Don't take Nandy, his final is impossible. I would take McCauliffe instead.

Here's the class:
20% midterms X 2
10% pop quizzes (using iclicker)
5% participation (iclicker)
45% FINAL (45%!!!!!)

The class wasn't too bad, honestly. The first midterm was a joke. Everyone should do very well on it. The second one had a few tough multiple choice questions, free response was easy. The final, overall, was really tricky. He gave us the formula sheet but one of the formulas needed wasn't on there. That same problem was only briefly covered in class, and the practice final he gave us was a bit different. Be careful on the final, that's my best advice. The rest it was easy though. Definitely a lot better than McCauliffe.

Even though I found it extremely difficult to stay awake in lecture (probably because it was 99% powerpoint slides), I'm glad I took Psych 100A with Professor Nandy. I've never taken a stats class before and he explains the concepts/problems solving steps well (thank goodness lectures were podcasted). He can also be amusing without trying to be.
The homework he posts online isn't due, but I found it helpful to complete for practice. Discussion section isn't mandatory -- I never went except for exam reviews. Professor Nandy bases everything off his lectures so I never bought the textbook
The pop quizzes (with i-clickers) aren't bad if you've been keeping up with lectures, and he drops the lowest two scores (out of six). Tests were straightforward - no curveballs. I found the final to be relatively easy, especially since he gave us a formula sheet and all you need to do is make sure you understand the concepts to know when to use which formula, then plug numbers in! The downside is Nandy doesn't allow you to use a scientific calculator, so it's tedious work and easy to make a mistake for the free responses. However, I always ended up having a generous amount of time to check my calculations/work.
Overall, the workload is chill. There is a generous pre-set curve (85-89 = A-, 90-94 = A, etc.) so if you put in a decent amount of effort to understand the material before each exam, you should end up with at least a B+
PS – I don’t know my grade yet but I’m certain I’m going to get either an A- or A.

Nandy isn't as easy as the previous reviews portray. I took him for spring 2010 and he decided that the previous quarters he had given out too many good grades. He made his tests more difficult and I really had a hard time taking the class. My friend who was in Mcauliffe showed me the tests and I thought they were a lot easier than Nandy's. my advice, whoever you get, you'll be fine with.

This class was soo easy. A few days before the final he said that if you got an A on the final then he would give you an A in the class. I don't know if he always does that but I got an A on the final and an A in the class. otherwise I still would have gotten an A-. Definitely take this over McCaullifs

Oh, Nandy. If you have to take 100A, take it with Nandy. You don't need to attend lectures (actually you really shouldn't unless there's a pop quiz) and he's very generous with his grading scale. His accent makes him hard to understand and his slides are USELESS, but he actually wants you to pass. Go to the discussion or hope your TA posts their notes online. I slept through every single class, never took notes, and got an A+. All I did was start teaching myself from the book and TA notes 1-2 days before the test. His multiple choice sections are a little tricky but the written problems are a piece of cake.

Nandy was a pretty boring lecturer, and didn't convey the material very well at all, which wouldn't have been bad except that you had to go to lectures because he gave pop quizzes. On the plus side, he graded generously, and was rather funny at times -- which helped to make the lectures less terrible.

If you have to take Psych100A, definitely take it with Nandy! He has a great grading scale, making it VERY possible to stay in the A range or just passing the class. He's really fair and straightforward in his tests, but his lectures seemed to make the material more boring and complicated than it really was. If you took stats before, it's a piece of cake. If not, you might need to study a bit but as long as you get the basics, you'll be fine. I would definitely recommend doing the homework problems and practice midterm and finals he posts online. If you can do those, you'll be fine on the exams.

Nandy is entertaining! He presents the material in a decent way- the best you can do with chi square and anova! If you havent taken a stats class before, this class might seem a little difficult, but if you put in a little bit of time, its an EASY A. His grading policy guarantees a pass!! And plus 80-89% is an A-! How better can it get. I def recommend this class- he is probably the best and easiest.

Nandy is awesome. He lectures about what he tests on and his exams are fair. Don't buy the book, it is a waste of money. I never opened the book once and I ended up with an A+ in the class. His grading style is very generous and he basically tells you what to study. If you put in some effort, you can get an A. Some people below claim they didn't deserve to get the grades they got. With Nandy, if you do poorly you deserve it. I missed a ton of lectures, didn't do the homework, and started studying for the final the night before and still got an A+. I'm not trying to brag, I'm just saying that he writes easy exams and grades very lightly. Take 100A with Nandy. He is way easier than the other options. I also liked him because he would call people out for he being stupid in class. When someone asked a ridiculous question or was just a plain asshole, he stood his ground. I like him for that. It was comical.