I was really excited about this class but I was severely disappointed. PK is very knowledgeable but his lectures were very disorganized. I found myself constantly looking at the time because I was so disinterested. The discussions, labs, and four writing assignments felt like a waste of time, they didn't help with the retention of the course material at all but the TAs graded them generously. The midterm and final were divided into multiple-choice questions (which had varying weights, from about 2 to 6 points) and one group question. Most of the midterm questions were based on small details from lectures and readings that were insignificant to understanding the major topics and the group portion basically asked to remember one of the studies and replicate the graphs from the lecture. The final was much better in terms of multiple-choice questions (1 to 2 points each) but the group portion was a bit more difficult. I failed the midterm but did much better on the final. However, I think the extra credit (up to 11% grade boost) literally saved my grade.

The professors tried their best to respond to the criticism of the students. They adapted their teaching styles, and in the end it was an interesting class. At first, the midterm seemed unfair. The test was entirely based on extremely arbitrary figures and memorization of specific facts from lecture and the textbook. Most students were surprised by this because the professors gave a study guide that emphasized broad concepts, and in class they repeatedly mentioned that they wanted us to learn concepts and not figures. For this reason, our test grades were very low. So low that they gave us extra credit. The amount of extra credit was insane- nearly 11% of our total grade. We were incredibly grateful, and the final showed significant improvements from the midterm. They also assigned a scientific paper that we worked on throughout the quarter. I found it super interesting and fun to write. Overall, I would recommend this class.

Peter's classes were pretty interesting because he weaves his own experience into the lectures he presents. Although his slides were a bit disorganized, overall he was a good lecturer.
The only frustrating part were his questions on the first midterm. While I understand the need to challenge students and ensure they're learning, I don't know if creating difficult and convoluted questions with arguable multiple choice answers was the way to prove that.

The professors genuinely care about your learning and the class itself is on an interesting topic; however, it is very unorganized because the professors are new to the course. The midterm and final are both super hard and you actually have to know everything from lectures and small details from readings, so basically most people got C's, but then it ended up being curved so most of us ended up with very good grades.

I went into this course thinking that this would be my easy GE. Spoiler alert: it was not. The lecturers are more often than not too fast-paced. I found myself overwhelmed a lot of the time because there was a bulk of information on the lecture slides that they expected us to process, paraphrase, and write down or type within a few seconds before they moved on. Rarely did I ever develop a keen understanding of the specific material discussed by the end of the class, which made it extra difficult to study for midterms and exams. The tests themselves were a whole other monster. They were based on both readings and lectures (as you can imagine it was A LOT of information to study and digest), were extremely tricky and convoluted, and had group portions that were essentially hit or miss. The material in discussion versus the material in lecture are disconnected. The writing assignments can be confusing so I recommend going to the inquiry specialist or TA to understand what they are looking for in your paper. The midterm average was a 70 so the professors offset that by giving an extra credit assignment that bumped up our grades by an entire letter grade (kinda sketchy). Overall, although I was genuinely interested in the topics discussed in class, the entire structure of the course from lectures to discussions to assignments to tests could be drastically improved.

P.S. Make sure to buy the actual textbook. The online version they expect you to get is $100 because of the interactive activities, but you don't even do that in class so you might as well get the $50 hard copy version.

The professors genuinely care about your learning and the class itself is on an interesting topic; however, it is very unorganized because the professors are new to the course. The midterm and final are both super hard and you actually have to know everything from lectures and small details from readings, so basically most people got C's, but then it ended up being curved so most of us ended up with very good grades.

DO NOT TAKE THIS COURSE! It was such a disappointment because I had a strong interest in food science and sustainability going into this year. The lecturers for this class were awful and not clear at all. The slides were confusing and sloppy (black and white, huge chunks of text, spelling/grammatical errors galore, etc). There was an excessive number of technical difficulties throughout the year as well. The exams for this class were also a nightmare because they did not test on the study guide content and included a group portion in which you had to make up data to prove points that are not based on fact. The only positive of this class was that they curved the exams and allowed people to boost their scores up an entire letter grade by doing an extra credit assignment. There was a lot of busy work for this course though so relying on that EC is definitely not an option. I pray for the sanity of everyone who didn't drop this course after the first quarter.