Haven't even taken the midterm but already feel like the class is shitty... I feel like the professor does not go over material thoroughly and the way he handles class is messy. He also expects so much when he himself does not do such a good job explaining concepts. Totally lowered my interest towards this subject.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know why there are more than 30 percent of people getting As in the previous years...

I’m sorry to anyone who liked this class but I came into this class so excited to learn about psychopathology and I found myself more interested in every other psych course I have taken at UCLA and that’s sad to me because I want to go into clinical psychology. Dr. Lee seems decently nice but he is a boring lecturer and no matter how hard I studied the slides his exams screwed me over because I always questioned if I was right since he had many select all that are correct questions. Overall I would take this class with another prof or just take normal abnormal bc this class is a regret of mine.

I really was not a fan of this professor at all. His exam was really inconsistent and subjective, he emphasized all throughout the class that this class would not make u able to diagnose any of these disorders then on the exam that's exactly what he asked you to do, like they were mostly situational based and was like does this kid have xyz disorder. His lectures on eating disorders were downright triggering and I don't even have an eating disorder. Like for anorexia he really put up on the screen a huge picture of a holocaust-skinny girl, and said that "people with anorexia are underweight and have a severe fear of gaining weight" and left it at that. No mention of like actual mental psychology or how anyone of any size can have an eating disorder, etc.

I think his research focus is autism because he gave really in depth lectures on that, and only that and for each other condition he basically just read off the DSM-5 (like i do mean literally, like for some slides he quite literally screenshotted the DSM-5 criteria and just read them).

I think this class had the potential to be super cool and engaging but it fell short of my expectations.

This was the first core Psych class I got to take at UCLA, and I was so excited, even though I was taking it online because of covid. I found the lectures really difficult to pay attention to. They were dull, and people were constantly blowing up the Zoom chat with questions that Prof Lee was *going to answer anyway* if students would just wait, so it could get kind of chaotic and disorganized in lectures. Ultimately, he read off the slides (which were posted), so I ended up taking notes from the slides and rewatching his lectures later. Like other people have said, the tests were very heavy with the "Mark all that apply" questions, so even though they were open-note, I found myself second guessing my answers and having trouble on tests. Further, we had to take the tests on CCLE, so we couldn't even go back and check our answers, and we were timed. With so much going on during Spring quarter, I (and I'm sure many others) had a very difficult time focusing on schoolwork, and honestly, it didn't seem like Prof Lee was concerned with whether or not we were engaged. I get it, professors had to shift their method of instruction abruptly, and were subjected to many of the same external stressors as their students, but compared to my other professors-- in classes I didn't even like-- Prof Lee fell short. He sent an email at the beginning of the quarter that said something like "email will not be the primary form of communication this quarter, email your TAs if anything," and although he was friendly in lectures, I felt like he was inaccessible or unapproachable as a professor. I don't know, I guess this class just really disappointed me, but I think if you have the time, energy, and motivation to teach yourself the material, you'll be ok. It really wasn't the worst class I've taken, just incredibly underwhelming and needlessly difficult at times.

I had high hopes for this class but was very disappointed with it. The midterm was comprised entirely of "mark all that apply" questions, many of which were incredibly specific. I was not prepared for nor had I encountered this format previously and it added so much additional stress, confusion, pressure to the exam/(my life for a time). It added some annoyance too because this question format change appeared to be both a deviation from the provided syllabus and the expressed experiences of past students. The final was mixed multiple choice/multiple answer and substantially more straightforward. Overall though, this class felt unduly difficult and horribly stressful.

Taking the class this spring. We've only taken the midterm so far and I'm honestly confused. Idk if he changed his syllabus or grading scheme when classes went online but I don't understand how so many people have gotten As in the class in the past. The grading scheme is midterm (40 points), final (50 points), 10 points for discussion. Final grade is sum of points earned/100. He tests you on lectures and the textbook and doesn't tell you what material from each you will be tested on and still makes the questions very specific.

The professor is quite helpful in explaining the bigger, more confusing concepts. Definitely go to OH. There are weekly readings and it is not specified what concepts from the book will be on the exam. I found the test format to be similar to Psych 100B. I'd say rewatch lectures, review book annotations, and focus on the slides!

