Ratings for Rieffel, M A
Based on 11 ratings for this instructor.
Comment: I have to agree with just about everything the person who mentioned 218 said (in fact I thought I wrote the review because I agreed with everything). Currently in c218a right now and I had a real struggle at the beginning of the semester with measure theory because I got no real measure theory out of 202a with rieffel. Kinda wish I took 202a this semester because the other undergrads who are concurrently taking 202a with 218a are much better off than I.
Submitted Nov. 3rd, 2015
Comment: So 202A. I was initially pretty excited for this course. That excitement soon wore off. Overall 202A is with Rieffel was not particularly hard. The material is pretty simple to understand if you had a good 104 Professor since he doesn't get too far past Topology. The topology was mostly clear except Rieffel would often get lost in his proofs and stretch out theorems to multiple classes when they could have been done in about half a lecture. As others have said before me, his handwriting is atrocious and would lead to confusion later when studing the material since he doesn't subscribe to a particular textbook. The measure theory was all over the place. I think Rieffel panicked that we were running out of time in the course and just started going crazy with Measure theory without having a good map to connect the concepts. The midterm was easy with most getting perfect scores, the final exam was moderate and no one finished early. HW wasn't that time consuming and I mostly ended up doing it all the night before. I went to a few OH sessions and Rieffel will never explicitly give you an answer but will often do his best to lead you to one, which I liked. He's a pretty nice guy and fairly approachable despite the fact that he can seem intimidating. Overall cool guy, average class.
Submitted March 17th, 2015
Comment: 2/3 topology, 1/3 measure theory, and the pace is rather slow. The measure theory coverage, as said before, was insufficient, and basically required 202B to get much out of the measure theory portion. The homeworks were mostly reasonable, though occasionally too challenging for me. Exams were a bit straightforward, but at least fair. Lectures are sleep-inducing, not to mention the difficult-to-read handwriting, and he often got lost in his own notes, unnecessarily prolonging a number of proofs. I would try to avoid taking 202A with him if you really want to learn measure theory (unless he changes his approach to the course).
Submitted Jan. 4th, 2015
Comment: Pretty horrible experience in 202A with Rieffel. Thought I would learn measure theory, only did about a month of it and not the sort of measure theory that would prepare me for 218. Homework assignments varied from being incredibly time consuming to quite easy, but generally very time consuming. The midterm was fine while the final was very difficult. Rieffel was very dry and his teaching style was theorem-proof-theorem-proof-theorem-proof with ittle motivation/intuition provided. He drones on, will not speak up, and likes to write in cursive making it difficult for us to read his work. I had really looked forward to this class and it was a disappointing experience to say the least. I would avoid taking 202a with rieffel if you are interested in measure theory. He spends almost all the semester on topology unfortunately.
Submitted Dec. 23rd, 2014
Comment: Not exactly the most animate lecturer which wasn't particularly helpful for 8am, though lectures always had motivation. His primary focus in his research isn't numerical analysis, but he has been teaching the course for 30+ years now. He has notes, but doesn't refer to them, which wastes a bit of class time as he's trying to figure out what step he's supposed to do next or exactly what indices he should write down, but once it's up on the board, he gets the points across concisely. Be sure to attend his lectures and take notes even if it's early in the morning. Some exam questions are verbatim his lecture material. I don't see why people are complaining about how some of his exams or assignments derive exclusively from lecture. Don't complain that exam material isn't in the book, just go to class! Exams were extremely fair if you went to class. Assignments were a joke though, problems take directly from the textbook, which didn't really help for the proof problems on his exams.
Submitted Dec. 29th, 2013
Comment: Made the course unnecessarily difficult for students who didn't go to 8am lectures (which really weren't all that exciting) by having some material on the exams and assignments that were mentioned in lecture, but not in the textbook. Exam questions were poorly worded.
Submitted Dec. 25th, 2013
Comment: Good. He knows the course material extremely well since he's been teaching this class for decades. Usually lectures without using any notes. Very interesting problem set exercises drawn from various branches of mathematics (eg. linear approximation, complex analysis) that bear no immediate relation to topology and analysis, to which nevertheless techniques from the class may be applied. Exams are fair and often involve reproducing proofs of theorems covered in lecture. On the down side, he is not the most exciting lecturer and often doesn't know when he is going too fast. He often turns around and asks "is this clear?", which is kind of pointless since a truly confused student will be too intimidated to ask for clarifications.
Submitted May 24th, 2012
Comment: The professor seems to assign plenty of homework, but the material used to do the homework is never used on exams. Exams are frequently proving theorems in the book that are generally assumed true to work on the homework. In other words, homework is useless towards preparing for exams. Does not provide homework solutions. Lectures are usually useless, seem half-assed, and goes on unnecessary boring tangents.
Submitted July 27th, 2010