Michael Stevenson

Michael is not nearly as bad as many of these reviews make him out to be. Yes, he is sometimes very aloof, and sometimes seems slightly unprepared, but overall, I did enjoy my CC experience. He is a nice guy who will listen to and consider everyone's thoughts; as mentioned below, he is very respectful in that regard. However, he is a slow grader, and sometimes he seems kind of unengaged. To be fair though, also as written about below, a lot of that was due to the fact that my class was a bit dead for the whole year, as it seemed often times that half the class hadn't read and the other half were either shy, bored, or completely indifferent to discussion. Also, he was definitely much more familiar and engaged with the texts from second semester. I know that he won't be teaching CC next year, but overall, as a teacher, he's not bad. I can't say that I'd necessarily recommend Michael, but if you're looking for a more relaxed section of CC, then this is it. You'll probably do just fine.

Stevenson did not seem at all interested in teaching this course. His knowledge of the texts extends as far as a modest sliver of wikipedia. I know that during the semester I had to go outside and spritz water from the water fountain on my neck in an effort to stay awake. That, and the section was at 4:10, so I was already checked out. In his defense though, I think that Stevenson knows more about second semester CC than first. Also, you don't have to do much and you can get an okay grade. If you're looking for that, then go for it. If you're looking for a real experience and to learn deeply about the texts, steer clear. He's not horrendous, but I didn't feel like he was putting a whole lot of effort into the class.

Yeah....I wish I could disagree with the previous reviews...I think I would tone down the harshness somewhat, like 20 percent, because while he sucks, I've had worse. I'll list of few positives. He is pretty respectful of people's points. (To a fault though, as he sometimes needs to tell people to stop talking, and doesn't really engage their questions). The things he says are occasionally interesting...he did a good job on Descartes!....errr, I ran out of stuff to say. Yeah. I think a BIG and unmentioned part of why this class sucked though is that 75 percent of the class did not even try to engage the texts, and the few that did engage were generally pretty obnoxious. I KNOW it's the teacher's job to get the class excited and a lot of the class' malaise falls on him, but still....you can try and make the best of a bad situation and keep the conversation going. I'm sure I sounded like a douche half the time with my yammering, but whatever, still better than going comatose.

Michael Stevenson is by far the worst teacher I’ve had at Columbia. I’ll illustrate a typical class: Stevenson walks in, smelling of cigarette smoke. He lays down his briefcase, takes out his class notes (print-outs of Wikipedia) and starts writing names/dates/philosophical terms on the board (a great deal in Ancient Greek, and pretty much all irrelevant). More than half the class shows up late. Stevenson begins lecturing from his class notes *cough*. His monotonous voice and the incredible vapidity of his discussion topics put most of the class in zoned-out mode, ceasing all student interest in the topic at hand. After a half hour of torture, he opens up the discussion, branching off one of his trivial points about the reading. No one answers. Stevenson rewords the question. Someone, who, like much of the class obviously hasn’t read, tangentially responds to Stevenson with some BS. Others respond to the BS, arguing over some triviality that is rarely related to the reading. Stevenson steps in, putting an end to the discussion (just as it was getting interesting!) and moves on to another one of his inconsequential points. Repeat. Stevenson generally has nothing to offer to the topics—he probably hasn’t re-read any books since college—and is useless in facilitating discussion. Often, several minutes would pass without student contributions. After 2 hours of this torture, we are…

Define uncaring grad student: Michael Stevenson. Seriously, I've never had a teacher at any level of schooling that cared less than this guy. I doubt that he's re-read 75% of the books since the first time he read them himself as an undergraduate. He is boring and does not know much outside of the little outlines of an author wikipedia has. He is a philosophy PhD candidate, so a lot of the discussions are about lofty and miniscule details that an author will present. We spent a bunch of classes on plato and aristotle, but only spoke about a couple of the works for a maximum of 15 minutes since he would try to squeeze a bunch of books into one day. I realized studying for his midterm that I actually had learned nothing up to that point since the inclass discussion was lacking and he never really pointed out many significant passages- it didn't help that he would have a version of the work different than the rest of the version the students themselves had. After all of this, I've decided to stay in his class though. His papers are short (5-6 pages) whereas the rest of the department usually requires 8-10 and the topics are straight foward. He grades the essays in the same manner he grades the midterm and final essays- mostly based on structure. Because of this, you can say a whole bunch of things he disagrees with but still pull of a decent grade. If you're willing to sell your…

Prior to this review, Professor Stevenson had remained off the CULPA grid. Not knowing what to expect, I arrived at my first CC session fresh-faced and hopeful. During our first class, he seemed relaxed, laid back, interesting, and even funny! He let us out early! I felt truly blessed. Oh boy, was I wrong. I have not learned anything from attending his class. In fact, I have learned as much as I would have if I simply read all the texts in my room and then wikipedia'd them-which makes sense, because wikipedia seems like Professor Stevenson's only source of information about the texts he is supposed to be teaching about. In addition to not really teaching anything, Stevenson is deadly, deadly dull. He has a unique gift for basically ceasing all conversation. His discussion questions are difficult to understand and tend to attack the text from bizarre angles, all in service of his own personal points. Long silences are not uncommon. Instead of class discussion, people take turns saying their comments to him, and he responds. He is a philosophy grad student, and uses so much jargon that most of the time no one knows what he is talking about. He is sanctimonious and pedantic and can cop a serious attitude if he feels like you are not being intelligent enough to engage with him (which is basically everyone, always). He also has this habit of sucking all of the joy and life out of t…

10 page-long response papers per semester on whatever you want about the text, 2 5-6 page papers, and open note open book in class final/midterm (2 essays on midterm and 3 essays on final) I personally read most of the texts, but I do know people who got by just fine without reading anything 2nd semester, also 2 "presentations" on a certain text. I wrote my papers the night before, didn't study for midterms and got an A-. Participation si 30%, so don't screw yourself over before turning anything in by not going to class

As far as the work load, I read little to none of the texts and got a B. There are two papers, both of which you will not get back until you get on your knees and beg, halfway into the following semester. It's almost February and I still haven't gotten my second paper back from first semester. There are also ten postings, one page each, about the texts that you have to email to him the night before (almost all of which I sent at 2AM with no punishment, which was nice of him).

Same thing other people said. Two 5-6 page papers, reading responses, midterm, final.

CC reading- usual stuff plus some CC reader texts. But seriously, where’s the incentive to read if your teacher hasn’t read? 10 response papers graded on check, check +, check – (and no, you’re probably not gonna get a check +). Two 5-page papers. Midterm that contained (four, choose two) ridiculous and ill-considered prompts, e.g. compare and contrast 3 works with 3 other works. Final that was pretty easy. The prompts are not at all related to class discussion, so you’re on your own to study.