course
Intro to Psychology

May 2021

Sussan is an absolute sweetheart. She made her lessons incredibly engaging and fun even over zoom. She was totally understanding of how students' first priority might not be school given the times we are in and because of this she dropped our lowest quiz grade so we would not have to stress. She also was understanding about being flexible with when to offer quizzes and never made us take them on zoom with her watching or anything weird like that. She was an amazing professor and I feel like I learned so much that she is the reason I'm going to take more psych classes in the future!

May 2021

If you are going to take an intro to psych class make sure it's with Prof McCaskill. She really wants you to learn the basics and goes out of her way to understand students' different learning experiences and methods. And if the science part of the class scares you don't worry about it, she and the TAs will go out of their way to help.

Feb 2021

I cannot recommend Professor McCaskill enough. She is a warm and approachable person who genuinely cares for her students. She is extremely knowledgeable in the field, and her dual careers as a researcher/professor and practicing clinician give her a perspective that feels more empathic and clued-in than other Psych professors. Her grading was fair and her slides were thorough. She even gives opportunities for extra credit. Excellent professor.

Feb 2021

Prof. McCaskill is amazing! The class was very straightforward and interesting. She is extremely knowledgeable. This was an intensive course but I think we still managed to cover a decent amount of material. I don't know what grade I got yet but I think it will be an A or an A+.

Jan 2021

She has been one of the most accommodating professors during the coronavirus pandemic. Professor Jhanwar is also always available for office hours and is eager to help any students in need. This course was super manageable, especially as an intro course. It could be boring at times, but is still very comprehensive. Every topic is also taught through PowerPoint slides so don't expect an extremely exciting lecture. That being said, it does help students weed out what is the most useful information. I found that I didn't need to read the textbook and just referred to the slides while studying.

Dec 2020

I took this class Fall A 2020 as a first-year with no background in psych and it was a blessing. Prof Stokes wanted the online semester to be as straightforward as possible and she succeeded. There were no tests or quizzes: instead, we wrote a short essay at the end of each week on a prompt she gave out on Wednesday or Thursday. There was also no textbook or readings required for the class—Prof Stokes posted handouts she made to Canvas the night before each class that contained everything she intended to cover in the following class. Professor Stokes is also the sweetest person and shared many stories about her life and her art throughout the class. She would join the Zoom ten minutes early and stay on 30 min afterwards in case people wanted to ask her questions outside of class time or just chat. In all, minimal effort and maximal vibes. I cannot recommend this class enough!

Dec 2020

I loved Professor Taylor! She was really understanding and accommodating of the problems that people face learning from home. This semester, we did not do three exams and a final. We took 7 quizzes over the course of the semester and the final was optional if we had not failed any of the quizzes. She uses personal examples to help learn the concepts in this class, which I personally found to be super helpful. Overall, this was a fun class with a small workload and I would highly recommend this class. The readings for this class were not difficult and not extremely time-consuming. Each quiz was on two chapters, so around 80-90 pages total, of reading. We were not required to do specific readings before class, just before the quiz on said reading. The last quiz was on three chapters. The discussion posts were not time-consuming either- reading the material and making a post took me around 30 minutes on average when I was reading well into the articles. Experimental participation is mandatory for intro psych classes at Barnard I believe, but it is spread out over most of the semester. The work took me less than four hours over this time.

Dec 2020

The whole course is laid out on the syllabus at the beginning of the semester very clearly. We never did anything during class other than look at PowerPoint slides, but Professor Taylor is funny and would tell us some stories, which made it more interesting. The material moves a little fast, but she's good with answering questions. She's very accommodating for students and changed due dates for assignments when people asked and let us have a 5-minute Zoom breaks in the middle of class. There are exams about every other week, which was a little overwhelming at first, but they're all multiple choice and Professor Taylor uploads study questions that are pretty much the same as what's on the exams. If you get a C or higher on every exam, the final is optional. Every week that doesn't have a quiz has a discussion post, where you have a reading or video and write a couple of paragraphs answering questions, then reply to 3 classmates. The discussion subjects were interesting, and you get full credit as long as you do it. There's one paper, but it's only worth 15 points and about 3 pages, and you shouldn't get points off if you answer all the questions. There are textbook readings too, but you don't really need to do them if you go to class. We also have to participate in psych experiments and get 10 credits. Check the website every so often and don't be too picky about which studies you do. Some people didn't get enough credit, but just fill out some surveys, and you'll be golden. Very straightforward, good intro class.

Dec 2020

Maybe she's changed, but I really don't agree with any of the previous reviews. She never sounds monotone during class. She actually sounds pretty excited and her slides are clear. She also tries to get to know students and their names during discussions, which are usually the same 10 students participating anyway. The exams were fair and they included things from both the lectures and exams.

Nov 2020

DO NOT TAKE THIS CLASS ONLINE. she gives absolutely no grading criteria and doesn't give u a grade until it's officially on ur transcript, and u can't even do anything about it. so annoying

May 2020

I am honestly shook at the amount of hate for Prof. Taylor. As a wee freshman, I almost did not take her intro class because of these scathing reviews. I am so fortunate I disregarded them. Prof. Taylor is one of the best profs I have had at Barnard. I took intro freshman fall and I FAILED my first exam with her, but she has a drop policy allowing you to drop one exam acknowledging people have test taking anxiety or bad days. I met with her in office hours and she could not have been nicer. I was super intimidated by the Barnard science requirement and she was the reason I ended up minoring in psychology. She showed me how to study for the following tests (mult choice strategies, how to write a scientific short answer etc) and aced the next three, earning an A- in the class. For Forensic Psychology (combo of how psychology and the law interact like psychology of judges, juries, lawyers, victims, assailants, etc), she not only brought interesting personal experiences to the table, but a host of thought-provoking readings. I took this class the semester of miss corona and Taylor could not have been more accommodating. She asked us how we would like to be evaluated, about our mental health, and was just overall a rockstar in keeping us all motivated and engaged in school when the vibe was bad otherwise. LOVE THIS WOMAN. Taylor for sure can be sarcastic and she is a very direct, cut and dry prof. But, she also deeply cares about what she teaches, and genuinely cares for students. 10/10 would recommend. ALWAYS go to class, not only is it worthwhile learning wise, but also where exam questions come from.

Jan 2020

Not terribly engaging to say the least, but exams are really easy. You are not tested on anything in the readings not mentioned in class. Work is really only before exams since psychology as a subject requires memorization, and there is quite a bit given it's a comprehensive exam. Jhanwar is a nice person and professor, but tends to read off lecture slides.

Jan 2020

TAKE THIS CLASS!! I cannot stress this enough. I took this class to satisfy a requirement, and had no background in psychology before this class. 1. Attend lectures. I noticed the numbers dwindling at times (especially when there's suspiciously more people during tests than there's usually at lecture). She posts the slides of the week every Friday, but I would go to lecture and pay more attention to what she says rather than frantically trying to copy down everything on the slide. She elaborates more on experiments, and often brings up good examples. 2. Complete the study questions. At the end of the slides for a day, she posts a series of open-ended questions that correspond with the lecture. As she tells you in class, these questions are basically the template for the test. Do these, understand them, and you will ace that test! (Textbook is pretty unnecessary except for maybe one or two questions that will appear on test). 3. Professor Taylor is witty and incredibly knowledgeable in her field. Highly recommend this class, ended the semester with an A.

Dec 2019

This is an easy class as far as the material and exams. It requires very little effort. HOWEVER, there are many things about the format and organization in the class that is very unnecessarily confusing. The syllabus is very unhelpful and the textbook is pretty much useless, in fact she often disagrees with it. Lectures are dry and it takes forever to decipher what she writes on the board. Yes, this class is easy, but the way this class is taught is at times stressful and odd. I honestly recommend taking this class with another professor, especially if you want to actually learn anything or plan to major or minor in psychology.

Dec 2019

Already took psych in high school, so a lot of the material was familiar. Standard lecture and slideshow format, sometimes went agonizingly slow. Would recommend to a student looking for an easy/light workload and a fun intro to psych, not necessarily the most rigorous foundation. Really wish I had taken the AP and placed out of Intro--was bored out of my mind.

Nov 2019

Although McCaskill is generally chill & nice, I think she is overrated & a procrastinator (like what other reviews have said). Just don't go into her class with a high expectation and I guess you'll be fine.

Dec 2018

KATHLEEN TAYLOR IS A BAD TEACHER. DO NOT TAKE THIS CLASS. honestly, her lecture style is not that bad, but she moves really fast and this is really her only pro. Her tests are impossible and significantly harder than any other intro psych class. She also makes you take textbook chapter quizzes which are a waste of time because they test in extreme detail and you don't even need to know most of the material from the textbook for the tests. She is very insensitive, and does not care about the needs of the students, she only cares about her own personal workload. Oh, and she doesn't curve! everyone I know in the class is pass/failing. That's not right for intro psych. STEER CLEAR OF THIS CLASS.

Nov 2018

Really nice guy - intro to psych is a super easy class. He tests mostly on the lecture so you don't need to read the textbook at all. Quizzes are multiple choice and straight from his slides and lecture. As long as you pay attention in class you can pass without a problem. I highly recommend for a course that won't give you a headache. Also gives off for Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur if that's relevant to you

Apr 2018

Professor Brotherton was great for Intro to Psychology! He always spoke clearly and cared about the material he was teaching. His powerpoints were great and had all the information needed for the tests (he posts the slides after each lecture). His tests were very fair -- there were never trick questions. Getting an A in his class was very doable with minimal study time.

Dec 2017

Professor Brotherton was great. His lectures were not exhausting; on the contrary they were very coherent and engaging. He gave us a 5 minute mind break half way through the class which was nice to catch up on note-taking or just relax. Lecture slides were posted on Canvas a couple days later. Honestly, his class was so interesting I didn't mind going, but you could always get away with missing a lecture if needed because attendance is not taken. The course material is fairly simple and easy to grasp. However, I feel like the basics of psychology still have to be learned at some point so no regrets! P.S.: I had a friend taking another intro to psych class at Barnard and they didn't have an essay nor did they have homework. However, I feel like that's a loss because the homework stimulated me to consider the significance of the concepts I was learning with respect to other concepts in psych.

