PSYCH 10

Introductory Psychology

1 of 4
Professor Most Helpful Review
1 of 4

PROFESSORS

Paul Abramson See Full Profile

Overall 3.7 Easiness 1.5 Workload 1.5 Clarity 3.3 Helpfulness 2.5

Most Helpful Review

I will never forget Abramson because he is just such a cool guy. I found his class to be very interesting and lots of fun. Yes, you have to read two books, but in my opinion, those are two of the best books I've ever read. And yes, an A is very doable.

April 15, 2013
Tamara Addison See Full Profile

Overall 3.6 Easiness 2.0 Workload 2.4 Clarity 3.4 Helpfulness 3.6

Most Helpful Review

Absolutely horrible. The psych class should be interesting but somehow she finds a way to make it completely and utterly boring. Her lectures are mundane and dry. She does a terrible job of getting her point across and she hardly ever does any examples to prove her point. The examples that she did do were so remedial that you had no idea what she was talking about and what point she was trying to get across. I took Psych 10 thinking that it would be a class worth my time. Boy was I wrong. Her tests have nothing to do with what she teaches and she makes the questions much harder than they need to be. Her questions are way to specific. I would not take this class if I were you. Especially if she is teaching it.

Nov. 30, 2001
AD
AD
Amber Ankowski Full Profile > N/A Overall N/A Easiness N/A Workload N/A Clarity N/A Helpfulness
No reviews have been written yet.
Amber Ankowski See Full Profile

Overall N/A Easiness N/A Workload N/A Clarity N/A Helpfulness N/A

Most Helpful Review
No reviews have been written yet.
Courtney Clark See Full Profile

Overall 3.9 Easiness 3.7 Workload 3.7 Clarity 3.9 Helpfulness 3.9

Most Helpful Review

If you want a quarter full of poorly worded questions and ambiguous multiple choice questions/answers, then take Courtney Clark’s class. The information in this class is straightforward and if memorized, you could probably redo all of her lectures yourself. Does this mean you’ll do well on tests? Nope. You could know the smallest details of each topic covered and still do horribly because you cant figure out what on earth she is asking or how to answer it. Unfortunately, this class is an intro class so it comes across as easy and is actually required for a few majors, but if I had the choice not to take this, I wouldn’t.

Fall Quarter 2018
Peter Clayson Full Profile > N/A Overall N/A Easiness N/A Workload N/A Clarity N/A Helpfulness
No reviews have been written yet.
Peter Clayson See Full Profile

Overall N/A Easiness N/A Workload N/A Clarity N/A Helpfulness N/A

Most Helpful Review
No reviews have been written yet.
J.A. Danan See Full Profile

Overall 4.2 Easiness 4.2 Workload 2.4 Clarity 4.4 Helpfulness 4.6

Most Helpful Review

Class is super easy and manageable; show up to class, do your clicker questions, and learn the slides and you're good to go. Professor Danan is still new to the teaching game, so the class format is always changing, but she tries her best. Questions raised in class, though they may stump her, will always be detailed in their responses on CCLE. The class doesn't have a section, but there are lots of TAs that are free to answer questions.

Winter Quarter 2018
AD
AD
Elizabeth Darvick See Full Profile

Overall 3.4 Easiness 3.1 Workload 3.8 Clarity 3.5 Helpfulness 3.4

Most Helpful Review

Before taking psychology, I was very interested in the course, because while I had never taken a psychology course before, I had heard very good things, the things I knew sounded interesting, and the rest I didn’t really know what to expect. Unfortunately, Professor Darvick was unable to increase my interest in this course for multiple reasons
.
For one, she’s an incredibly hard grader. Normally, that’s not a problem, because I know it’s important to really test that your students know the material. However, the difficulty of the course wasn’t because I hadn’t mastered the material (I spent hours upon hours learning it). Instead, she purposely made the material difficult to maintain a low C average. For example, each week she assigned weekly responses, which ask good, thought-provoking questions about the material we had learned that week. However, her grading rubric for it was fundamentally flawed. If I had answered the question perfectly well, I would get a 2/3 or a 67% on my homework (a fact she admitted herself). A 3/3 was reserved for people who went above and beyond like doing outside research to answer the question, a criterion that was never mentioned in class. These grades were set purposely low in order to maintain that low C average. I asked her, if everyone in the class wrote amazing responses using outside material, would we all get 3/3’s? The answer was no. It was only after several weeks of many complaints from students that she finally changed the grading scheme. Unfortunately, I and a lot of other students still have many 2/3s on our records because it took so long for her to change it.

