- Home
- Search
- Guy van Den Broeck
- COM SCI 161
AD
Based on 14 Users
TOP TAGS
- Useful Textbooks
- Appropriately Priced Materials
- Tolerates Tardiness
- Often Funny
Grade distributions are collected using data from the UCLA Registrar’s Office.
Grade distributions are collected using data from the UCLA Registrar’s Office.
Grade distributions are collected using data from the UCLA Registrar’s Office.
Grade distributions are collected using data from the UCLA Registrar’s Office.
Grade distributions are collected using data from the UCLA Registrar’s Office.
Grade distributions are collected using data from the UCLA Registrar’s Office.
Grade distributions are collected using data from the UCLA Registrar’s Office.
Sorry, no enrollment data is available.
AD
- All lectures were pre-recorded, which I thought was super convenient, since I could watch them at 1.25x speed.
- I thought the lectures were generally very clear. Some of the content was not new, however. We went over some search algorithms from CS 32/180, and there was probability that was taught in Stats 100A (or equivalent).
- We had 5 homework assignments, which were all very reasonable. One of them was considerably harder than the others and took a lot more time.
- Overall, I thought the course was enjoyable. I didn't need to dedicate too much time to do well in the course. The midterm exams weren't super easy but they were doable. Going over the discussion section slides and the lecture examples was helpful. (I didn't read the textbook, so I can't comment on how helpful it is.)
During the Covid Era, This professor decided to prerecord his lectures weekly and post them at the scheduled lecture time, then have a weekly office hours of sorts, where you can go and ask questions after lecture. It definitely worked well for a while, but I found that the q/a sessions would be less and less helpful as time went on. The LISP projects are seemingly required by the department for the class, and just feel outdated and untouched. However, they will give you great functional programming practice that will help you in cs131. Tests are very concept based, and the homework projects/lecture videos will not help you, you will need to read the book for the details needed to answer the test questions. He is a good professor but I cant help but feel like we wasted a lot of time in the class focusing on logic as taught in Phil 31, and search algorithms as taught in cs180.
Terrible class. Do not take with this professor. Curve is ridiculous. Final is the stupidest CS test I've taken at this school. Material is severely outdated.
Course SHOULD have started with A* search, skipped the logic sections, and focused more heavily on machine learning, NLP, and CV. Everything else is covered in other CS classes at this school (CS180 covers all the search algorithms, CS131 covers Prolog and logic programming, and CS181 rounds out everything else).
Truly a waste of time and effort.
This was overall a very average class and average professor.
Professor Broeck, in my opinion, is not the most engaging speaker and doesn't seem all that motivated either. There were multiple instances where he would end class 30-60 minutes early, leaving me and my fellow peers more confused rather than happy. However, he uploaded all of the recordings of his past online lectures which were actually very good and informative. Once I stopped showing up to lecture and strictly watched his recordings, the class started to get a lot more interesting. I guess he's just not the best live speaker, which isn't his fault. He also likes to write on the chalkboard and it's near impossible to read what he writes if you're not sitting in the first 3 rows. So unless you insist on going to in person lectures, I would suggest just watching the recordings, as they're actually pretty good and teaches the material a lot better than live lecture.
The projects are written in Lisp, which as anyone can tell, is a severely outdated language and is frankly a bit pointless to learn. The projects themselves, save one, are pretty easy overall and if we were able to write in a more modern language, they would probably take less than an hour to do. I found myself spending more time trying to figure out the syntax of Lisp than the actual logic itself. Overall, I treated the assignments as more of a functional programming/basic algorithms practice as opposed to new learning, as it just feels like review of CS32 and CS180.
The tests are a whole different beast. The midterm was doable. It felt like a normal CS exam with short answers, input/output problems, coding problems, multiple choice, etc. If you watch the lectures and study the algorithms up to that point, you should do fine on it.
The final however lived up to its reputation. 60ish questions of just pure nonsense. 45 of the questions were True and False, with every 15 questions or so increasing in weight. (ie the first 15 questions are 1 point each, the next 15 are 2 points each, etc). The remaining questions were all multiple choice. I would estimate that if you knew from top to bottom, everything on the lectures and projects, you could probably get around 75% of the final exam. The rest, you kind of have to be lucky and had seen that word or phrase before, or be a good guesser.
Overall, I actually enjoyed the class. Just treat it as a functional programming/algorithms review and enjoy one of the lighter CS classes at UCLA. Don't expect to learn too much new content, as most of the stuff in this class is severely outdated.
Not sure why there are some bad reviews, but for the online version, I thought it was pretty good. Everything was prerecorded so every lecture was very efficient and easy to follow. The homeworks aren't too stressful either. Nothing on the midterm or final that was unfair or not taught -- it was very reasonable. Definitely recommend taking it with this prof.
Overall the class was pretty good. The lectures were entertaining and the homework assigned wasn't too bad. However, the final was supposedly concept-based, but had a lot of definition/memorization based questions.