Dec 2017

Great professor, direct and knowledgeable. She's very understanding! Would recommend this course, not much work, but interesting.

Dec 2017

in simple terms, this is a helpful but very easy class. I realized that people who actually attended class dwindled every week, until I myself did not attend class. There's no attendance grade so nothing really happens, but I would rather study the material independently and wait until the Review for the exam comes out and study from there. This is not to say there's no work! I personally did read some of the chapters in the book because I found them really helpful, and there will be quite a bit of cramming, Sometimes you will ask a question in class and the Professor will repeat whatever was on the slide, so you'll need to look for it yourself, this is not to say that Jhanwar isn't a lovely and kind person, she is and she's available for office hours for extra help as well.

Sep 2017

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.

Jun 2017

This class is incredibly boring. It's a large lecture of Jhanwar mostly just reading from the slides. The only work are two midterms and a final that are multiple choice and not cumulative. If you took AP Psych, this is essentially a repeat of that class. Professor Jhanwar started every class late and always ended early, which was great, but shows you how little we did in class other than read the slides. It's not that she's a horrible teacher, she's just very mediocre.

May 2017

I am sad to say that Professor Stokes' class was terrible. Right off the bat, she told us that teaching was her second career and hinted that she was only teaching to kill time. She was non-stop bragging about her previous, prestigious career, and very frequently drifted off to talk about her personal life. She never gave us our essays or exams back, which means that she probably didn't even read our essays closely. How are we supposed to improve if we don't know what we did wrong? She wrote on the chalk board in a very disorganized manner and so we kept on having to interrupt her to ask what something on the board said. She structured the semester into chapters, but the lectures were disorganized. She went back and forth on topics a lot. She used Powerpoint only once in the entire semester, and changed slides so fast that we, once again, kept on having to interrupt her to ask her to slow down. Her lack of skills with technology would have been endearing if she wasn't so downright mean and psychorigid. Every time a phone buzzed or a laptop made any noise, she would scold the student as if we were in a high school classroom. All of these interruptions took away a big chunk of time from actually teaching psychology. This is one of the rare cases that I have experienced where the professor's behavior actually got in the way of my ability to learn the subject that they were teaching. I recommend taking the class with a different professor.

Apr 2017

This was one of the easiest classes I have ever taken. That being said, Professor Jhanwar is very sweet and creates very straightforward PowerPoints that you can turn into flashcards for studying purposes. I rented the textbook but never even opened it, since all the material covered on the tests are in the PowerPoints - I found it helpful to attend lecture and did not have to study very much because I paid attention in class. All the exams are multiple choice with VERY brief short-answer questions at the end and non-cumulative. Personally enjoyed the material, but had covered a lot of it from IB SL psych. She is always willing to patiently answer questions (even the dumb ones) and lectures rarely ran for the full 75 minutes. Would recommend if looking to knock out a requirement or for an elective GPA booster.

Dec 2016

Power point based lectures with the test being derived from them. Very straight forward. No homework. Grade consist of 3 equally waited exams and psych-participation study credits. (FYI: compared to the other intro to psych classes this class was not curved and did not offer extra credit.) Fortunately I did well, but have heard of other students' misfortunes over multiple choice exams and their inherent ambiguity dictating their final grade. Take the class if you are good / comfortable with all multiple choice.

Nov 2016

Professor Stokes is a great professor. I thought she was a little harsh for the first few weeks, but she warmed up to us by the end of September. She is a really smart woman and is understanding about different learning styles. Professor Stokes uses a lot of diagrams, and they are really helpful. As for the exams, she assigns 2 take home essays per midterm, one of them being extra credit. It is foolish to not do the second essay, because it helps you get a handle on some of the topics, and it can boost your grade if you're not a great test-taker. The class itself is not easy, especially at the beginning of the semester when it is neuroscience heavy, but as long as you pay attention in every class and study a few hours per week, you should be able to do well.

May 2016

This class is not hard. I did none of the reading, went to maybe a third of the lectures (during which I would do other work or scroll around on Facebook), and got an A in the class. That being said, this class is terribly boring, and I didn't learn anything. If you really just need to take psychology to fill a requirement or get some easy credits, this is the class for you, but if you care at ALL about learning about psychology, take a different professor.

May 2014

I enjoyed my time in class this semester. Professor Lindemann is great, and her TA's were at least moderately helpful (although, there is no forced interaction with any of them because there are no required discussion sections). I found the content of the course itself very interesting, and Professor Lindemann lead very engaging lectures that incorporated videos, poll questions, etc. I felt like she made what could have been something very boring into something pretty fun. Attendance was mandatory, we iClicked into the class. Up to 3 free absences. Showing up only ended up counting for 4% of the final grade, though. I thought this was a bit low. 3 mandatory essays that cannot exceed 2 pages are graded by the TAs. Grading difficulty DEFINITELY differed TA-to-TA (avoid James). Participation in psychology department experiments was a requirement (6 credits, 3 hours worth). One of the 3 essays had to be on an experiment in which we participated. 3 non cumulative exams. Loved this. Many test questions (mix of multiple choice and long answer) involved detailed information from the textbook that was not covered in class. This made reading the textbook carefully absolutely mandatory. Overall, my grade did not turn out how I was expecting or hoped (75% of the final grade was the exams, scores weren't high enough). I felt like that cheapened the rest of the hard work I did in the class. I would however, definitely recommend the class, and I thought that Prof Lindemann was fantastic.

Dec 2013

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 on wikipedia. This class is not giving you any deeper knowledge than that.

Aug 2013

Great class! If you are interested in psychology and have not taken AP Psych then this class is for you! She puts all the powerpoints online before the class. I would highly recommend printing these out before class and taking notes on them as nearly all her exam questions come from her lectures. Reading the textbook reinforces what you learn in lecture and a few questions (maybe 2-3 come directly from the book). So basically go to her lectures! So many people decided not to come to her class and were at a real loss wasting time taking meticulous notes when she goes over nearly everything she wants you to know. Also, if you participate often enough she will give you extra credit. So try and participate once a week or so. I found the lectures quite engaging, but I had an interest in Psychology before the class. I also enjoyed how she asks the class questions and will answer your questions in the middle of a lecture, even with such a large class. The topics covered are broad, as with most intro classes, but this way you can see which parts of psychology interest you most and can decide from there which upper-level classes to take. The experiments are fun too! If you try, you should get a pretty good grade on them. Exams aren't tricky as long as you've studied and shown up to lectures and the TA review before the final.

Apr 2013

Meh. Josh New pretty much lectures completely from slides which he uploads to Courseworks, so while the class is pretty blah, it's also easy and barely any work. He tries to make the lectures interesting with video clips and visual aids, but he's not the best lecturer. I got the feeling that he wasn't very confident. His nervous laughter was really annoying by the end of the semester. He also says/does a lot of stupid things, like giggle nervously and skip over slides about child development and breastfeeding (seriously, if you are a married scientist who's teaching at a women's college and are too awkward to show a slide on breastfeeding, you've got problems). He also showed a graph for one lecture that showed a high percentage of disapproval in the US of interracial marriages in the 1960s. He was really surprised by this data because he thought the 60s were all about "peace, love and understanding" *nervous giggle.* Dude, the 60s were not a peachy time for race relations. Could be worse, though.

Jan 2013

Professor Stokes is a near-perfect professor for Intro Psych. She presents the material clearly, assigns very little, and writes fair exams. There are assigned textbook chapters but it's not remotely necessary to read them because the only things on the exams are things she covers during class (class attendance is more significant than the reading). Most of the material is legitimately interesting and she tells great relevant anecdotes and takes students' stories and questions. She's super approachable and very reasonable about grading and help. In the beginning of the course she admitted that she was aiming for everyone to get an A and teaches the course that way (judging from the grade postings, not everyone got an A, but about 2/3 of the class received final grades in the A range).

Dec 2012

Do Not take her class. She is determined to ruin your GPA. She teaches nothing but talking about her personal stories in the class, then she expects the students know everything on the exams. She does on nitpicking on your test, tries to give you the lowest scores as much as possible. TAs are rude and cocky. I really regret that I took this class. DO NOT make a mistake like me. unless you know everything about the Psychology, do not take her class. She never responds your email. Usually, She is not in her office in her office hour. She is not willing to help you. REPEAT! DO NOT TAKE THIS CLASS!!!!!

Oct 2012

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.

Feb 2012

Patricia Stokes is by far the most humane professor I have EVER had. It is rare to find a professor who will personally reach out to you if you have any difficulties in the class. I am a complete screw up when it comes to handing in assignments and she always sets up meetings with me to make sure my academic and personal life isn't crashing. You could go up to her an say that you suffer from the oedipus complex and she will be nonjudgmental, talk to you about it, and serve as your advisor when it comes to finding help. Not only is she a great teacher, she provides to be outstanding when it comes to supporting and caring for her students. I think this woman is amazing, and it only takes one individual meeting with her to have your eyes opened to the heart she has. I was lucky enough to have her as my professor twice so from experience I advise you to ***take her Reacting to the Past class ANDDDD her intro to Psych course***!!!! She focuses on keeping students engaged in material instead of dumping loads of irrelevant work on our plates. P Stokes u da best

Jan 2012

This is a great class to take if you're using Psychology to fulfill the lab requirement and need Intro for the prerequisite. Professor Hebert is really friendly and her lectures are super easy to understand. She posts all of her lectures as Powerpoints on courseworks and you really only have to study her lectures for the exams; the book is mostly unnecessary. If you're not interested in the field, the class can be kind of boring, but that's more the fault of it being an intro class than Professor Hebert's ability. At first it feels like she's talking to a class of four-year olds, but you get used to it. Above all, as long as you study the lectures, the class is definitely an easy A, or even an A+.

