Professor Stahlman is young, upbeat and knowledgeable about the subject material. He's generally nice enough, but also somewhat hotheaded and gets stressed out easily and on those days he can be a jerk and very arrogant.

He explains things really quickly in lecture, so if you're thinking about taking him, I would definitely consider podcasting. You have to be able to diligently keep up with lecture material because everything builds on previous lectures.

His exams are very conceptual and very hard to do well on considering they are only out of 30 points. The means are usually in the low C and D range. Also, he's the kind of professor who will try to trick you based on subtle wording (eg. always, never) even if you actually understand the concepts which is kind of dumb. And then half the questions aren't worded clearly so you don't even know what he's trying to ask. Most of them are hypothetical questions/experiments based on the concepts from the experiments he went over in class.

I think this was probably one of the worst classes I've taken at UCLA because the material is super dry and circular and the theories you learn about are all flawed, so at the end of it you still feel like you didn't learn much. And I don't think Stahlman is funny at all, as hard as he tries to be.

The professor is really good and I think the main reason some people are having problems with the class is because the material is hard. The average scores on the exams are Cs and Ds. Quizzes are worth 20 percent of the overall grade so do well on them.

The material is very conceptual so you basically have to expand what you know from the lectures. A lot of people have asked how do they study for this class? Do study groups and ask each other questions or try to answer questions from the discussion board it helps.

I got an A in the class. I went to office hours (which helped a lot).

I think Prof. Stahlman is very helpful, he explains things very well and he even podcasts just in case you dont understand something. His office hours are packed but he tries to answer any question in a professional manner.

I took this class (w/stahlman) becasue I had to and because the previous posts were way too positive. So here is a more informative description: This teacher is very young and is extremely vibrant. If you care enough, you will not fall asleep in lecture. You'll actualy be trying to figure out what is going on the entire time. He packs in as much material (previous studies) as he can in order to conceptualize the different types of learning. Considering this class was Psych 110, after every lecture I felt like a dog chasing his own tail. After every lecture you have to listen to the podcasts to understand exactly what's going on. Sometimes over and over. In addition, he doesn't follow the assigned text, but does include 5 random (but not too random) things from the book on the test. His 3 tests are 30 multiple choice questions and are written in word form (not graphs-you'll see when you take the class) and are generally kind of tricky. The reason I say they are tricky is because every time I walked out of the test I felt like I got a near 100, but when I got the results that wasn't the case. In the test, especially the 1st one, there are at least 5 questions with more than one right answer and you must pick the best answer. There has to be a curve in this class because some tests (2) the average is an F. Note: don't memorize the graphs for the first test. Just in case you don't know what 110 is about, it's focused on animals like rats and pigeons, and classical conditioning and operant conditioning. One last thing, I just spent 5 straight weeks in summer studying for this class solely and only got an A-.

Took 110, 118, and the honors seminar.

Dr. Stahlman is a great teacher. He is young and energetic about the subject matter, which makes it much easier to stay awake. The concepts are difficult for both 110 and 118, but that has nothing to do with the teacher.

For the reviewers who had trouble, both classes are very conceptual. These aren't classes where you memorize the slides and expect to do well. You need to understand the theories/the why behind the experiments in case he gives different examples on the exams.

I did not go to his OH, but my TA's Cindy and Dan were very helpful in making sure I understood the concepts. I'm sure his OH would be just as helpful.

Overall an excellent teacher, definitely recommended.

this professor is really passionate about what he's teaching. he also very caring and will answer all questions during class or office hours. i strongly recommend to record his lectures, listen to them and write the appropriate notes on each pp slide. you must understand the implication of every study in relation to the various theories of learning. even though i was doing what i just recommended and was studying constantly for this class, i thought the exams were very hard, and for ex in the first exam only three out of 80 people got an actual a ! thank god there is a curve that helped me get an a in this class. by the way, i took only this class in summer with my research lab, and it's still a lot of work. i don't think the course material is unbearable as other people claimed. once you organize the various theories in your head and go over the material at least two times you'll get it. however, the exams are very hard and you have 2 minutes per question (which is not a lot for his type of questions). if you have an option to take the best t.a in the world - moriel- don't hesitate to take her! she's incredible and very caring . best t.a!!!
overall, it is an interesting class!

Great professor. Very clear in lecture. His pace is a bit fast, but its not unreasonable. Pay attention in lectures, and think critically in exams. If you do this it is not a hard class to get an A. Also, if his pace is a bit fast for you, his TAs are really great. I had Moriel as my TA and she knew the materials just as thoroughly as the professor.

Two previous guys have a great sense of humor! Or had no life/took lower division classes along with 110. Prof. Stahlman is nice guy, I agree, but that's it! I've read the book, attended every lecture, listened to podcasts after lectures and got B-! The exams were nightmares, pulled out of air.

To the third poster:

Yes, I do have a life. And I took 2 other upper div classes with this course and had no problem getting an A. Its a Psych. course...how hard can it be?

I completely agree with the first poster.

Professor Stahlman was FANTASTIC! His slides are great, his lectures are fun and engaging, and the book he chose for 110 is excellent (it was actually fun to read!). His tests are tough but fair. He is not intimidating or arrogant. He's really young, so he still relates to the students.

He's a nice guy and a great professor. If you have the opportunity to take him, jump on it!

I really loved this professor. He was very enthusiastic about the material. I believe this was the first time he taught 110 (he just got his PhD, I think), but he was AMAZING! He explained things really, really well. He was open to questions, answered them effectively, had AWESOME slides. The slides were clear, detailed but precise, and had great illustrations that really helped me understand the concepts. I would not have wanted to take Psych 110 with anyone else. He was much, much better than I expected from someone who hadn't taught the class before. He's probably even better than professors who have taught the class for years. He's super nice, really understanding, very fair.

The exams were very fair. As long as you understood the slides and read the book, you were fine. The book he chose for the course was excellent. It was very clear, very relevant, explained things well, good diagrams. One of the best textbooks I've had to read for a Psych course.

I took notes from the book and studied his slides religiously, and I got an A. I genuinely loved going to lectures!

Thanks Prof. Stahlman!