Professor Gangbo is chill, and the workload for this class is much lighter than 245A by other professors. He is a typical professor who teaches throughout the 50 minutes class without trying to engage students, that doesn’t bother me at all since it’s a grad pure math courses to learn knowledge. I heard that he was not so clear in the last year, but from my experience, he is relatively clear on the materials when the class is online. The exams are not too hard, and the midterm is especially easy. I would generally recommend taking this courses with Professor Gangbo, since it might be easier to get an A (though grades doesn’t matter to grad students). He and the TA can be unnecessarily strict on minor things, but I guess that is how rigorous pure math works.

I did badly in this class, and that was not the professors fault. However, Gangbo's lectures were dry and at times confusing to follow. The exams were difficult, as to be expected in an honors class. The homework was exceedingly difficult at times and graded for accuracy, probably more than to be expected in an honors class. There were multiple occasions when I emailed him and never received a response back.

A tough class, but anyone looking to get real rigorous might enjoy it. Prof. Gangbo's lecturing style isn't the most animated, but he was always clear and his lectures are by far the most meticulous I've had at UCLA. I can't say to what extent this is simply due to the nature of the class vs Prof. Gangbo himself, but speaking as someone who had little exposure to either real analysis or proof-based mathematics (beyond Math 61), I learned a *lot* about both just from listening to Prof. Gangbo's proofs.

About the homework - four homework assignments, each ~12 questions (2/3 proof-based, 1/3 computational). We had 2 weeks for each assignment, but they are looong - as someone who is not the greatest at real analysis, a single assignment could easily take me 10+ hours to complete. The kicker is that of the 12 questions, the TA would pick 3 to grade for correctness. The questions aren't easy either; our averages were generally in the 70s/80s. That being said, if you take this class, you will 100% walk out of this class a better proof writer as a result.

Two tests - a midterm and a final. The midterm was a bit strange - there were 5 questions, but you only had to do four of them, but depending on your choice of questions your max score would be 80/100, but we didn't know this going into the exam (though everyone got a 5-point bump as partial compensation). The questions weren't easy per se, but the TA gave a fair amount of partial credit (median 64%, despite the capped score shenanigans). For the final, I believe the sentiment after the exam was that the final was fairly okay. Anyway, Prof. Gangbo graded it himself, and presumably did not agree; average 34%.

W.r.t. grading: I was essentially the class median (rank 9/22 on both the midterm & final; above the median on 3/4 homeworks) and received a B-.

Easy Class. His practice exams that he would work through in class were an accurate reflection of what to expect on his exams. No need for extensive studying. Everything was straightforward.

This class itself was pretty easy; however, I know that since a lot of people did well in this class (bc it was so easy) he curved down. We had cheat sheets and his review sessions literally gave us the answers to the Midterms. He also is not a great lecturer, making the concepts of slopes difficult.

His lectures are just him reading proofs from the textbook, without adding much additional insight. This might've been bearable, but the textbook we used for about half the quarter was Fine Properties of Functions, which mentions in the preface that it is not a book for measure theory beginners. So yeah, prepare to come out of this class without a great understanding of the course material. The one nice thing about this class was maybe that his homeworks are biweekly and relatively easy, but that also meant I was woefully unprepared for the midterm and final.