Jan 2012

This class was very objective and a strong one overall. Professor Kennard put a copy of the textbook in the library so I never bought the book. Although the powerpoint lectures (which she put on courseworks ahead of time) were mostly just restating what was in the book, Professor Kennard was good at making the material interesting and allowed us to respond to the material and ask questions although the class was mostly lecture-style. Exams were very objective, if you read the textbook and attended the lectures you had all the material. She was very friendly and flexible as far as arranging office hours and allowed us to send her our rough drafts of our papers, which helped a lot. I think Professor Kennard's APA manual of style was different from mine because I thought I had followed all the formatting rules in my paper but she marked quite a few things so in the future I'd check what edition she uses.

Jan 2012

Prof. Horowitz is very clear about her expectations for the course, and makes a worthwhile point about integrating the psychology of learning into her lectures, to encourage the most efficient manner of study as possible. As such, her lectures overlap significantly with the textbook readings and the power points that she puts on Courseworks, which, as she explains, is the most efficient manner of learning, but make it difficult for the less-than-motivated to continue coming to class. She's one of the best in her field, though, so it's worth going. She is an entertaining lecturer, though, and extremely receptive to student questions.

Nov 2011

Honestly, I don't know what everyone is complaining about. Professor Horowitz is extremely knowledgeable and, more importantly, a great professor. Her intro to psych class is by far the best of all those offered currently. Not only is she engaging, but she literally goes over EVERYTHING necessary to do well. The work load is extremely manageable, and it is clear from her VERY HELPFUL power points what will and what will not be on the final exam. Anyone complaining is clearly just wining. Suck it up and stay awake, her class is great.

Nov 2011

Horrible class. I'm an upcoming psych major so I love psych and I took psych courses in the summer, but this was the worse. Her class is boring because she doesn't make the lessons interesting. I fell asleep a million times. But, she is a very helpful professor and will accommodate your schedule if you need to meet with her. She is also obviously very smart and knows how to answer questions if you have any. She's great at explaining. Nice woman, but boring professor.

Sep 2011

I don't know what everyone means when they say professor Horowitz is an "amazing" teacher. I beg to differ. If by amazing you mean monotone, zombie like and boring then she must be great. I've fallen asleep numerous times in this class and I don't even go anymore because she sucks that bad. I'd rather just read the book and teach myself. Please don't go to this class. Do yourself the favor. If you have had boring teachers all your life then by all means go and take this class. However, if you have had fun teachers that make you WANT to learn then go somewhere else.

Jan 2011

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.

Dec 2010

What a great professor!! Hands down, my favorite class. I am a first year and found the pace of the class to be perfect - engaging and not overwhelming. I learned a great deal from both the reading in the textbook and from her lectures. I actually loved reading the textbook and found it very interesting and straightforward. Absolutely take this class from Horowitz because she loves what she does and her passion is clearly transferred to her students.

Dec 2010

Professor Stokes is a fantastic Intro to Psych professor. Not only does she make the class extremely interesting and hilarious by adding her own personal anecdotes to almost every lecture, but she tries to make the class even more interesting and relevant by not following the text book and focusing on what she thinks is important. Her teaching methods make it so that no class is ever boring. However, you have to attend every class because her tests focus almost 90% on her lectures. Though there are sections on the text, you really only need to annotate your lecture notes with the text book and read the sections she tells you to read right before the exams. GREAT intro class.

Dec 2010

Where do i begin? Professor Kang was my absolute favorite teacher this semester. He is an absolutely wonderful person. His class is very engaging, the material is fascinating, everything is just really enjoyable. A previous review mentioned that he did not have control over the class, and i did not see how this was applicable at all. Professor Kang knows exactly how to deal with his intro to psych class-- a group of mostly Barnard Freshmen all waiting to start their weekend in the last class (5:40-6:50pm TR) of the day... And not a single student was ever antsy or wanted to bust out early. This is a lecture class with about 30-38 people. Professor Kang uses slides that discuss what the text book covers. Technically, i suppose you could just read the textbook and never attend class, but i can't see why you would want to. The slides are pretty entertaining. He puts in videos of his daughters (one was born the first week of class, the other is about 3 years old) as examples at times, and he covers case studies never mentioned in the textbook. He engages the class with his examples and keeps inside jokes running throughout the semester. We used Psychology by Schacter the 2009 edition, and I know we'll be the last class to do so because today he mentioned that the newest edition was just released. He is still debating if he will continue with Schacter, but let me just say that if he does, use the included website!! I didn't think about this until just before the final exam, but the book includes a website with practice quizzes, chapter outlines, flash cards. i'm pretty upset that i never realized it before. As for Intro to Psych, it's a great class. It's just nice enough to pique your interests in psychology without overwhelming you. i would really love to take another psych course but, as i told Professor Kang numerous times, i'd probably only sign up for one if he teaches it (and he only teaches intro to psych).

Dec 2010

I recommend this course whether you are majoring in Psych, fulfilling your science requirement, or are just interested in Psych. Stokes does a great job of presenting and explaining the material. There are 3 non-cumulative tests. You have to write an essay for each test which can be a pain but is actually very helpful for studying. There is also an optional 2nd essay for each test - DO IT! You can get up to 20 extra credit points! The only annoying thing about this course is that she doesn't give A+s. She says that people get 100 on the tests with the help of extra credit and therefore, does not believe in giving anyone an A+. Also, her handwriting is very hard to read. Students are continuously squinting to try and understand what she wrote but you can usually decipher it. She also says what she is writing out loud which makes it easier Overall, I am very happy that I took this course with Stokes. I really feel like I am coming out of the class with a clear understanding of psychology and I even decided to minor in the subject.

Nov 2010

Professor Horowitz is awesome. Her intro to psych class is engaging, fascinating, well presented, and fair. She usually assigns one chapter of reading in the Myers' Exploring Psychology (it's a pretty easy read) textbook per class, and provides lecture slides as well. During class, she lectures with the slides on powerpoint, and supplements them with her own interesting/hilarious commentary. It's REALLY helpful to print out the slides before class, so you can just take notes on them when she's lecturing. Otherwise, you might find yourself scrambling to copy down everything on the slides AND everything she's saying. She's a great lecturer, but also likes to make the class somewhat of a discussion. Surprisingly, for a lecture class of about 50-60 people, she makes it work! Overall, Horowitz is a great teacher, clearly devoted to the subject and to teaching her students in the most practical and engaging way possible. TAKE HER CLASS. I'm a psych major and found her intro class to be a perfect segway into higher levels, but if you're only thinking about psych or might want to take some psych classes, hers is a fantastic one to start with. You'll love it.

Jul 2010

SUCH AN AMAZING PROFESSOR! I cannot give Professor McCrink enough praise. She has been the most engaging and clear professor I have ever had. Even though her Psych class was at 9am, her enthusiasm for psych and her chill personality made it such a pleasurable class to sit through. Whenever I had questions, she was always available to chat, and responded to emails quickly. Her class convinced me to be a psych major. Please take her classes even if you're not a psych major, because you will learn so much. GREAT CLASS!

Jun 2010

Stokes can be entertaining, and lectures are almost always interesting. The class is what it is- intro to psych, nothing particularly deep but a fairly interesting overview. She adds in her own anecdotes to make it less dry. So many people sign up that she has to do a lottery on the first day, so entrance is not guaranteed. Definitely go to lectures and take notes, as tests are based on the lectures. The reading is essentially optional. It's best not to do it at all until before the test, when you might want to go back to read about something she mentioned but wasn't clear about.

Jan 2010

This class was great. Professor Pardo is straightforward and presents information in a clear, comprehensive way. For example, she draws charts and diagrams - something that I rarely saw in high school and greatly appreciated. So if you're a "visual learner", you'll benefit from her teaching. She seems very organized and knowledgeable. It is important to go to lecture and keep up with the readings. Do this, and you'll do very, very well in this class. Also, Professor Pardo is really fun! I would definitely take another class with her. She even made me want to become a psych major - or at least take more psych courses.

Dec 2009

This class was a boring but easy. Berenson is a nice person and is very clear about what material you need to know, which is very thoughtful of her. However there is nothing conceptual about this class. Half of each test is a take home, and the other half is 50 multiple choice questions. The take homes have questions that are mostly out of the book, but she always has a very specific answer in mind. Sometimes the questions are ambiguous, so start the take homes early so you can ask for clarification. Also, she does not write her own tests, so sometimes concepts that you haven't covered will pop up on the tests, but she will explain it if you ask her too. She is a nice person, but ultimately the class was a lot of memorization without being particularly challenging.

Dec 2009

I thought prof Pardo was fantastic. I greatly enjoyed the class. She's funny and not at all dry, unlike some of the other reviews have claimed. She's got a great, sarcastic sense of humor and livens up even the more boring parts of the course. She gave a great intro to psych. I know Stokes is super wanted or whatever, but I'd TOTALLY recommend Pardo for intro. She's great. The workload is not terrible and the class is a really great option for freshmen. There are three non-cum exams and if you do all the readings and attend lecture will be a breeze. Ignore prior reviews-- TAKE THIS CLASS!!

Dec 2009

Professor Kang is a great guy, but his class was a bit of a bore. Lots of time is wasted with pointless discussion, and many people ramble on. Nevertheless, the material is easy and all the tests are non-cumulative, including the final, so it's very doable. In addition, there is one final paper where you basically make up a psychological study and present it--not a hard assignment. If you want a psych primer, an easy A, or just need to fill up some credits, go for it! BE WARNED, however: all intro to psych students are required to participate in 5 hours of psychological studies conducted by other students; this is MANDATORY. You pick the time, but you need to get those hours in. Other than the hours, I don't regret taking this class.

Sep 2009

A lovely teacher for psychology. She's very sweet and is willing to help the students. The workload is managable and all classes involve power slides which make it easier to read. Very interesting psychology stuff if you take intro to psych.

