Columbia College Core · Columbia University
David Wolfe has been my favorite instructor to date. What's great is that he is unfailing in his commitment to fully examining the claims and justifications of the works we read. He also did something which is rare in a discussion-based class, and that is he discerned between which opinions of the students made sense, and which did not. He also refused to accept ad hominem arguments. Most people don't even know why those are always wrong. He made it feel like it was worth something to bother learning philosophy. I'm sure one day this guy is going to write a book that will change the face of whatever area of philosophy he was in. He was also very funny in a sardonic kind of way- and he didn't mind turning it on us, the students. So beware of that.
TA for Akeel Bilgrami's Fall 2002 Methods and Problems.Complacent and Inept. Grading a midterm and a final was an overwhelming task for this guy. Columbia must be desperate. If you wind up with him as a TA, you will have to hold his little hand and do his job for him, because he just won't.
Dave Wolfe is a great instructor. Here's why: he could have let the class try to apply the works read to our own lives, making for interesting discussion and a fun two hours. But he didn't: he focussed, through a sophisticated mix of lecture, discussion, and student engagement, on the actual philosophical arguments of the writers. Although I'm not quite sure how Aquinas applies to my life, I really understand every bit of his logic. This makes for a great class in which I really feel as if I am learning something. His paper prompts are intelligent, focussed, and open-ended, and he is a tough but fair grader. Expect some difficult, and sometimes boring, classes, but also expect to get a lot out of them.
Although he's only been teaching a short while, David is a very good teacher. I can't speak for those who already have a good background in philosophy and politics, but for someone like myself, Wolfe was excellent. He wasn't one of these profs who subjects himself to the whims of the class, and while he encourages student opinions, he is very clear in distinguishing which ones are more accurate than others. He has a sarcastic sense of humor, and you get the idea that he understands what most of us are thinking. My only complaint would be that his questions to the class weren't that good, and there is at least one awkward silence per class as a result.
Dave made a year of 9am CC a lot less painful than it could have been. He's laid back but is very good at engaging students and asking good questions., and I actually found the class to be really interesting and enjoyable. He's a grad student in the philosophy department, and focuses on the content and arguments in the works rather than on their historical and political context. Overall, I had a great year of CC with him. If you get him for CC, count yourself lucky - this was only his first year teaching, and I'm sure he's going to get even better.
Normal. Reasonable grader, but not an easy one.
Three 6 pp papers (three prompts each), daily question about reading due at beginning of class, midterm and final with ID's and one essay.
Other than the usual 3 papers, which are all the same length, he has you write a question for the beginning of each class. Very fair grader.
A question about the reading that you hand in at the beginning of every class, and three papers a semester. The usual CC reading workload, + a few supplementals - Singer, Strawson, nothing too long. Interesting paper topics!