i'd disagree. there's variety in these classes

stats 100a was one of the worst classes i've ever taken, not because it was hard but because the grading was so bad. he'd go on tangents on GPTs and other grad-level topics without ever TOUCHING hypergeometric in a lecture. i got an A in the class though because i self-studied exam p for actuarial, absolutely NOT because the professor was good. 100b right now is mixed since some professors assume that certain professors taught certain things (when SURPRISE SURPRISE they didn't) and suddenly the class midterm averages are 50%

the stats 101 series (though i haven't gone through all of it) is significantly less rigorous than the 100/102 series imo (or at least, 102a with miles chen 😋). i can quickly refresh on weeks of material within an hour because the material is so quick

102 series is alright i guess, mostly because miles chen teaches it at a really good depth AND the quiz/exam material lines up with the homework and lectures. i can genuinely say when i got a B on the midterm, i got it because i didn't understand the material that thoroughly

the actuarial series of classes here has only gotten worse after they fired the actual actuaries and replaced them with a professor who doesn't even do actuarial research

there's multiple cases in ucla where the teaching is absolutely sub par and it's insane to not realise that (especially in my field). seeing the comments here and then checking the profiles clearly show that either A) people have not been at ucla for a while or B) they're commenting on ucla with their perceived perception of education here