Sep 2009

I took Intro to Psych with Prof Horowitz last semester and it made me change my major from English to Psychology. She is an intelligent and engaging professor; always fair but also expects a lot of her students. I learned more from her in that class than I have in any other class. I highly recommend that you take this class with her, whether you want to be a Psych major, whether you need to fill a requirement, or whether you are just interested in Psychology. She is the best.

May 2009

While this class was super easy and I made a 100 on every test, this professor is the most inappropriate professor when it comes to imposing her views onto her students. I am probably one of the most moderate people at Barnard when it comes to politics, religious views, etc., but this teacher managed to rub so many people the wrong way not only during lecture but outside of class. She brags about how affluent she and her husband are (spending time at their "country house" which is actually a 2x4 shack in Jersey) all semester. If anyone believes in anything outside of her democratic, left wing views, she does not respect you. If you want an easy A, take the class with this professor. But if you are a republican, an orthodox Jewish person, or believe fundamentally in Islam, just prepared to be offended at some point during the semester.

Apr 2009

Definitely not worth the hype. Stokes is a fine lecturer but nothing spectacular so don't try too hard to get in your class. Her tests ask random questions sometimes, but you have a take home essay with an extra credit essay as well (always do the extra credit) so it's not that hard to do well in her class. I recommend glancing over the reading at some point before each exam, especially to write the essays.

Jan 2009

After all the hype about Stokes I was really disappointed. She definitely wasn't bad, but there wasn't really anything that special about her and I wouldn't really put her among my favorite professors I've had. To her credit she was extremely approachable and always answered questions raised in class, no matter how off-topic. She also shared a lot of cute/interesting anecdotes about her family and friends and own experiences in advertising and art. Aside from that, however, her lecturing style wasn't particularly stimulating, her writing on the board was difficult to read, and the workload and grading was extraordinarily easy. Overall not a bad class but not anything to write home about.

Jan 2009

As most of the reviews say, Professor Stokes is a wonderful woman and teacher. She makes every class exciting and interesting, and adds stories about her experience in the psychology field. She explains everything in its easiest form -- it is very important to take notes every class. Although the book that goes along with the course is helpful, her exams are based on the notes she gives you, so don't rely too much on the book to prepare yourself for the 2 midterms and the final. She will tell you exactly what will be on the exams so it is very fair. Although it is very easy to get behind on the weekly reading, it is very helpful to read the chapters along with her lessons. This will make studying easier so there won't be so much to cram when the exams come around.

Jan 2009

Professor Kang is a new, eager professor that graced my presence after I got rejected from Stokes class...he isn't full time but he sure does put a lot of effort into his lectures. The intro class was relatively small (28?), as our class time was at 5:40. He took advantage of our size and encouraged us to engage in discussions every day -- which has its goods and bads. For one thing, he rarely finishes his lectures because of his inability to shut the mindless students who ramble nonsense words for 5 minutes..but that cannot be entirely based on him. All in all, I rarely found myself bored in his class. He is clearly very interested in the material he's discussing, and always tries to incorporate recent events into the material we were learning (elections, etc). Kudos to him for packing so much info into a psych 101 course on his first try. Another thing, unless he changes the textbook (and I hope for your sake he changes it)...the textbook talks to you like a 15 year old. It has pictures of random girls looking at pamphlets about anorexia or pictures of oranges on every page....a survey you can take about "how you handle stress"..i mean come on. Something a bit more academic. But most of the tests were based on lectures, with some denser subjects (Neuroscience/Brain structure) that you have to take from the text. The text itself is not all too boring and not at all dense (repeat: hs textbook), not painful.

Dec 2008

Professor Horowitz is one of the best professors I have ever encountered during my time at Barnard. Her lectures are engaging and witty, and the powerpoint slides that are available on courseworks make it easy to follow along and make your own notes (so you're not worrying about catching every word). If you speak to her once and introduce yourself, she'll remember your name and use it when she calls on you (in my experience, rare for even a medium sized lecture class). I recommend her to any student interested in psychology...in fact, I think I'm catching the psychology bug because of my experience in her class.

Dec 2008

This professor is amazing. She is kind, humorous, and intelligent. She is willing to meet with students often, and will respond quickly to emails. I sent her a flurry of emails this past semester with a ton of specific questions and she would answer all of them quickly and fully. She is also personable, which is evident by her efforts to remember and use people's names in a lecture class. She sparked my interest in psychology, and I am now taking another psychology class next semester. I took Lindemann for a month last year (Fall '07) but I dropped it because of her disorganized teaching style and her inclination to teach far more information per class than was permitted by time. I HIGHLY recommend this professor; she is one of my favorites.

Dec 2008

Overall I enjoyed this course and would highly recommend it as the perfect introductory course. Yes the lectures are sometimes boring and you can get away with not attending but if you attend the tests are much easier because you can tell what she is going to focus on. The tests are four or five chapters each with about 30 multiple choice questions and then you choose to do four out of 8 short answers and then there is one long essay. The easiest way to study is to outline the chapters and then combine the outline with class notes to see what is most important. I believe if you do badly and talk to her you can figure out a way to do extra credit. The paper is 6 -8 pages. You pick a question which you submit to her and then you research literature to try and answer it. It is really more of a literature review and is not very strenuous at all, just make sure to follow the APA (American Psychological Association) format which she gives you a link to. Overall, if you want a stress free introduction to psychology definitely take this class. Professor Lawrence, while boring at times, is a very fair grader and is willing to help anyone who asks.

Dec 2008

Professor Horowitz’s class was interesting and I learned a lot of things that everyone should know something about. Her slides were comprehensive and she is a good lecturer. Even though the class was rather large, she always opened up the floor to students’ questions and opinions. Her examples were excellent and they greatly helped me remember the concepts. Sometimes she tried to put a little bit too much information into one class lecture. She also added interesting and usually funny videos from youtube, etc. to show different experiments. The group experiments that we had to do were also interesting and usually had some funny element to them. Her class was also not overwhelmingly sciencey which I appreciated. It was a bit nuts though that you had to keep getting to her class earlier and earlier just to be sure that you would get a seat!

Dec 2008

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, but she tends to make people feel stupid, even if there question isn't. There are 3 exams, instead of the traditional midterm and final. They aren't bad, about the same difficulty of a high school test. About 45 multiple-choice questions, and then probably 7-10 short answers, which range from definition/explanation to abstracting one topic into real-life examples. Pretty easy to finish in the 90-minute period, unless you're a really slow test-taker. Overall, if you don't have a choice, her class isn't the worst thing that could happen to you, but if you can get into another Intro class, DO IT. Your general self-worthiness will thank you.

Aug 2008

AMAZING!!!! Prof. Lindemann was indeed a bit quirky, but besides this, there is a lot to learn in her class. The lectures are engaging, and detailed but always fun and interesting. Be warned!! Don't think you can get by without attending lectures or reading the textbook. You have to do BOTH in order to do well in this class, so if you're taking it for a science requirement, I suggest you look elsewhere. For those of you who are truly interested in Psychology, you won't be disappointed.

Dec 2007

Professor Stokes is an amazing professor. Her lectures are packed with information, and interspersed with really interesting anecdotes. She often talks about the (really fascinating) results of particular studies to illustrate some of the more difficult concepts. She's a very engaging lecturer -- you definitely won't be looking at the clock. Her class is difficult to get into, because everyone wants it -- but it's totally worth it.

Nov 2007

Professor McKenna is a good teacher. She engages the class by asking lots questions and other ways to get us to participate. It is rare that she will lecture the whole time without bringing up some way to get us involved, such as by providing many many examples, whether it's for illusions which she draws on the board, shows us photocopied examples, thinking up examples of experiments and what is wrong with them... If you are interested in psychology, it is a fascinating class. Even just the intro level will change the way you think. She takes attendance every day, so i recommend actually going. Also, her lectures skip a lot of the info in the book, so you are making more work for yourself if you skip class and just read the book. Take notes and study those.

Jul 2007

I really enjoyed this course. Although I initially took intro to psych for the "easy A" factor I ended up putting in the work and doing the readings because of how interesting professor cina made the topic. Her lectures were quite fun, she usually broke up boring aspects of lectures with interactive games and examples. Further, although she didn't give out A's to everyone in the class, she was an extremely fair grader. In fact, at the end of the semester she would add up to FIVE POINTS TO YOUR FINAL GRADE for participation and effort. So even if you are only averaging a B+ or A- but trying you'll end up with the A. You can tell she really enjoys teaching and is always willing to meet after class. If you don't feel like waiting around to get Stokes, I'd say Cina is a great choice.

May 2007

TAKE HER CLASS. Granted, this is not the most challenging class you will take at Columbia/Barnard (it is an Intro Class after all), the professor is a real sweetheart. This is the only class I've had where class participation took up so much of class time. Yes, there are the brown-nosers, but it doesn't really matter, because the class is small enough that you can ask whatever you want to know. The class is by no means difficult, though you should read the book as the midterm and final are wholly based from the textbook. Her lectures are interesting (she doesn't hesitate to show videos, like of her own adorable children, and even do experiments in class). She is a therapist herself - so if you are thinking about going into that field she would be a good mind to pick. She's very accessible via email and genuinely wants you to like the class.

May 2007

This class is great if you need an extra 3 credits and enjoy sleeping late on Tuesdays and Thursdays. I stopped going to class after the midterm, then reviewed two hours for the final and ended up with an A-. Nice women, but not worth waking up at 9 am for.

Jan 2007

Prof. McKenna isn't the greatest lecturer, but she is a really nice lady. Although she has a really unfortunate, droning voice, you can still see that she likes what she teaches. Her lectures are organized and overall I got a pretty good intro to psychology. In response to the other reviews, her tests never seemed unreasonable. The paper was a pretty interesting experience, and easy. Just read the material and pay attention. This class is not half bad.

Dec 2006

Wow. This class was such a mistake. I took this course in order to fulfill the psych major after taking other psych courses at Columbia. Her lectures are entirely narrative and non-scientific, and if you've taken psych before you know she's not giving you the correct definitions to the terms. I'm no scientist, but I found this irritating beyond belief. She's a nice person and all, but I don't think I learned a thing.