Overall this class was pretty average. Not bad but not good either. I'd still probably take it again but if I had other interesting classes available I'd probably opt for those instead.
In the pro category, Guy is a pretty decent lecturer. He does a good job of going over the points, explaining it clearly, and making sure the class gets it. Only thing I didn't like is he mixes powerpoint slides with drawing on the board, so as someone who likes to just refer to online notes it's a bit of a pain. Also I thought the tests were fine. The midterm was just problems that were covered in homeworks or class. The final was multiple choice, and although I understand the point a lot of the other reviews made here, I thought generally the questions were ok. They mostly wanted you to think critically about the concepts rather than just memorize them all. Also generally speaking the homeworks don't take that long to do, so this wasn't as time consuming as some other CS classes can be.
On the con side, the class is poorly organized, and at least for this quarter I thought the TAs were not good. I stopped going to discussion because my TA seemed to mostly confuse people or not know what they were talking about. They are also pretty poor at responding to stuff like homework questions, scheduling the release and deadlines for the homeworks, grading in a timely fashion, etc. And for the midterm they made you go to a specific TA's office hours to get regrades for each question, so essentially everyone had to go to 3 separate office hours. And in my opinion they graded poorly and would take away points for arbitrary reasons.
I thought this class was very well done! Professor van Den Broeck does an excellent job of explaining the material in an easy to understand way. At the end of the class I thought I had a good introduction to different aspects of AI. The homework and exams were also very fair and very doable. Overall I would definitely recommend this course, I learned a lot and it definitely wasn't a huge amount of work.
The class is OK, professor doesn't use any slide but strictly follow the textbook. As stated by other students, the final is ridiculous, multiple choices, most of them are details and concepts, very little of them require mathematics and logic if any.
The material and topics are somehow outdated, (nearly unchanged for 20+ years http://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Fall/1994/FS-94-05/FS94-05-001.pdf). It's probablly not be the AI that you have ever imagined. The first half is on searching, the second half covers logic. Till the very end of the class, Bayesian network and machine learning(only decision tree) are included in only 2 or 3 lectures. In my view, the class material is traditional and a little bit outdated compared to nowadays fancy stuff. But they are still good, at least the logic part is intuitive, some material are indeed fundamental of fancier stuff.
For reference, with near average midterm, full points HWs and 10 points above average final I got A.
This class is pretty easy. Lectures are sometimes confusing as we does not elaborate on important topics and breezes by them without clarification. But there are a lot of resources online (ppts on our textbook for example) to study from, so it is not too hard to study for this class. Tests are fairly easy (final was MC, and ppl just finished in half the time and left). Pretty interesting class that could be taught better.
- All lectures were pre-recorded, which I thought was super convenient, since I could watch them at 1.25x speed.
- I thought the lectures were generally very clear. Some of the content was not new, however. We went over some search algorithms from CS 32/180, and there was probability that was taught in Stats 100A (or equivalent).
- We had 5 homework assignments, which were all very reasonable. One of them was considerably harder than the others and took a lot more time.
- Overall, I thought the course was enjoyable. I didn't need to dedicate too much time to do well in the course. The midterm exams weren't super easy but they were doable. Going over the discussion section slides and the lecture examples was helpful. (I didn't read the textbook, so I can't comment on how helpful it is.)
During the Covid Era, This professor decided to prerecord his lectures weekly and post them at the scheduled lecture time, then have a weekly office hours of sorts, where you can go and ask questions after lecture. It definitely worked well for a while, but I found that the q/a sessions would be less and less helpful as time went on. The LISP projects are seemingly required by the department for the class, and just feel outdated and untouched. However, they will give you great functional programming practice that will help you in cs131. Tests are very concept based, and the homework projects/lecture videos will not help you, you will need to read the book for the details needed to answer the test questions. He is a good professor but I cant help but feel like we wasted a lot of time in the class focusing on logic as taught in Phil 31, and search algorithms as taught in cs180.
Terrible class. Do not take with this professor. Curve is ridiculous. Final is the stupidest CS test I've taken at this school. Material is severely outdated.
Course SHOULD have started with A* search, skipped the logic sections, and focused more heavily on machine learning, NLP, and CV. Everything else is covered in other CS classes at this school (CS180 covers all the search algorithms, CS131 covers Prolog and logic programming, and CS181 rounds out everything else).
Truly a waste of time and effort.
This was overall a very average class and average professor.
Professor Broeck, in my opinion, is not the most engaging speaker and doesn't seem all that motivated either. There were multiple instances where he would end class 30-60 minutes early, leaving me and my fellow peers more confused rather than happy. However, he uploaded all of the recordings of his past online lectures which were actually very good and informative. Once I stopped showing up to lecture and strictly watched his recordings, the class started to get a lot more interesting. I guess he's just not the best live speaker, which isn't his fault. He also likes to write on the chalkboard and it's near impossible to read what he writes if you're not sitting in the first 3 rows. So unless you insist on going to in person lectures, I would suggest just watching the recordings, as they're actually pretty good and teaches the material a lot better than live lecture.