In addition, while some of her test questions were a good representation of the material, a lot of other questions asked random specifics from the textbook (which included over 200 pages of in-depth reading) that were frankly, quite irrelevant. When I went in to ask her questions about the test, I found there were multiple correct answers because her test was fundamentally flawed. However, she would argue that the answers were not the “most correct,” and refused to back down on any of her incorrect answers.

She doesn’t even know a great deal on the material she is talking about. I went to her office hours a few times to ask specific questions from the book or from the material she taught in class, and she would pull up a page in Google to answer it. If I wanted an answer from Google, I would have googled it, not gone to office hours.
Darvick’s teaching style is taken straight from the book, and to be quite honest, I could have gotten up and taught the course the same way she had. Instead, I and many others pay to go to school with extremely highly qualified teachers who know the material they’re talking about. Both TAs presented guest lectures at the end of class, and, to be quite honest, their lectures were much better and more informative than Darvick’s. In fact, (TA) Peter Clayson’s lecture was so good that I would actually take a class taught by him because he was engaging and knowledgeable on the subject, two qualities Darvick lacks.

Overall, I still learned quite a bit about psych, but the amount of textbook work required for tests was unreasonable, as was Darvick’s grading scheme. The first midterm had many flawed questions, but the second midterm (which took place week 10) was fairer. Her homework policy was also ridiculous, as it seemed that the homework was pulling my grade down more than my test scores were. If you are willing to read a lot and not learn anything new in lecture, I would recommend this professor.

Winter Quarter 2016
T Dehardt See Full Profile

Overall 4.8 Easiness 2.5 Workload 2.5 Clarity 4.8 Helpfulness 4.8

Most Helpful Review

Dr. T was a really good teacher. Glowing evaluations are not something I submit lightly. For my first Psychology class at UCLA this was a wonderful experience. He does lots of practical demonstrations to help you understand the material (ie Acting out different mental illnesses, or proving us all wrong with psych concepts). It is a lot of work for an intro psych class, and the exams are challenging. I am confident that you will enjoy his class. For me it was practical and relevant in the real world. He did a lesson on persuasion techniques which I found relevant in my job.

April 4, 2012
Michael Fanselow See Full Profile

Overall 2.6 Easiness 1.0 Workload 1.0 Clarity 3.8 Helpfulness 2.8

Most Helpful Review

Took him for Psych 10. The class was divided into 3 different modules, with Fanselow as the teacher for my first module (approx. 3 weeks). He's an average lecturer/teacher. I don't think he's the best but definitely not the worst. I gave him a 10 for availability cause he podcasts his class (hell yeah!). Watched the podcasts ALOT. Ended up with a B+ cause I didn't take the class as seriously as I should've. The grade was entirely based on 3, 30 question multiple choice tests which weren't super hard but it had it's tricky, strangely-worded questions. The cool thing was even the discussion section was lecture style and podcasted. Soooo convenient. Especially for people who like to sleep in like me.

Aug. 6, 2013
Michelle Fenesy Full Profile > N/A Overall N/A Easiness N/A Workload N/A Clarity N/A Helpfulness
No reviews have been written yet.
Michelle Fenesy See Full Profile

Overall N/A Easiness N/A Workload N/A Clarity N/A Helpfulness N/A

Most Helpful Review
No reviews have been written yet.
AD
AD
1 of 4

It seems like you’re

using an ad blocker. :(


Bruinwalk is an entirely Daily Bruin-run service brought to you for free. We hate annoying ads just as much as you do, but they help keep our lights on. We promise to keep our ads as relevant for you as possible, so please consider disabling your ad-blocking software while using this site.

Thank you for supporting us!