It's surprising that someone could be such a bad lecturer. She speaks in a monotone voice and is able to make even psychology seen super boring. In many lectures she says, "You will not need to know this for the exam" and i am shocked that we spend so much class going too much in depth on neuroscience and complex experiments that we don't need to know for the exam. Her power points are mainly just graphs and images with only the broadest main points listed, making them hard to study from if you miss class.

However, she pretty much follows the book and the material is relatively easy to learn. Over half the class was taking the course for the science requirement which brought in a curve for the exam.

Professor Cornwall taught the second half and he is a great lecturer, has detailed slides, and includes many interesting and relevant examples. His passion contrasts sharply with Kao's teaching methods.


one midterm - half multiple choice, half short answer (heavy on drawing graphs)
one final - non cumulative
two very short papers
10% of grade is just psych participation