The projects are written in Lisp, which as anyone can tell, is a severely outdated language and is frankly a bit pointless to learn. The projects themselves, save one, are pretty easy overall and if we were able to write in a more modern language, they would probably take less than an hour to do. I found myself spending more time trying to figure out the syntax of Lisp than the actual logic itself. Overall, I treated the assignments as more of a functional programming/basic algorithms practice as opposed to new learning, as it just feels like review of CS32 and CS180.
The tests are a whole different beast. The midterm was doable. It felt like a normal CS exam with short answers, input/output problems, coding problems, multiple choice, etc. If you watch the lectures and study the algorithms up to that point, you should do fine on it.
The final however lived up to its reputation. 60ish questions of just pure nonsense. 45 of the questions were True and False, with every 15 questions or so increasing in weight. (ie the first 15 questions are 1 point each, the next 15 are 2 points each, etc). The remaining questions were all multiple choice. I would estimate that if you knew from top to bottom, everything on the lectures and projects, you could probably get around 75% of the final exam. The rest, you kind of have to be lucky and had seen that word or phrase before, or be a good guesser.
Overall, I actually enjoyed the class. Just treat it as a functional programming/algorithms review and enjoy one of the lighter CS classes at UCLA. Don't expect to learn too much new content, as most of the stuff in this class is severely outdated.
Not sure why there are some bad reviews, but for the online version, I thought it was pretty good. Everything was prerecorded so every lecture was very efficient and easy to follow. The homeworks aren't too stressful either. Nothing on the midterm or final that was unfair or not taught -- it was very reasonable. Definitely recommend taking it with this prof.
Overall the class was pretty good. The lectures were entertaining and the homework assigned wasn't too bad. However, the final was supposedly concept-based, but had a lot of definition/memorization based questions.
Overall this class was pretty average. Not bad but not good either. I'd still probably take it again but if I had other interesting classes available I'd probably opt for those instead.
In the pro category, Guy is a pretty decent lecturer. He does a good job of going over the points, explaining it clearly, and making sure the class gets it. Only thing I didn't like is he mixes powerpoint slides with drawing on the board, so as someone who likes to just refer to online notes it's a bit of a pain. Also I thought the tests were fine. The midterm was just problems that were covered in homeworks or class. The final was multiple choice, and although I understand the point a lot of the other reviews made here, I thought generally the questions were ok. They mostly wanted you to think critically about the concepts rather than just memorize them all. Also generally speaking the homeworks don't take that long to do, so this wasn't as time consuming as some other CS classes can be.
On the con side, the class is poorly organized, and at least for this quarter I thought the TAs were not good. I stopped going to discussion because my TA seemed to mostly confuse people or not know what they were talking about. They are also pretty poor at responding to stuff like homework questions, scheduling the release and deadlines for the homeworks, grading in a timely fashion, etc. And for the midterm they made you go to a specific TA's office hours to get regrades for each question, so essentially everyone had to go to 3 separate office hours. And in my opinion they graded poorly and would take away points for arbitrary reasons.
I thought this class was very well done! Professor van Den Broeck does an excellent job of explaining the material in an easy to understand way. At the end of the class I thought I had a good introduction to different aspects of AI. The homework and exams were also very fair and very doable. Overall I would definitely recommend this course, I learned a lot and it definitely wasn't a huge amount of work.
The class is OK, professor doesn't use any slide but strictly follow the textbook. As stated by other students, the final is ridiculous, multiple choices, most of them are details and concepts, very little of them require mathematics and logic if any.
The material and topics are somehow outdated, (nearly unchanged for 20+ years http://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Fall/1994/FS-94-05/FS94-05-001.pdf). It's probablly not be the AI that you have ever imagined. The first half is on searching, the second half covers logic. Till the very end of the class, Bayesian network and machine learning(only decision tree) are included in only 2 or 3 lectures. In my view, the class material is traditional and a little bit outdated compared to nowadays fancy stuff. But they are still good, at least the logic part is intuitive, some material are indeed fundamental of fancier stuff.
For reference, with near average midterm, full points HWs and 10 points above average final I got A.
This class is pretty easy. Lectures are sometimes confusing as we does not elaborate on important topics and breezes by them without clarification. But there are a lot of resources online (ppts on our textbook for example) to study from, so it is not too hard to study for this class. Tests are fairly easy (final was MC, and ppl just finished in half the time and left). Pretty interesting class that could be taught better.
Based on 14 Users
TOP TAGS
- Useful Textbooks (7)
- Appropriately Priced Materials (5)
- Tolerates Tardiness (4)
- Often Funny (4)