Overall I think Lannan is a safe choice for a biochem professor, so if he is an option, take it. His lectures are engaging and clear, and the overall flow of content from the beginning to the end of the quarter makes sense at building on top of each other.

You can tell he's super passionate about the subject, and he's fairly young so there's a bit more engagement and energy to things. Personality-wise he is also fairly geeky and and can be funny, plus posts pictures of cats on Campuswire, so I think he can keep morale up. I respect him for sharing his views too outside of class on UCLA Radio during the time of the encampment, I think it showed his education about world events and also not just a soulless STEM professor.

It's true his rubrics for exams can seem strict, but honestly I think they're not outrageous. The medians for Midterm 1 and 2 were 75% and 85%, respectively, and that is definitely within the norm for a STEM class like this, so I disagree with assertions that his exams are "tougher" than any other similar upper-div class.

When you're doing exam questions, just always make sure to ask yourself "Why?" or "So what? and write down the answer. I think a lot of people (at least when you're not used to the rubric) make the mistake of writing something like "Thing A makes Process 2 stop", but they miss the rubric point about how Thing A actually made Process 2 stop. Make sure though that you understand the wording he uses in his slides/lectures, and that you really understand the consequences of processes that you learn. He likes to ask questions that make you apply content to a completely different context (e.g. how would this alien's cell membrane be different from Earth's).

Speaking of aliens, there's a extra credit group project at the end of the quarter about creating your own alien organism based off unique biochemistry that's varies from biochemistry of Earth (i.e. stuff we learned in class).

For our lecture's final, a third of the questions were literally the exact same as the ones on the practice final (which he gave the answer sheet to).

There's iClicker (mandatory lectures) and assignments. The assignments are not too bad but they really do force you to review what you learned well.

Discussions are fine (and mandatory), really specific to the TA whether it's good or not (shout-out to Katie!).

Professor Lannan is a very fair lecturer, with tests that take a bit of getting used to. Once you learn the rubric of the exams and what he expects out of answers, it becomes more manageable. His lectures are engaging and mandatory, and the discussions were helpful as well. At the end of the quarter, there is an extra credit project, and all of the extra credit totals to around 2% which is generous. The homeworks are for the most part completion based as he only grades one of the questions, and the quizzes are pure memory. It really comes down to the exams, but once you get the hang of it, it is a fair test. Overall, I would recommend taking Lannan for 153A.

Lannan was thrown into the course with two weeks warning. It was his first quarter teaching, and I thought he did an excellent job. I have had less prepared and less organized professors who have been teaching the course for years. Overall I really enjoyed having him as a professor and would take a class he is teaching again. Ryan truly cared about our success, which you would think would be something you could say about all professors, but I cannot say I can. He seemed to relate to us and empathize more, having finished his own PhD and school relatively recently. You could tell he wanted us to succeed, and his problem sets reflected the difficulty of his exams, which was extremely nice. There were weekly problem sets, and going to both his and the TA office hours was extremely helpful for working through them. This is the only class I have ever attended office hours for, and I highly recommend going because they made the class very manageable. His exams were very reasonable and did not throw any surprisingly terrible questions at us. They were also scaled up to match the average of the other 14C lecture for the exam we had a lower average for. There was also extra credit given for discussion attendance and a video project at the end. I think people were unfairly judgmental of him and too harsh all quarter… he did an amazing job and I felt I really understood the material more than in 14A and B. This class made me thing I liked chemistry (but I am being proven wrong in 14D), which just shows that Ryan is good at his job, especially given this was his first quarter.

this class was as good as it could have been. chem153a naturally includes a lot of content, so a lot of consistent studying is necessary to succeed in this class. lannan does a good job
of providing clear lecture slides, learning objectives, and homework assignments that thoroughly cover the material. the exams are straightforward and you can succeed with them if you put in the work. however, while the lecture slides are detailed, very often, dr. lannan will mention a concept that is not on the slides, and he will brush over it quickly without mentioning its importance. without writing down this information in that instant, there is no way to find it other than re-watching the lecture and really listening to it. unfortunately, oftentimes these small
tidbits are included in test questions. all this to say, i would take this class again with dr. lannan.

CHEM 153A with Lannan was definitely not easy but if you really study it is definitely possible to get an A. I would recommend reviewing the learning objectives and rewatching the lectures because he expects you to know things that he mentions, sometimes just in passing. I would also highly recommend going to his office hours, they're really helpful. And the reviews which complain about the specificity with which he grades are accurate, he expects a lot of detail in his rubrics, so honestly try to write down every little detail you can think of on the tests. I liked Lannan though, he was tough but mostly fair and very concerned with student learning.