May 2006

Dr. Horowitz is a witty, captivating speaker who has studied both philosophy and psychology extensively and therefore has much to contribute from both disciplines. Her use of clear powerpoint presentations makes note taking effortless and allows you to focus completely on her lecture without worrying about copying minutaie into a notebook. She will expose you to the wonders of the human mind and leave you feeling like you've much to bring to the rest of your studies at Columbia and life in general.

May 2006

not to be cliche, but DO NOT TAKE THIS CLASS WITH THIS WOMAN. if you have any dignity or respect for yourself or the time you have on this earth, and wish not to waste it, do not spend it on this woman. the point of the class is for her to assure herself that she is, in fact, more intelligent than undergraduate students (mostly first-year, as well), for her to do her best to convince you of the same, and for her to test out new modes of tricking her students into getting the wrong answer. now this is only in class; if you are positively desperate for a reasonably easy way through this intro class, go ahead; i rarely took notes, and when i did, they were only useless for her little snippets of information that she put on her tests, no matter how irrelevant they were. the workload is fine, as long as you do the reading at some point, the text book she chose was juvenlie, and she is insufferable.

May 2006

A lovely person, an excellent teacher overall. Could assign reading with more specificity, rather than waiting right before the test to tell us what we didn't have to read. Otherwise, I learned volumes. She even teared up during one of her more passionate lectures. How teaching and learning should occur everywhere.

Apr 2006

Prof. Horowitz is great! Her class was interesting and organized; she used powerpoint to aid her lectures and always handed us a printed slide list to follow along (VERY helpful for the midterm and final). She used lots of examples and even occasional videos and mini experiments she tried on us in class. The textbook was also very clear and somewhat fun to read. Questions are always welcome during class, and she is extremely approachable afterwards or during her office hours. I had never taken a psychology class before this and found myself pleasantly surprised at how clear her explanations were. I highly recommend Prof. Horowitz to anyone, whether or not you plan to major in psych.

Apr 2006

Prof. Stokes is very nice, and the class is very easy. Not particularly stimulating, but not boring either.

Mar 2006

I personally didn't like the class or the subject matter. simply taking it for a requirment. Her teaching is bit boring, but fair. If you attend each lecture and do the readings which aren't copious you'll be fine. overall, if you are taking it for req, and not out of interest, STAY AWAY FROM PARDO, she is a boring lecturer.

Jan 2006

Professor Horowitz is the reason I love psychology so much right now. She is really kind and understanding, cares about her students, and is really excited about the material she teaches. Her class is a very relaxed atmosphere, and the workload was really manageable. I would take this class just to have an experience with such a great professor. I sometimes even wanted to go to class, even though it was at 9:00 am. I definitely recommend her.

Dec 2005

I think this professor gets a bad rap. Just because she doesn't try to trick you on exams, and doesn't test on things only appearing in the lecture doesn't mean that going to her class is a bad idea. She only tests on material that's contained in the textbook, I know its almost a novelty at Columbia/Barnard, but that's what she does. You can get by with just reading the textbook, but she explains everything in more detail, and I found her entertaining. If you like psychology, I don't think you'll find her boring, and she is always open to other points of view, that's why she's considered an 'easy' grader. She's not rigid and egoistic, again a novelty at our respective institutions. She really cares about her students and their understanding of psychology. Take the class, thats my advice, your transcript and your stress level will thank you.

Dec 2005

Everyone else has said it and I agree. He is the most confusing professor ever. He teaches 1/12th of what he tests you on and words the tests so that if you are not a statistician you will not understand what he is talking about. I knew he was horrendous from the CULPA reviews before I took him but I wanted to get my sciences out of the way and his class was the only one that fit so I took it. He does give you plenty of time to get out of the class. He gives 2 of the 3 quizzes and the grades for them before the end of the drop/add period and a boat load of students leave the class. I didn't drop after the second quiz because I could not afford to lose the money and my Dean said that the science classes at Columbia don't get much easier than this. I have to disagree with my Dean. There are much easier science classes if for no other reason than that there are professors who coherently teach 80-100% of what will be on their tests. This intro level class was a traumatic, anxiety ridden experience. He is a founder of cognitive psychology -- I guess that's why he is still teaching but he should just be writing books and doing some sort of research. He doesn't belong in a classroom. Good points : They return the grades quickly--usually within 2-3 days. The TAs know most people are struggling and are available to help you understand things. You get credit for your scores improving -- at least you did this semester. I don't know how he is going to change his policy next year. Advice: If you have to take this class, when you take your quizzes leave all questions of which you are not sure of the answer Blank -- I know this is hard because we are use to being know it alls who answer all the questions but leave it blank. An unanswered question is your best friend. I got a B+

Dec 2005

I originally took this section of Intro to Psych as a time-filler. At first, I wasn't interested at all in the subject matter and I was completely bored. Once we started going on in the material and did not have to learn about neuroscience or any other bio-related things anymore, I really enjoyed this class. She gave you a printout every day of the notes that would be needed for that class. but you still need to come because on the midterm and final she asks questions about videos that are only shown in class.

Nov 2005

Professor McKenna acts like she's doing a favor to her students when she lectures. She doesn't write anything down on the board, she hands out no outlines or guides, makes no courseworks postings (unlike many other social science teachers) and glosses over significant concepts. She takes some questions from the class (which is stupid because we're all first years and listening to our class hypothesize about disorders we don't know about gets old FAST). Her refusal to actually answer student's questions, combined with her ONE office hour make her class hard to do well in (and who wants a B or C in intro pysch?). She canceled class two hours before we were supposed to go (half the class ended up in the room confused), changed the syllabi multiple times and was often late to her own class. Her tests...She might tell you that it's mostly multiple choice and short- answer, but she really means that division is like 30/70 (wayyy more writing, and thus wayyy more subjectively graded). Oh, and by the way, she doesn't curve, as in, not at all, no extra points, no extra credit, etc. The class is mostly first years with a couple sophomores and a postbac here and there. I would recommend switching out of her class if there's anyway possible, especially as all my friends who took psych with other profs (stroessner, mccatskill, stokes, etc) loved it.

Nov 2005

I absolutely love this woman! She is by far the best teacher Ive ever had and she really wants her students to learn; its not just a class to her. She fully explains concepts and is INCREDIBLY patient and INCREDIBLY dedicated; there is absolutely nothing bad that can be said about her!

Aug 2005

Professor Stokes' Introduction to Psychology was extremely encouraging and insightful. I feel so enthusiastic about presuing Psychology as a major for my undergraduate studies.

May 2005

I really enjoyed this class. Prof Taylor does take a long time to hand back papers and exams, but she is an interesting lecturer and generous grader. I did not do well on the first exam and she was very accessible to meet with outside of class as well as reassuring and truly interested in her students.

May 2005

TAKE THIS COURSE W/ PROF MCCASKILL! In fact, take anything you can with Professor McCaskill because she is incredible! Any teacher that can make an intro course come to life and be as exciting and enlightening as she made it deserves serious praise. She was extremely organized with her lectures and provided us with outlines of the material so we would know exactly what to study on the exams. She is also the nicest woman ever and is very encouraging of any student who speaks up in class. The exams can be a bit of a pain to study for. I found that the best approach was to read through the textbook sections that she put on her outlines. There's no need to read the textbook in advance but if you read it and study before the exams, you'll do fine on them. No trick questions but you have to know the material down cold. Prof. McCaskill is also very willing to meet with students outside of class to discuss any issues whatsoever. She's amazing!!!

May 2005

My only recommendation is to not count on getting into this class due to the lottery process. If you do get it, lucky you. Professor Stokes is fantastic. She makes the most mundane material interesting and is a very engaging lecturer. She was always willing to talk about a topic or answer a question after class as well. Even more amazing is that she learns people's names in a 50 person class (as long as you talk to her either during or after class). The class material itself is mostly interesting, although some portions are boring. Go to all the lectures as that is the basis of most of the exams and all the essays. Don't read until before the exam as that is when she tells you what's necessary.

Feb 2005

I went to two classes, couldn't stand it anymore, and switched professors. She was a sweet woman, that came through clearly. But with that sweetness came a certain airheaded-ness that seemed toxic -- and I think that ditziness did turn out to be a serious downside, judging by the friends who stayed in her class and came to hate it because it was so mind-numbingly boring.

Feb 2005

Professor McCaskill is a dedicated teacher and a caring woman. If you have to take Intro Psych, take it with her. Professor McCaskill has a warm personality that extends into the material she teaches. She is down-to-earth, and she’s a real person. She is approachable and friendly. She is happy to talk about material that extends beyond what she covers in class. She gives you outlines -- I repeat -- she gives you OUTLINES of every topic that she covers, making it virtually unnecessary to take a ton of notes or do the reading. Although the outlines themselves could use a little cleaning up organization-wise, they were still priceless to the student who doesn't want to be forced to do a ton of work. She does not take attendance. But unless you want to do the reading, I suggest going to class. During class, McCaskill sticks to the outlines. Perhaps due to her background in neurobiology/biopsychology, she explains biological processes very clearly, even to the point that a scientifically handicapped person like I am could understand them. With these and all concepts, she teaches you what you need to know, and she does it well. She takes time to answer questions in class, and she allows for discussion, which I found refreshing. I liked McCaskill very much, and I will take more of her classes. But in Intro Psych, once I got wise, I doodled. I am not a career doodler, but I whole- heartedly recommend doodling as a survival mechanism in this case. Intro Psych is a course to be endured, regardless of your professor. It’s just boring. But McCaskill makes it a lot less painful, and dare I say enjoyable at times. Here’s a hint: for B-range grades, you will –only– need to study the outlines if you’ve gone to class. Take notes during class, but take them on the outlines themselves. This is what I did after I figured it out. If you are the no-holds-barred straight-A's go-getter type, then you will do the readings, you will study for the tests in advance, and you WILL get an A. McCaskill herself says this is possible, and it is. And you don’t need to be a total dork, you just need to stay on top of the readings.

