Kearns, Tim  

Only take this guy if absolutely necassary, to be avoided at all costs. A monkey with a stick is better.

Alright... he seems ok to begin with... but then you actually take the class... he has no clue what he's talking about. If you ask a question, and the answer seems obvious to him, he'll make an ass out of you explaining why you're wrong in front of the class. Then, once he's proved he's right, he keeps going to rub it in. He treated the CSC101 students like dirt. He should have just walked into the class and said "Hello, my name is professor asshole"... save yourself while there's still hope! DON'T TAKE TIM KEARNS!!!

this guy is such an asshole. look. if there were any words to describe his teaching abilities, it would most definitely be: "arnold schwarzennegger wearing a g-string without bra." I dont know how he became the head of the department.

he fucked up. no respect for students and lack of compassion. there is a line between smart confidence and ignorant arrogance. well, he stepped over both lines.

Kearns, so far, has been the best CSC professor I've taken at Cal Poly (and I've taken at least 1/2-dozen others here). But you might want to watch out for 'Power-Point' overload though; he loves bombarding students with 100's of slides each lecture. Point is, I learned how to code in Java from this guy better than (both) my 103 teachers (I withdrew from my first 103 class because I wanted to take csc141). My grade might not show how much I gained from this class, but I do know that if not for Kearn's 102 class, I would've drowned in my csc103 class.

I did find it difficult to understand where Kearns was going with certain assignments but he did make it clear once he showed you the solution. All I know is I would not recommend this guy to anyone who did not get a solid B+/A in 101. I know of at least 5 people who either failed or withdrew from my section of 102. I also feel like the long review (its either right above mine or all the way at the bottom of the page, depending on where mine gets put) was written by Mr. Kearns himself as it sounds very much like the way he speaks in class.

He's great. I love her. He knows exactly wat he's talkin about in class; he does it on purpose. he's so great that i wanna study more in CS than ever, so that i can get a good job at microsoft and fuck him over. that's right. that's right. that is right. shut up, tim. it's time to go home.

This guy was hard. He challenges you, but he doesnt challange you more than you can bear. He expects out of you what should be expected out of a college student. All the bad reviews for this guy are by lazy people who need to realize that they aren't in high school anymore and need to take some responsiblity. He is a good teacher. He knows his stuff well. And he is a pretty friendly guy. His midterms/final are pretty tough. Stay caught up and you shouldnt have a problem at all. He also curves the tests. I got a 50 out of 100 on my first midterm and a 61 out of 100 on my second midterm and had about a C average for my programs. I got a B+ in the class, which I dont really know how, but I know it was thanks to a nice curve. Overall, he's a good teacher. I'd take him again.

I had Professor Kearns for CSC 141 and for CPE 103. I can quite honestly say he is one of the best computer science professors that I have had while at Cal Poly and might be the best computer science professor that Cal Poly has. Yes, he can be a bit condescending at times and can have a superiority complex. But to be quite honest, he kind of deserves to have that. He has had an ungodly amount of experience and years in industry and teaching as a professor and knows exactly what he is talking about. I go into every class he has knowing that he may seem a bit harsh at times but he means nothing but well by it. He wants all of his students to succeed and he is absolutely brilliant if you go in and talk to him during office hours or after class. I have had a total of six large exams (midterms and finals) from Kearns and they are all fair. As long as you read the book somewhat regularly and work on the Labs and Assignments he assigns you will absolutely be prepared for everything and anything he could put on the exams. If you can I highly recommend you take any class that Professor Kearns offers. You will learn a ton and will come out feeling like you truly understand the material. Professor Kearns is the type of professor I was hoping for when coming to a well known and highly ranked university such as Cal Poly. Take him if you can!

Alright tl;dr this guy is trash, do NOT take him. I only got stuck with Kearns because he was all that was left when I registered. Looking back I would have rather crashed a different class or waited a quarter to take it with a different professor. He is one of the most arrogant and standoffish people I have ever met, so don't expect much help from him. If you ask him a question he gets mad that you don't know the answer. The lab portion of the class was useless and unorganized because Kearns let the TA run the whole thing. If you asked them a question about a lab/assignment you usually got two different answers because they failed to communicate with each other. His tests are far more difficult than they should be. I looked at my friends tests from other professors and their exams are much better. I don't want to be too mean to this guy but he was easily the absolute worst professor I've had at poly. I will never take another class from him again. I would love for the department to get rid of this guy. Complete jerk.

As far as I can tell, all of the bashing Professor Kearns gets on this site is due to people not reading the book, not going to the Lecture, or reacting to his occasionally superior attitude. For reading the book, if you didn't read it, that's on you. His midterms and final WILL test you on some parts of the book so that's something to look out for. It's never anything unreasonable though because during the lecture, he will go through parts of the book he thinks is important. So pay attention! If you don't go to lecture, you won't know what to look out for. Granted, his TAs aren't always the clearest in lab and sometimes the code they write is inconsistent and buggy. As for his "superiority complex", it's nothing major. In fact, if I wasn't looking for it, I really wouldn't have noticed it. He'll occasionally say things like, "You should already know this but..." and that's totally viable. Everything that follows that tidbit is something that, if you're taking this class, you should know. If you don't know it, don't feel bad. It just means that it's been a while, you haven't read the book, etc. But either way, if you can bring yourself to have the courage to ask him a question during class, he'll thoroughly explain it and ask if it clarified things for you. If it didn't, he'll either try to explain it a different way or tell you to ask him during office hours when he has more time to help you. He really is a pretty good professor who wants all of his students to learn and do well (if you put in the work of course). He's also very fair about the tests. He'll take out questions from the class that were unfair or badly worded and at the end, he'll even curve the grades. I really enjoyed taking his class but be sure to glance at the book when you have time. Take Kearns if you can!

He was one hard ass on exams but he curved the class as a whole so it really wasn't to bad, i could have sworn I had a C but i came out with B. Only bad part was we had to memorize all the algorithms in the Data Structures book, that was pretty diffiult. Also his labs for 103 were hard.

Kearns has no business teaching programming. He can't write code and barely even understands code from the text book. He made us take 103 in Java because C++ is obviously too complex for him. Also he makes you memorize every algorithm in the book - what good does this do for me? None. I could just look up a binary search ifi need one, so why memorize it for a single test. I think he tests this way because he would struggle to come up with his own programming questions to test us on since he doesn't know how to program himself. Wait for a better teacher ifyou want to be a strong programmer. Take Kearns if you want to learn how to memorize code from a book and recieve a bad grade for trying.

