David Ratzan

Very knowledgable instructor who creatively taught the class from memory, rather than boring powerpoints or repetitive readings. Entertaining lectures were effectively presented through the use of interesting stories about history, comparisons to other languages, and even science. Overall a challenging class with a heavy workload, but that should be expected with Latin regardless of the teacher. In all honesty David Ratzan is the most academically well rounded, understanding, and professional Columbia professor I’ve had the pleasure of taking a class with. I wish his knowledge could guide me further down Latin’s rabbit hole for another semester.

The class.... just... sucked. Ratzan complicated things, had his own interpretation of everything, led poor class discussions. I guess he was nice and meant well but it was just crippling how we were graded - both emotionally and GPA wise. EVERY LITTLE THING was graded on a scale of 1-100. And it was fairly harsh grading. If you show up to class, 80%. (Most other teachers give this a 90 or 100). If you said something, it bumps up; to get a 100, you have to say something brilliant, maybe you get a better score. Yikes. It was exhausting and oppressive. Feeling constantly judged is for celebrities, not people learning something new who barely have a handle on it yet. It's a huge indicator that, year after year, people switch sections ASAP between fall and spring. I got out and never looked back. I switched to another section in which I learned more and actually bonded with my teacher. I didn't feel like going to her office hours meant facing a 0-100 scale of how prepared I was, or leaving more confused. Man oh man. I'm a senior now, and looking back, he and that class were one of my worst experiences at Columbia. I just wish he wouldn't have made everything so complicated. The material is already hard enough - do you have to add all these layers on both the readings and the grading system? And office hours were practically useless. In sum: most of my complaints revolve around har…

Worked through the entirety of one of Plato's Socratic dialogues with particular emphasis on grammar and construction in Greek, while also engaging in other dialogues and texts in English to provide context. Basic introductions to the apparatus criticus as well as other online tools were also provided.

Weekly quizzes 15% Bi-weekly readings / vocabulary 2 midterms 20% (each) Final exam 25% Active Participation 20%

I took Professor Ratzan's class during Spring semester, and I found his classes to be genuinely fascinating — unusual for a 9am. I switched out of my last CC class because I found the teacher insufferably boring. David, on the other hand, held consistently interesting discussions and was deeply enthusiastic about the material he was teaching. Take David's class if you want a professor with an actual opinion. He won't beat you over the head with it nor force you to agree with him, but David definitely had his own interpretation of the books and wasn't shy about contesting discussion points that he did not find convincing. After too many teachers who will agree to just about anything, I enjoyed David's style. David also has his moments as far as humor goes, and did a good job of lightening up Nietzsche with a few well timed expletives. He also is fond of short and confusing anecdotes that only sometimes seem contextually relevant but are almost always pretty funny. David works to clarify the important elements of each text without getting lost in summary-style lectures, and he often connected the material to contemporary concerns (the influence of the Internet, the Boston bombing, etc) in appropriate and engaging ways. I definitely left each class with food for thought and I deeper understand of the material. David assigns more reading than most CC profs. It pays to actually mak…

It was tons of fun to read Plato in Greek, especially as I was reading him in English for CC at the same time. It also really helped strengthen my Greek proficiency, especially after not having done it for a year.

Definitely does not deserve the silver nugget, CULPA should start handing out charcoal. Honestly the worst experience I've had at Columbia. Avoid him like the plague unless you want to work twice as hard as every other CC student and get half the grade. If possible switch out as soon as possible. He holds interesting discussions but lets students ramble on and on.

Get ready to read a lot of Greek! Also, heads up: Plato isn't always too concerned with getting to the point.

David Ratzan without a doubt does not deserve a silver nugget. The class started off energetic and was decently engaging throughout the semester until the last few weeks came when David decided to stop really preparing for class. One day he came into class and apologized for not preparing, but explained that his dog had gotten sick the night before, and he was up all night taking it out. The discussions never had an overarching focus; he would simply start the class (often while taking his coat off) by things that the students were interested in. This is nice to an extent, but unfortunately there were many works that we read where there was no take-away message. I found that I had scribbled lots of ideas on various points, but it was really hard to sum up what the work was really about after going to class. He also often seemed more interested in arguing/playing devil's advocate with a student's idea rather than trying to understand and accept it. Overall, this class was incredibly stressful because David is such a harsh grader. Participation was worth 30% for this class, and we found that he actually checked students off when they said something. 0 checks was bad, 1 check was okay, 2 checks was good. He grades everything on a 0-100 scale, even participation and posts (which were due every class). David considers around an 85 to be a pretty solid score; unfortunately most stud…

Professor Ratzan is okay. He is pretty enthusiastic about the class, but discussions very much follow his agenda. He has points that he wants to make, and asks the class questions to direct the discussion to a specific conclusion. This is a problematic way to study philosophy: while the authors we read often make very specific points, there is a lot of interpreting or further meaning, nuance etc. that are within all the works. I was constantly frustrated by his narrow focus and unwillingness to really consider other parts of the work that weren't part of what he wanted to discuss. The class and the subject matter were very much tailored to what he wanted to present. He was also difficult to follow at times, especially in one on one meetings. He used examples that were interesting, but didn't straightforwardly relate to the subject matter we studied, and often complicated things. We were also constantly evaluated: almost everything we did (discussion posts, attendance, etc) were graded on a scale of 0-100. That said, he is a smart person and nice. He reviewed each one of our papers extensively, writing each of us a 500 word email about our paper's strengths and weaknesses, but this came at the cost of waiting weeks for our papers. He certainly means well, and the focused way of studying the materials meant that we walked away at the end of every class with some concrete informa…