Based on 16 Users
Grade distributions are collected using data from the UCLA Registrar’s Office.
Sorry, no enrollment data is available.
Great professor. Very clear in lecture. His pace is a bit fast, but its not unreasonable. Pay attention in lectures, and think critically in exams. If you do this it is not a hard class to get an A. Also, if his pace is a bit fast for you, his TAs are really great. I had Moriel as my TA and she knew the materials just as thoroughly as the professor.
this professor is really passionate about what he's teaching. he also very caring and will answer all questions during class or office hours. i strongly recommend to record his lectures, listen to them and write the appropriate notes on each pp slide. you must understand the implication of every study in relation to the various theories of learning. even though i was doing what i just recommended and was studying constantly for this class, i thought the exams were very hard, and for ex in the first exam only three out of 80 people got an actual a ! thank god there is a curve that helped me get an a in this class. by the way, i took only this class in summer with my research lab, and it's still a lot of work. i don't think the course material is unbearable as other people claimed. once you organize the various theories in your head and go over the material at least two times you'll get it. however, the exams are very hard and you have 2 minutes per question (which is not a lot for his type of questions). if you have an option to take the best t.a in the world - moriel- don't hesitate to take her! she's incredible and very caring . best t.a!!!
overall, it is an interesting class!
Took 110, 118, and the honors seminar.
Dr. Stahlman is a great teacher. He is young and energetic about the subject matter, which makes it much easier to stay awake. The concepts are difficult for both 110 and 118, but that has nothing to do with the teacher.
For the reviewers who had trouble, both classes are very conceptual. These aren't classes where you memorize the slides and expect to do well. You need to understand the theories/the why behind the experiments in case he gives different examples on the exams.
I did not go to his OH, but my TA's Cindy and Dan were very helpful in making sure I understood the concepts. I'm sure his OH would be just as helpful.
Overall an excellent teacher, definitely recommended.
The professor is really good and I think the main reason some people are having problems with the class is because the material is hard. The average scores on the exams are Cs and Ds. Quizzes are worth 20 percent of the overall grade so do well on them.
The material is very conceptual so you basically have to expand what you know from the lectures. A lot of people have asked how do they study for this class? Do study groups and ask each other questions or try to answer questions from the discussion board it helps.
I got an A in the class. I went to office hours (which helped a lot).
I think Prof. Stahlman is very helpful, he explains things very well and he even podcasts just in case you dont understand something. His office hours are packed but he tries to answer any question in a professional manner.
Professor Stahlman is young, upbeat and knowledgeable about the subject material. He's generally nice enough, but also somewhat hotheaded and gets stressed out easily and on those days he can be a jerk and very arrogant.
He explains things really quickly in lecture, so if you're thinking about taking him, I would definitely consider podcasting. You have to be able to diligently keep up with lecture material because everything builds on previous lectures.
His exams are very conceptual and very hard to do well on considering they are only out of 30 points. The means are usually in the low C and D range. Also, he's the kind of professor who will try to trick you based on subtle wording (eg. always, never) even if you actually understand the concepts which is kind of dumb. And then half the questions aren't worded clearly so you don't even know what he's trying to ask. Most of them are hypothetical questions/experiments based on the concepts from the experiments he went over in class.
I think this was probably one of the worst classes I've taken at UCLA because the material is super dry and circular and the theories you learn about are all flawed, so at the end of it you still feel like you didn't learn much. And I don't think Stahlman is funny at all, as hard as he tries to be.
I took this class (w/stahlman) becasue I had to and because the previous posts were way too positive. So here is a more informative description: This teacher is very young and is extremely vibrant. If you care enough, you will not fall asleep in lecture. You'll actualy be trying to figure out what is going on the entire time. He packs in as much material (previous studies) as he can in order to conceptualize the different types of learning. Considering this class was Psych 110, after every lecture I felt like a dog chasing his own tail. After every lecture you have to listen to the podcasts to understand exactly what's going on. Sometimes over and over. In addition, he doesn't follow the assigned text, but does include 5 random (but not too random) things from the book on the test. His 3 tests are 30 multiple choice questions and are written in word form (not graphs-you'll see when you take the class) and are generally kind of tricky. The reason I say they are tricky is because every time I walked out of the test I felt like I got a near 100, but when I got the results that wasn't the case. In the test, especially the 1st one, there are at least 5 questions with more than one right answer and you must pick the best answer. There has to be a curve in this class because some tests (2) the average is an F. Note: don't memorize the graphs for the first test. Just in case you don't know what 110 is about, it's focused on animals like rats and pigeons, and classical conditioning and operant conditioning. One last thing, I just spent 5 straight weeks in summer studying for this class solely and only got an A-.
Dr. Stahlman is awesome!! I took him for Psych 110. Also, don't blame your grade on the professor. I got an A. Went to lecture sometimes, most times listened to him on podcast. You can't expect to get an A simply by going to lecture... it's UCLA.. your grade is determined by how much you understand the material (which he does a great job of explaining btw). If you do the weekly readings, try to understand the lecture when he explains it, and then put in a few hours before the test for STUDYING the slides and skimming the book again (i literally did this the night before the exam), then you should be set. Only thing I recommend is to read the exam questions carefully .. one word can change things a lot.. and a lot of my friensd assumed they knew what he was asking, so they skimmed the question and went straight to the answers and that was not a good idea. GO to the office hours. i never did. but whoever did go said he was nice about it.
DO read the book. It really does help and he also pulls three or four questions out of there per exam. He's really nice and his exams are fair. He explains the material very well and he posted slides for each lecture. There were three multiple choice exams (noncumulative!!) and worth the same amount. One of these exams is your 'final' exam but is pretty much a third midterm. There are also 6 quizzes in section and the lowest is dropped.
I hope he teaches 118 so that I can take it with him!
Two previous guys have a great sense of humor! Or had no life/took lower division classes along with 110. Prof. Stahlman is nice guy, I agree, but that's it! I've read the book, attended every lecture, listened to podcasts after lectures and got B-! The exams were nightmares, pulled out of air.
I completely agree with the first poster.
Professor Stahlman was FANTASTIC! His slides are great, his lectures are fun and engaging, and the book he chose for 110 is excellent (it was actually fun to read!). His tests are tough but fair. He is not intimidating or arrogant. He's really young, so he still relates to the students.
He's a nice guy and a great professor. If you have the opportunity to take him, jump on it!