Tim Kearns is as moody as a cat in heat. If you have ever heard a cat in heat howl all night, then you allready have a good idea of how his lecture will sound. You probably can learn more about coding java from a cat in heat. Most of the pro-kearns reviews here look like kearns himself wrote them himself. Avoid this man because he lacks every quality that you would expect a competent teacher to have.

I am the guy who wrote "Take Kearns if you want to learn how to memorize code from a book and recieve a bad grade for trying," and I stand by my words. Real life answers don't come from memorized book answers. As an employed engineer now, I can firmly say that Kearns' class didn't prepare me at all for reality in engineering. That is because engineering requires serious thought, not pre-memorized BS. If he can't handle his current responsibilities, then he should relinquish some of it. Doing several jobs in a half-assed manner is unprofessional - do one thing and do it right.

This guy can't even code, what a joke of a professor. Absolutely horrible

This guy is bad-ass. He knows his stuff and he's good at explaining it. He's one of the best teachers I've had, period. After the first few weeks of class, I thought Kearns was just plain evil, but I eventually realized why I wasn't doing as well as I wanted to: I wasn't being precise. My definitions weren't precise, my proofs weren't precise -- I was sloppy. I learned to be precise from Dr. Kearns. And it's a good thing, because in Computer Science you can NOT be sloppy. At Cal Poly, with the best CSC program in the US, you better expect some intellectual rigor, and Kearns can provide it. If you can't handle a challenge, don't take anything class taught by Kearns. But if you can, Kearns' class will force you to become a better student and a more precise thinker. If you're already a good student, the course will still be challenging enough to keep you interested. Tips on passing 141 with Kearns: 1) Be precise. Every word in every definition is important. Every step in every proof is important. A sloppy definition on a quiz will cost you points. 2) Memorize the definitions. Make flash cards for tests AND quizzes. 3) DRILL! Do the homework, and then do each problem again before the tests. Do previous test and quiz problems as practice. You need to be able to do the test problems quickly if you want to finish. Each test in Kearn's class is a race against time. 4) Go to class and go to office hours. Although Kearns might sound condescending after the whole class bombs a quiz, he's really a good guy and he's definitely friendly. Kearns even holds special sessions before tests! This guy wants to help you. 5) Don't be afraid. I bombed my first midterm and still managed to get an A in the class. A lot of people complain about Kearns, but I think he's a great teacher. Yes, his class was hard, but this is a university. Challenge yourself!

I've never written a poly rating before but i feel like kearns deserves one the most because he is the perfect slightly below average teacher. You might not learn a whole lot in the class but you'll learn a little bit, he wouldn't be so bad if his class wasn't so boring, but at the same time he lays the work out for you pretty well, some days you'll make it through the class without falling asleep and some days you won't. To be honest the thing that makes this class so hard to sit through right now is that its 2 hours long. If you can avoid it I would but if not, just get a coffee, show up to class, do the practice midterms and you'll be fine. Also for all the people who says hes disrespectful, I don't know if I would go that far, but I definitely see where those people are coming from.

I found Professor Kearns to be a perfectly fine teacher. The reason the class was boring is because it's a totally dry subject. There was no homework and 1 online quiz per week which tested you on the material that was covered in lecture. The quizzes were extremely basic; you could get a 100% on each one if you paid attention for the first 30min of class. He provided study guides and practice tests for every midterm and final, and the practice tests were almost identical to the real thing. I also found him to be a genuinely nice guy who always offered to help struggling students and created extra office hours before big tests in order to help students prepare.

okay professor...TEBOWWWW!!!!!!

This guy's a prick. I don't understand how else to word it. Spawn of satan, I swear. He must have taught at hell's university prior to SLO.

Not the best teacher in terms of actually explaining students the material, but definitely a very caring teacher, who tries very hard to understand his students difficulties. His midterms are very easy, and people who dont do well in the simply do not study for them. The questions on the midterm are basically formulas and theorems and examples from the book just restated on the midterm. Thats all you really need. Memorize what he teaches you and your good to go. No need to really even do any homework. Now i do admit sometimes the tests might be hard.

I didn't think Kearns was horrible. Many times it was hard to understand what he was explaining, but he did the best he could. He seemed to really care about his students' grades, giving students chances to bring up their grades and by holding review sessions. He even puts in the effort to make videos if you miss class or want to relearn something and gives you links to other sources of information if you just don't understand the way he is teaching something. Although he isn't the best teacher, at least he cares. And from what I heard about Hatalsky's CSC 141 class, I would take Kearns over Hatalsky any day.

Why is this guy still allowed to be a professor? They really need to fire him and remove CSC 141 from the curriculum. He acts like he's this accomplished computer scientist when in reality, he hardly knows what he's talking about. He is extremely unclear in his lectures and unhelpful in answering questions. He will actually refuse to answer your question if you didn't "watch his video" (even if you did watch the video and just didn't understand it). His midterms are insanely hard and he doesn't curve them, so you will probably be failing for a good part of the quarter. Furthermore, he gives out a PROFICIENCY TEST, where a 90% or above is passing but doesn't affect your grade, and ANYTHING below that is an automatic F in the class. Why would anyone give a test that can only hurt the student? It blows my mind. The material of this course is stupid and irrelevant. Avoid this class at all costs.

He really is not the type of person that should teach people. He can't explain clearly and his class is just so sleepy. His midterm is insane and half of the class failed. (literately, 50% failed), and he still didn't curve. He also posted a proficiency exam, which won't count expect he will fail you if you get lower than 90%. Avoid this guy!

Wasn't the best experience. He would post videos for us to watch, and then assume none of us watched them because when we would ask questions in class he would just tell us to watch the videos. Tests were really bad, but if you just focus it is possible to pass. You will just have to make sure you understand the material on your own.

Professor Kearns was very bad at explaining the material without using jargon to present information to the students. As a teacher, you have to be able to understand the material well enough to explain the most complex subjects in simple terms, and he in no way had the capacity to do that. I personally worked and studied very hard in the class, and it is true that at least half the class ended up failing the course. He didn't curve anything and seemed to have a complex about students that couldn't quite grasp the material. I'm not trying to say to rip on Mr. Kearns, only warning you that as a teacher, he didn't present the course very well.

