PHIL BC1003

Not so bad, but you MUST do the readings or you will be completely lost.

One short paper (300 words), graded very harshly One long paper (1500 words), graded much more generously One midterm One final Mandatory postings on courseworks that count for some portion of the 10% of the grade that is allotted to "informed participation."

At the first class during shopping period, Professor Guay charmed me with his good looks and low-key sense of humor. However, the class turned out to be very disappointing. I went into the class thinking that we'd have cool, existential discussions about morality and the meaning of life. Instead, all that ever happens in class is a lengththy explanation, maybe with a short discussion, of the text we read overnight. Nothing else. It gets boring really fast. There are frequent reading quizzes, but they're designed so that you can't hurt your grade unless you're an class-cutting idiot who never does your homework. Papers are really scary, but if you do exactly what it asks for, you're guaranteed an A. Bottom line: an easy class, but not an enjoyable one.

First and foremost, the Philosophy and Human Existence course material was really great. Philosophers both past and present were well represented, and the course readers were thoroughly interesting. Be forewarned, however, that this course if NOT for those of you that lack interest in philosophy. This is philosophy course through and through, and, in order to get the most out of this class, you will want to spend the extra time required to wrap your head around a great assortment of thinkers. Katalin Makkai certainly knows what she is talking about when it comes to the material. She is well versed in the ways of the French Existentialists and could talk for days about Immanuel Kant. If there is a professor in the best position to teach this class, it is she. Her class is, although she'd rather not call it this, a lecture course and mostly revolves around her explanations of the dense assigned readings. But if you pay attention and follow the conversation, you will take a lot from it this course. The greatest complaint I had was with the T.A. Although the class was only about 30, all of the grades were determined by the T.A. and an outside grader. Unfortunately, when the T.A. graded the papers, he brutally (and often rudely) shredded apart every bit of it. However, the grader graded quite easily. It just depended on what letter of the alphabet your surname began with (a 50-50 t…

Professor Beardman is a nice person. She is clearly very, very smart. She is enthusiastic about her subject matter. At times her explanations of difficult concepts aren't terribly helpful, but of course that is because the concepts are difficult. I thought at times she could be a little short with people, but overall she tried to encourage participation and really wanted people to understand what was being taught. The problem with this course was not Professor Beardman. The problem was the other students. If you're a philosophy major, this is not going to be a big deal for you. If you're not, it will be. Having to listen to students recount every detail of their infallible argument against Cartesian Skepticism that they just thought up while sitting in class in the last five minutes is unbearable. No one has any humility these days. Everyone thinks that their idea is the best idea in the history of the world, and even if they themselves did not spend any time working on it, we should all drop whatever we are doing to listen to them explain it in excruciating, class time-consuming detail. Beardman tried to cut these interruptions short, but too many of the students apparently didn't respect her or their classmates (or, probably, anyone but themselves) enough to shut up, despite repeated hints (and by hints I mean the professor said, "Okay, well I don't want us to spend too much…

Readings for each class that can be very challenging. In-class midterm with IDs and essays, two papers, and a take-home final that we had a week to do. Overall, very fair. No surprises on the tests or the papers.

She assigns a hefty amount of readings, but there's no assessment to see you did them and, if you can follow her, she will go over them in class. 10% of your grade is participation (which includes 3 postings on courseworks per month), 15% was a short paper which everyone does terribly on (the highest grade in our class was an 89%), 25% was a long paper, 50% were midterm and final.

This class is great if you are up for challenging readings and concepts. There is a reading due for every class, most of which are not very long but are very intense. Prof. Makkai spends the class going over the reading which we're supposed to have read ahead of time. Even if you don't do the reading you will probably be able to figure out what is going on. She does a great job of explaining hard concepts. The readings may seem daunting but she never tests on ideas that weren't explicitly explained in class. A great introduction to philosophical inquiry but definitely not for someone who wants to slack off. Make sure to keep up with the reading! It sucks when you haven't done the reading for awhile and then you have to write a paper and go back and do it. Not recommended for people with short attention spans or people who aren't genuinely interested in philosophical ideas and thinkers.

I'll give Professor Beardman this, she was certainly quirky. What she wasn't was articulate. She tended to get so wrapped up in just how much she knew about philosophy that she went on extreme tangents mid-sentence that would proceed to preoccupy the next 15 minutes of class. It also made her assume that as wee little intro course takers we must be idiots incapable of expressing coherent thoughts. Yeah, sure, we were the confusing ones. She often contradicted herself and made no sense whatsoever. None of the material was as complex as she made it sound. For example, she once said, "If determinism true, and every event has a cause, and every action has a cause going back to before born, from beginning of everything, the conditions of universe, and laws of nature, if a being knew the state of the universe at any time, and knew all of the laws of nature, and the universe is purely deterministic, you could predict any event in the future," except keep in mind that in real life, she would stop mid-sentence to plop in a random phrase without explaining what it had to do with the rest of everything, or randomly repeat a phrase she had already said. In other words, she rarely used full sentences and pretty much spoke in stream-of-consciousness. It was also hard to know what to write on the papers with someone so vague and with so few other assignments.

Readings were tough. She was very helpful after classes and she tried hard to explain things to students (although in a very philosophical manner). THe sad part is that she kinda threw us into the pool of complication without telling us how to swim out of it. You better take notes in class because you'd have to depend on it when it comes to BSing the phil papers. I have to confess that I "B*S*" my way throughout the course......based on the note of course. i got an A-.