I actually found this class to be quite interesting and very easy. The topics we discussed were very relevant and the class made me view media and its effects on development much differently. I had taken it because it seemed like an easy class and ended up developing an interest in the topic. I didn't find the class boring. There was always plenty of discussion happening-- Professor Uhls seems to really enjoy hearing students opinions on things and it was fun to hear what people had to say about a topic like kids media. She reads off slides sometimes, yes, but I found her lectures entertaining as she infused them with a good amount of humor. It was a fun class, an easy A and not too much work.

This is for Psych 167. Yes an easy class and an even easier A, but god it was so frickin' boring and draining. I only went because I never knew when there would be a reflection, but zoned out the entire time. The quizzes were a joke, I never studied for them and instinctually got over 50% which is what you needed for full credit. The responses, quizzes and extra credit basically cushion you into getting a good grade, which was nice, but shows how little her and the TA (we had Sal) actually know. The papers were okay, the first one was dumbly assessed and I got a lower grade than I expected despite following the pattern of the "top scoring" papers. The second one I did in 4 hours and got an A+, but just make sure to choose an interesting topic and you can get a lot of leeway in what you right, which is something Sal graded me high for. The final was..very dumb. 100B-ish with the answer choices, and some of them were so vague and based not on any material studied but her personal opinions that she mentioned in class. I scored 29/41 on the MCQ part which was kinda shocking since I did study, but I'm assuming I did okay on on free response (she never posted the grade) because I ended up with an A in the class.

Now, onto her. God, her and Sal were so rude sometimes. She's literally a person from the film industry parading around as a teacher, pulling articles from news sites and citing them as real sources. Her lectures were bland and unorganized and sounded like she was a parent trying way too hard to be cool and fit in with her kids. Anytime anyone answered a question not to her exact specifics, she'd be like 'okay no..but' instead of considering multiple correct answers. Sal was kind of short with students, but I feel for him because he was the only TA dealing with all of us and she probably didn't make it easy for him. She was just kinda like doing the bare minimum and expecting him to pick up her slack.

In conclusion, take the class for an easy A, but expect a bunch of common sense to be spewed at you like it's groundbreaking content and be bored to death.

This class was very boring, however, it is an easy course. Attendance is needed in order to do well because there are reflections, and quizzes that have to be done in-class!! The midterm wasn't difficult and it consisted of a few multiple choice and short response questions. We also had to write a 3-pg paper that wasn't graded too harshly in my opinion. Due to COVID-19, there were changes in the final but she was very understanding of our situations, and for that I give her props.

This is on behalf of Psych 167: Social Media and Human Development

So this class isn't so bad if you don't care to learn about the material and just want the A. Most of the information taught in this course is somewhat self explanatory, and she doesn't really help with much. If you ask a question, she might laugh at you and make you feel like an idiot. She assigns two papers, and you pretty much have to do well on these papers to get a good grade in the class. To be completely honest, I didn't listen to much of the lecture material. I just went to class for attendance. Also, I don't recommend wasting your time on the book. Don't need to buy it. The final wasn't that bad, although a lot of people struggled with the material. Scored 88 on my first paper, and a 93 on my second. Got an 82% on my final, ended up with an A. Reflections, attendance, participation, and 50 extra credit points really help you out with your grade.

Honestly, this was one of the most boring classes I've ever taken at UCLA. Dr. Uhls simply reads off her overly wordy slides during lecture. I woudn't have bothered to show up if we didn't have quizzes or unannounced reflections. While the midterm was fairly easy as well as the 3-page paper, I would not take a class with Dr. Uhls again because it was that uninteresting. Also, I do not recommend wasting time reading the articles she assigns or even buying her textbook because she doesn't test on it and she goes over the important parts during lecture. Due to coronavirus, she made the multiple choice part of the final optional and a 1-page paper mandatory which was very nice of her. If you want an easy class with minimal work take it, but if you're worried about being bored for 10 weeks, stay away!

The class itself was fine it's definitely an easy A but the professor is awful. She's so rude to her students and the TA and she's terrible at communication. She would ask the TA to give her input during lectures but then cut her off ten seconds later. And for our group project she gave virtually no instructions but then criticized almost all the presentations. Even if you did something she asked, she would change her mind as soon as you did it. For example, she said during an earlier presentation that she wanted example videos so my group used a few and she said it was a waste of presentation time??? And she skipped a lot of lecture slides and said we didn't have time to cover it so it wouldn't be on the final but sure enough it was in fact on the final.
The biggest annoyance for me was that at the end of the quarter (the day she published final grades to be exact) she changed the grading scale in the syllabus. Before, it was a pretty standard scale of an A- being 900-929, an A being 930-969, and an A+ being anything over 970 points. But she ended up changing it to an A being anything between 930-999 and an A+ being 1000+ plus.

Here's the grading breakdown:
- Lectures = 100 Points
Attendance is mandatory but it's just a link they share at the beginning of class so you could just fill it out then leave. And on Thursdays you have to take an in-class quiz which doesn't count for points, just completion. Attending lectures is a huge waste of time in my opinion because she put no effort into them and would just read off her slides in the most monotone voice. And she barely even lectured at all, because we spent more than half of each lecture on the group presentation and either taking the quiz or going over the last one. We also had way more guest lecturers than any other class I've taken here, but those were the days that were actually interesting. Just would've been nice if Yalda actually did her job.