Kearns is a decent teacher for discrete structures. Coming from someone who retook the class (after getting a C- from Hatalsky), I think I can make a good judgment on how well he taught. The midterms and final were not at all hard, and were VERY VERY SIMILAR to the homework, although there was one tricky question usually in each midterm/final. The final was not very tricky, except the one thing he didn't put that we needed to know on the study sheet (we needed to know adj. matrices/lists for directed graphs and that wasn't on the study sheet), but the rest of the final was pretty basic and covered already. He also provides more information than Hatalsky on stuff you'll see in CPE 103, and helps you get a little bit more prepared with what you'll be seeing there. Overall, you want to take this teacher over Prof. Hatalsky, since Hatalsky puts tricky questions on his quizzes and midterms, assigns very difficult questions for the homework (much harder than kearns), and teaches things unnecessary for CPE 103. Both Kearns and Hatalsky have similar teaching styles, but Kearn's tests and final are much easier than hatalsky's.

Discrete structures is a hard subject by nature, so even if the teacher teaches well, it is still difficult to succeed in the class. In this case, Kearns is pretty good at presenting the material. He is not so good at recognizing when the class as a whole is struggling with a concept, but he does generally seem concerned for his students. Solid teacher, extremely hard subject.

I came here to review because Kearns does not deserve a 2/4 as rating. He deserves at least a 3. As a couple others have mentioned, CSC 141 is an annoying course regardless of who the teacher is, and you have to study to pass, especially if you have never seen this sort of stuff before. He does a good job of presenting the material and gives students little ways to see how the problems should be solved. He goes a bit by the book at times but at least his explanations are easy to relate to. I think I did pretty decent in that class, but I'm not going to lie, if you want to do well, you have to think about the material for yourself, i.e., it's a bad idea to passively listen to his lecture. Be careful on his midterms; I know the second one the average was a D. Do the work if you want to do well (unless you're a genius with previous CS experience or you just like to fail). The class is a moderately easy C, a medium B, and a very hard A. Oh, and of course, an easy D or F. Yippee!

Kearns can be a bit scatterbrained when explaining things. But if you actually do the reading BEFORE class, you will mostly, if not completely, understand the material once he explains it. I made the mistake of not doing any reading until the end, I also skipped several classes. The grades in his class were horrifying. The only reason I passed was because of a curve (otherwise, I would have had a D+, but it curved all the way up to a solid C). I regret not putting more effort into this class. PUT EFFORT INTO THIS CLASS. No matter who your teacher is, the information won't just be handed to you. This is college. Do the reading and do all of the Connect; also try to do all of the practice problems in the book (some of the test questions are derived directly from examples in the book and in lecture).

Kearns is the second worst professor I've had at cal poly so far (the worst being walter whipple). Kearns is arrogant and has a serious superiority complex. He is alright at teaching, but makes the tests and standards for the class far too high. His teaching style and attitude made the class very unpleasant

Kearns might be the most condescending motherfucker in the planet, but yet I love his class. The nature of discrete structures in itself is a hard class, and Kearns makes it 10x harder but going through the material like Usain Bolt. He also has this ridiculous flipped classroom policy where you do all the teaching online and on your own and come to class to do work. In short, he doesn't teach. Having said that, the class is manageable if you actually do the reading before the class. Though I did not find Kearns a great professor, his lectures were hilarious as he would spend the class time arguing with students, cause it's in his nature to be a condescending OG

nopenopenope

needs better things 2 do with his life

Kearns isn't a bad person. If you actually visit his office hours, he's very helpful and tries his best to explain the concepts in a way you might be able to understand. CSC 141 is definitely not for freshman hence why they're changing it so you take it in your 3rd year. The things I didn't like about Kearns is that he does a reverse classroom where you read first then he teaches the next day. So you're most likely going to feel lost in class if you don't read beforehand.The good news is that the class is extremely curved. tl:dr take Kearns if you're willing to actually put in time and effort.

No.

argues w/ students 24/7 and doesn't teach

I'm going to reiterate what has been said on here multiple times already: I do not understand why the hell he gets so ripped on. Maybe it's hypocritical of me to say this since I did halfway decent in his class, but I think people just get super bitter if they fail his class and come on here to rip him, which just isn't fair. I'm sure there have been/are better people to teach 141, and it is definitely true that the guy comes across condescending and like he has a superiority complex at times. But the guy knows his stuff, is (contrary to popular belief) pretty good at explaining in lecture if you are keeping up, and he's not a bad dude. He was always fair when I would email or speak with him, and held special office hour sessions before both midterms. If something appeared in the book that was over-the-top hard, he would tell us explicitly not to worry about it on tests. Which brings me to my last point: his tests were not absurdly hard either. Some scantron questions were tough, but free-responses and proofs were always straightforward. Don't get me wrong: I was very scared about taking 141 with this guy when I saw his Polyratings page. I'd already come in with a preconceived idea that the class would be crap, which was definitely a bad thing. And yet, on the first day I found it to be pretty damn entertaining if you stayed engaged and did not just freakin' give up the instant something didn't make sense. Maybe this class just made sense to me (I struggled bigtime in Calculus 4 FYI), but I did not find it incredibly hard and I definitely did not feel like Kearns' teaching was a problem at all. By all means, try for the other sections if you want, but let me tell you that you'll be fine in his class.

He's not a bad professor at all, unlike what his polyrating implies. I actually got a decent laugh reading some of the past reviews for him. The only bad thing about him is his superiority complex and even then it's not noticeable unless you actively look for it. The midterms are easy if you do the assigned reading before class and properly do the homework (average grade is a B). The online quizzes are also free As (do them with a friend if you must). There's no reason you should get a C or lower for this class unless you slack off big time and get behind.

Kearns is one of the better professors for Data Structures. Although it's tempting to rip him for not having the best slides, he knows his stuff and gives very thorough explanations and examples during class. He is also willing to help during labs and office hours. Be warned, however -- the class itself requires a lot of individual work, learning and understanding. It's not stuff that can be handed to you on a plate during lecture. Also, for Kearns, listening > talking. He has a sharp tongue and is not afraid to use it

Don't take Kearns. His lectures are fairly straightforward but his condescending demeanor makes it very difficult to ask questions in class or in office hours without fear of him scoffing at you. He is the toughest grader I have ever had in my life; the midterms and final will consist of long answer questions which are worth 12 points out of 100 each. Each of these questions is somewhere between 4 and 12 lines of code. If you mess up a SINGLE line but get the rest of the code flawless, he will at BEST give you half credit, and more often no credit because 'the code doesn't work'. He even boasts the fact that he likes to grade students harshly and round up the class at the end, but his hardball grading style makes no sense.

