<p>i have to take psych100A this fall on research statistics, and i was wondering if its better to take sean mcauliffe (who is known on bruinwalk for being horrible at stats and having a difficult grading policy) or marken, a professor who has no information whatsoever on bruinwalk?</p>
<p>what do you guys think-- is it better to take a bad professor, or take a chance of getting a (worse) or (better) professor?</p>
<p>"the devil you know is better than the devil you don't" seems to be a popular philosophy, eh? Why take someone who is known for being horrible at stats? The unknown prof probably couldn't be any worse, so all you have is upside.</p>
<p>I'd go with the unknown. Since the other professor is known to be horrible, it will probably be more empty, so you could transfer if the one you're enrolled in is worse.</p>
<p>another vote for unknown</p>
<p>same here... it can't get any worse, right?</p>
<p>There's no such thing as not being able to work around a bad professor. There is a chain of help that you can look to if you run in to one ...</p>
<ol>
<li>Professor</li>
<li>Your TA</li>
<li>Other TAs</li>
<li>Covel/AAP Tutoring</li>
<li>Private Tutoring</li>
</ol>
<p>I'm sure the chances that all the TAs are terrible and are unwilling to help you is slim. </p>
<p>This is kind of off topic, but just wanted to state that blaming a poor professor for one's bad grades is not a reasonable excuse.</p>
<p>As for your question, go with either lecture that is open. A difficult grading policy is not a reason to shy away from taking a professor. If you work hard, you will get the A. Looking for easy professors just makes people more lazy and less challenge-minded.</p>
<p>I don't get how a professor would be horrible at stats when he has this position. TAs should help if this is the case.</p>
<p>seeing as how there aren't any bruinwalk reviews for Marken, try
<a href="http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:Z6oZy-9rahgJ:www.lsic.ucla.edu/classes/psych/current/06F/syllabus/100A_2_06F/syllabus.pdf+fall+2006+ucla+psychology+marken&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a%5B/url%5D">http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:Z6oZy-9rahgJ:www.lsic.ucla.edu/classes/psych/current/06F/syllabus/100A_2_06F/syllabus.pdf+fall+2006+ucla+psychology+marken&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a</a></p>
<p>if that link doesn't work google the keywords "fall 2006 ucla psychology marken"
then click VIEW AS HTML for an idea how his class is. i know this speaks nothing of how he lectures but he's taught 100A before according to registrar and the psych department website, and he's teaching it for session C this summer, too so maybe if you knew someone who took it, ask around.</p>
<p>apparently for Marken's Psych 100A Fall 2006 class, there are three 50-point multiple choice exams with "top 20% A and A-; 30% B+, B and B-; 40% C+, C, C-, and, 10% everything else"
seems a lot better than the other professor's (McAuliffe) horrible reviews and testing style: 30 fill-in-the-blank questions (with possible answers as 'cannot determine'!!)</p>
<p>dear boelter. do you remember baugh?</p>
<p>dear moldau, see number 3 and 4 on the list.</p>
<p>Unknown, Hands Down!</p>
<p>dangit, marken sounds better but mcauliffe fits my schedule WAY better...
<em>dies</em></p>
<p>oh well i have to twiddle my thumbs until second pass anyway x.x</p>
<p>Unknown
also if it helps any, i know that marken has been teaching a fiat lux seminar about personal control..which i did not take so i can't add to that</p>
<p>unknown</p>
<p>with the known one, you know for sure he's bad</p>
<p>with the unknown one, he could be bad OR he might be okay...</p>