PSYC W2225

Open-note reading quizzes every Monday: 20% 2 midterms: 20% and 30% respectively In class cumulative final: 30%

3 extremely difficult tests(even the ta's said they were unfair) and several labs that were graded by the ta's and proved both pointless and timeconsuming

I went into this class open minded and excited to learn something about the material. The material itself if very interesting stuff, especially if you are possibly interested in this sort of detailed brain-imaging, research field of psychology. One problem I had with Hakwan's lectures was I could not understand what he was talking about, due to his lack of transitions and pauses between ideas. He would fly around subjects without any sort of warning as to what he was talking about to the class. He provides notes for all of his lectures which was huge because I ended up having to teach myself the things that he talked about. Another major con of this course was the forma of the quizzes and tests. The material on them was interesting and not that hard to understand, however the manner in which you are tested on the material is highly unfair. Backwards questions and many vague multiple choice options that all seemed right filled the pages. The quizzes were only 8-10 questions long and most of the class usually missed 3-4 due to some trick that was put in there. Some positives about the course: you get used to the quizzes. I read the papers for them just before class and they are open note. The lecture notes are detailed and helpful so if you cant tell what he is talking about, these are a great tool. Mock exams are posted before exams and some of the questions from the exams come…

reading the other reviews of this prof, i find that i couldn't agree more. yes, this is the worst class i have taken at columbia. and yes, cooper is a PERFECT example of a researcher stuck teaching. the tests are insane. the text is interesting, but you have to teach yourself everything because cooper just begins to touch on the material. and do't think that just because she doesn't mention most of the information that you won't be tested on it. she is unprepared and does not want to be there, and her bungling, while amusing at first, became deeply disappointing as the course progressed. the only reason i would suggest this class is if you already have an extensive background in biology and psychology. otherwise, cooper is just another example of a gifted researcher forced to waste her time teaching.

1 Quiz Per Week. 4 out of 10 are Counted. Open notes 20% 3 Exams. 20% 30% and 30% Reading: 1 Mandatory Paper Per week 2-4 Optional Papers Per week

Hakwan is on his way to another University, but I figured I would leave a review anyway. This class had plenty of pros and cons. In the spirt of actually conveying useful information, I will do my best to do justice to both. For full disclosure, I am currently averaging and hoping to retain a B+. General: No text book. Every week there is a quiz on an assigned scientific paper. There are optional papers that are not necessary but immensely helpful. 3 exams A few guest lectures. Decent lecture notes are uploaded just before class so you can follow along. Positive: As many people have pointed out, Hakwan is obviously brilliant. It is especially clear when the lecture focuses on topics that he is personally involved in. There is no text book. You only read relevant scientific papers. The 10 quizzes are split in to two "grades". Only the top 2 from the first half and the top 2 from the second half are counted. There is a review session for every exam and mock exam questions are provided. Travis was a super helpful TA. He helped review quizzes, explained complex ideas clearly, and was easy to get in touch with for help. (I find the previous review to be completely unfair. Especially because it was left after 2 weeks of class.) Exams were scaled. A bit. Good/Bad: Guest lectures. The guests were excellent researchers doing interesting things. However, their lectures are technical, do…

Weekly quizze (10-15 multiple-choice questions), 3 in-class midterm and final, (i.e., you will find yourself taking some sort of written exam more than 50% of the time, in term the entire semester).

The lecture is refreshing. It includes update information from research and experimenters' first hand experience. The best aspect is the professor often integrates philosophy into psychology, looking into the principle instead of surface of any question. My only complaint is: The actual lecture portion on Mondays is too short, whereas the Quiz takes unnecessarily too long out of it. 1) 10 questions multiple choice questions, in real world, would not be given more than 7 minutes, e.g., MCAT, LSAT; 2) The most the male TA talks too much for too long, and 80% was useless information Travis seems to really love listening to himself talk, but nobody else does. Please keep our pain as short as possible and by a mirror. Travis takes 45 minutes out of 85 minutes lecture every Monday, to practice his Socratic method, or something, but it is pretty obvious half of the time he just made up some BS and he does not even believe his own explanation. What a waste of time! Please, if there were a balance of quality and quantity: may the use of time on Monday lectures be more efficiently allocated.

3 midterms (1 is dropped), and a final, all weighted the same. There is optional reading (of primary source papers) that does not relate to the tests, and absolutely no homework. Class is not required. Study for a few hours the night before the test, and hope to God that you will answer EXACTLY what was expected.

I agree with the fist reviewer. He seems like he might be good in a seminar, but he was the worst lecture professor that I have ever had. He told us flat out on the first day that we need not come to class. The lectures were posted online. That is what was tested. The concepts were simple. The questions and grading process were not. I think the mean on the first test was something like a C+ (due entirely to question wording and subjective grading), and he did not curve the class like he said he would. He's a new prof, and hopefully he'll get better. He seems extremely intelligent, but I would stay far, far away from any lecture he's teaching.