PSYC 2200

As someone who has never had difficulties being able to retain information for a class if I studied hard enough, I have never been more frustrated. Even if you do alright with the curve you feel awful all semester because the tests are made so that no one does well. Do not take this course. Not only is the information not interesting but simply consists of labeling the million parts of the brain that Brunjes himself acknowledges as tedious. You will spend hours outside of class trying to memorize these minute, irrelevant details.

This class was definitely hard, but there are ways to succeed. Firstly, the entire class is comprised of 5 exams (~35 MC/ True-false), of which 1 is dropped. To do well, try to the best possible you can on each exam -- do not count on a "dropped exam" to bail you out. Try to do well on the first exam in particular because it is often the worst test for the majority of students. Since the class is graded on a bell curve, you want to try and stand out early. To do well on exams, you must go to every single lecture and either A) write down every word/diagram he draws or B) record each lecture and draw all associated diagrams he draws on the board. If you miss a lecture, get detailed notes from a friend as soon as possible. While in lecture, pay special attention to the times when he stops rambling and goes over to his computer/notebook to see what he has to talk about next/say about the current topic. Usually, these are minute but important points that he doesn't remember to say off the top of his head but do show up on the exams. During his lecture days, it's not mandatory to pre-read the textbook chapters (I found it to be worse because I could forget information come test time). To study for exams, I suggest starting to prepare a week in advance and clear up as much time as possible during the week (finish all other HW and studying for other classes beforehand). When reading the textbook for the first time, make sure you read every single word on every single page and highlights key/interesting facts as you see fit. Make sure to highlight any numbers/percentages that show up as well as anything that you think Brunjes would find interesting. In this case, the more you highlight, the better. If you are in a crunch for time, skip over the "fluffy" parts but make sure to read all objective parts (facts, numbers, percentages, bolded words). Once you finish reading the textbook for the first time (ideally 3 days before exam day), go over all of your in-class notes thoroughly. Read over each word carefully in your notes. 1-2 days before the exam, you should ideally be revisiting highlighted facts in the textbook, reviewing your notes, and taking his posted practice tests. Most of the practice test answers are on quizlet and he often uses questions on his exams that are taken directly from these practice tests. There are numerous other quizlets/question banks posted by the previous textbook used by this class that I highly sugged you run through. Get a group of friends, flip to random pages in the textbook/notes and ask each other rapid-fire questions to help prepare. There is no need to attend the Monday discussion section. During tests, read each word carefully and don't be afraid to go up and ask him questions if you find a question confusing. Also, don't be afraid of choosing option E: None of the above. To get an A in the class, you need to have a test average of around 88+ to be safe. Having an average of ~86+ can get you an A in some semesters. Remember that not all hope is lost if you do bad on one exam -- study harder and more diligently for the next exam. Scores of 50 100 100 100 100 will translate to a 100 (with the drop) in the class while scores of 75 85 75 85 70 will translate to an 80 in the class. Remember, these scores are then curved based on how the class did! TLDR: Read every word in the textbook, Write down every word he says in lecture, review your notes thoroughly/create mnemonics, and make sure to do as many practice questions as possible (google is your best friend :)).

Brunjes is a really nice guy but not a good teacher.

Lectures: Brunjes does not use a mic in Gilmer 130, and does not use powerpoints. In some course this would be laudable, but in one with so many definitions and complex diagrams it is a bad choice. He puts up pictures with no explanation on the screen, and scribbles notes on the board that are hard to decipher. I had a friend who missed a couple classes due to illness and I could barely explain the notes to him.

Textbook: The text is what it is, a boring but competent intro neuroscience textbook. Quizlet is your friend, and draw the diagrams. Read the "Psychology Now" and "Experiments" boxes, they are key for tests.

Tests: By far the worst I have ever taken, as a rising fourth year. Brunjes grades on a forced curve (25% A, 55% B, so on), and to accomplish this makes his tests absurd. But not by putting complex but relevant material. Instead, he puts random scientists, experiments, miniscule mumbled points from lecture, etc. on the test for 6-7 of the 30 questions, turning the difference between an A and C into random guesswork. The remaining questions are not easy either, as every question has "none or all of the above" as an answer.

All of this said, by definition 80% of students will get a B- or better. Show up, drink coffee beforehand, study hard for the tests, and hope they get a better professor for such a fundamental course in the major.

He needs to use a mic, have planned lectures and uses ppt slides instead of drawing so many diagrams with chalk. I sat in the front row and couldn't read things he wrote down and missed some of what he said. The tests were by far the worst tests I have ever taken. Study hard and review his practice tests. Also, people will drop and withdraw from the class and he grades on a curve. The class average will then shoot up by a considerable amount near the end, and hurt you if you anywhere but at the top.

The has made the structure of this course to grades us based on how everyone else in the class does. This grading structure in addition to ridiculously hard tests that require memorization of little details has made it a really frustrating learning experience for me. I have read every chapter and studied consistently, but I still consistently got 60s and 70s on my tests. It just didn't feel like it measured what I learned versus how much I could memorize in a short amount of time. Overall, the content is interesting, but the professor comes off as super inflexible and rigid. I would recommend this class for people who are good at memorizing, can make it to lectures early and consistently, or are super interested in the subject.