Looks like the evaluations below are on point. Prof. Shams is incredibly boring, and I suggest that you sit in in the front few rows if you want to be the least distracted and bored. She does go in circles sometimes and the powerpoint slides are incredibly plain and boring (although she does provide a few cool demos at the end of the class usually). She podcasts herself but listening to her podcasts is even more boring than being in class. Her tests are actually not too hard if you do the reading and pay attention to every detail in class, although there are a few tricky questions. She gives 5 extra credit points and her grade is based on a midterm, final, and a 2 page research review paper (you just basically answer questions about a paper they assign you). You also have 8 minilabs, which are assignments (about 1-2 pages worth of questions from that week's lecture topic/chapter) that the TAs e-mail you every week and you have to submit through Turnitin. Overall, she is doable, you just have to prepare yourself for the most boring lectures ever. Bring candy, it definitely helped me.

Professor Shams is incredibly boring. She talks herself in circles during lecture and is extremely confusing. Don't go to class, it's a waste of your time...just listen to the podcasts and read her slides and you'll do fine. At least the information is somewhat interesting, which helped to maintain my sanity during the quarter.

One of the easiest classes ive taken at UCLA. I went to class a total of 4 times during the quarter. I did not bother buying the book or even watching the podcasts. I studied the slides really well for like 5 hours before midterm and final. The paper took me 2 hours to write. And i only did 1% of the extra credit. Grade: A-

The discussions for this class are optional and as such are truly a waste of time since the TA's really only repeat the information stated during lecture. The lectures are podcasted so you don't have to go which was the case for about half of the class. There is one midterm and one final, both are non-cumulative, meaning that the midterm covers material from the first five weeks and the final material from the last five weeks. The exams are multiple choice. There is one "paper" that is just answering a couple of questions about a scientific article. The paper does not even have to be in essay format which makes it all that easier to write, the only hard part is creating of your own experiment. There are also mini-lab assignments that are very fast and more of a pain then anything.

Professor Shams is not a good lecturer, she will take 30 minutes explaining something very simple that could have been covered in around 5 minutes. Her lecture slides don't have a lot of information that is useful and it works better to just read the book. She focuses the whole class on vision, thats it. Out of the whole ten weeks there was only one lecture on hearing and that was the only other sense we tried to cover. Overall the class was extremely technical which is good if you have some sense of basic biological concepts but makes the material very dull and boring.

Lecture: I didn't talk to the professor much, but she seems like a nice lady. You don't have to go to her lectures because they're podcasted. It's more efficient to listen to those while going through her slides than go to lecture because it takes her 20 minutes to explain one concept and the examples for that concept.

Discussion: Sections aren't mandatory. I think the TA's help clarify confusing concepts, but most confusion can be cleared up by looking at their powerpoints, which are also posted on blackboard.

Assignments: There is a minilab every week, which is really quick, and you just turn it in online. She assigns one "paper critique," which was max 3 pages long. You need to read a scientific study, critique it (obviously), and design your own experiment to help support or reject the claim made in the paper.

Extra Credit: She gives you the opportunity to raise your class grade by 3%. Half of the points are from participating in psych studies. The other half is by demonstrating critical thinking in your paper critique.

Material: It is more on the scientific side. We start off learning about neurons, and structures in the eyes and ears. As a person who strongly dislikes science, I didn't think the material was that bad. I paid attention when I worked on the minilabs, which helped a lot when I started reading the textbook because I was already somewhat familiar with the concepts. Here's a piece of advice: when you're studying depth perception, go over the lecture/discussion slides, then reference the book if something is unclear. Shams classifies the depth cues differently than the book (something you will notice from the study guide) so don't waste your time understanding depth from the book. About 80% of what we learned had to do with vision. The other 20% was about audition. Study audition because even though she rushed through it in 2-3 lectures, it was about half of the final (non-cumulative).

Pros:
- It's not time-consuming. You don't have to go to lecture or discussion, and the material was easy to learn without an instructor.
- The final is non-cumulative.
- There's extra credit.