I'm not sure if it's me personally, but I didn't like Lannan much. His slides were pretty good and the class structure was fair, but his lectures felt really jumpy and rushed towards the end of the year. He'd use an abbreviation once and assumed you knew it by heart after that (within the same slide). Typically, it would be fine until he would forget to introduce a protein's or enzyme's abbreviation while using other introduced abbreviations that were similar, making it extremely confusing.

On the topic of feeling unorganized, a lot of the homework deadlines would frequently get pushed back without notice to how far they got pushed back. He typically wouldn't make announcements about the new due date or post the homework on gradescope until 1-2 days before the new due date that he didn't disclose. Although checking gradescope is a student's responsibility, a courtesy reminder of homework due date extensions would've been nice, especially since they did not match the due dates on the front page of the homework or the syllabus.

Also, it's important to note that his homeworks cover the same content as his midterms/finals, but are not similar in depth, format, or expectations. The main way to study is looking at the practice midterms/finals he fortunately gives you. On the topic of midterms, be careful about submitting a regrade request which you'll be tempted to use. His rubric is incredibly strict on wording, meaning lots of students felt that they explained the concept correctly but didn't word it the right way (even if the reasoning and key words were correct). Because of this, he took points off for "bad" regrade requests and threatened to cancel all regrade requests if the number passed a certain threshold which is unreasonable in my opinion. In fact, I checked over with a TA on one of the questions and he agreed it was graded incorrectly but because of the threats he gave, I never ended up submitting the regrade request.

Professor Lannan is a good lecturer and is pretty decent at explaining conceptual stuff; however, I felt that his class needed much more clarification and had many areas for improvement. The class is incredibly fast-paced, and he doesn't slow down, making it difficult to keep up. He talks during lectures as if you already know everything, often just gliding over some concepts and then making the most difficult questions out of them for the midterm. His office hours were useful at first, but they became useless after the first four weeks. He has ADHD, so he's always saying, anyways, you guys know this, while no one knows what he's talking about. He also talks so fast, which adds to the confusion. The exams are brutal, and your wrists and hands will hurt after each midterm. He is a harsh grader, and there are a lot of mistakes while grading the exams. Unfortunately, he is not open to improvement and seems to think everyone is in love with him, while in reality, almost everyone dislikes him. He has no sense of awareness about this.

The TAs are also poor graders, and the regrade request process is absolutely unfair. He deducts points from you if he receives too many requests because he can't review them all. Well, nobody forced him to implement the regrade request system. Additionally, he doesn't accept requests for 0.5 points, which is problematic if there are multiple grading mistakes on these smaller questions. He is an awful grader, extremely non-responsive, and rude towards students. He is very mean in emails and tries everything to single you out, often insinuating that you are trying to cheat in the class. I really hated this class. It gave me so much anxiety, and I am a chemistry major, so I have been through the hardest chemistry classes at UCLA. Another major issue is that he sets you up for competition against other students and has clearly stated this many times on CampusWire. While it's understood that eventually, you're evaluated against others, this is not something that should be explicitly stated in class for 800+ students. Each class should be structured in a way that you're being valued based on your own knowledge at least.

I think other professors, such as Gober, should be brought back to teach biochemistry rather than Lannan. While Lannan has some strengths as a lecturer, there are significant issues with his teaching approach, grading policies, and overall attitude that need to be addressed.

Pros
- Exams sometimes recycle old questions
- EC project at the end of the quarter helps buffer grade
- Campuswire will be your best friend for answering questions and getting reputation tiers for extra credit
- Generally, I found section to be so-so, but mostly I never paid too much attention ; I think my TA, Cindy, was very knowledgeable though
- Review sessions are held where concepts are discussed and it's more of a Q&A/workshop hybrid format
- He drops a quiz
- Homework helps with general concepts
- I would say past exams are reflective of the real deal (he will post a practice exam from a previous quarter)
Cons
- I feel like I neglected my time in other classes because this class had so much information and knowledge to memorize/understand/apply
- Grading is very harsh
- Sometimes Lannan is passive aggressive towards people who have questions - he kind of brushes them off and tells them that he'll answer their questions during office hours, and mind you I never asked questions, but I just observed his behavior and it came off as rude/inconsiderate sometimes
- Grading is very slow sometimes. When it comes to quizzes, there wasn't even a point in me missing the last quiz because I didn't know what I got on the other 2/4 (so I still studied for the last quiz)
- I know this class moves very quickly and there's a lot of information to memorize, but it seemed like we were all thrown in the deep pool when all of the disruptions happened. Nothing was necessarily "easier" per say for exams. We honestly were dangling and wondering if we would even have our Midterm 2 on Monday of Week 7 because there was a lack of communication and we were just assumed to show up on campus and see how the day would go, even if it felt unsafe sometimes.
Final Thoughts
This class is a fever dream. Idk how I got an A+ tbh but my biggest recommendation is to make sure you're writing out paragraphs for exam questions to get as much points as possible. You need to be detailed in your responses and making sure you touch upon every single part of a question. Taking a look at his past exams also helps with the format and what to expect. I think the homework was alright for preparing for exams, but it's definitely not as application-based (homework is generally a content review) as exams. Be prepared for scenarios (Lannan likes to make sci-fi questions where you're on XYZ planet and some biochem related problem comes up) where you will apply your knowledge. This class is not easy, but if you put in the work and time, you should be fine.

