Ladan seems like a really sweet woman and I'm sure an amazing professor, but in all honesty she should not be teaching. Lectures for this course were arguably some of the most dry, tangential presentations I've experienced—even at 2x speed on BruinCast. While she is very knowledgeable, she has a roundabout way of explaining things, making lectures difficult to follow while also being boring. As a psych major (as opposed to psychobio or neuroscience), I found that the material didn't even relate to any of my other courses (AKA where was the psychology aspect in this class). I honestly felt like I was taking a course to become an optomotrist. That said if you keep up with the readings and listen to the lectures you'll be fine. Also do the extra credit because it's a HUGE boost.

selling sensation and perception $10, text **********

The class focuses primarily on vision, even though it's called "Sensory and Perception." Professor Shams isn't exactly an engaging professor: she tends to spend 30 minutes on a concept that can be covered in 5 minutes, and even then she doesn't always present it in a way that's easy to understand. I prefer listening to her recorded lecture and putting it on 2x speed.

The TA (Susan) is extremely knowledgeable and I would recommend going to discussion if she's your TA because she does a great job explaining everything and summarizing the professor's lectures. Tests are reasonable so as long as you study, you'll be fine. Make sure you spend time on your paper assignment though because they tend to be graded more harshly than weekly assignments (which is based on participation)

DO NOT TAKE THIS CLASS. I REPEAT DO NOT TAKE THIS CLASS. Trust me on this. She is so unclear, her lectures are boring, and her exams are straight ballistic. I have a 3.8 gpa and graduating, and I'm telling you, this class has forsure dropped it way lower. Besides 100B, this is the WORST psych class I've ever taken. Do you're absolute best to take a different column A class, this was not worth it whatsoever. You'll thank me later

I disagree with these reviews. Professor Shams was very clear and incorporated a lot of visuals in the lecture that made the concepts a lot easier to remember. I missed a lot of the lectures and was able to do good in the class by watching the bruin casts. The material is really dense and technical so it makes sense that it doesn't come off as engaging or exciting, but the content of the class doesn't necessarily reflect her teaching style. She tried to make jokes often and made an effort to remember student's names. This is the kind of class that you can do well in if you stay on track with lectures and dedicate a good amount of time for studying. If you are willing to work hard in a class, don't take these negative reviews too seriously, you will do fi

Edit: to the person who commented above, fyi I've worked my ass off in this class. you can work hard and still not do well. this class will make your life more difficult. save yourself.

This class is honestly awful. I couldn't wait to write a review about it for the quarter to end after seeing the last review. I would strongly encourage you to NOT take this class. First of all, Professor Shams is not a good professor. I don't understand why UCLA thinks that just because someone is smart or good at research that makes them a good professor? I'm looking at you, Professor Jaffe. Not everyone is meant to teach! Shams is definitely NOT meant to teach. She is smart, but she is just not clear about explaining things. The way she articulates things makes things very difficult to understand. It's not even her accent, it's the fact that she mumbles, or she says "uhhh mmm" and then loses track and starts over and you're like what just happened?? No one shows up for class because honestly there is no point. If you are going to take this class, listen to her and type out everything she says so you don't have to listen to the podcasts again. Then read the slides along with the podcasts. That's what I've been doing and it's helped a lot. There's really no point in going to lecture. If you're stuck on something - READ THE BOOK. I know people on here have said that you don't need the book for getting an A in this class, but honestly, I don't believe that's true. Some of the concepts are difficult to grasp in this class, and the book for me has helped a LOT. The discussion slides are also very helpful. Exams are mainly based on the slides, but you absolutely have to know the material so make sure you use every resource that you can - and have at least a week to fully study for it.

The Paper Critique assignment is absolutely ridiculous and TA Susan Carrigan sent an email out to the class that none of us are expected to know how to design an experiment and told people that the average would never be greater than a 12/20 LOL. Okay. This is not UCLA or the Psych Department at this point being a challenging and having high expectations, rather - this is straight up being expected to mind read on what is right and what is wrong. Gives them an excuse to mark you down because they are purposefully vague af and they know more than you obviously being grad students = bad grade. Give me a break. Grades aren't out yet for the paper critique but tbh expecting the worst (20% of your grade) and would highly recommend you take another class to not deal with this headache.

First I just want to tell you that you don't need to read the textbook for this class in order to get an A. Use the textbook as a reference or if you need more explanation for a topic. You don't need to go to the class, just watch her BruinCasts in 1.5x and take perfect notes. Also study powerpoint slides of discussion sections carefully because they can be really helpful for the exams. She tried to be clear and helpful, and I think she explains concepts really good. Just know every detail in all the lecture materials and discussion power points. Then her tests would be really easy for you. The one thing that I don't like about this class is the paper critique. You have to read one scientific research paper and answer the questions about that. TAs didn't help much, and for students who didn't take 100B, this paper could be challenging. They graded harshly, the mean for our class was 14.5/20. I got 17.5, and I spent three days on that. Two exams each 35% and 10% minilabs ( They are annoying but easy!) and 20% the paper critique. I recommend this class than the 120A with Castel.

120A, or 120B with anyone else > this... You're smoking if you actually sign up for this class. Numbers literally don't lie; look at the ugly grade distributions, compared to Psych 120A, especially Castel

Saw other reviews and wanted to give my own view. Not the best student myself, less than B average, barely got a C in 120A, but I got a B+ and nearly got an A had I studied a bit more for my final. My experience was different tho because I did well on my paper that I never asked help from my TAs for, but I didn't do great on the tests. Regardless, she was very helpful if you went into OH to ask for it. I seem to have had a more positive experience than others.

Shams was an decent professor. Her lectures aren’t that engaging but the material is super interesting. Her exams are straight forward as long as you study her lecture slides. I received a 90% on both exams, but a 70% on the paper critique. Our TA’s graded very harshly which I think was super unfair because they provided zero help with writing our papers. I would definitely seek help writing the experiment if you have never written one before. She also gives 2.5% extra credit for participating in SONA.

I would still recommend the class because the exams were not difficult. But make sure your experiment is amazing because it will make or break your grade depending on the TA’s.