<p>I really don't know why I'm doing your professor ratings research for you, but a quick look at RateMyProfessors.com reveals:
Prof. Evans for Math 53 is very good. He has a nice timeslot this fall and very high reviews. The other 53 professor has no ratings. If you have a hard time accommodating Evans' timeslot, then...well, given the quality of his reviews, I'd actually go with him unless you have an un-resolvable conflict, but if you can't resolve a conflict, you're...well, stuck gambling.</p>
<h2>For 54, Holtz has glowing reviews, the other non-honors professor does not, and the alternative is the Honors version of the class...and, while taking the easier option may go against your personal code (particularly given that you have experience with the material), I can tell you from personal experience that you should not take the harder version of a class without a damn good reason (i.e. "I need it for my degree.").</h2>
<p>Personally, I'd say that it...really doesn't matter which order you take them in, actually. If you were coming out of High School having just finished BC Calc or a non-accredited Multivariable course, I'd tell you to take 53 now and 54 next semester<em>, and 53's material is certainly a lot less thought-intensive and much more computational, as UpMagic said. I strongly disagree with UpMagic's implication that 54 is the easier of the two, though - it seems like a lot of people (even at Cal) either aren't that good at what 54 requires, or have fallen out of the practice of actually employing. I loved it, but while our professor got excellent ratings for his teaching, most of my peers thought the material covered on the first midterm was very easy and that everything after that was an absolute brain</em>***.</p>
<h2>...also, if you're taking 7A, you might benefit from the computation practice you'll get from doing 53 at the same time, but if you're still very fresh on the material in 54, the easier time you'll have there is probably worth more (don't use your past experience as an excuse to slack off, though - it's an easy trap to fall into).</h2>
<p>Other prof recommendations, because I'm REALLY bored:</p>
<p>7A: Yildiz is new and doesn't like making his own problems, so he basically just pulls stuff out of the workbooks, lecture slides, and homework and sticks it on the exams (...or, at least, he did this Spring). The problems aren't easy, but they're very predictable and he's a decent lecturer. Lin's reviews indicate that he's a bit of a wildcard.</p>
<p>E10: The professor you sign up for is completely inconsequential, because the graded portions of the class are "Modules" taught by professors that you can (sort of) pick via a voting system. You get to take 2 modules, each of which is six weeks long. As to which modules to pick...
Pruitt's teaching the Mech. E. module and has good reviews.
Schruben's covering the IEOR module and has good reviews. That said, a lot of people found the IEOR module under Leachman to be boring as hell, and I was once again the odd one out because I loved it. Proceed with caution.
Hermanowicz is covering the Civil Engineering module, and...well, his reviews aren't glowing, but I didn't hear too many complaints from the people taking his section last fall. If you're taking 7A concurrently, you should be fine.
Devine's covering MSE and has fairly ambiguous reviews, much like Hermanowicz. I personally hated the labs for this module with a passion and will never take another MSE class again, but the lecture material was cool and I certainly don't regret taking the module.</p>
<p>Choose as you will.</p>