Cons:
- Material can be a little dense.

Take home message:
Take the class! It's pretty easy to get a good grade if you put a little effort into learning the concepts.

I actually like her as a lecturer. I personally hated the class. What should have been interesting, turned out to be a "technical" class. I had the idea that "sensation & perception" would be less scientific than what the class turned out to be. Like the person person below me stated, you could get by without having to attend lecture, or even discussion. As long as you read the textbooks, and just personally review the class slides on your own, you're good for the exams. However, if reading scientific-like textbooks aren't you're thing, you will hate this.

The best thing about this class is that you don't have to go. It is such a waste of time to sit through class for over an hour...and everyone seems to agree (moore 100 was PACKED on test day, but during lecture there may be 50 people tops). Shams is a nice woman but she takes way too long trying to explain simple things. and she insists on asking students what they think, and then proceeds to tell them why their explanation is wrong (what a waste of time)
There are two tests: non cumulative and multiple choice. they really aren't that hard. There are weekly assignments that take about 4 minutes to do (the biggest hassle is finding a place to print it every week). there is also a "paper" which is really just reading a 3 page article and answering questions about it. I was taking 4 classes this quarter and it was a relief that i could count on not going to nearly 3 hours of lecture and 1 hour of discussion every week. if you are good at learning with the book, which is really well written and interesting, then this is a good class for you! just don't expect to enjoy lecture at all...or bring a crossword and a sudoku!

Psych 120B with Ladan Shams is a very, very, very boring and dry class that defies the nature of time as we regularly experience it: your wasted 50 minutes will seem like 5 hours. Her accent doesn't get in the way, but it is very irksome to watch her try to explain anything-- once, I was able to say a rosary up to about half of the third decade (there are only 5 decades in one mystery) just waiting for her to be done with her dizzying explanation of how 'grates' work.

Agree completely with the previous poster and the nine others who gave it a "thumbs-up." Grading is a nightmare in this class. Hee Seung Lee (she was also my TA!) gave me a 14/20 on my paper, because I had an extra page with four lines on it, apart from the other nitpicky things that she did not like in my writing. She says that she does it to be fair, but how can that be fair, when the other TA's give out 19.75/20's like circus flyers?? If you complain, Shams just shrugs and says that each TA has his/her own rules. She seems to be a nice enough person, anyway; I mean, no tantrums or personality horrors. It's ironic, though, how her upbeat-ness siphons the life out of her lectures... hm.

The tests themselves are not supposed to be hard, but very tricky. The mini-lab assignments are very easy, but not that interesting. Still, those mini-labs are infinitely more alive than the lectures.

Take this class with someone else, for your poor sanity's sorry sake.

I hated her Psych 120B class. Sensation and Perception should have been interesting, but no-- she will make a fifty-minute class seem like two hours of hoping against hope that lecture would end. Her slides are very lacking in information, although the book is pretty good. She NEVER tests on material from the book ALONE. Her exam questions use a scan-tron like most of the psych department, and the questions can be tricky.

There is a required paper, and the grading can be very lenient or horribly strict depending on your TA. Shams has no power over grading; she will redirect you to your TA. Stay away from TA Hee Seung Lee, as she will expect you to write a kickass experiment (even though the class is not about designing experiments) and take away 20% of your grade, if you overshoot the required number of pages even by just 1/4 page. The logistics in Shams's Psych 120B reek. I ended with a senseless, disappointing B-.

I took 100A & 120B with shams. She is a TERRIBLE lecturer. YES, she TRIES to explains things in the simplest way possible, BUT she spends 10 minutes in a roundabout way to make a single point. She makes something SO simple -- so convoluted. I hated going to lectures because I would get so bored. I think the topic sensation & perception is pretty interesting, but I HATED the lecturer. Anyways, the class itself is ok. Two exams (midterm + final), one "paper critique" - which is only like 2 or 3 pages long, and hw assignment (took about 5-10 mins to complete each one). Overall, not a very hard class.