Jan 2005

One of the nicest professors I have ever met. She makes herself available to help you with anything you don't understand. hte lectures were intresting, but a little too much time was spent with people discussing their own problems. Readings are neccessary only before the tests- she hands out comprehensive outlines that emphasize the important stuff. I did very little reading and work except before the tests and did fine. Overall, she is so nice that you can't help but love her. That plus an easy workload made this class enjoyable.

Jan 2005

Professor Lawrence is an incredibly nice, incredibly boring instructor. Though many think psychology is interesting regardless of the teacher, she definetely doesn't help. Her class is incredibly easy and most people only go to take the tests. She is a sweet person though and has a good deal of knowledge about psychology. The lectures are boring, but tests count for the bulk of the grade and everything is in the book. She is a really easy grader.

Jan 2005

Professor Stokes is great. Her lectures are clear and her tests are fair. The class is interesting and she always gives unique examples. I would definately take this class again.

Jan 2005

Deborah Lawrence is an incredibly sweet, nice woman who really cares about her students. I don't really feel like that point can be emphasized enough. I remember one time she disagreed with this girl during class about something totally trivial and afterward she approached the girl and apologized. That is just so nice. ANYWAY. That being said, you can imagine my guilt everytime I did not go to class (which was very often). It' s just that the lectures were often (or always) kind of (or verrrrry) boring, and since the tests were so fair and only required textbook regurgitation it was hard to make myself go to class. I think the rest of the class felt similarly since on the rare days I would come to class there would be like 10- 15 students there out of, I think, 40 or so. I just feel bad since she is such a fair, kind teacher. Oh, well.

Jan 2005

Professor Lawrence is a really, really sweet person. She's very soft-spoken, so that makes it a bit difficult to get through lecture, especially when students ask millions of questions and she politely discusses with them, but half the class didn't go anyway. It's not necessary to go to class, but I think she's nice, so I went for the most part, and it didn't hurt. She changed around exam/due dates to make them more convenient for us, and she emailed back quickly on questions pertaining to the paper. She's fairly laid-back from my experience, and the class is extremely manageable.

Dec 2004

Professor Taylor, though at first may not seem like the most personable person, is actually quite friendly and nice. The lectures are interesting and informative. She is very clear and explains everything thoroughly. She is a little disorganized and takes a long time to hand back tests, but overall, I would definately recommend this course. There are three tests during the semester, and each test takes as long as a regular period, and even the midterm and final are just regular tests, the final exam you just have a very long time to complete it . On each test there is an extra credit option and she is very generous with those.

Dec 2004

This class is extremely boring. Lawrence takes interesting material and regurgitates the book into mindless lectures that seem to never end. Try and get a different teacher for this class.

Dec 2004

I took Professor Taylor's Intro class after I wasn't able to get into Professor Stokes', which I had heard was really great. However, I found Intro to Psych with Taylor to be just fine. I learned all the basics and it was not difficult. She's not the most on time professor and it does take her a while to get tests back, but that isn't really important for a non-cumulative intro class. Overall, she was a fine teacher, and a bit more easy than Stokes would have been (as I heard from friends in Stokes's class).

Dec 2004

Professor McKenna really is not as bad as everybody on here says she is. She is actually quite nice with grades although her tests are semi-confusing...if you are good with multiple choice though and good at guessing the best answer, the tests will be easy. I think the hardest thing about the tests is that the questions seem too vague or general so several of the multiple choice answers will appear to fit. She's very good with credit on the short answer part. There's really no final exam--we just had three different exams and two easy papers to write. Professor McKenna is actually a sweet lady. I got away with coming in late to every class, not going to several classes, and handing in a test and a paper late, getting the highest grade of an 85 on an exam, had 3 noshows for psychology experiments, and did not complete all the needed credits and still managed to get a B in the class...maybe that's not good for you but that grade is great for me! The only thing is that the class is very boring. She is funny at random times but I felt like a lot of class time was very useless although she did make sure to answer everyone's questions. The only thing I would suggest to her is to research the questions she did not know how to answer in class and come in the next week with them. The book was amazing though! I recommend buying that book just for reading. It was a hundred times more interesting than the lecture.

Dec 2004

I cannot begin to express my disappointment with this professor. She was anything but amazing, like many of the other CULPA reviews said, and I am very sorry I allowed these reviews to determine me taking Stokes' class. Her lectures were confusing, disorganized, and not that easy. The textbook itself is good, and very clear. I learned more in my high school introductory psych class than I did in this course. Additionally, the professor is not the nicest woman, and as a learning psychologist, you would imagine she should be understanding and kind, and not insenstive and assuming.

Nov 2004

This was a great class. McCaskill is always engaging. She is nice to her students and always takes time to hear everyone's comments. The material itself is fascinating, though it is not necessary to keep up with the readings to do well - usually the outlines she provides, lecture notes, and skimming the chapters will be enough. Her tests are fair, mostly multiple choice and short answer. When she feels she has designated too many chapters to a particular test, she will reduce the amount of material rather than make students cram material that has not been covered. She is exceptionally warm and friendly. This is one of those magical classes that didn't stress me out but still made me learn a lot.

Sep 2004

She's OK. Although she's boring, vision-impaired, and monotonous, you will succeed through the boring reiterations of text-book material when you keep in mind that this is just an introductory-based class. Thus, for the purposes of objectively introducing psychology as a discipline, the objective (not the intepretive) knowledge shall be respected and given in kind. Many of us forget that "boring" material, or material that's presented in a boring manner, does not mean anything about the "value". In that sense, this class will prepare you very well for upcoming psychology classes. She's great at getting into heads the fundamental material required for psychology. Just remember that you only develop somewhat of an appreciation... after the fact... and only if you're strong enough to pursue psychology after an entire semester of yawns, rolly-eyes, and the kind of yawns that make you drool due to an extremely yawnful teacher that makes you yawn for an entire semester.

Aug 2004

Prof. Taylor is one of the most intelligent, articulate and understanding professors I have encountered at Columbia. Although the concepts are not particularly complex, she explains everything slowly, clearly and in the most simple way possible. She even posts her lecture notes online so that you know what she thinks are the important points. Her lectures are straight-forward and enjoyable, filled with entertaining stories about her kids, interactive games and interesting videos. She allows tons of time for discussion and gladly answers all questions, even when they are about Student A's cousin Bob or Grandma Milda. She is extremely personable and easy to relate to because she is the type of woman who, for example, doesn't give cummulative exams because she "hated them when she was a student". More than any Prof. I have had, Taylor comes off as a "real person", with errands to run and kids to deal with. Sometimes she's in a bad mood and sometimes she's busy. So are the rest of us. She may not have handed back the midterm until two weeks before the final, but the exams were not cummulative! Having it back any earlier wouldn't have helped. My advice: Take Intro with Taylor!

May 2004

I guess I'm suprised to read all the rave reviews of Professor Richter. Her Intro Psych class was very very dry and boring. While her lectures are concise and to the point, she makes very little attempt to reach beyond the cold, hard text book. I was also a bit disappointed that her lectures were so formatted and left little room for outside sources or more in depth understanding. Richter did leave room for questions, which was nice. She is also a very nice lady and highly approachable (but don't expect her to remember your name).

May 2004

I, like every other sheep in the herd, did all I could to get into Professor Stokes' Intro. to Psych class. In retrospect though I should have just taken the class with another professor and not spent a whole semester waiting to get into Stokes' class. Yes, Professor Stokes is quite a nice woman and the class workload was quite light, but I would have gladly taken a harder course if I could have had a better professor. Professor Stokes seems to take pleasure in her somewhat celebrity status, but didn't fulfill my expectations. In my opinion, she favors those students whom she has had in previous courses and frequently admits them over other students into the class, despite her "lottery" policy. Also, her weekend trips to the lake seem to take precedent over her students, so if you have a problem you had better have it addressed by her before Friday afternoon as she does not return to NYC until Monday morning. In addition, Professor Stokes enjoys regaling us with tales of her grand piano and the wealth that she acquired in the advertising business, etc which might offend anyone whose parents make under 100,000 a year. Lastly, the workload is fairly easy but the test and essay questions are at times quite absurd and cause more heaadache than necessary. Professor Stokes is by no means straightforward in her testing. Who wants to spend and entire essay analyzing the personality traits of President Bush or John Kerry, considering that we don't know them personally!? My advice is avoid the wait for this overrated class and go with someone who knows a bit more about the field and isn't so concerned with their country house.

May 2004

Amazing professor! Don't take Intro with any other professor. Though it's pretty hard to get into her class, the first day was really crowded...I guess everyone checks Culpa but its worth trying to get in because you won't regret it! Professor Richter teachs the material that makes it really easy for people like me who has no scientific background or any prior interest to psych. The textbook is pretty dense but she explains it so well in class (so don't miss class!) She provides outlines via online which are really helpful when taking notes during lecture and to study from on tests (because all of it are taken from notes) Sigh, if only she taught more than just Intro.

Apr 2004

I wish she taught another class because she is an amazing lecturer. First of all, she's extremely witty and intersperses humorous anecdotes with the class material. The class is extremely organized and she has outline for every chapter, which means you don't have to read anything in the textbook that's not on the outline. her tests are extremely easy (50 multiple choice) and unlike many other professors she usually only puts things that we've covered in class.

Apr 2004

Galanter is so confusing and absurd that it wasn't even amusing. I'm a psych major and I had to take this course after I'd already taken 4 advanced psych courses . . . thank god I did because it was only thanks to the things I learned in the other classes that I survived his "quizzes." Really, there was not one answer that I got right that wasn't because of things I had learned elsewhere. Unbelievable. So for anyone taking this as a Psych department requirement, DO WHAT I DID: take Mind Brain Behavior, take a few more advanced courses, THEN go back and take this course. You'll completely unfairly get an A . . . just bring tissues for your crying classmates.