His lectures were extremely unhelpful. The only lecture that actually helped was week 9 when he explained what was on the final! He’s pretty strict in his class and gets unproportionately mad over any kind of side conversation

I put a lot of work into this class, more work than any of my other classes. I was also in one of the better groups too. The midterm and final weren't even that hard, despite that, I limped out of this class with a B. It must be that dumb ass manager evaluation based on his "feelings" that count for about 10% of your grade. This guy always seems to be in a bad mood so I wouldn't expect him to dish out accurate evaluations. Despite this manager evaluation bullshit you can learn a lot from this guy. He has a lot of industry experience and is a good person to take if you want to learn something useful.

This guy is clueless. He says one thing, and when you do it, he marks you down for it. He doesnt really know a lot, except a bit from job experience. Other than that he just reads what you read and tells you about it. Real learning experience there. Take him only if you have to.

The coursework is fairly easy although sometimes it is unclear what Kearns wants you to do. Grading for this class is a mess since you don't know a major part of you grade (teacher evaluations) till you recieve your report card. Because its a teacher evaluation that mainly determines your grade, make sure he knows your doing alot of work. If your doing outside class work and he doens't know about it, he'll assume you are not doing anything, resulting in a lower grade. Kearns doesn't seem as though he has a clear path laid out for the course. Things seem thrown together at the last minute.

When I took CSC205 from Kearns it was his first time teaching it at Cal Poly. When I take that into account, I think he did a good job. He knows what he is talking about and is willing to help you out if you need it.

Kearns knows a lot about OOP and other CSC 205 topics, but he's very unclear and disorganized about what he wants done. I put a LOT of work into this class (more than any other class I have ever taken) and still got a B. Most of the grade depends on whether or not he likes you (He claims that 10% of grade is based on his feelings, but I would argue that it's more like 70%). He also seemed very biased towards certain groups in class, and I have a feeling that he may be looking to hire them or use their code. How can he give OBJECTIVE grades when he's thinking like that?! I guess that's what happens when cal poly hires someone who spends a lot of time in the actual computer business. I have a feeling that CSC205, in part, is like a recruiting field for hot java programmers for Kearns. That sucks for the rest of us who are there to LEARN something! He also assigned a B.S. Java assignment without giving us a single lecture on the language. hello!

He knows what he wants. But people rip on him because he doesnt tell you outright. He gives you clues an makes you think about it for yourself. Its my understaning that that is exactly what is supposed to happen in CSC 205. His tests are directly out of the book and his slides. Dont ever fall behind, his due dates may be tenative, but you want him to review your document so he can critique it. He expects something different from each student, depending on the level at which they enter the class, and most students interpret this as him demanding unequal work loads. Its his way of properly motivating you. Give him a chance and in the end you will feel better because you took him.

It's fun to see all the little Freshman and Sophomores bitch about how Kearns doesn't know what he's talking about and how he's a hardass... it's entirely clear that they have no idea what CSC 205/206 is all about. First, Kearns *knows* what he's talking about; if you ever ask him, he'll tell you about all the software engineering work he did at Bell Labs... and Bell Labs doesn't produce crap software. He's got the experience in this stuff, so if what he he says sounds a bit weird, it's probably because you're thinking about it in the context of games or Word, or any Microsoft operating system, where mediocrity and the 'just-good-enough' mentality are fine. Kearns was out there busting his butt to make sure your phone has dialtone... they're a bit of a different league. Second, everyone complains about how he says he wants one thing, and then grades on another... that's the WHOLE POINT of 205/206. Customers in the REAL WORLD are like this, and they do that kind of crap to you ALL THE TIME. The reason so many students totally crash and burn in 205/206 is because they don't understand this simple fact: it's not so much what you produce or how you produce it, but rather how you DEAL with what Kearns, as the customer, throws you. Everyone says that he doesn't know what he's looking for when he's grading, but the fact of the matter is that you don't know what he's looking for when he's grading... he knows just fine. Most people, I find, who have a problem with Kearns and/or his teaching style are the type of people who think Microsoft software actually works, and they're just in this major for the money. Those people are going to flunk, as well they should. The real world is not Microsoft shitware and stupid investors throwing money at dot-coms that will fail. If, on the other hand, you want to find what the real world of software development IS about, take Tim Kearns.

Mr. Kearns is the worst teacher that I have ever had. He brings his personal problems into the class room and dumps his stress on the students. When he is having a bad day, you can count on him taking it out on his classes. This is not even close to being professional and is the biggest reason why I lost all respect for him as a person. Criticism from him is more like verbal abuse than constructive criticism. Does this soundlike a man hwo knows how to teach? NO! Honestly, he thinks that 205 is a prerequisite for 205, because when I would try to ask questions to him in his office about anything, he would simply say "You should allready know that." That doesn't give me a clue - it doesn't even help me at all. Students who have work experience similair to the 205 curriculum do well and old-man kearns loves them and gives them special treatment. I always thought that teachers were supposed to try helping struggling students instead of stroking the advantaged students' egos. He even offers money to the really experienced groups, but not to others. This is a fact! How can his grading be fair if he has special interests in groups that he has"hired". I don't even think that this is legal for him to do. Think about it. In summary, I would have to agree with the other evaluation on Kearns - a monkey with a stick would have taught me more about 205. Hell, a dead monkey with a stick would have taught me more about 205!

Good instructor. You can really learn a lot from him and he can give you a different perspective on the major. I would recommend him for project classes like this one

I also had him for CSC 205. Too many people are complaining here about Kearns being unclear in his class format, grading, etc. If you are taking CSC 205/206, expect vagueness, that is the nature of the course, you are supposed to be figuring out how to produce as a group. I found Kearns to be very accessible and reasonable, and I highly recommend him. He has plenty of real world experience and can offer sound advice. He is easy to talk to and will listen, you just have to be willing to speak up.