- Test Your Learning = 150 points
You have to turn in two multiple choice quiz questions based off the material each week.

- Group Project = 150 points
You and 7 other people sign up to do a 15 minute presentation about a specific age group and their relationship to media. The first group to sign up got 5 extra credit points.

- Interview Essay = 300 points
You have to interview someone under the age of 18 and write a narrative essay about their use of media. 3 pages.

- Final = 300 points
90 questions in 90 minutes. Online and open book, but the class average was still about a B because a lot of the questions were things she just never covered. The exam wasn't curved either.

- Extra Credit = 50 points
You can earn 25 points from doing an hour of SONA experiments and another 25 points publishing a photo or video of the minor you interviewed on Yalda's blog (and the interview).

Even though this class was an easy A I would not recommend taking it because Yalda was such a nasty woman I would rather get a B in a different class than have to sit through another one of her lectures. And I'm usually the type of person who loves easy A classes no matter how boring they are. This class was a huge disappointment and she's an embarrassment of a UCLA professor.

I'm writing this on behalf of her psych 167 course, and I can't stress enough how easy of a class this was! Professor Tehranian was by far one of the most helpful and clear professor's I've ever had. She's always willing to answer any questions & I highly recommend taking this course; she highly encourages class discussion and will occasionally call names from the roster. I personally don't enjoy speaking in front of the class, but was only called on twice throughout the entire semester if that's something your worry about. Tests were super easy & she usually uses apps to record participation! Attendance matters TAKE HER!

This is a review for Psych 167: Digital Media and Development.

Soooo this class is kind of a headache, although it is seen as an "easy" class. So first off, a big chunk of your grade is based on 2 papers, one is this interview essay type thing where you go and "interview" a child, and the second one (which Professor Uhls had said was a new assignment) is like this article/blog that you write based off of something that has to do with development and media.

The instructions given for the first assignment - the interview, was absolutely outrageous. They barely gave ANY instructions. However, there were past papers that Professor Uhls had uploaded that she said had gotten good grades in the past. You would think that would help right?? Wrong. What ended up happening was that an outside grader was told to grade half the class harshly, and that ended up with half the class getting A's (graded by the TA), the other half getting B+'s. I went to the TA because this outside grader gave my paper a SUPER low grade and he even agreed and changed the grade to a B to a B+. This outside grader was told by Professor Uhls to grade "harshly". Great. In addition, no rubric was given for this paper. And the rubric that was shared to students by the TA that was given by the Professor was COMPLETELY different than the papers that she had said had gotten "good grades". So BIG WARNING to students who are given these "past" papers, make sure you ask her when these papers were posted because you could get screwed just like I did.

The second time around, the TA graded my paper and gave me super harsh criticism that was even more nitpicky than my 100B paper grades. Seriously, I got less harsh criticism on those than I did on that paper. It was ridiculous. I got a B+ again. Make sure you are super explicit with the things you write.

Reflections and the quizzes make up another big chunk of your grade. You don't do a reflection every class (but you just never know for sure when) and you are allowed to miss one reflection without any penalty for your grade. The quizzes were graded pretty leniently, you had to get 50% to get full credit. I still studied for them though and I would encourage you to study for them to make the final easier for yourself.

Something that I also found irritating was that the slides wouldn't be posted until a couple of days later. I honestly wouldn't even bother typing everything down. Just listen to what she is saying. However, some things that did show up on the final were just things she brought up in class.

There is only a final exam in this class, no midterm. A study guide was given that was about 50 questions long. Professor Uhls had told us that last year her exam was told to be "easy" so she was going to make it more difficult. However, a student right before the final asked Professor Uhls if the study guide was basically the exam, and Professor Uhls said yes. Wrong. It was not. The average was a 30/41. I am sure that because of the huge grading disparity between half the class some people definitely were bulletproof enough to not study so much for the exam (the papers are worth more than the final exam) but I studied A LOT for it and I still found it difficult. The exam was not as easy as the quizzes. The style was very similar to a lot of A&B, B&C not D/none of the above style questions (Think 100B). It was pretty tricky and difficult, to be honest, and there were absolutely questions that were not on the study guide. I would say a little more than half the exam was the study guide, but the rest was stuff she said in class or things from the papers.

Oh yeah, and she offers an INSANE amount of extra credit which was awesome. 50 extra credit points.

To add on to more of the negatives of this class, I also think that both Professor Uhls and the TA were extremely unprofessional with the way that they talked to us as a class. Super condescending at times, rude. People would ask questions about something and they would be like "like omg we already answered that WOW" and then go on a tangent about when they last talked about it. Chill. We are students and some of us have exams at weird times that makes us tired.

This class is annoying and not as easy as it seems because of how unorganized things are with paper assignments. Hopefully next time this class is offered Professor Uhls will change that. The 50 extra credit points are awesome and because of that it will probably guarantee you an A. AS LONG as you get like a B average on the papers, go to class, do all the reflections, quizzes, and get a decent enough grade on the final you should be fine. Just know that you will be annoyed the whole time.