By Katherine Coates

What makes a professor bad at teaching? Copying their slides from the textbook? Boring lectures? Or a lack of empathy for students? Here is a compiled list of the worst professors at UCLA according to the reviews on Bruinwalk. 

1.) Dorothy Wiley

  • Overall rating: ⅕

  • In the 6 of the classes she teaches, she has a ⅕ Bruinwalk rating. Bruinwalk names this review of the class, “Horrible horrible horrible,” as most helpful. Most reviews highlight the 25 page syllabus, disorganization, and strict grading without a rubric. 

  • Even with a seemingly good grade distribution, with 100% of students in Nursing 197: Individual Studies in Nursing receiving an A, the class still has a 1.0/5 rating. 

2.) Shannon K Gilmartin

  • Overall rating: ⅕

  • Gilmartin focuses on the workplace environment and education in engineering, specifically with women’s representation in leadership.

  • The reviews of her class, Psych M165: Psychology of Gender, highlight her incompetence and arrogance.  One review points out that Gilmartin “is not a very genuine person.” Most complain about the  specificity of the final and large amount of content, including lectures, textbook, and films. 

3.) Diana Huffaker

  • Overall Rating: 1.1 / 5 

  • Almost every review highlights her lack of knowledge about the classes she teaches. In EC ENGR 161: Electromagnetic Waves, a student review reveals that “it feels great when you are more knowledgeable than the class professor.” In another class, EC ENGR 123B: Fundamentals of Solid-State II, a student highlights the obvious lack of qualification since Huffaker does not understand the material nor prepares adequately for the lecture. The student reveals that Huffaker “often gets lost in her own slides and makes non-trivial, fundamental conceptual mistakes.”

4.) Katheryn Wainfan

  • Overall Rating: 1.⅖

  • Wainfan’s reviews underscore her pretentiousness and general lack of regard for her students by combining a lack of responsibility and a bad attitude. One student from Spring of 2018 explains that she “told us the midterm was at a different time than what the syllabus said.” Another explained: “If you ask her a question that is even slightly stupid, or she thinks is stupid, then she won’t treat you well.”

5.) Mayank Mehta

  • Overall Rating: 1.5/5

  • Most students in their reviews cited the highly disorganized nature of the class. Many times, students reveal that he changed his policy regarding grading multiple times. At first Mehta would promise to drop a midterm then change his mind and keep the score. Furthermore, he allowed a handwritten cheat sheet with equations for one class, then changed the policy to a printed cheat sheet, which he would provide. Eventually, he changed the policy again to no cheat sheet, but he would provide a list of equations that would appear on the final.

  • The final for the Spring 2023 semester was, while extremely difficult, unproctored, which led to blatant cheating. Despite the seemingly high grade distribution with almost 80% of students receiving an A, Mehta’s reviews consistently highlight the unfair exams with failing averages.

Despite many of the grade distributions giving a large amount of students As in the class, these professors are still considered the bottom of the barrel. Since supposedly “easy” classes - or those in which most people succeed - can receive a ⅕, what is the criteria for a 5/5? 

In every one of these reviews, students highlight the actual capabilities of the professor, along with their personality and respect for the students. Most of these complaints hint at a larger issue in academia: pretentiousness.

As professors accumulate accolades for their research, which may or may not be impactful, they also accumulate arrogance. The average person does not gain an award or publication simply for doing their job, nor is the common worker called an “expert” in their field. Perhaps handing out prestigious titles to these intellectuals, who can barely do half their job, isn’t the right way to reward academic praise. The structure of academia, which constantly rewards its professors with degrees, publications, awards, and more, is a recipe for an ever-growing ego.