Mar 2004

It's a sleepy class, but i love the videos, especially the one on visual agnosia. watch out, ladies, larry's a stud . . . norma cannot explain things. that's it. it's impossible to sit there and listen to her ramble on circuitously about some concept that a more concise person could have explained in five-ten minutes. the only lecture i could stay awake through or follow so far was given by one of the TAs. sure, norma seems like a sweet old lady at first, but after a while, you just want her to stoooooop talking.

Jan 2004

Let's put it this way...I'm in my third year, and I JUST changed to psychology as a major after taking Prof. Richter's Intro class. She is amazing! She always relates the enormous amount of dry information expected in an Intro class to funny, and helpful anecdotes that make all the information easy to remember. She is the reason I changed my major to psychology....

Jan 2004

A lot of people think that she is absolutely amazing, but I did not find her that great! I think she is a very organized professor however. She is responsilbe though. She does not curve and there's always a lot of people in the class who do soooooooooo good on exams (like 100 on the first two exams). Her exams are mostly MCs, definitions with some fill-ins and diagrams.

Jan 2004

Professor Stokes is amazing on so many levels. The ease with which she teaches reflects her mastery of the material and perhaps more fundamentally her understanding of the art of teaching. Plus she's extremely personable, totally approachable and available (inside and outside the classroom) if you have questions. If you can get into her class, do it. It's guaranteed to be one of the highlights of your experience at Columbia.

Jan 2004

Mc Kenna's not that boring. You dont have to do the readings until exam time, and yes, don't rely on your notes (except for the last exam). Little known secret: she likes to switch it up. The first two exams are mostly based on the readings (albeit the seemingly least important facts); on the last test she bases her exams on the notes. Do the experiments on time. AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD: ask the woman exactly what she wants on the paper lest you be surprised with your grade. Oh, and do attend lectures--she takes attendance and memorizes faces.

Dec 2003

Prof. Richter is a great professor. Her lectures are very interesting and straightfwd. She is indeed an approachable person-both inside and outside of class. She is a fair grader.

Dec 2003

I could not agree more with the other reviews. She is absolutely horrible. I think the highlight was how she handed back our midterm ONE WEEK before the final exam. Do not take this class.

Dec 2003

if you are even remotely interested in the subject or are just looking to fill your program, i highly recommend prof richter's intro to psych class. She makes her lectures incredibly interesting, bringing in many first hand examples from her practice to bring the concepts to life. She also really seems down to earth and able to relate with her students without any deterring "holier than thou" attitude found with many profs. She seems really concerned about keeping her class entertained while they learn, as her lectures tend to be amusing as well as interesting. take this class!!!!!!!

Dec 2003

Prof. Richter is a great professor to have for an intro to psych course. She is very clear and to the point, she gives outlines from which she never strays from. If you miss a class, just look for the stuff on the outline in your textbook. If you don't read, take good notes in class and you will do well. With a good sense of humor, Prof Richter keeps us awake...if you are going to take intro to psych, take it with her.

Dec 2003

Professor Richter is great. Her lectures are always clear and informative, and she keeps things interesting with humorous anecdotes and stories. Tests are fair, as is grading. She rarely puts things on the test that were not covered in lecture, and she is usually readily available for outside help. Additionally, Professor Richter sends out email attachments with outlines for every reading from the textbook, which is extremely helpful in understanding the text and predicting what will be on exams. I definitely recommend her to anyone interested in taking Psych.

Dec 2003

Professor Richard is fantastic. She is nice and funny, and can keep class interesting even when discussing the boring biological basis of psychology. She gives the students an outline for every chapter which focuses on what is important to know (unlike other teachers, who just express a vague idea of what they will put on the tests, etc.) and doesn't test on anything beyond the outlines. She's great. Definitely take her class.

Dec 2003

Engaging, enthusiastic, and entertaining. Although I did start off interested in the subject, she made me want to learn more. She clearly spent time preparing for class lectures and creating very reliable outlines to guide studying. Lectures were funny and entertaining, while also very informative and definitely worthwhile. She incorporates discussion as well, asking good questions. She really listens to all students' questions and makes a point to answer them sufficiently. Her tests, all multiple choice with an occasional extra credit essay, are very fair and well written. If you study hard, you will do well. If you don't, you probably won't. She really does give you the grade you deserve. And although it was a class of 45 stuffed into a tiny room, it was well worth it and made me interested in continuing psychology -- and definitely taking other Richter-taught classes.

Nov 2003

I must admit I was pretty nervous about taking Intro with her after the horrible reviews she's been getting, but I'm really glad I did. Taylor's smart, fun, easy-going, and not the least bit intimidating. It's easy to do well, but you still learn a lot. The only critcism I would offer is that she takes forever to get things back to you. But it's totally worth it. Ignore any lab comments below unless you plan to take specifically that lab, cause Taylor's great for Intro.

Oct 2003

Well, I'm a first year and i'm only a month into her Intro to Psyc class, but it's not too great. She's not a mean professor, but yes, she is boring. Her first exam is coming up in like a week and I'm gonna have trouble studying for that seeing that the previous reviewers said that she'll test us on obscure points in class. Anyways, yes, her class is boring almost all the time. Her workload is not bad at all. You like never have homework. YOur homework is just your reading. Oh, and when you do your psyc experiments, be sure to be on time!!! I didn't take that too seriously and I missed 2. I'm so stupid and now my grade will get lowered. Oh well, enjoy her class if you get it. I'm not enjoying it too much. It's not unbearable, but she's not bringing out the best of what intro to psyc could be. From 1(worst)-10(best), I'd rate her a 5.

May 2003

I really did not like Professor McKenna. First of all, she was the least enthusiastic of any professors I have ever had. During lectures she looked as if she would rather be some place else, some place more interesting. She was bored thus we were bored. I had trouble keeping my eyes open for the entire lecture because she spent most of the time trying to get herself organized and trying to decipher her notes from 1975. The tests were reasonable in difficulty, but if multiple choice is not your thing, do not take this class. Most of the test is on a scantron and the other, smaller part is short answer.

Mar 2003

Prof. Stokes had been talked up by a lot of people so she had a lot to live up to. And she really did! She's such an intelligent woman (and yes, opinionated, but better that than a softy in my opinon). I thought at first she was biased towards the guys in our class (and I have to admit, I was a little irritated that Barnard girls weren't speaking their minds more and asking questions! but they came around) but once the class started to settle in, the girls have started to do more of the talking. I absolutely don't think that she doesn't or won't expect much from girls (as a previous reviewer unfairly said) and I don't think she caters to them either. She's a go-getter teacher: if you don't try, she won't get to know you, regardless of your sex! And Intro to Psych is such a piece of cake with her. She's clear and descriptive - ok I will give the other reviewer that she seems scatterbrained at times, but that hardly takes away from the informativeness of her lectures. I have a lot of respect for this woman, and hope to keep her as a resource for the rest of my time here at Barnard. You won't lose if you have her for a teacher.

Mar 2003

This class was basically a waste of time. She missed at least 4 classes and gave students the option of leaving several others. Coming to class was almost pointless, and I regret having attended the majority of sessions. If you read the textbook and don't go to class you'd be wise.

Mar 2003

Professor Richter is a fantastic professor. Her dry humor makes every lecture interesting, and she makes sure to know every person's name in the class immediately. She tends to go by the book, unless a certain topic does not interest her, which can be a great advantage to the students that don't want to spend time learning trivial information not important to the class.

Jan 2003

All the other people were right about her she is Horrible. Read the other reviews they were right on target. Run far away from this class

Jan 2003

Prof. Richter was my best teacher last semester. She is extremely nice and funny. Although her lectures are pretty straight forward (but with sometime for discussion), she adds in some humor and keeps you interested. She keeps all grades updated online and is great about returning emails. You just want to go to her class everyday and you will miss her once the class is over.

Jan 2003

Yes, the class is boring and you may fall asleep. Yes, Prof. Terrace speaks in a monotone. Yes, the book is unedited and lacks a glossary. Yes, a large part of the class is devoted to behavior/conditioning/linguistics. However, if you want to finish the science requirement, this is a manageable class to take. All you have to do is do the reading, print out the powerpoints and review sheets to study before the tests, and bring specific questions to the TA-sponsored review sessions. (I doubt many other teachers outside of high school give practice tests, key terms, review sessions, and post their lectures online.) The non-cumulative tests are a huge plus, and you can put the class out of your mind before finals officially start. Also, you will take a short quiz in every discussion section--this is actually a good thing! In my section, as long as you took the quiz, even if you failed, you still received credit for it and all of them added up to 100% averaged in as class participation. Plus, if you can get past the dull presentation, some of the material is actually interesting, especially the unit on the classic social psych experiments. Just face the fact that not all of your teachers are going to be good and you should be fine.

Dec 2002

I don't know what the previous person was talking about with Prof. McKenna being the "model teacher." This woman has the most disorganized lectures in the world, and you might as well not even buy the book because she certainly doesn't use it to write the test. Instead, she based her LONG, ridiculous tests on obscure points she mentioned ONCE in class. She even makes up her own terms for things SHE thinks you should know about. You spend all your time trying to keep up with the reading, only to realize you have two days to prepare for the test she's about to give you. You read over your notes and start scratching your head....why do these notes sound so incoherent.....oh yes, that's right.....because Prof. McKenna's lectures don't follow any logical path! When you're not drooling on your book asleep, you're trying to read over the notes you COULD get down amidst her nasal chatter. Don't even bother.... you won't get it all the simplfied BS written down fast enough anyway. But don't worry guys, the points you don't get down ARE the ones she'll test you on. I also love telling people about the paper she gave us on rating the book's accompanying website! Please.....as if we don't have enough busy work trying to fall out of our desks due to the most immense boredom one could possibly experience. Skip McKenna....or if you are Freshman and wondering why you keep staring at the clock during Intro. Psych....get out of that class fast!

