[PSYC W2225] Attention and Perception

I agree with the fist reviewer. He seems like he might be good in a seminar, but he was the worst lecture professor that I have ever had. He told us flat out on the first day that we need not come to class. The lectures were posted online. That is what was tested. The concepts were simple. The questions and grading process were not. I think the mean on the first test was something like a C+ (due entirely to question wording and subjective grading), and he did not curve the class like he said he would.
He's a new prof, and hopefully he'll get better. He seems extremely intelligent, but I would stay far, far away from any lecture he's teaching.

At the start, I do not recommend Attention and Perception with Hakwan Lau.

Yes, the man is intelligent, evidenced by his history as a Rhodes Scholar, among other accomplishments. However, the class is very unorganized, confusing even the most dedicated students. Although he uses powerpoints, the words on the slides are so few that they are rendered useless. Instead, he tells you to review his notes, which he hands out before every class. I laud Lau here because he wants you to actually pay attention to what he is saying, since you have the notes and need not spend your time taking them. Problematically, as this is the ONLY material there is for the course (optional readings do not appear on exams), you will find yourself struggling when studying. The notes are incoherent, disorganized, and contain for too much information of which his overly specific exams (a combination of short answer, true false, and essay questions, all open ended) demand precise regurgitation. In the beginning, the class was overjoyed at hearing we'd have no reading and would only need to review his notes, but after taking his arbitrary exams based on his ambiguous notes, the ENTIRE CLASS soon felt the effects. Plus, the TAs were all harsh graders. Although I believe he curved the final exam, I have heard many say that he hasn't. I never saw my exam so I really do not know.

DO NOT TAKE THIS CLASS

Do not take this course. Are your paying attention: do not take this course. Hakwan is a young professor who is apparently a talented researcher. He has good intentions but the class is worthless. We weren't given a text book and the exams were graded way too subjectively for a psych course. The TA actually wrote much or most of many of the quizzes (which were horrible).

Hakwan likes to say things that he doesn't deliver. Like that he will curve the final (he didn't). And his notes, the only material you have to review, are akin to a stream-of-
consciousness rambling about all things related to attention and perception.

Another point: this class is painfully boring. Literally most of the class (close to half) stoped coming for most lectures. I had thought that Attention and Perception sounded like a fascinating subject--if it is, it didn't come across in class. Everyone I talked to said the class was the more boring or one of the most boring that they had even taken at Columbia.

Stay clear.