Well, reading all these responses about Dr. Kearns sure is interesting. I've taken him for a few classes and even worked for him. I won't tout him as the worlds best professor, but most of these evaluations are sung to the tune of the blame game and "he's the reason I failed". Wake up kids. Man I feel old saying this, but grow up. If you are going to sleep or talk in class, he doesn't stand for it. In a college level course you gotta learn to respect your professor. Don't go to class if you're not gonna listen, it's useless to you and insulting to him. He's happy if you don't show up cuz you wouldn't have gotten anything out of his lecture anyway by sleeping. He's working hard to teach you some pretty tough material and play the juggling game with his position as department chair. It takes a lot of work, and sometimes, if you think the class may not be his top priority, you're probably right. I wonder if any of these people actually realize how much work and pressure he is under as department chair, but yet he'll still take the time to help you out if you go to him. And as a response to the person who said "Take Kearns if you want to learn how to memorize code from a book and recieve a bad grade for trying," take a lesson from real life buddy. You don't get A's for effort. Learn it now, or fail later, your choice. Kearns is one of those professors that prepares you for real life, your grade isn't gonna matter after college, concentrate on what you can actually learn from him, which is a hell of a lot.

Dr. Kearns gave one of the weekly lectures in ENGR 213 (See Dr. Walsh). He took up time from the lecture lecturing us like high schoolers about how he was the only one allowed to talk. He also mentioned at the end of lecture that if we continued not to pay attention, we'd all lose our jobs. I say let us figure that out for ourselves, you baby.

Tim Kearns gave one of the weekly lectures in ENGR 213 (see Dr. Dan Walsh). His was on DNA sequencing, and the algorithm that helps it along. It, like most of the other lectures in the class, was unapplicable to a majority of the students in the room. Kearns also gave us a lecture on how if we didn't become better students (i.e. not fall asleep during boring lectures, take better notes, kiss up), we'd all lose our first jobs. Then he started crying about how he was the only person allowed to talk, as if we were highschoolers.

As mentioned below, Dr. Kearns was one of the lecturers for the horribly organized ENGR 213 class. And, as was mentioned, he had to discuss something PROBABLY wasn't benefitial to any of us in the class. His lecture was a bit boring and he made everyone move to the front and yelled at people who slept, but he had more than adequately prepared for his lecture, and tried to explain the matrix table to the best of his ability. And, even though he is chair of the CSC department, when I had questions about the matrix, he was willing to take a few minutes out of his extremely busy schedule to show me how it was done. So, even though I haven't experience him for a quarter, based on this - I would take a class with him, because he isn't a lazy joke of a prof and was willing to help out, even if may be a bit moody.

Kearns is an odd little man. It is obvious that he is excited about his field and that he wants to share, but he assumes that all of his students are idiots. He has a hard time explaining what he is talking about and wanders off subject all the time. He just says that we wouldn't understand and moves on. However, he is very helpful one on one and his enthusiasm keeps you from nodding off. Despite his shortcomings, I think I would take him again.

Lectures were a waste of time and it was better to sleep in, you gained more information. His only midterm was kinda hard and the lab notebooks and hw were also a waste of time. His teaching SUCKED and I honestly felt like I learned more from reading online and books than I did from him. I took the class because I thought it would be interesting and useful, but in the end learned it all myself. A couple of times he spent more than half the class period writing out an algorithm and explaining it and then realized he made a mistake and started over again.

Fine teacher, but a little dry in the presentation. I wouldnt suggest having her at 8:00 in the morning, might be difficult staying awake.

Kearns had no business teaching this class. He showed videos every lecture and was in lab for 10-15 minutes before he left to allow professor Dana to take over. The specs he wrote for papers were muddled and confused and he had no idea what he wanted which caused confusion for everyone. Tests were on videos and the TA's had no idea how to grade. BY FAR the worst class I have taken at poly. Shame on the university and this professor for such an ironically unprofessionally executed course. If you don't have the budget to do a class right, do offer it at all.

You are seriously considering taking this class with Kearns? Are you crazy?

Kearns is a down to earth and overall nice guy. He is blunt and does not hesitate to let you know what he expects from you. This course is not too hard, but the first half of the class had a lot of memorization (killed my grade). If you prefer to learn algorithm concepts by actually programming instead of drawing it out, the second half of the class with be perfect for you. Kearns genuinely wants you to succeed and is very helpful in office hours. Put in a little effort into understanding the concepts, visit him in office hours to double check you are getting everything right, and you will do fine. Also, ask him any technical interview questions you've heard/need help with. More than likely he knows the answer!

I thought that Algorithms with Kearns was a pretty good class. This is the first time you really go into algorithms and data structures in-depth, and, to me, the content was exceedingly useful. Before 349, there are plenty of programming problems where you think, "Is there actually a reasonable way to solve this?" and here you'll finally get some mind-blowingly clever tricks applicable to any number of situations. As for the class structure, you shouldn't worry. There's weekly homework from the book that isn't collected. I never did it, but the problems are helpful if you're able to spend the time. There are assigned (and collected) problems occasionally where you have to create or analyze one algorithm or another. There are a few programs due throughout the quarter where you essentially write a couple simple functions. I found them kind of fun, and they make the material stick. The midterm and final were tricky, but if you go to class, pay attention, and complete (and understand) the homework, they're totally fair, and an A or B shouldn't be out of reach. Kearns isn't the most exciting professor you'll ever have, but he knows what he's doing, and he's done real computer science work. Lectures can a bit dry, but I'm not sure what else you'd expect from an algorithms class. He gets the material across and is sure to do a lot of examples and take the necessary time to answer questions. Lastly, I'd note that Kearns is one of the most caring professors you'll ever have. There can be a heavy workload at times, but it's an appropriate amount, and it's just because he wants you to learn the important concepts. He constantly asks if there's anything he can do to make your life easier, and he's always interested in your education as a whole and how the department can do better. If you struggle at all and make a reasonable effort to learn in class, go to office hours; he'll bend over backwards to help you out.

