Wendy Mckenna

Oh Wendy. I want y'all to buckle in because this is going to be long but I don't want anybody to be unprepared. You may read the other reviews and think you'll be fine. You are wrong. Your hubris has the best of you, my friend. You are Icarus, flying too close to the sun. But you don't have to be. You can heed my warning and avoid this professor. You will have weekly reading notes to turn in. You will not know what is expected of the weekly reading notes. Syllabus stated "You do not have to necessarily include everything assigned for the week [on the weekly reading notes], but what you turn in should indicate that you have done all, or most, of the reading" - the first couple weeks she was just telling us to always do "more" of the readings on our responses. Even if I'd do 6/7 of the readings and have 2 pages (syllabus says "1-2 typed pages") I was told to do more. Eventually I just started responding to all the readings and that got me good feedback, so... I wouldn't be so frustrated if she'd just outright told us that she wanted us to do more. She instead chose to be coy and beat around the bush. That goes for class discussions as well. First class she told us to think of ways we could break the social contract of a teacher-student setup, and she shot down multiple suggestions (i.e. leaving the room, talking over the teacher, not being seated properly, etc) not because they…

I actually think people have been pretty unfair to Prof. McKenna. She is a little dry and rather cold, but the content she presents is actually quite interesting and engaging. If you don't take her coldness personally, you may actually find her funny. Fair grader and easy class overall.

SO BORING. Need I emphasize that more? Fair grader but also one of those professors who think that a C is average and no one should complain about it.

Professor McKenna was the most disappointing professor I've had at Columbia to date. She gave dated information in her lectures and was not up to date on current issues in the field, which made her lectures especially impoverished. With a topic as dynamic as the psychology of human sexuality, her archaic approach to the subject was sorely disappointing. Worse, she was extremely narrow-minded and not open to even conisdering competing arguments to her views. McKenna seemed to take personal offense to students questioning her views, becoming very terse, and defensive and without offering any reason for why she would dismiss other arguments, she simply said, "No". Her class was not worth the the three-thousand dollars I paid per credit- not that I am bitter about my loss. McKenna is an insult to academic endeavor and she disgraces the spirit of intellectual curiosity at Columbia.

Professor McKenna is pretty bad, but at least her class isn't difficult. Other reviewers covered what is frustrating about having her as a professor: she doesn't like it when people ask questions, gives uncomfortable and unnecessary examples about sexuality, is a bit of a jerk. I would say that, while she does cover material very slowly, if you just role with it and remain engaged, what she says will stick and you won't really need to study for the tests. The tests are very predictable based on what she emphasizes in lecture. Pay attention to what she bothers to write on the board, definitions she repeats, stuff like that. If she tells a story, remember the moral, not the minute details. I don't think people normally put a lot of thought into whether or not to take Intro Psych. Either they're thinking about majoring or they want to take the easiest class fulfilling the science requirement. (And yes, this is the easiest class fulfilling the science requirement. I've every intro science sequence but Astronomy.) But, consider taking something else. You can pick up on basically everything we discuss in the class just by talking to educated people. You're going to talk to a lot of educated people as a student at Barnard or Columbia, and things like the Stanford Prison Experiment and multiple intelligences and whatever else will just come up in conversation. You can read about them…

Wendy McKenna is a mediocre professor who teaches an inevitably interesting subject. One suspects she's been teaching the same exact class for the past 25 years (the length of time she'll inform you of with a smug smile). Her lecture oftentimes begins with a list of "shocking" statistics (she doesn't always give a credible source). Then she'll attempt to incite a debate amongst the class about some sex-related topic, which can go on for needlessly long considering the yappy, uninformed nature of your typical Barnard psych student, aided only by her occasional clarifications. At one point, taking this class, you think to yourself "it can't be that bad-- the class is about sex and that will always be interesting." But then you take the test and realize just how vague, biased and subjective McKenna can be with test writing and grading. Two bits of advice: Don't question her logic during a lecture. In my experience, even if she seems to be saying the most stupid thing in the world, she'd rather have you spit it back to her on the exam than give her any reason to think she's wrong. Second, everything she teachers relates back to the Double Standard-- even if you don't think it does.

i'm actually in this class right now, not actually listening because this woman is just terrible. in every way possible. i write this at the beginning of October, and i am already suffering. i read the CULPA horror stories before taking the course with her, but i had no choice: this section was the only one that fit into my schedule, and i needed to do my science requirement. my friend who is a psych major warned me that this woman is awful. i underestimated this assessment. not only is Professor McKenna a terrible lecturer who wastes a ton of class time by drawing out often creepy examples for an inordinate amount of time. i can't help but be horrified and puzzled when she constantly brings up scenarios, discussed in depth, about weed, masturbation, etc. (we are actually behind now - she told us at the beginning of class, and our midterm has to be pushed back a day. well done, lady.) and these examples aren't even scientific-sounding, in which case i would be a little more forgiving and less weirded out. case in point: "are people who meditate better kissers?" why? of all examples to use when you're first teaching variables. i know this probably doesn't sound like a big deal, but because this woman is also a raging bitch and looks pretty miserable, it feels...disturbing. oh well, at least the workload is light. i wish i could get these wasted hours of my life back, though.

She's a decent lecturer, except for her nasal and irritating voice. In addition, as a human being, she's obnoxius. You may not enter or exit if she's talking, and there is no way to pre-register. She'll force all the sophomores exit the room on the first day, and automatically kicks them out. The papers she assigns are mostly anonymous and ungraded, so you work your tail off for really nothing (you still have to do them and sign in that you handed it in). She refuses to discuss the exam until it's over. She conducts in-class experiments with surveys that many feel are unethically handled and have questionable ethics. Workload: a slew of anonymous, ungraded papers, an ungraded paper that is not anonymous, a midterm, and a final project for which you must go to some unusual place, such as a strip joint, an abortion clinic, or a meeting of a support group for those who participate in S&M/B&D...and a final.

If you go to every class, take careful notes, memorize definitions and regurgitate them on the exams you will do fine. She is very organized in her lectures, but she is defensive when students ask her simple questions about the material. She gets a lot of terrible reviews, but I don't think she is terrible; she just seems to think she is much better (in every way) than her students. A positive aspect of taking Intro Psych with McKenna is that her classes are typically much smaller than the other intro psych classes, like 40 students smaller.

Professor McKenna is the least helpful professor I have encountered at Barnard. She is part time, so she has one day of office hours, and refuses to answer any questions after class: she forces you to e-mail her which, if you have questions about your research paper, does nothing for you. She is unsympathetic to any problems you may have, and does not accept any level of criticism (She told me that her lack of office hours wasn't the problem, it was my lack of planning. Which was untrue, because she had given us two and a half weeks for the paper, given the week before thanksgiving and due after break.) Her lectures, and tests, are entirely subjective. Write down everything she says in class, especially definitions, because they often don't match what the book says. It is in your best interest to just regurgitate her definitions in the short answers, because if your answer isn't *perfectly* clear, she'll take points off. Occasionally, she'll say something funny or bring up an interesting tidbit, but for the most part, her lectures are boring and monotonous. You don't have to read the book to follow the lecture, but you should read it before each of the 3 exams. Don't ask questions, because she will either: cut you off, say "I'm not talking about that right now" or say "Ask me at the end of class." She doesn't really respond well to questions. Not that she won't answer them, bu…