How the class works:
Every week there were Homework assignments where one question is graded for correction and the others are graded for completion. There were 3 quizzes, which are just pure memorization of biological pathways and their metabolites (easy points). 2 midterms and a Final. 2% extra credit.

My Thoughts:
Ryan was a decent professor for this class. You will see a lot of people complain about him, but really they should be directed towards the class itself. 153A is not meant to be an easy class, and it seriously takes a lot of studying to do well. Prof. Lannan can only do so much to make the class more approachable for students. Yes, he was disorganized at the start of the quarter (keep in mind, it's his first time teaching this class and he was told he was teaching this class a week or two before the quarter started). Towards the end of the quarter, Ryan definitely grew a lot as a professor, and he was way more organized with his lectures. Personally, all of the exams were fair if you studied for them, especially MT2 and the final exam.

That being said, this class is far from perfect. My biggest gripe with this class is how much content it tried to cover, and how little we were actually tested on. For all of the exams, Lannan would give us a study guide, but those study guides were just bullet points of every detail in the class. He did this for both midterms, and for the final he gave us a study guide which essentially had every detail from weeks 7-10 along with the very helpful message of "look at MT1 and MT2 study guides." When it came to final, we were barely tested on 3/4 of the material covered in class, and it was frustrating to see all the work I put in while studying just go to waste. Also, the exams would usually ask vague questions like "What process is this very similiar to?", and I felt like those were extremely general given how specific biochemistry is. You either know exactly what he is asking about, or you don't. This is very unfair to students because it doesn't actually test their knowledge, you are just testing if they can read your mind about what you are trying to vaguely ask. Sucks that this class is MTWF because it can easily feel overwhelming in this class.

My advice:
DO NOT get behind on lectures. Once you fall in the loop of "Oh, I'll watch it later" , it's virtually impossible to catch up with all of the material.

Focus on the study guides he gives you. They aren't really all that helpful bc they aren't specific about what exactly will be tested, but it helped me streamline my studying

Review HWs. Some of the questions on the exams will be reminiscent of these.

This class is by no means an easy class. Anyone that says otherwise is lying to you. However, it is definitely doable with Ryan. I don't think he is the problem.

TLDR: Expect a tedious class, but manageable if you put significant time and effort into it.

This class reminded me a lot of LS7C: a class where critical thinking meets knowledge output. But unlike LS7C, this class really should have been broken up into two quarters from how much we learned. I should have prioritized this and not have taken other classes because of how stressful it was. Most of my critiques of this class is about the course itself rather than the professor. I think Lannan as an individual was fantastic – he felt like a more relatable professor that is able to understand you well.

The midterms and final are eeringly similar to the questions he gives on the practice ones AS IT SHOULD BE!! Classes that have the practice exams look nothing like the real deal are so stupid, but Lannan is amazing for actually doing this for us. Sometimes, the questions on the homework or practice tests are literally the same exact question you get on the real deal.

Luckily, you don't have to read from a textbook in this class. Everything that is fair game for the exams are straight from the lectures. However, lectures meet 4 times a week and are all mandatory, so that's a little unfortunate. The lectures are also really fast since they are 50 minutes each and he leaves barely any time for questions, which is also unfortunate.

Thankfully, he provides a plethora of office hours and final exam review sessions. He is just as approachable as the TA's in this class, and is super friendly, so don't hesitate to go ask him questions.

There are a whole bunch of extra credit opportunities he gives out, although, the percent worth is miniscule. For example, there is an optional project you can undergo a minimum of roughly 2500 words worth with 3-4 other group members. However, that's only up to 1.25% of credit depending on how well you do. Besides, it's right after Midterm 2 and a due a few days before the Final. Should be worth more in my opinion. Also, he uses Campuswire reputation points for various degrees of extra credit (the 50 upvote/20 answered being the most points receivable but only around 0.3%).