I took this class with an open mind and went in just wanting to do my best. And in the end I feel pretty mixed about the professor. On one hand, it's obvious that he cares for the subject and does want you to learn , but on the other hand his teaching leaves a lot to be desired.

He lectures with a ton of run on sentences - which is fine - except when it completely messes with your understanding. I took psych 135 Smurda at the same time and both teachers have a similar amount of content and weekly structure. Smurda was clear, concise, and gave lots of relevant details. Whereas, Lee went on and on during confusing lectures.

For example, *pulling up my notes* he says and I quote, " the gender that has the lower base rate, meaning it's less prevalent and that gender, often times they have worse outcomes than the other gender who has the same disorder. " This sounds fine at first, except when I heard it, I had to think about it three times to actually understand. I don't know if I'm just slow but I feel like too much of what he means could have been said so much more concisely: the disorder is more severe for the gender that has it less.

At first, I didn't mind it but as the concepts get more involved I spent so much time deciphering what he meant instead of studying. Instead of explaining something, he will give two or three synonyms for a word and ends with "or whatever." ie. from his lecture: "[the relationship] has improved, but it's consistent with the idea that children who are maltreated, abused, victimized, whatever you want to call it." Maybe this is helpful for some people, but his confusing way of talking and surface level "explanations" made this class super frustrating even though the content is so interesting and relevant.

I heavily relied on my amazing TA, although towards the end, there was a section of information that even both the TAs struggled to review because the lecture on it was so unclear. They just brushed it off because it wasn't on the test. And at that point, I also ignored it too.

Speaking of tests, several questions are weird. He does stats on his results, which I really appreciate. However, there were many times multiple answer choices could be true, as in I can point to where to find the answers in the lecture or power points. It's a case of what is most true or more marginally accurate. And these specifics are NOT made clear during lecture. I'll use Smurda again as a counter example - Dr. Smurda always made sure to highlight or reiterate those kinds of weird specifics. It becomes very clear which details are important.

So, Dr. Lee being a great dad (it seems) and a great researcher doesn't necessarily mean being a great teacher. An interesting class with a professor who is definitely knowledgeable but without the clarity I needed.

Also, he has a weird drop policy where you can drop an exam score as long as you get at least 65% on all three exams. I always thought drop policies are for when you mess up badly once but this drop policy says to me it's fine to mess up except you can't mess up THAT bad.

Thank you for reading this rant. Ironically, it isn't very concise, but this class took so much of my brain power even though I was taking two other upper divisions. For context, I got As in those and a B in this class despite the time invested.

All in all, a doable class... but be warned. Good luck!

I really enjoyed Professor Lee's class, especially with his child guests! I think he really knows his stuff and he can make it interesting, especially with relevant media clips to form connections - I wish we had more of those! My only issue was the density of the course, the textbook chapters were so extensive and long it would take 2-3 hours to complete whereas his assigned articles were the right length. Ironically, taking this course made me realize I have had undiagnosed ADHD since like... the age of four, but those long chapters were hard to focus on for my classmates without as well. His slides where often blocks of text that were hard to get down, while listening to the other points he was speaking, and for filmed lectures there was so much content so fast. I wish he could slow down his bullet points when filming lectures ahead of time, during live lectures he often got behind bc of people asking to go back or needing more clarification because they didn't get everything down. I liked that we got the textbook for free and also that there weren't a bunch of other assignments or busywork. Sections were great and the classwork was definitely both helpful and easy. I also think the exams were a bit difficult even when you felt you mastered the material. However, I think finding a good researcher who is also a good teacher in this department is rare, and he really cares about his students! Kelsey expanded on the material in an interesting way and was super understanding when I forgot an assignment. I'd definitely take his class again!

Possibly the best psychology professor I had at UCLA. Professor Lee is very clear and straightforward in his lectures. He also has a very good sense of humor too. The subject material was fascinating.
I also liked how well he can project his voice, especially since we were in the Haines lecture hall, a very large one .