Neveu, Marc J.  

There are two instructors for this class; Choi and this guy. I must say that Neveu is definitely better. There are a total of 5 quizzes for this class. They pretty much act as midterms and they are non-accumulative. No final. The quizzes are based on images from the powerpoints and fill in the blank. Very straightforward. Neveu doesn't pull any tricks and he gives hints as to what might be on the quiz. Quizzes are all memorization. Make sure you study because it's not as simple as you think. Lectures are a bit boring but Neveu tries to spice it up with jokes and interesting stories behind the historic figures he talks about. Overall, good class to take and I might add, HE IS SO GOOD LOOKING. He's very personable and will definitely help you if you have any questions.

He's just an average teacher, co-teaches the course with Dr. Doi. The class is pretty interesting (especially cuz I'm not an arch major) and was fairly easy. 5 quizzes that are all not cumulative (final is the 5th quiz) and the reading is all on Blackboard (saves you money). Personally, I liked Doi better than Neveu (he's funnier and relates to the class more) but it doesn't really matter. The class is just ok and not too tough.

Marc co-taught 218 along with Choi. Overall, the course is pretty easy for a GE and even easier, in this EE major's opinion, if this is a major course. 5 quizzes, all equal weight. The "final" is just like every other quiz: same length, same weight, non-cumulative (it only covers the previous four lectures). The one major difference between Neveu and Choi is that Neveu has a lot more slides to cover than Choi. The only plus side to this, is that some of the slides get repeated for the next Neveu lecture. For example, Lecture 19 may have a few slides on Colbert, the frontispiece to a book by Blondel, and a slide on Perrault's comparative analysis. Well, Lecture 20 has the exact same slides. Another thing about Marc is that he talks a lot in lecture and has fewer notes on his slides. His assigned readings are also much longer than Don's. But then again, he emphasizes that the readings are used to "reinforce" what he has said in the lecture. He also speaks at a pretty brisk pace but note taking is not impossible. As long as you pay attention and take halfway decent notes, you'll get at least a B no problem. They also curve the grades slightly, depending on the performance of the class (They'll explain the curving system).

I really enjoyed the way that Dr. Neveu lectures. True, his slides do have less information on them, but he eloquently tells the story that ties all of them together. This made me more engaged in lecture, and I felt that I got a better grasp of the material because of it. Also, he loves the subject, and exudes his enthusiasm for it through his teaching. He is also very approachable and easy to get help from if you need it. Neveu is also INCREDIBLY ATTRACTIVE, he speaks Italian quite well and always looks so classy and put together (not that this is all that important, but it did make me want to go to class). The tests are too bad, and are very image based, so make sure you study with this in mind. Recommended

Good lecturer, even though he goes off on tangents quite a bit. He taught more about architectural figures, than buildings. More on books than on buildings. Dr. Choi's lectures were presented more clearly & you have a clear understanding of what will be on the tests. But with Neveu, you really have no idea what will be on the quizzes.

Neveu is an excellent public speaker and engaging lecturer. However, I do agree with the previous posts that his slides aren't as to-the-point as Choi's -- and this makes it more difficult to study from the slides. I liked how he lectured about the historical context of architecture, but at times this seemed to digress too far. I didn't really do much studying and I ended up with a C+ (CR).

Mark is very knowledgeable in architectural history, but fails to present it in a coherent manner. His lectures often skip all over the place with frequent tangents. The powerpoint slides typically have almost no outlining on them, so taking detailed notes are a must as some of small facts show up on quizzes. Definitely a nice guy, but hard to follow.

Boring class but not too bad. Jus study the slides and dont bother taking notes on his lecture, they dont help. Learned a lot tho

Marc is a fantastic lecturer. First of all he's a very interesting and amazingly smart person. I think he has just about every building in the world memorized. However, his lectures are more about concept, overall understanding, and social impacts than they are about memorizing names of buildings. He is very passionate about what he does and has a sense of humor. I would definitely recommend him. BTW his name is spelled M-A-R-C because he is French Canadian.

Do not take this class there are much easier GE Art classes such as Music Appreciation. however Neveu is an extremely nice professor if you are able to visit him at office hrs. This class is taught by two different teachers so make sure you talk to both because they have very different teaching styles. He is very nice and helpful one on one but the class is unnecessarily hard so DO NOT TAKE THIS CLASS.

His teaching style is definitely different from Choi's. His power points have over 100 slides per lecture. His lectures are also geared toward the concepts of the style and not memorizing specific buildings. There are mostly pictures in the slides and hardly any words, so they are difficult to study from if you don't attend lecture or take notes. He gets caught up in stories & side tracks easily, so most of what I remember when studying are his interesting stories. This doesn't help because I want to recall the exam information, not his tangents. Overall, this class is okay. You just have to attend, pay attention, and learn to take notes on the important information only, not everything he says.

