Professor Louidor's Math 3C class was the worst class I have ever taken at UCLA, hands down. Math 3C really shouldn't have been this ridiculous. Yes, it was his first quarter teaching, but it seemed as if he had no idea how to design an exam. The class had FOUR midterms that had 4 questions (25 points each) and were taken during the second half of class.
His first midterm average was a 92%, since he said the midterms would consist of problems identical to the homework problems with only the numbers changed. After he saw the average he abruptly changed his exam policy, and the second midterm average was a 62%, the third 70%, and the fourth 48%. Seeing any inconsistencies here? His exams were so hard to study for because you had no idea what was coming. His exam style and teaching style were erratic and unorganized. When we asked him what we should do to better study for the exams, he suggested that we buy the Schaum's Book on Probability. Great...
The thing that was most upsetting about this class was the way that he handled the final grades. Originally, he had said that the top 25% would get A's and the next 30% would get B's (including +/-). Then, after he saw our final grades he decided that our class didn't deserve B+'s so he completely omitted them from the grading scale. To get a B you had to have between a 75-77% and the difference between a B and an A- ended up being 2% of the final grade. I still to this day do not understand his logic behind the grading scale and I just hope that if he teaches the class again, he learns how to make exams that are fair and reasonable.

worst grading scale ever. Would not have been that bad had he not made such a dumb grading scale. The guy below me speaks the truth

I would avoid Louidor if at all possible. The class started out very easy, and the midterms (all 4 of them) were supposed to consist entirely of homework problems with the numbers changed. However, following midterm 1 (with an average of 92) this all went out the door and the homework problems became useless for studying for the midterms. Midterm problems were insanely complicated and required a great deal more of experience/insight than what was provided by the basic overview given in lecture and homework. The final took it to a whole new level, and quite frankly I was shocked that I managed to get even the 76 I did (average was around 42 I think).
Even with this problem, however, I wasn't too worried because he said he would give the top 20% of the class As and even with midterm scores in the 70s I was well above average. In fact on the final I was in the top 5%. Turns out, according to his "evaluation" of the level of difficulty of the midterms, anything lower than an 85 did not warrant an A. As I had an 80, and I was only surpassed by about 10 people out of a class of 200, I'd say at most 3 people got As in the class. I got an A- which, though not horrible, should have been an A.