Easy class, sucky professor. In order to prepare for exams just read the online text (useful and straightforward) and do the homework and practice problems. I didn't think going to class was worthwhile; he dragged students out because of clicker points where half the time he couldn't figure out how to get it to work or we didn't have time.

I loved having McAuliffe as my Psych 100A professor. I was dreading this class, as I took calculus throughout high school (even though I wasn't very good at it) andy never touched Statistics. This class, however, has been extremely straight forward and helpful - I feel like I am coming out of the class with a much firmer idea of how to approach statistical analysis. After the last quarter he taught, he changed the testing format to just multiple choice, this is very very nice for any new students, and also renders many of the below responses irrelevent. The negative reviews about Professor McAuliffe are simply too scathing and not true! Clearly he cares about his students if he has changed his testing format to both help out the TAs and students. I also enjoy how McAuliffe connects the statistical analysis to psychology related problems, specifically the lecture on correlation and throughout the year by collecting clicker data that discusses topics pertinent to us (i.e.: relationship status, happiness level). I would highly recommend taking this class.

He is awful. He tries to be funny, but is truly just an idiot. He makes it seem like he cares about how you're doing in his class, but honestly, does not care one bit. Awful teacher, SOOO BAD! He has definitely earned the name McAwful!

This professor is not the greatest for psych 100a. He is confusing and his lectures are incomprehensible. His explanations of simple concepts are dragged on and would make even the best student confused. His tests are not super difficult but there are some questions which require reading it more than once. While he is friendly and tries, that does not mean his teaching methods are at all good.

he's not really that bad. anybody who took stats in high school should be able to get at least a B. you don't have to go to class.. his tests are straight off the website. don't buy the other part of it... it won't give you any more practice. his lectures are kind of funny, but he's not that great of a teacher. just memorize the formulas and read the website once before the midterm and you should do fine. he;s also a really nice guy if you need help in office hours.

Professor McAuliffe shows up to class dressed like a bum, sprints through the lectures leaving many confused, and wastes time with bad jokes. His lectures, as well as his website, are riddled with errors (mathematical and grammatical) that students like myself had to correct him on. This is a DETAIL ORIENTED class so his apathy towards detail tripped up many students. Be warned, PAY VERY CLOSE ATTETION to everything and be critical of what he writes because he usually isn't paying attention to the details. I got an A- so I'm not complaining about a bad grade, he's just a horrible teacher in every respect and makes the course more difficult than it really is.

Prof. Mcauliffe is by far the worst prof. I have ever had.
He is a nice guy, makes you laugh a little during class, but simply put, does not know how to explain statistics to people that are not good at math. He runs through his slides, he speaks way too fast, he doesn't know how to explain problem solving clearly enough. He seems to think that everyone already understands what they need to do and acts like class is just a review. I went to every class, studied my butt off, but still it wasn't enough. The tests are extremely difficult and long. i felt confused 90% of the time. The only plus side to this class is that if you are good at studying on your own the website he uses instead of the book, is helpful. www.thebeststatistics.info If you are good at math, you probably won't have a problem passing this class, but if not, take Nandy instead.

Macauliffe was not so bad. He went through the material very fast, has tricky test, and covers more than Nanndy does. However, he is funny and entertaining. I heard Nanndy was very boring and hardly spoke English. The other class seemed to struggle too. I do think they got better grades, I ended up getting a C+ in the class. You don't have to buy the book but should read and go through the problems on the website. (thebeststatistics.info. My grade was mostly due to my procrastination, you should really study for this class. Also AAP offers free tutoring for it, it really helped me.

I thought McAuliffe was an adequate professor. He keeps material entertaining with illustrative stories (although occasionally he tells random stories just because he's trying to be funny, which he succeeds with half of the time). I had never taken any stats class in my life before, but the material wasn't that difficult. Go to lecture, and especially use the website. If you know how to do the practice problems off of there, and pay attention when he does a problem in class and says "Oh, this is a tricky one" (because those always show up on the tests in some form), you'll do fine. These 'tricky' problems usually just involve algebraic manipulation rather than application of stats technique, so if you're strong in non-stats math, that's helpful. The two midterms weren't that difficult, but the final was, as several of the correlation questions relate to anecdotes he told in class (so definitely go to the lecture covering correlation and pay attention). Otherwise, lectures were fairly pointless, other than to emphasize points more clearly laid out in the online website. I never went to discussion, so I can't speak for that.

Overall, he keeps class entertaining and teaches in a fairly straightforward manner. Tests are generally easy and don't require too much studying, as long as you memorize the steps involved in each statistical method & understand the ways he can throw you curveballs (which he pretty explicitly tells you in class). Definitely better than most math/science profs I've had at UCLA.

This professor has to be the one of the worst psych stats professor ever. First of, he can't explain ideas and concepts very well. I'm sure he understands it but he can't articulate it so the rest of the class understands it. Going to lecture is pretty pointless. He doesn't require a book for his class but he has a website that you can read. He writes the website himself but it is a better way of explaining the concepts than going to lecture. Just read the website and you will be find.

His exams consists of two midterm (each 25% of your grade) and a final (50% of your grade). His exams are not too difficult but he does try to trick you with the problems. Some of his questions are not even stats related at all, like for the final, he had a question on why women's feet curve more as they get older and the answer was something like, because they wanted to be ballerinas. I don't know what we were suppose to get out of that question.

If you must take it with him, then prepare yourself for a long quarter of nonsense from lecture. Oh, and he tries very hard to be funny too but he really isn't funny.