After taking 349 with Kearns, I regret not taking it sooner. The concepts you learn in this class are VERY important, especially when you are applying for jobs/internships. I wish there had been more programming assignments during the quarter, instead of mostly just pseudocode that did not really make the material stick. I thought it was kind of ridiculous that Kearns assigns weekly homework that is not collected, it's just like Nico assigning a chapter of reading a week. No one has time to do it. Regardless, if you pay attention, complete all of the assignments and spend the time necessary to understand it, you will be fine. Kearns can be kind of dull to listen to, but he does the best he can with the given material, considering algorithms is not all that interesting (to me) to begin with, I think Kearns does a fine job of teaching it. Once you get to know Kearns, he is a nice guy and if you go to him during office hours, he will try to explain things to the best of his ability. I would recommend taking Kearns over Staley as I have heard Staley can be overwhelming and that certainly is NOT the case in this class. Since there are few assignments, I did not need to spend more than a few hours each week outside of class to be fully prepared. A word of warning, the midterm and final are difficult and require a lot of time, especially since there is so much material.

Second class I've taken with Kearns, voluntarily! Kearns is very helpful and although he may not be the best at explaining things, he tries his best and actually acknowledges his mistakes. In addition, unlike most other professors, he actually let almost (if not all) everybody on the wait list into his class and made special accommodations to fit people into the lab section. Overall, I would recommend Kearns.

This is the best class I have taken at Cal Poly, and the most informative. I feel that he is speaking in earnest when talking about his primary goal of teaching students the material as effectively as possible. Too many Cal Poly engineering classes are just recycled lecture slides, lab manuals, and assignments from years past with little consideration given to improvement in student understanding. Professor Kearns, with his emphasis on a well balanced "cognitive load", offers a refreshing and, in my opinion, proper emphasis on knowledge and understanding which will definitely last much longer than the inflexible, more trivial and traditional classes that you often take. The pace of the class was a little slow for me, as I felt that we spent too much time on algorithms that people should have already been familiar with from CS103, but perhaps the review was more needed than I realized for some in the class. The exams are easy if you understand the algorithms. There were numerous small assignments throughout the quarter - these do a good job of keeping you constantly engaged with the material throughout the quarter, but never overwhelmed. It is a shame that I did not have Professor Kearns earlier in my Cal Poly career, as I would have taken more classes with him.

Algorithms may be a tough class and you may feel overwhelmed, but if you're a hard worker, you'll do fine. It may feel challenging to understand and figure out all of the problems Kearns throws at you, but the important part of those problems is that you learn the concepts. It's ok if you don't figure out how to solve the problem, as long as you can apply those concepts that were used to solve that problem to future problems. Kearns teaches you all the types of algorithms that companies use in interview questions, so he's a great teacher and a great course to take before you try to land an internship. There's a massive curve in this class because the midterm and final are brutal. For the midterm, not a single person got over a 90 in both classes... However, a tip is that you should redo the homework and the lab problems and do the practice study guides before the midterm and final, because a lot of the stuff on it is similar to it. Another tip is that Design and Assignments are also related to the homework problems(as I found out ~halfway through the quarter), so check the solutions of those if you find yourself stuck. Good teacher, lectures aren't boring, but study hard in this class because you will need to.

Dr. Kearns can be hard to communicate with when you need clarification or any sort of help. He has a hard time seeing anyone else's point of view, so be patient. Though he truly does care about his students, do go into office hours and get to know him. The class is hard, there is a lot to learn, but if you dedicate the time and effort it is manageable.

Professor Kearns has a problem understanding his student's perspective. He lectures as if he is re-teaching himself the course material instead of teaching minds new to the subject matter. I had him for CSC 365 as well, and during both courses I got the feeling, being department chair was more of a priority than teaching. With respect to this class in particular, there are essentially weekly homework assignments, which he supposedly grades, but never returns, two difficult midterms, and of course a cumulative final. Unfortunately, between Kearns and Brady, there are only two options for those required to take Algorithms: take Brady and kiss your social life goodbye but learn a lot, or take Kearns cross your fingers for anything higher than a D and learn little. Kearns should keep to his work as department chair and stay out of the classroom.

Kearns is perhaps the worst teacher in the CSC department. I don't know why they made him head of CSC, but i guess they realized he was so bad at teaching and they can't fire him so they made him department chair. His 349 lecture was boring and he explains things in a manner that is hard to understand and visualize. His tests are difficult and none of the questions are represenative of his lecturers. Be prepared to do a lot of studying and learning on your own as he tries to explain problems that he doesn't even understand during lecture.

I would rate the class difficulty as almost too easy (hopefully Kearns will make the Labs/Projects a bit harder and worth more of the class grade in the future). The problem you will have is it seems you are doing alright but then when the midterm comes you get smashed. His exams are tough, even if you think you know the material you should go through it a few more times. If you find a section you aren't sure on, go into his office hours and ask questions (he will do his best to help unlike some other professors). Kearns will also do a solid job trying to drill it home that you need to take the time to go through the assigned readings and try example problems to be sure you know what is going on. DO NOT take this advice lightly (this was my mistake among not asking enough questions to make sure I knew the material). In the end it seems other students also had difficulty on the Midterm/Final so the class was curved. I was extremely lucky to have been able to pass, and surprised given my grade on the Exams I did. That being said Kearns is a really fair professor, if he knows you are trying he will help -- but you need to ask!

I'm a bit surprised by the polyratings of kearns. Going in to this class, i expected prof. kearns to be a terrible teacher and that i was going to dislike this class a lot. But that really wasn't the case. It seems as though kearns has seen these ratings and is trying to change things around. Already he's given us two surveys asking us how the class can be improved, and really does take in advice. I'm not done with the class as it's only week 6 currently, but kearns is definitely doing his best to help students out. Homework Load: not that bad, just like any other CSC class Midterm: he gave out a midterm practice sheet that was somewhat similar to midterm, VERY helpful. Just ask him questions and you'll be fine.

I'm not sure why everyone is hating on him. Kearns is one of the best professors I've had in the department. He's really caring and down to earth.

Kearns definitely knows what he's talking about when he's teaching the subject matter. However, he's not quite as good at recognizing where students are having difficulties in the course. Instead, he'll blame the class when we do poorly on an assignment or on an exam, saying that we should have studied harder or come to office hours. But the good thing about this is that the curve is pretty sweet (though it probably depends how hard your class tries). I probably should have gotten a C, but the curve got me a B. Kearns genuinely seems interested in helping students understand the material and is more than willing to help you out, but he's pretty condescending when you ask for help. Overall, good professor, not such an exciting subject. I'd consider taking Kearns again, he's really not as bad as the reviews make him sound.

