You take three exams, he drops the lowest grade. Very fair grading scheme. He runs stats on all his questions so he's quite aware of which questions had faulty wording or skewed choices.

Abnormal Psych is an interesting, scratch-the-surface type of class. Expect to be basically memorizing parts of the DSM and integrating research with it. I love the integration of research and its application. However, the material itself can get pretty dry because there's a lack of depth but much ground to be covered. But that's not his fault. He tries to keep you engaged as much as possible. Definitely recommend him!

Honestly I was a bit worried to take this class because of the previous reviews, but I would really recommend. This was a fairly easy and stress free upper div psych class.

Professor Lee lectured off of slides, and I found it best to really write up his explanation of each slide - either by coming in person and taking notes or rewatching the recordings (we did have a few technical difficulties though that some didn't get recorded, so I would be wary of not going at all - no attendance was taken though).

Our grade was based on going and participating in 5 discussions (he tells us from the beginning which of the 5 weeks they will be, and you get a free absence too). Otherwise, we just had 3 in person MCQ midterms that were about 40 questions each with 2-3 extra credit questions on each exam. If you score above a 65% on all 3, he drops the lowest one too - so you're really set up for success as long as you try. You could also earn up to 2 points (I think) from completing SONA studies.

I found the exam content to be pretty fair - he also tells us during lecture what will for sure be on the exam, so you knew to pay extra attention to those topics when studying. I went to all lectures, reviewed for a couple hours the night before by going through all my notes and focusing on the stuff he said will be on the exam, and then quizzing myself with the several practice questions the TAs posted.

The only thing I didn't love about the class was the heavy reading - yet you can get around that mostly. Only a small fraction of the exam questions focus primarily on what the textbook specifically said - I just found skimming and trying to take as many notes as I could (as my schedule allowed) - yet if I didn't finish going through all of it before the exam I was usually okay and just ended up missing those questions.

I would recommend this class as a great, interesting Psych upper div - especially if your schedule is pretty hectic otherwise, it's pretty low maintenance.

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!

Prof. Lee is awesome. The workload is nonexistent because he doesn't assign any work besides the reading. The class is made of 3 equally weighted non cumulative 40 question multiple choice exams with a few extra credit points on each and 10 participation points, 2 from each of the 5 sections (they are not weekly). Review sessions are held by TAs the day before the exam and are only useful if you submit questions to it. Prof. Lee is very straightforward and will often say "you need to know this for the test" or "this will be in multiple questions" so you have a clear idea of what you need to study. To get an A in this class you must read the relevant textbook chapters and be able to apply knowledge, not just control f in the PDF because that will not help you. Abnormal psych itself is a cool topic and this one is specifically CHILD-CENTERED and covers conduct, oppositional defiant, borderline personality, obsessive compulsive, autism spectrum, major depressive, bipolar, anxiety, and antisocial personality disorders in addition to substance abuse, anorexia, bulimia, treatment and course of disease. Recommend for a psych major with interest if you are sure you'll do the readings.

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!

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 .

I was nervous to take this class because of the reviews but honestly it was my favorite class that I have taken at UCLA. Dr. Lee is an amazing professor and really tries to make the content interesting. His lecture style is very clear and there are no surprises on the tests. He also genuinely cares about his students and if you need help go to his office hours!

Interesting class! There are recordings for reviewing lectures, but you have to attend discussions in person. The only thing about the test is that you need to read long chapters in textbook because he tests things not covered in lecture but covered on textbook. Also, some of his extra credit problems in each exam are basically testing whether you had reviewed very detailed lecture contents, e.g., basically asking whether his daughter is doing golf or swimming and sth like that.

Professor Lee is probably the best teacher I've had at UCLA. I took this class and was extremely wary of all the negative Bruinwalk reviews from previous years. He made lectures extremely engaging and provides lots of helpful examples to boost your understanding. His tests can be tough, but you really need to study for them and be more careful with your answers. Personally, I devoted a lot of time to studying for the first and second exams and scored pretty well on both. I would recommend re-watching the lectures and taking notes on them to study. The three exams were all comprehensive but would mainly focus on the content after the preceding exam--there is no final. He also recognized that students were scoring worse on "select all that apply" questions so he got rid of all questions in that format after the first exam. He really cares about his students and genuinely wants them to learn.

Overall, the exams are manageable if you study (like you do in every other class). If you study, you will be fine (trust me). He gives 3-5 extra credit questions for each exam and drops your lowest exam score if you score 65% or higher on all three exams. Another thing he did was tell you which EXACT concepts would be on the exams, which was very helpful. I would usually put a star next to the concepts on my notes and study them.

The workload was very manageable--I believe the exams and participation were the only parts of our grade. TAs Rddhi and Mary were also helpful and did review sessions (definitely recommend going or watching the recording) before each of the exams. They were great and broke down the concepts to make it easier for us to understand. Both of them made Psych 127C a lot more manageable.

This class was my first Psych upper div at UCLA. Professor Lee made me admire psychology more and constantly reminded me why I chose the psychology path. He's also a great dad who is extremely kind to his students. I highly recommend this class!

Disregard all old reviews. It seems after COVID he changed his teaching style because he has been the complete opposite of the past reviews. He was a cool professor who was super clear during his lectures and often said, "this will be on the test". The one annoying this is that you have to read the textbook because he tests on material that isn't mentioned in lecture but in the textbook. For that though, you only need to read the sections in the book that relate to the material discussed in class, so not too bad but very annoying. The exams weren't hard at all, but the wording is kinda tricky sometimes. Like I would read the question over and over again during the test to see what the question was really asking-- so that's annoying too but the exams weren't that hard. For reference, I got a high As on all exams with minimal studying. Also, very cool that he gives candy to the people who got the highest grades on the midterms!! Overall, an easy class that was interesting and not too much work. I would definitely take again-- class has very little stress.