Dr. Vaughn literally taught me nothing. Her lectures were extremely disorganized and not engaging at all. She would just rant on and on about some random tangent every single lecture. She would always come to lecture with about 60 slides prepared and only get through 40 of them... Then, we had to watch EXTRA lecture videos on CCLE AFTER lecture so that she could finish her stupid powerpoint presentation. Every time it was Vaughn's turn to lecture, I just put in my airpods and pulled up YouTube.

I am going to try and go against popular opinion here on Professor Vaughn and focus on what she did well. While her lectures were often very hard to follow, she did prepare us well for what we be on the test. Going into the final, I was nervous for what she would ask, but she gave us plenty clues and made study slides for us which was a blessing. Her reading guides were difficult and her readings were long and often hard, but they made us better for it. Don’t let some of the reviews on here scare you away from taking this cluster. It is hard, but doable. Professor Vaughn was very helpful and approachable.

Hi! I hope this review is still applicable next year. For the third quarter of the Cluster, everyone splits into smaller (~20 student) seminars taught by either a professor or a GTA. They occur once a week and last for three hours. On Zoom this quarter, 20% of our grade came from Discussion Board Posts due before class and post-lecture quizzes (which opened after class and closed on Friday night), 10% from Perusall (we had multiple articles assigned each week but only had to annotate one on Perusall), 20% participation, 20% facilitation (you act as a "resident expert" on the readings for one week and give a 5-min presentation), and 30% from a Lightning Talk (5-minute presentation) and Research Report (4-5-pages) about a biotechnology we chose. The class was also structured so that you only had to complete 7 discussion board posts, quizzes, and Perusall annotations (you could miss 2 weeks and still get full credit), which helped lessen the load during midterm and finals weeks. I'm not sure if this will still be the structure for in-person, but I hope that it can give a general idea about what the class is like. The first hour was usually spent listening to that week's student facilitations, the second discussing them, and the third listening to Dr. Vaughn give a mini-lecture on the readings. (Her mini-lectures are similar to her lectures during the first and second quarters, and some of the information even comes back, which is interesting.) The quizzes were generally clear and quick (10-15 minutes), so I wouldn't stress, and she offers a few extra credit questions. In terms of grading, Dr. Vaughn was very fair and responded to questions during office hours and over email. We also had one assigned book ("Radiation Brain Moms and Citizen Scientists" by Aya Hirata Kimura), but we only discuss it week 7 (so you don't need to order it as soon as the quarter starts). TIP: start it a little earlier so you don't have to read the whole thing during week 6! Overall, I learned a lot of interesting information about how identity factors into food, and I would take this seminar again.

During this cluster I really liked the topics that Dr. Vaughn taught. However, I found her slides to be the most chaotic and her teaching style reminds me of a discussion that's one sided. It is difficult to differentiate what is her explaining her opinion or what is concrete material you need to know for the midterm/final so it's easy to just zone out as she rants.

So, class first:

This cluster is actually pretty fun, and if you're a life science major, then some of the topics you cover in your core LS classes pop up in this course, too. The workload SEEMS like a lot when you first look at the syllabus, but in reality we have only one final essay that we work on literally the entire quarter. The essay is just a longer version of the speech you have to give in your discussion groups, and then you just add a paragraph or two and turn it in for your final grade. Super easy! There's also a test for the final but it's open note. I didn't study, and instead compiled all the slides into a mega-file and used CTRL + F whenever I was confused, and I ended up getting an A on the final. Overall, I really recommend this course. Fun, easy, and actually interesting.

Now, the professor:

There's actually four professors for this course but I'm only leaving a review on this specific professor because she was the bane of my existence. She was literally in a different country the entire class and her lecture slides were the most chaotic, illegible dumpster fires of a slide. You had to be checked in and paying complete attention the entire lecture because half of the time she was talking about things that weren't even on the slide she was showing. She talks about her own projects and research a lot, which is cool, except we're not being tested on HER research, so why bring it up? I get trying to expand further on certain topics that we're learning that connect to her research, but I found it muddled my understanding rather than aided it. I really disliked going to her lectures because she never stayed on topic, always seemed to drift off on these tangents, and then, like I mentioned earlier, her slides were so messy that even if you did zone out, you couldn't refocus and figure out what was going on. Everyone I knew in that class struggled to pay attention to her lectures, and were very critical of her teaching style.

Also also, a lot of her lecture material is on the final. For some reason. It was like they knew we didn't pay attention in her classes. So, despite her being only one of four lecturers, her lecture material made up about 40-50% of the test and exam material.

I will say that she is very nice, if that matters.

P.S. If possible, get Chandler Beck for your TA. Super cool guy! Literally is super understanding and friendly.

I have to agree with some of the earlier reviews, Dr Vaughn is one of the most genuine and kind Professors I've encountered here in UCLA, but her slides are very dense, and they are written in narrative/case study form or in reflective questions instead of bullet point forms which makes them abit more harder to comprehend. Even if you do not feel like it, I cannot stress this enough, GO TO HER LECTURES. Take note of her learning objectives, and the important points she stresses in her lectures, and if you are still confused after go to her office hours (she is always open to answering extra questions/clarifications there). Her topics are ones I'm always most scared of when coming into the exams, but as long as you do ALL her readings, the movies/videos assigned, listen and pay attention to her lectures and study her slides you should be okay. She's a good professor and her topics are very fun to delve into, but it does require extra effort to digest so keep that in mind.

Another review explained the structure of this class. This seminar is very fun and interesting to learn about especially since it has to do with social issues that are often overlooked. Get started on your paper/lightning talk and preparation for facilitation ASAP since they count for a good chunk of your grade. Extra credit was offered in the form of optional submissions like submitting whatever you have as your rough draft and a few extra credit questions on the weekly quizzes. Also, do NOT leave your weekly readings until the last minute since they may not be insanely long, but they are dense and you might want to use some of the ideas presented in the texts in the seminar discussion. Very nice professor and very accomodating after three quarters of zoom burn.

This is a very interesting class, but the lectures are often hard to understand since slides are paragraphs long. There was also no formal introduction or explanation of any assignment in this class, there was just a document that described all of the assignments so this was also somewhat hard to grapple with. The content of the class is so interesting, and the set up of the class is also nice. There is normal iclicker, and often times there are only three questions. You need to get above an 80 percent answering streak to get the participation point for the day, which is frustrating because if your wifi gets messed up or something and you miss a clicker question than you also miss your participation point for the day despite being there the whole class and answering the other two questions. I would understand if it were in person for this to be strictly, but since we are online on zoom, seems like wifi problems might be common and the professor should be a little more accomodating. If I could afford better wifi, i think I would be more successful in the class.

I think the Dr. Vaughn often tried her hardest to be a good professor, but she was often all over the place and her lectures could be hard to follow. I felt that they weren't coherent, and the exams were only doable because she would hint at what would be on them.

This cluster has three professors Michelle Rensel, Rachel Vaughn, and Aaron Panofsky. Vaughn's lectures are entirely too difficult to understand based on the structure of the slides and how little information she clearly states; most of her lectures are references to research and no clear bullet points. Rensel and Panofsky are easier to understand. There are about 6-8 readings a week and not short readings either, it's too time consuming for someone with more than one class. In the first quarter there's also something called the "GMO Game", and this is really why I don't recommend the class. This "game" is overly complicated and not explained thoroughly. You and members of your discussion have to plan out meeting days and a whole bunch of extra stuff. In my personal experience this class takes a toll on your mental a little bit especially as a freshman. If you don't need a cluster don't take one just to GE classes that can help satisfy major requirements, and if you do want to take a cluster READ THE SYLLABUS!