I feel like this is an up and down course. Parts of it are really interesting (anything to do with graphs and data structures) and parts are very boring (linear programming). I think Kearns tries pretty hard. He put on multiple review sessions on the weekend before the midterm and final. He is not obligated to do stuff like this, so that's something I really appreciate. Kearns lectures are also up and down, I'd say. He has a tendency to write things down mathematical notation first, when he'd be better served to draw a picture and explain the basics of things first. He did a couple videos which I appreciated, but they aren't quite on the level of Staley's 349 videos. Which brings up another point: I think this is a hard class to teach. Watching Staley's 349 lectures, they aren't perfect either--they are either spot-on or overly complicated. I think the problem most of us had with this course is that we now know many algorithmic techniques, but we still aren't amazing at applying these techniques to a specific problem. For me, I think it will just take more study on my own time. Other stuff: the midterm and final are extremely difficult. The class average on the midterm was a 50%, so my 66% ended up being pretty decent. The final was extremely hard. Go to Kearns' review sessions for it!

Kearns is unjustly maligned!! First off he REALLY knows his stuff and if you give him time to explain it he can really helpful. However as some people have noticed he is not the best communicator. I like to think of kearns as someone who has the entire universe worked out in his head, but there's no way for him to explain it properly to people. When you ask him for help you can watch him struggle to find a way to express his understanding to you in a way that will help you. But like I said he does try and he is a genuinely nice guy. He's not like some other professors (who shall not be named) in the CSC department in that he really cares about helping you, it's just that, algorithms is a hard class, and you have to put a lot of work in to get anything out of it in the first place. This is all to say: give Kearns a chance, and ask him for help, and you'll get something out of the class.

Rude.

Not exactly sure why Kearns has such a low rating, probably because he teaches 141 so much (and everyone hates that class). He presented the material in a clear way that I felt was easy to understand. He often stopped during lectures to get student input, which some people may or may not like. It kept me more engaged. There's a ton of homework to do which you'll get very little credit for, but DO it since its critical to doing well on the exams. Make sure to do the "thought problems" he assigns as well, since you'll need to know them for the final. Basically just do the shit he tells you to do and the class won't be too bad.

Honestly, I too am surprised that he gets ripped on so much. To be honest, every time I have asked him questions he has been extremely helpful and has always cared that I understand what is going on. I do agree there are times where he is a hardass, but to be honest, I really enjoy having him as a professor and would definitely take him again. I honestly feel like he gets poor poly ratings for the same reason Mammen does: they don't put up with bullshit. If you are soft and can't handle the truth/don't put in the work, they will get frustrated with you. If you are respectful and work hard, like most students, you should find Kearns to be a good professor. I was scared taking 349 when I saw his PolyRatings, but I really enjoy his teaching style.

Kearns is a knowledgeable about the material he teaches and is very good at explaining and interacting with students. I feel like a lot of people don't like him because they don't like the pure mathematical side of computer science. Personally I think our department needs more professors like Kearns, he really is a good lecturer, anyone who tells you different is probably just upset because they have a hard time with the material. I have a hard time with the stuff Kearns teaches as well but he is very willing to help.

Dr. Kearns is easily one of the best professors in the department. All the hate he receives on polyratings is entirely unjust, probably from students upset that they didn't do too well in 141. They should realize that 141 (now 348) is one of the most important classes in the major, especially to prepare you for 349 which turned out to be the best class I've ever taken. Kearns explains stuff clearly. 349 can be conceptually difficult, especially if you don't have a solid math background, but Kearns breaks all the types of algorithms down very clearly and gives you plenty of opportunities to figure everything out. He's an extremely knowledgeable professor and very helpful in class, lab, and office hours. Truthfully, the department needs more professors like Kearns, with a strong algorithmic background, to really stress the importance of the theory behind computer science.

TL;DR: Exams are more about memorization than problem solving skills. Kearns is decent at lecture, but gets lost sometimes and is mediocre at understanding questions. The assignments are good at making you learn the content. If you're CPE, 349 is worth taking, but you might as well wait until someone with more relaxed grading is available. Lecture: I had the 8:00am section of the class, and Kearns usually got confused somewhere in his own example once per class. It felt like he hadn't prepared the lecture quite thoroughly enough when he accidentally did the wrong kind of proof (although the direct proof was still valid), even though he was frequently looking back at his own notes. My overall impression of lecture was that he rarely chose the best way to explain a concept, and then didn't do a good job of interpreting students' questions. However, I would still say that he is about average for getting the content across, just because I've had professors that were way better and others that were way worse. Lab/work: The assignments are all weekly and there is only one project all quarter. I found the workload to be pretty standard for a CS class (think 202 or 203). If you're good at problem solving, then the work probably won't be very hard, but it's not trivial either. The assignments do a good job of forcing you to actually learn the algorithms instead of just copying them down in lecture, so in the long term (after college) you will be the happiest if you put in the most effort to developing good problem solving skills by doing the work on your own instead of Googling the solutions. Also, Kearns sets the deadlines for Sundays at 9:00pm, so if you procrastinate frequently, you'll be burning half of your weekend for the entire quarter. Exams: While I found Kearns's lectures to be adequately mediocre and his assignments to be good, I drastically disagree with his exam style. While most professors write exams where there are a couple of questions that you should have answers memorized to and the rest are problems to solve, Kearns's midterm was nearly entirely questions that required a memorized solution to have a chance of finishing within the time constraint. This means that you will get the best grade by just memorizing each algorithm with almost no benefit from actual problem solving skills. If you find yourself in this class, pay attention to how much extra time you have when taking the online quizzes. I was able to finish those in around 15 out of 20 minutes, but for the midterm, I only had time to attempt ~75% of the questions, and those were only the ones that I remembered the exact answer to. Grading: We're only in week 9, so I can't comment on grading. I have been told that there is a curve, but I don't know how nice it is. Attitude: Kearns's attitude can be pretty accurately summed up by one interaction I had with him at the end of lecture: I asked whether we were allowed to write an inductive proof in a slightly different format (the format I learned in Vikalis's 348 lecture). Kearns said it was okay, but "[I] sat in on Vikalis's lecture once, and after just five minutes I could tell why students who had taken his class have so much trouble in mine." Kearns believes that he is doing a great job and students just struggle because of difficulty with material, not his teaching style. Also, when students ask a question along the lines of "Does this problem constraint mean X or Y?", he will usually answer, "X. I don't see any way you could possibly interpret it as Y." I think that this is what gets on most students' nerves (including my own). Note for CPEs: If you're taking this class as an elective (like me, yeet), then you're just here to learn the concepts. Kearns's assignments will force you to do that, but at the cost of annoying midterms and a poor job of answering questions. If you're talented at coding/problem solving (top 20% of your coding classes by ability) and don't need this class as a prerequisite, then I would highly recommend just learning the concepts on your own. There is material available online for all of it, and you'll be saving yourself some (albeit only moderate) pain. Otherwise, try waiting for a nicer professor to be available. If you're only taking a class to expand on your knowledge and problem-solving ability, then you shouldn't sign up for a professor who makes you memorize a bunch of little details for tests that won't matter in the long run. Overall: I understand why a lot of people hate Kearns, and while I don't despise him, I find him pretty annoying. You'll learn pretty much everything you need to know, and if you're the kind of student who excels at memorization more than problem-solving, you should do well on his exams compared to your peers (and with the curve, that means well in the class). Don't be afraid to ask your peers for help if you get stuck on assignments, and you should do fine.

