Nice man? perhaps...but basically, everything except any GOOD comments that MIGHT appear on this page are correct. This class was such a waste of time, especially if you've ever taken a MATH class EVER before in life. I honestly believe this guy wakes up every morning and thinks to himself, "Hmmm....how can I waste my students' time today?" He spent the entire first lecture teaching us how to find the average of two numbers -- I wanted to shoot myself. Lectures are obviously too boring to attend and you can make do without going except that he has quizzes occasionaly (luckily, they're pre-scheduled). His tests and quizzes have little to do with what he taught in class, they're 75% conceptual while the class was 100% mathematical (if you ignore the stupid waste of time side stories he throws in to bore us more); and by the way -- the books he chooses are just slightly less useless than his class. Grading is somewhat ambiguous, don't bother trying to figure out what you need on the final exam to get an A. We still weren't sure if our grades were going to be curved going into the final exam. All we know is he's very strict on his grading policy -- whatever it is. He said he won't change you're grade even if you're a point away from an A-. In all my four years at UCLA I can honestly say, this is the worst class I've had to take.

Estes is a nice guy! He seems to try his best to lecture. The truth is his style sucks so class is very dull. Stats is dull enough and when you pair that with Estes, who's equally dull, you get triple shot of boredom. I found lecture an almost complete waste of time. If you're the type of person who can read the book, somewhat comprehend it, and is motivated enough to do practice problems to fully understand the material (which isn't too abstract), you can skip most lectures and still end up doing well. First exam was cake, 2nd exam was a shocker to most, final exam was moderate. Just make sure u understand the concepts for the 2nd exam and the final.

Estes is a nice old man who knows what he's talking about most of the time, but he's one of the least engaging professors I've had. His in-class lectures consist of working out the problems that are worked out in the book. His midterms and quizzes are relatively easy if you study, but his final was quite difficult. The TA, Matt Henson, was much more effective in explaining the material and preparing the class for exams. If you get him for 100A, be prepared to rely more on the textbook and the discussion section to understand the class.

We used an awful textbook. There were so much typo error, so I understand that the prof. also had trouble teaching class with using such a book.
Yet I have to admit that his lecture wasn't organized. He sometimes spent entire lecture just doing a complicated calculation.
Although his exam wasn't hard unlike other students say, I wished I could have learned the logic of statistics from him.
I don't think I learned it from him.
He's a very nice guy, so he's not as awful as other teachers. He's just not good enough.

Mr. Estes is a really nice man, however, he fails to teach in an understanding and effective manner. He used his own equations without letting us know they were different than the ones presented in the book. Often times, his equations were so different than the equivalent one in the book that we didn't know how the two were even related. So when it came down to study for the midterms, it was frustrating trying to play guessing games on where the terms came from for the calculations. Be prepared for long, mundane lectures full of calculations. He does lengthy calculations that take an hour and fifteen to complete (the whole lecture), but hardly discusses any of the concepts. His midterms' emphasis is on the concepts--out of forty problems, thirty to thirty-five are dealing with confusingly worded conceptual questions. It helps if you have taken stats before, so you understand what Mr. Estes is talking about even though he doesn't discuss the entire issue. His lectures are poorly organized with little or no structure, so you have to be the one to actively organize your notes. Mr. Estes is a very nice man, but he fails to communicate to fill the whole picture in--too often he leaves out important information.

Okay, it's like this: I hate to criticize such nice people but sometimes it's needed. Mr. Estes is a really nice man. The bottom line, though, is he has forgotten how to effectively teach--if he ever did teach effectively. His lectures were filled with mind-numbing calculations that he poorly explained, and half the time his calculations were wrong and the class or the TA would have to correct him. The book was full of errors, and neither did Mr. Estes incorporate the equations in the book with his lectures. He used his own equations and variables that were not the same in the book, and didn't discuss, if at all, the differences until it was too late--like after the midterm. Even though his lectures are filled with calculations, 30 to 35 problems out of 40 are based on conceptions, few of which he discussed. So be prepared to teach yourself most of the conceptual material, or find a good study group or tutor. The TA, Mr. Gold, dominated Mr. Estes: always correcting his equations, questioning his teaching, and, worst of all, telling him what color of chalk to use. Mr. Gold didn't quite understand though was that he wasn't that great either. Neither Mr. Estes or Mr. Gold could answer a question straight-forward. Too often times, Mr. Estes would give an 'I don't know off the top of my head' response to my questions; Mr. Gold would turn a question into an opportunity to show-off his 'supreme' stat knowledge. I wouldn't recommend Mr. Estes to anyone unless you enjoy being constantly frustrated.

His lectures have about as many errors as the book does, and he presents very different methods. It makes the class very confusing and hard to study for.

Dr.Estes is not particularly fascinating as a lecturer but he really cares about the students. If you attend and pay attention in lecture (which very few people do) than you will not do that badly in the class. This is supposed to be a challenging class and it is; however, I do not know that it would be super easy with another professor.

OK, here's the deal on this guy. He was a prof. in Texas for a while, and I think he's like retired, but teaching at UCLA on the side. something like that. He's a nice guy, but definitely look at other options if you have them. The class was basically a stats class (z-scores, t-scores, ANOVA, regression and correlation). I did good the 1st test, but was thrown off the 2nd. He does what a math class teaches, which is he demonstrates equations and problems all day. (BEWARE: he taught us pretty much totally different techniques than the book...but the book was full of errors - Sanocki "Student Friendly Statistics") So, after getting us comfortable w/problems, he goes and gives us our 2nd midterm, 40 mul. choice, with only 12 calculation problems. The others are conceptual problems, which mean THEY WERE NOT THE FOCUS of his lectures. That was really bad...he should have had more calculation problems. But anyway, since he lectured on all these equations that weren't in the book, the concepts in the book didn't quite tie in w/lectures. So lectures = calculations that you have to be able spit out, that weren't in the book so you can't understand them conceptually, and tests = concepts in the book, that he barely touched on in lecture. The grades overall dropped quite a bit (I think 5-10 points average, on a 40 point test). So, if you have to take this guy, it's ok. I mean, even if you have a bad 1st impression, just PAY ATTENTION and you'll adapt. Don't just zone out once you're stuck with a professor...except for one thing...I got most of the stuff out of the lecture during the 2nd part of the quarter, but the test questions didn't test me on what I learned in class. yea...