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.

This class is doable if you need to take it, I studied HARD for both exams and got an A on the midterm and an A- on the final, yet I FAILED the paper, even though I spent days on it revising.
the TA's cant help on the paper critique and the grading was very arbitrary... the average for our paper was like 13/20 hence the TA's graded it VERY HARD. Ladan is an alright professor, she's sweet but very disorganized. the book taught me better. this class is alright, but seriously your paper grade depends on your TA which is honestly not fair.

Selling the PDF version of the textbook for $10!
**********

Selling textbook txt me **********
Psych120A Sensation & Perception (4th edition) **********114 Hardcover ($60)

Shams managed to make an interesting topic into a boring one. Her slides lack organization, making it very confusing and non-compatible for note-taking. She often discusses topics in a roundabout way, making things very unclear and giving the impression she is unprepared. She fails to make the class engaging, despite efforts to encourage class participation, due to her lack of organization and clarity when giving lectures. She also spends too little time on slides with important information, glossing over what I believe are the most crucial details in the subject so she can move on to visual examples, when she could incorporate both the important information and the visual examples together. Her slides are visually boring and lack any educational engagement, that is neither compensated for in her oral lecturing skills nor adapted for class participation purposes. Her demos at the end of lecture are somewhat interesting, but she definitely needs to find a way to integrate them within the lecture so that we can see examples as we're learning about them rather than see the examples all at once at the end of the lecture.

You would literally be an idiot if you didn't wait for Castel (Psych 120A). I have major regrets taking this class. Take my advice. This class is INSANELY difficult, and you have to read the books super closely and take good notes. You also must know everything from lecture. Everything is fair game, whether it's covered in lecture, discussion, or the readings. 0/10 would never recommend this headache again