Easily the worst professor in the CS department. Spends way too much time trying to write out proofs when he should spend more time focusing on the algorithms themselves. This is not a proofs class, this is an algorithms class. Ended up curving our class by a measly 10% which is not worth it considering the midterm average was 50%. So in other words he is aiming for a 70-75% class average. He is not afraid of failing people. Do yourself a favor, ask the CS department for a new 349 teacher since his classes keep getting overbooked. Take Garibiyan she is way better.

Extremely condescending towards other professors in the CS department. Constantly rips on them for not teaching the right material. Even with a 50% class average on the midterm, he only curved the class by 10%. Don't take him for 349, hopefully they will replace him with a better professor or he will retire with his arrogance.

Professor Kearns might seem like a nice and intelligent man when you first meet him. The Catholic Church might seem like a nice and respectable institution when you first learn about it. Just like the Catholic Church fucks little boys, Kearns is going to try and fuck you in this class. Giving a lab and an assignment for every week is fine. Giving labs and assignments every week on material that the students have to teach themselves because he teaches the class by making us watch his crappy youtube videos is garbage. Giving a lab and assignment to be due the Sunday before finals week, on material he did not cover at all, and after the "final project" was due is absolute bs. Plus his tests are hard and he grades like a dick. Save yourself the pain in the ass and take anyone else for this critical course in your CS education.

do not take 349 with kearns unless your life literally depends on it

Kearns' screencasts changed my life... an inspiring figure from ye old Bell Labs, he is a titan of the past... If I were to describe his lectures, I would say: When he speaks, you can hear the cries of majestic valkyries riding winged pegasus' to victory. When he writes, it's as if he wields Excalibur to slay a towering Hydra.

I have read past reviews and am having difficulty recognizing the professor I had in class. Yes, he has difficult exams. Yes, he gives some hard assignments. YOU'RE IN COLLEGE!! GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO DO WORK!! Okay. Kearns will give exams that may seem difficult and his grading policies are very stringent. He doesn't give much partial credit at all and even says that he doesn't expect people to get an A on his exams. It's a challenge... just like the real world. Live up to it, study the material, and you'll be fine. His lectures, although given from powerpoint slides, were well explained. Any questions I asked were answered clearly and distinctly. He performed exactly like I expected a college professor to perform. Questions he didn't know the answer to, he either looked up himself or pointed us to a location where we could research the answer. I'd take any class he taught in a heartbeat.

I took this instructor in Spring'01.He doesnt know a shit about the stuffs he teaches in class.I dont know why he is instructor for this class.He knows only because of his work experience.He will kill you in the exams and he gives so much work to do.

Dr. Kearns is neither a great nor a poor professor. I think the reason he is generally seen as inadequate is that he doesn't stand out very much against the backdrop of Staley, Fisher, Turner, Nico, Chirica, and the other excellent members of the CSC faculty. If he put more effort into his databases class, I think he'd be able to achieve some of that greatness. Dr. Kearns definitely knows a lot about databases, but it sometimes seems he's reluctant to impart this knowledge. Aside from some odd quirks (such as a rather extreme dislike of people coming in 'late') he lectures off his slides and uses the same labs Chirica does. The workload is pretty low, though it fluctuates. Deadlines are officially hard, but he doesn't mind if you 'resubmit' something. He'd also give a higher grade if you turn in a complete lab late than if you turn it in on time and not finished. Some extra credit is available for going to various talks. The exams are based off lectures, labs, and slides- don't even bother with the book, it is a colossal waste of money. There is technically no homework, but you might have to work on labs at home. You can work in groups, and it's pretty imperative you do if you want to get done. We had a quiz, a midterm, and the final which was worth 40% of the grade. All of them were brutally tough, with queries and definitions forming the bulk of the scores. The midterm grades were so abysmal he let us 'resubmit' them for extra points. In this, at least, he was forgiving. The thing to keep in mind is that you shouldn't be worried if you're bombing so long as everyone else is too. It seems that Dr. Kearns has too much work to do at times- he rarely lectured on Wednesdays due to a department meeting. The class seemed like a second priority for him, below being department chair. Then again, at least he didn't load us up with busywork and expect us to know things he didn't cover. This makes him better than at least some professors I've seen.

Even if God comes down from heaven and asks you to take the class with TIM... NEVER TAKE ... @CALPOLY please don't play with students career.

Every graduate professor I've had and heard about to date, treats each student as his/her intelectual equal. Dr. Kearns boldly broke the mold. He treated the students with a complete lack of respect. Among other problems, we were not allowed to take notes, and he assigned a bogus project. Adding to the confusion was that the required text was only available in limited quantities from Amazon.com. I didn't recieve my text until the 5th week of class. Normally I wouldn't care, but he required that we do the assigned reading before attending class. I know this sounds stupid, but not being able to read before class warrented abrasive tone and language on his part. Here's a funny story. The sylabus that he passed out on the first day of class stated that there would NOT be a final. Huh, funny. Because in the 8th week of the quarter, he let us know that we'd have a final that was to be worth a LARGE portion of our grade. I think he is a bitter, old, and bad man, who is stuck in his ways (cliche, but true). I spoke personally with 15 of the apprx. 20 people in the course, and the unwavering concensus was consistent with what I have written. We vowed NEVER to take another course from him again. Although I was never singled out, I still feel animosity towards him when I see him on campus.