Eugene Galanter

I have never actually written a culpa review, but after reading the amazingly broad spectrum of reviews on Galanter, I am tempted to offer my own opinions on his course (keep in mind I am not 'bitter', I received an A-range grade in this class). Eugene Galanter is clearly a genius-or incredibly skilled at imitating one. This course however, can best be described as "muddy". His lectures are a drag, and without any statistics background they can be tremendously difficult to follow. Often I just ended up typing whatever I could catch, and staring at my notes in frustration and terror at the end of the day/week/unit. On the first day he puts a simple equation on the board and suggests that it is all the mathematics you need to know to do this course. Technically, he is right (I mean, I did it), but be prepared for much much more difficulty than that particular equation suggests. The lectures often digress into anecdotal chatter about Galanter's personal history, all of which is amusing and interesting and impressive but has nothing to do with the material. However, you cannot skip them entirely because often times a few questions on his thirty-question (or so) quizzes are pulled from sentences he uses in class. Verbatim. The readings are much more central to the quizzes (which I agree are really 'exams') but it is impossible to keep up with the syllabus because it has nothing to…

While many seem to think his Science of Psych course is boring and deficient, the small seminar setting of his Education Eval. course really brings out the humor, interest and genius of this professor. It was really touching and encouraging to hear that after a full and amazing lifetime ( I won't spoil any stories for those intending to take this class, but boy does he have some great ones) he has decided that the most important thing to do in life is to try and figure out how to teach others correctly. While he by no means attempts to say he knows how this is to be done, the class is all about researching and exploring different measurements and techniques to try and get closer to determining the "correct" way of teaching from birth on, touching on issues such as socio-economic, gender, race differences, IQ and "intelligence." If you are at all interested in going into the education field as a teacher or policy maker I would highly recommend this class as one of the best I have taken in the Psychology department at Columbia.

This class was a major disappointment. I took a years worth of psychology in high school and after reading reviews about this class i figured it wouldn't be that bad. Boy was I wrong. Galanter is a very boring lecturer and his tests are extremely unfair actually impossible. I have no idea how some people managed to score 105 on them. I did a fair amount of reading and attended almost all the lectures but once it came time to take the test I was lost. I knew everything there was to know about classical conditioning but I couldn't answer the questions on the test about it. This class is definately not an easy A or B. I highly suggest not taking it.

Galanter is insightful, the class is amusing, and watching an ass-clown get humiliated is priceless. (see <a href="http://www.columbiaspectator.com/Opinion/article.asp?articleID=385" target="_blank">this definition</a> of "ass-clown.") If you're into political theory and like psych, the class is fun and easy. Galanter sits back, lets the students do most of the teaching, and makes frequent comments from the peanut-gallery. But if you require an organized syllabus, forget about this one. Galanter lets the course wander where he and the students want it to go. My only objection was to some of the other members of the class. A few morons can really ruin a small class, though Galanter occasionally enjoys putting an ass-clown in his place. Rolling eyes, scrunched noses, and sarcastic retorts were commonplace. A word to the wise: take this after you have taken <i>his</i> intro psych class and completed CC (unless you have a prior experience with most of the works).

Dante's Inferno is the best way to desscribe this class. Galanter does not give quizzes, he gives incredibly frustrating tests. The questions are multiple choice, but he wants you to circle the incorrect answers. If you accidently circle the correct answer, he penalizes you by taking points off your test grade. As a result, many students received minus deviations throughout the semster. According to one of the TAs, the lowest grade in our class on the first test was a -40. Example questions that Galanter may ask are: "Pavlov is to Fechner as Frued is to...," "If X is the total number of students comprising Columbia's student body and Y = the total number of females under the age of 20, what does N represent?" And to the reviewer who says that Galanter curves final grades because he got a B+; I also received a D in this class.

When I first went to Galanter's class I thought he would drop dead every class. I went to every class until the first test got a B-, then didn't go to a single class, got a C- on the second test, and was able to get an A on the third test. I don't know how, but I got an A- in the class. You may think you're having a hard time, but it's so easy, and you don't have to go to the classes unless you want to see a hilarious old man. I have a long list of Galanter quotes, go to at least a few of the classes so you can hear crazy ravings of an old man. Just suck it up, don't miss any test and walk away with your A or B.

Midterm, 10 page paper, "technical exam"

To start with the most important thing, I am glad that I took Science of Psychology with Galanter. That said, I don't think he's for everyone. Some of the lectures were quite vague and difficult to understand. He went off on tangents and told bizarre stories. The TA's during the review sessions (which were held during normal lecture time the class before the test) were far better at lucidly explaining the material. The readings (Galanter's own books) were... a little hard to get through, but provided some entertaining writing and good information. The worst part about the readings was that they came on CD, and there were very few pictures and diagrams (I sound like a kindergartener), and I think for a course like psychology that could've been helpful. That's the thing, the class didn't really feel like a science class. That may be because I had the wrong impression of what psychology is going into it, but needless to say it didn't feel too scientific. I came away with a decent grasp of what psychology is, but my favorite part of the course was just hearing Galanter's rants. He is clearly a brilliant man, and he's been around. He received his PhD from Penn in the 50's if I remember correctly and has worked with some of the brightest psychologists of all time. He himself was quite a scholar in his day. So, spending some time in his world was fun. The grading was based on three h…

Don't do anything just show up to the three tests and hope to get lucky by just picking.

I feel compelled to add one important thing to my previous review after reading them. I have no clue how someone received a D in the class after finishing in the middle of the pack on the exams. On all three exams, I scored one or two points above the mean+SD. I received an A+. I saw someone arguing that the class was not curved. How do you explain me getting somewhere around 85% correct answers on the tests and receiving an A+ if there is no curve? Unbelievable.