is one of the best professors I took for physics. I suck at physics; it is one of my worst subjects and yet I enjoyed this class. If you pay attention in class and sit closer, you will do great. And he is such a communicative professor that it is not hard to ask any question you have. Don't look at the majority of his reviews; they are absolute bull based on flimsy and stupid reasoning.

I found this quarter to be a wreck. He crammed 100+ students into a lecture hall for the midterm where everyone needed their laptop for KUDU and it was just a mess. His lectures weren't helpful, all he did was demonstrations instead of actually applying the equations to problems. Tests were so challenging.

Avoid Tung at all costs. He graded half of my midterms incorrectly and had to do multiple regrade requests to get back over 20 points. I loves to take random leave of absences for a week at a time and posts old recording from Covid times to make up for it. Which by the way does not align with our current lectures and is often missing a lot of information. He absolutely does not go over any calculation type questions or problems during lecture and does random demonstration like cooking a hot dog. The problems we get on kudu are so random they sometimes use formulas out of our classroom and do not even fit the scope of the lesson it’s assigned with. He does not go over any problems so essentially you’re on your own to self teach that. The only thing he does is talk about the theoretical aspect of physics for hours and hours so that’s it. Worst Professor ever not worth it

Professor Tung is by far the worst professor I have ever had at UCLA. I have zero respect for how he teaches his class and I strongly advise against taking this class with him. He spends all of lecture going over pointless derivations of the equations and rambling on about convoluded concepts somewhat related to physics. He provides little, if any, examples that honestly have very little to do with his test questions, he provides no practice problems other than mastering which he even said were not reflective of the exams, and he provides no practice tests. His instructions for studying for the test were to "learn physics" and not just "study for his tests" and I'm sorry but that is complete bull. The average of the first test was 50% which according to him was his goal. The last problem on the test was worth 20 of the 40 points and no one had ever seen anything like it, which was his intention. Following the huge backlash of the 1st midterm, he tried to improve but did so sparingly. He held a review session for the midterm and it was surprisingly helpful however the average was still pretty low at a 63%. He is very condescending when speaking about grades in that he said in order to get an A you should be able to do problems you've never seen before just like him with no mistakes which is completely unreasonable considering he has a PhD in physics and none of us are even physics majors. All in all he sucks as a professor and I genuinely hope he drastically changes or never teaches again because I wouldn't want anyone to go through the torture and hell that is his class.

Don't listen to these reviews. It's just a bunch of whiny stem kids. The class and professor are fair, and I am sure everyone will eat their words when final grades come out. He's trying his best and it's clearly evident, and to put yourself in his shoes would give you a lot of perspective on how good of a teacher he is trying to be. Emphasis on teacher, as he cares about education and is going against the grain on just giving A's to everyone who think they deserve it, which is why he's experienced such a backlash from these entitled students who think that grades should be handed to them on a silver platter. Don't get me wrong, I still failed the first midterm like everyone else; I am not someone who's excelling and is on a high horse. To give him such bad ratings shows the disconnect between the value of education and the demand by stem students to be handed a good grade so they can move on and go to med school. These people seems to be missing the point about why they are in college... Every classmate I have spoken to has not blamed the professor as they can see him really trying and adjusting, and they all trust that he will be very fair in grades at the end. The students on bruin walk are NOT representative on how students feel in this class, don't let the whiners dissuade you from taking this professor, he is a good man and a great teacher with a lot of potential in the future.

Nathan Tung didn't prepare well enough for this class. Although this is his first time teaching his test were poorly worded and he continued having poorly worded tests all throughout the quarter. I would highly advise against taking this class with him if you want to learn. Not only did he want us to practice the questions on mastering physics, but they had no correlation with his tests. The only way to describe this class is chaotic. Every lecture he had a new experiment which was visually appealing however we're here to learn and to prove that we understand the material. It's impossible to do so when the tests don't reflect what we studied which was unguided. How were we supposed to study what we didn't know was going to be on the test.