Jul 2002

People say all kinds of bad things about this guy, but I haven't seen a more entertaining lecturer in this school. Yeah he's arrogant. He's curt and rude with students who ask questions. But thats why his lectures are so hilarious! The workload is a joke, he tells funny stories, his tests are graded on a great curve, he covers the material so you really learn psych with a critical viewpoint, and he makes fun of that guy you always wanted to choke for asking stupid questions. What more could you want?

May 2002

Prof. Graham is a very, very nice teacher who really would like to teach you what she knows. She is well-intentioned and very easy to speak to about anything you are interested in after class or during her office hours (she encourages this every class). While her lectures are not as fact-filled and packed as some lectures in other classes in the field, it it easy to enjoy them after a while. Relatively easy to do well in this class if you do the reading before the test and are willing to put in time and effort for the papers.

May 2002

Professor Lindemann is very possibly the most boring lady I have ever encountered. Her lectures are so incredibly dry and every piece of information that could be brought up, is left out. For anyone who is considering majoring in psych, DO NOT take this class with her. She will change your mind, or not give you enough of a background in the subject. She is so unorganized that you think you may go crazy. Unfortunately she has a vision problem that intereferes with her teaching ability and in turn affects each student. The only redeeming factor about this class is that she can sometimes throw in a joke that you would expect your grandfather to make, that you just have to laugh.

Apr 2002

If anyone can suck the life-blood out of what I once found an interesting subject, it is this woman. in fact, it seems like everyone in the class now hates psychology. if anyone took intro to psych because they thought they'd be a psych major, this woman definitely changed their minds. it is one thing for her to bring in her kid for experimental purposes(which will surely screw him up later in life), it is quite another for her to ask a student to take her kid to the bathroom in the middle of one of her oh-so-fabulous lectures. basically, this woman is the most boring person i have ever encountered. go to class, don't go to class. it doesn't matter. she can't see, so she won't know if you're there or not.

Apr 2002

She is absolutely amazing. Her lectures were engaging, informative, and interspersed with lots of personal anecdotes, her tests were unbelievably fair, and even the textbook was good. I learned an incredible amount, which applied to almost everything else I was learning, not to mention life in general. Take her course!

Apr 2002

Everyone says she's really great but be careful because she's EXTREMELY unlenient when it comes to missing classes. So watch out... although everyone still says she's really great, so maybe she's your style.

Feb 2002

Repitition lectures from the readings. but she tries to keep it interesting w/ videos and slides and guest speaker. she is a pretty okay professor. nice and approachable. exams are slightly difficult if you don't study hard or don't read details within the readings. pay attention to the things she lectures on that's not in the book. it will end up on the exam. overall, an okay class.

Feb 2002

Prof. Stokes is an approachable, easygoing, and kind person. She really enjoys listening to students in and out of class. She is a great lecturer as well-she does a good job of giving interesting stories to make concepts clearer. Also, she is a professor that wants her students to do well. Before each test, she goes through each chapter, highlighting important terms/concepts that will be on the test. Take advantage of the extra credit essays on the second and third tests-they will really help your grade if your struggling with multiple choice/fill-in-the-blank. Enjoy her class-she is a fantastic prof. and an interesting person.

Jan 2002

Prof. Mindes is a very nice woman - she tries hard in class but her random thoughts up on the board are sometimes disorganized. Discussions are fine. Class is not too difficult. Professor is very nice when it comes to responding to questions via email or during class and takes the time to hold review sessions during the weekends or on Fridays.

Jan 2002

She was nice, and the questions brought up in class were enough to keep the class interesting. She was free to speak with her when you needed, and always let you know ahead of time what was going to be on the tests. However, the vocabulary used on the tests was new and difficult to understand unless you had vigorously read. Other than that she wasn't that bad. The final exam was super easy and non-cumulative.

Jan 2002

I took Professor Son's Intro to Psych class my first semester here, and, three semesters later, I still remember most of what she taught me. True, her classes were easy -- you weren't really tested on too much outside of what she went over in class -- but she presented the material in a well-organized manner, using overhead slides and demonstrations, rather than a straight repetition of facts. She was always very pleasant and cheerful and usually available for help any time, for as long as you needed her. Her class was such a great way to start off my college career, and really furthered my interest in psychology -- in which I had no educational background previously.

Jan 2002

I love this woman! The class is interesting, if a not bit science heavy, but she is wonderful!

Jan 2002

This is the Intro course from hell.... You might as well just buy the book and teach yourself because she surely will not help you... only confuse you and miss classes.... She sure does love her drugs however if I may quote the esteemed professor "Morphine has no effect on me." (Yeah, you and a 20 ton elephant....) Avoid her if you can, but if you want to get into any interesting courses unfortunatly you must suffer through this one.

Dec 2001

I would like to know just who allowed this woman to teach a college-level course. Lectures are reminiscent of middle school: she simplifies and generalizes the material to an extreme. For example, she gave us a questionaire in order to demonstrate the disparity between male and female attitudes with regards to child-rearing, etc. When either the women or the men in the class did not produce the expected response to certain questions, she would say, "OK. well, USUALLY women respond this way and men respond that way..." It seemed that she would have preferred that we conformed to the gender norms because it would have been easier for her to explain the stuff, rather than recognizing the value in examining deviations from those norms. Also, she seems entirely unable to come up with more than one example for a given principle, such that after she's beaten the analogy into your head, it's difficult to explain the material in your own terms. But she doesn't expect that from you anyways - she'll beg you to limit your answers on exams to about 3 sentences. Just include the example she gave in class, or the exact wording from the text book, and you'll get an almost effortless A. To her credit, Prof.Son is energetic, has a very sweet demeanor, and will let you write an extra credit research paper to boost your grade (not that you'll need to). But, all things considered, this course is not worth it, unless you need to raise your GPA in a hurry, or you prefer diluted, stereotyped, and bland explanations of otherwise interesting concepts.

Dec 2001

Professor McKenna is an outstanding example of what a teacher should be. Her enthusiasm for her subject is contagious and her classes so interesting they seem to be over before they begin. She is patience personified, open and willing to discuss the topic at issue until everyone is heard. Professor McKenna forces one to THINK and QUESTION (certainly about the variety of psychological perspectives), creating the kind of mental stimulation one hopes for in an environment designed for learning. Despite the broad range of information and short time in which to present it, she presents a calm and steady demeanor while maintaining a dry wit and quick sense of humor. Professor McKenna is generous in her grading and gives students every opportunity to attain the highest grade possible. Although she seems disorganized at times, this characteristic makes her all the more "human" - a great quality in someone teaching psychology! I certainly hope to take additional classes with Professor McKenna and recommend her to all students who are seeking knowledge, not just high GPAs.

Dec 2001

Annie is the best! She is definitely one of the best teachers I have ever had. She cares so much about how much her students understand the information. Senghas is ALWAYS available to talk to, whether its about the class or anything else. Take her class whenever you can because she is SO amazing!

Nov 2001

Professor Senghas attended Smith and MIT--so there's no doubt she's brainy--but she is a really down-to-earth, sweet, funny individual. She's also extremely friendly and wants to get to know you. I am a Barnard student, and one day after class we started chatting about our experiences at women's colleges, and before long we were laughing like two friends. The aspect of her teaching style that most appeals to me is her use of examples in the classroom - for example, when we were discussing visual perception, she showed us a bunch of really neat optical illusions on the overhead projector. She does a good job of making abstract psychological theories more understandable to her students. If you are at all interested in psychology, take this class.

Jul 2001

For the guys out there from Columbia -- if you are looking for an intro. psych course to take and you want some attention from the professor, this is the one. Because this is a Barnard course, guys stick out like sort thumbs and Professor Stokes eats it up! She loves to know you by name and if you are a Michigan State University basketball fan, she'll love you even more. As for the ladies out there, she'll get to know some of your names but otherwise don't expect her to expect much of you. Also, if you want a unbias professor - well don't choose any of her courses. She is outspoken and uninhibited about sharing her political opinion. While I am as much of a Bush opponent as the next liberal out there, she takes it to an extreme that is obnoxious and irritating. As for the material, the psychology focuses on the biological sciences. Stokes does not hide her opinion about the other covered therapies such as psychoanalysis. Be prepared to stay on top of the material - while she presents it in a semi-organized style and the book is pretty handy to supplement whatever she doesn't cover very well, the exams cover A LOT. All of the multiple choice questions are detailed and many force you to apply concepts to material not discussed in class. The saving graces are the essays that she allows you to take home and write before the actual exam. One must be written and the other is optional - although you would be a downright, egotistical bastard to believe you don't need to do the extra credit essay. Her questions are tough and weed out the students who do the reading and those who don't. You'll need those extra points - that being said though, don't spend an incredulous amount of time on them because she only skims them over for general concepts and facts. While the word is that she is the prof. to get if you are taking intro. to psych, I'd be mortified to know how bad the other professors are. Stokes is completely disorganized - often losing her lecture notes and having no clue where to start from until she checks with her students. Furthermore, she is habitually late to class. To her credit, she is easily accessible by email and after 4pm.

May 2001

Stokes is tremendous lecturer; she uses fascinating and often funny anecdotes to provide real-life examples for some pretty abstract psychological theories and models. Her lectures make it easy not only to take notes, but also to stay awake. It's a great class for non-science majors, especially since each exam has an essay section and an optional bonus essay. Prof. Stokes even has a lecture on the psychology of art, which is her speciality.

Jan 2000

Prof Senghas works with kids and she oozes sweetness and warmth. She's just starting out and so occasionally she lectures straight from the book in a gentle voice that will put you straight to sleep. But she's got some fascinating research going on concerning deaf kids in Nicaraugua that she loves to talk about, so steer the conversation in that direction whenever possible. She's trying really hard, and she wants to be your friend.

Jan 2000

The course is really easy if you go to class and read the book. not one to stress over. Lindemann is really funny. You can learn everything from the book, so it doens't really matter that she doesn't say it all in the lectures. She brings her kid into class so we can do experiments on him, and she is really fair about grading and stuff, opportunities for extra credit, and eliminating unfair questions.