Kathleen Taylor

Honestly did not find this lab too bad. It's a lot of statistics on your computer and at the end you write your own research paper. Dr Taylor can be a bit nitpicky with grading but honestly you just have to be detail oriented and answer the question in full. The second half of the semester is completely asynchronous, you're just working on your own research paper based on provided data.

Fairly easy class, very much a typical Intro Psych course. The content isn't the most intriguing because it's basic, and Prof Taylor basically just reads off of the slides. I took notes because some of the stuff on the slides is explained in class in more detail. Exams are easy—you can do well if you just study the slides and are able to answer all of the practice exam questions that she provides.

The course is not as bad as the reviews make it seem, but it is a bit difficult for an intro class. Professor Taylor is a really good lecturer and I liked that she included personal anecdotes to explain concepts. The tests do require a thorough understanding of the content, but the study questions are a pretty accurate representation of the material that will be covered. One thing I did not like was that she ended up falling behind on the syllabus over the course of the semester and then crammed a bunch of content into the week before the last midterm.

Based on Culpa reviews, I was initially very nervous going into Prof. Taylor’s class, but I didn’t have many options since other intro sections conflicted with my core classes. I was pleasantly surprised—the content was engaging, and Prof. Taylor used many personal stories to reinforce concepts and regularly asked if we had questions. I genuinely liked her as a person and as a professor. The main downside came near the end of the semester, when she and the TAs stopped uploading weekly study questions and lecture slides, then released nearly a month’s worth of material just two days before the third midterm. That made those days extremely stressful and frustrating

honestly an incredibly mediocre experience. the material is interesting, nothing is particularly challenging, although the class does move rather fast. generally i felt like prof. taylor was a good lecturer, but sometimes she would really focus in on something specific that didn't necessarily warrant that much attention, especially when exam questions would focus on different aspects of the chapter. each exam was 50 questions (plus a bonus or two), and while they weren't particularly difficult, it wouldn't be a surprise to see questions worded in such a way that they could easily have multiple correct answers. she posts her lecture slides at the beginning of the week and study questions at the end, but these were not always accurate to the material we covered that week because we were always behind. it is a LOT of material to get through, but the workload isn't terrible. my biggest issue with this class (aside from the annoying exams) was that she was such a slow grader (even though our exams were scantrons and she had multiple TAs), and I never got my exams back so I never knew where I needed improvement. anyways, not a bad option if McCaskill's class is full, but don't expect anything great.

The class was more mundane that I expected, mainly because of the teaching style. She had slides for every lecture that covered A LOT of material and she was basically just lecturing directly from the slides. Over the course of the semester, we covered a lot of topics but she did not clearly conclude each topic so it felt a little disorganized and no topics were listed on the syllabus. The content is not that difficult and pretty straightforward but the exam is written to be way more confusing than the actual content. Focused so much on details, so it was hard to get anything out of the class after it was over.

This content overall is upsettingly easy but the tests are unbelievably confusing. I had so much anxiety leading up to each test because I felt confident in my understanding but I was just so worried about the weird curveball questions she would give us that felt unfair because they were either 1) wildly obscure or 2) very convoluted in their wording or 3) literally up for interpretation (even in class some remarks would be "some people thing X some think Y" and that would be one of the questions on our test).

Pretty good. Her lectures are easy to follow, she answers questions, and she uses a ton of examples from her personal life, as well as from her clinical practice which helps the material stick. However, the tests were harder than I anticipated - they are all multiple choice but are extremely specific so I ended up spending hours before each test going through the textbook and her posted study questions. It seemed that every time I skipped a paragraph/topic in the textbook that I thought was too niche or not relevant, it ended up being on the test. That being said, the material itself was not particularly challenging - just time consuming to memorize it all.

I honestly didn't think this class was as hard as people are saying. I ended with an A and as long as you attend lecture and take your time to answer the study questions she posts to prepare for the exams, it's not hard to do well. She's very receptive to questions and sometimes takes a little too long to answer them. My only complaint is that in many lectures she wouldn't get through all the content so we would have to go through the slides on our own time. However, she does her best to make the lecture interesting and acknowledges that the material is not the most riveting.

Went into this class thinking it would be an easy (ish) way to fill my science requirement as a non-STEM major. Overall, it lived up to my expectations. People like to complain about her class a lot but I honestly think they're being a little dramatic. I will say that this is not a skippable class (imo), you do need to be there. For context, I never took psych in high school, always hated & was bad at science, and I'm ending the class with an A. She moves relatively quickly in lecture but I think she does a great job of teaching the content. For instance, she regularly would show us videos of experiments applying a concept or tell us a story from her personal life or past patients that were super helpful in understanding what it looks like in real life. The biggest con I'd say of her class is that she would have different slides in class than posted on courseworks (slightly, like omitting a word) and will only mention some information verbally rather than writing it down. Go to class! As someone who would have never taken it if it wasn't required, I did enjoy it and found it quite interesting. The professor herself could be a bit harsh and condescending, I'd suggest going to office hours with the TA. People say that she's very nice once you get to know her, but I can't really speak on that. I will say that after the election, she moved our test online and gave us a 4 day windo…