I think 90% of my HS psych class didn't replicate

Can you elaborate more on this? I did not take psychology in high school, but I would imagine that such a course would focus on fundamental concepts where “replicating” wouldn’t even be an issue. There might be teachers who might bring up the pop-sci topics, but wouldn’t the meat of the class just be learning about theories or frameworks?

Not the OP and I didn’t take psych but here’s an example syllabus for AP Psychology from the College Board: https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/ap-psychology-s...

The first two units on neurology and cognition seem sensible, but I can see how it’ll quickly go off the rails after that.

This seems entirely fine, after a brief review of the contents. Where do you think it goes off the rails?

> it never replicated and should be considered just as bogus

Did someone try to replicate it? What were the results? What were their conclusions about its credibility?

> all the other stuff in social psych which hasn't survived the replication crisis.

Replication isn't black and white: Most of the experiments - at least in the early widely reported phase - did replicate but with less statistically strong results.

    > never replicated

Not exactly.

Wiki says:

    Studies that followed up on the contribution of environmental enrichment to addiction produced mixed results.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park#Further_experiments

Right, and we've seen plenty of people who lead the "Rat Park" equivalent of human lives and yet still get addicted to opioids. There's clearly no single cause.