PSYC 2200

Don't bother reading the textbook. Just go to lecture and you will do fine on the tests.

If you go to lecture and memorize the notes, you should do just fine in that class. A huge portion of the test is based on lecture notes.

Professor Hill was a really funny professor, and he made an already fascinating subject even more interesting! The book was kind of useless, but as long as you go to lectures you should get an A.

I took this course in Fall 2009. There is no reason you should not get an A in this class. You don't need to read the book, and the material is remedial for anyone who took AP Bio in high school. Seriously, one of the multiple-choice options for a question on the midterm was "fat is cool." Easy A if you have a pulse and attend class.

Professor Hill is a great lecturer who is entertaining and draws laughs in every lecture. His lectures are clear and he is always willing to answer questions. 4 exams and a cumulative final. Lowest exam dropped.

Professor Hill gives really thorough lectures, and makes difficult topics quite easy to understand. He always comes in excited to teach. The entire class grade is based on four midterms and a cumulative final, all equally weighted (he drops the lowest one).

While Hill does have his moments, he is generally dull and redundant. He simplifies concepts too much and his tests are quite difficult. Avoid.

Do not take this class if you do not have to. The tests are ridiculous - there are always things on them that you have no idea where they came from even if you attended every lecture and read the book. For one test, some of the questions had multiple right answers, and when we showed him our answer in the book he still did not accept it. Sure, some of the questions on the tests are easy, but it is not worth it for the truly infuriating ones.

this class was not as easy as i expected it to be. the exams frequently have information that seems random. the final is also definitely not as easy as he kept hinting toward. the easiest test was the fourth and the hardest--watch out for the sensory systems.

This was one of the worst classes I took while at UVa. Right off the bat this course was disappointing. It really should be renamed to reflect the content of the course. The professor is a horrible lecturer. He oversimplifies biological systems and processes to the point where it just seems that things magically happen, which only confuses students. Most of his lectures are comprised predominantly of pictures and graphs from the book without descriptions to accompany them. One lecture he repeatedly said we were just looking at pictures to see the different types of cells and neural connections. On the next test however, there were 5 questions requiring us to match a type of stain with the specific part of the cell it was used to see. It is not uncommon for him to ramble on about things that have nothing to do with the material and then throw a sentence or two of information at the class before rambling again. The level of the book does not match that of the lectures and when there is a discrepancy, the professor claims the book is incorrect. For students who prefer to read the book before lecture and take notes, this creates more work as he usually says the book goes into much greater detail than we are required to know. For students who read the book after lecture, it creates confusion because the lecture no longer makes sense. Almost every test had a glaring error so the professor was forced to accept all answers as correct. All of the tests also had misleading, ambiguous, or trick questions. When students tried to explain their logic for the answer they chose for such questions, the professor told them they misunderstood the question or they misunderstood the material, instead of using it as a teaching opportunity. Students respond much better to a concession followed by an explanation than being told they are stupid. Additionally, if students wanted clarification on a test question, this was usually impossible because the professor was no where to be found once the tests were passed out. The professor also mislead the entire class in preparation for the final. We were told that we would only be tested on the material from the 4 in-class exams and that the final would be the same level of difficulty as these exams. This was a flat out lie. The exam was much more difficult and there was information that had not appeared on any of the tests during the semester. Furthermore, the information he tested us on seemed irrelevant to the class, such as the scientific name for an animal a test was conducted on rather than the results of the study or the definition of the term "homeotherm." The professor also loved analogies. The relationship between digital and analog information, "all or none" events and graded events, and action potentials and EPSPs is not of great importance nor does it help students unless they already know the relationship between analog and digital information (which is not explained in class). The name of the course has such potential, however I learned absolutely nothing interesting in this course. I understand that to learn about behavior, students must have a basic understanding of the neural mechanisms that control it; however, learning about which waves are predominant during which sleep stages as well as auditory and visual pathways are not behavioral. Learning what results when the pathways are disrupted is what is actually interesting. Students have a basic grasp on almost all the material covered in this course from high school biology. This course should expand on drug addiction, sleep disorders, neurodegenerative disorders, etc as a result of issues at the neural level to more accurately reflect the name of the course as well as make it a worthwhile and interesting class.