Neveu likes to talk. A LOT. about things that aren't necessarily related to architecture history, but he tries to make things interesting. He teaches with Dr. Choi so they switch every couple of weeks if you like one more than the other. Study the lectures & print out the slides because the tests are 75% image-based.

Loved Neveu. He made the class interesting and funny. He also moves through the material quickly which makes the class more interesting and easier to stay awake through. Pay attention to little things he just adds into his lecture; it's hilarious.

I did well in this class because I pulled all-nighters for the quizzes. Neveu is a good lecturer, nonstop talking. The only thing I didn't like is that he repeats some of the buildings and slides from one lecture to the next. After memorizing 1,500+ images(yes I counted), I'm so happy this class is over.

Very interesting class and great lecturer. At first I thought the lectures he posted on Blackboard didn\'t have text and captions, but he just made the font white. If you are crafty, you can doctor them a bit before class and have all the text on the slides.

Marc Neveu (he pronounced his name twice during the quarter like "nehvehyoo" so I stuck with that, don't believe all of the noovoh people) was a great professor with a very unique approach. During the first half of the quarter I learned a ton from him about all kinds of things. He knows way too much about everything, especially architectural history and theory. He uses the socratic method, and so is heavy on the questions but not so much on concrete suggestions for your projects. He wants to help bring out the design within you, but doesn't provide much of a framework or structure for you to work in. Often his critiques revolve around asking you "what makes a good space for (blank)?" and so the projects really develop from the inside out. It's the opposite approach of fowler's, maybe somewhat like hargrave's. I would definitely recommend his studio class. If you don't have much of a design process don't expect much help from him but there is certainly plenty to learn from him about what you're trying to do.

You know the professor is going to be a little quirky when he doesn't spell his name like the other Marks. What's awesome is that he isn't new school or old school. He has new school flair but is very rooted in old school values and teachings. He teaches using the Socratic method. If he doesn't seem like he's being straight forward it's because he's doing it on purpose. He provides a fresh perspective for us Cal Poly students. He is a freaking smarty pants. He will refer to movies, novel, people that you have never heard of but end up finding out that you should know them. Overall, he has great intentions and it's really worth learning and participating in class discussions but it's going to take a lot of time and effort beyond what you might be expected in taking 420 with the other professors.

Brilliant mind. Tells interesting and relevant stories like it's nobody's business.

Neveu presents architectural theory with excellent, interesting, well-researched lectures. Our class was experimental, in that it was set up as a series of debates/presentations in architectural theory punctuated by the lectures. The structure of the class led to some interesting discussions (although there were also some duds, but that\'s not the professor\'s fault), and I can honestly say it was my favorite course of the quarter. Definitely an interesting way to teach theory and get students thinking. I highly recommend it.

ARCH 420 with Mark Neveu is the worst and one of the most useless classes I have ever taken and it is largely thanks to Mark. I have never had a professor that was as misleading in his comments as this guy: he would say one thing about your work while you\'re talking to him and then grade it completely differently with little explanation. Also, this class, the way Mark structured it, had very little connection to architecture - it was more oriented on people who knew very little about architecture that did theoretical projects about architecture (and its elements), which again were quite useless. Also, Mark had students present most of information and had little input in lecture preparation (in my case anyway), so essentially he didn\'t do poop. So, if you would like an arrogant professor with little experience in the architectural field but a doctorate degree in BS - Mark is your guy. I think it\'s interesting that a school with \"learn by doing\" for a slogan hired someone who couldn\'t be farther from \"doing\". Also, if you get him on your crit, it\'s probably a good idea to take his comments with a grain of salt and ask him for precedents and cases that prove his point...or maybe real projects he himself participated in.

To the person who hated on Marc\'s 420 class below: Are you seriously an Arch 5th year? What studio are you in? Because you obviously SHOULD NOT have made it this far with that attitude. Also, to all those curious: 420 is a THEORY course. NOT a PRACTICAL course. It makes sense the class would focus on the theoretical. Furthermore, Marc is one of the most widely published professors the Architecture department has. So, while he is not a working architect, he is an expert in the field of architectural theory. He is the perfect person to teach Arch 420. It\'s a sad fact that theory is totally under-appreciated at Cal Poly, and that people such as the student making negative comments below will receive a degree in architecture when all they\'ll ever be is an over-glorified builder.

OK class. Get through it an move on. Not sure if it\'s available as an elective but wouldn\'t take it as one. Since we\'re commenting on comments - it\'s a big surprise that someone interested in theory doesn\'t appreciate builders - put down your joint and do some research and while you\'re at it look up the definition of architecture.

What the guy/gal below said. Amen. I too took this class and have long since graduated from Poly, but I was cruising Poly Ratings for a kick and thought that I should pipe in and let you know how much of a joke this prof is.