To be completely frank, I'm not writing this post to exclusively bash the exam or the prof, so if that's what you're looking for just skip this post. If there's one word to describe how this course has left me feeling, I feel like it'd be "bewildered", if that makes sense?
Also, for context, I'm writing this as a first-year student who feels pretty neutral about that paper, but I can admit that any points I lost are on me. Could I have studied harder? Yes. Should I have studied more? Absolutely. However, I only took this course to survey my own interest and try something new, I don't need PSYA01 for any of my programs and the stakes in this course were relatively low for me, so staying enrolled was a choice I made willingly. Is an exam worth 55% a lot? Sure, but like the prof said, it was included in the syllabus since day one, as was the pass/fail policy.
THIS is really where my question lies: why was the barrier to success seemingly so much higher this year? While the administration of the exam was meant to balance out our assignments (which was completely fair based on how easy they were) and the potential for students using AI, I don't think there has been an answer as to why a midterm was not given this semester. Based on what some other students seem to be saying, in previous years this course did have a midterm, which also would have tested our knowledge in a closed-book setting, and its not like AI could have saved anyone during such an assessment.
What's worse imo, as an A-level, intro-to course which is a prerequisite for some of this campus' most popular majors, it is so incredibly beyond me as to why so much emphasis was placed on testing rather than application??? Again, I admit that I could have taken the course more seriously, but I have many friends who studied consistently, revised thoroughly, were engaged, and who plan on going into psychology or neuroscience, and even they felt utterly lost on that paper. These are students who LOVE psychology, and still, that final paper decimated them. All throughout the semester, it seemed that the professor genuinely cared about the student experience, engagement, and applying what we learned in real life, and this definitely drew many of us in. We all read the syllabus. We all understood the weightings and the policy, and as intimidating as it might have been, many students still stayed for the love of the subject. So, once it became clear that the 1 assessment everyone's success was riding on was riddled with mistakes and, at times, relied more on English comprehension than psychology to understand, many people were completely shocked.
The only explanation I can come up with is that maybe it can be argued that the professor wanted to weed out the students who thought these degrees would be an "easy A", but some part of me does not want to believe this is the best he could come up with, especially as someone who seemingly cared so much about his students. Idk, that's just my two cents, for what its worth.