PHILOS 31
Logic, First Course
Description: Lecture, four hours; discussion, one hour. Recommended for students who plan to pursue more advanced studies in logic. Elements of symbolic logic, sentential and quantificational; forms of reasoning and structure of language. P/NP or letter grading.
Units: 5.0
Units: 5.0
1 of 2
AD
Most Helpful Review
Summer 2017 - One of the best teachers at UCLA, with excellent care for students particularly during his discussion sessions and office hours. Because of his quick email responses and clear help, I was able to do very well in the class, ending with a 98% overall. Unfortunately, you need to get 100% in his class to get an A+, but I am not disappointed in any sense. His humor is amazing, and his mind is young; I felt such a connection talking to him and learning about the class, so if you have the chance, take Antti! I want to take Philosophy 132 (next level) but will only do it if he teaches~
Summer 2017 - One of the best teachers at UCLA, with excellent care for students particularly during his discussion sessions and office hours. Because of his quick email responses and clear help, I was able to do very well in the class, ending with a 98% overall. Unfortunately, you need to get 100% in his class to get an A+, but I am not disappointed in any sense. His humor is amazing, and his mind is young; I felt such a connection talking to him and learning about the class, so if you have the chance, take Antti! I want to take Philosophy 132 (next level) but will only do it if he teaches~
Most Helpful Review
Very hard class- I practically lived in Clicc doing the homework and studying for the exams. Yet, it was a fun class- the feeling of satisfaction I felt every time I did a problem correctly was priceless. Prof. Hovda is a good professor, except he goes off on many unrelated tangents and entertains any stupid irrelevant question someone asks.
Very hard class- I practically lived in Clicc doing the homework and studying for the exams. Yet, it was a fun class- the feeling of satisfaction I felt every time I did a problem correctly was priceless. Prof. Hovda is a good professor, except he goes off on many unrelated tangents and entertains any stupid irrelevant question someone asks.
AD
Most Helpful Review
Prof. Kaplan is quiet possibly, the most eloquent bad lecturer in the world. His mind wonders as much as he worries about the students' understanding. He is so terribly worried about everyone fully getting the material that he begins to sound like he's insulting your intelligence. I had no trouble with the class, cruising through easily to an A- (which is only cuz of the bell-curve, otherwise I would have 3 points shy of an absolute perfect) The computer program helps so much with logic. Be forewarned however, if you're techno-phobic (scared of computers) don't take this, as all the work and all the tests are done on PCs.... hehe I LUV IT.
Prof. Kaplan is quiet possibly, the most eloquent bad lecturer in the world. His mind wonders as much as he worries about the students' understanding. He is so terribly worried about everyone fully getting the material that he begins to sound like he's insulting your intelligence. I had no trouble with the class, cruising through easily to an A- (which is only cuz of the bell-curve, otherwise I would have 3 points shy of an absolute perfect) The computer program helps so much with logic. Be forewarned however, if you're techno-phobic (scared of computers) don't take this, as all the work and all the tests are done on PCs.... hehe I LUV IT.
Most Helpful Review
Fall 2020 - I would take all the Bruinwalk reviews for this class with a grain of salt. I took this because A) reviews indicated it was easy-ish, and B) supposedly it was a good Law-prep class (Levy himself says it is)-- neither of which turned out to be true. This class is seriously difficult, demands a lot of studying time, and while Levy is a nice guy, he isn't awesome at explaining a lot of the concepts. Furthermore, it’s totally inapplicable to the LSAT (which has a much simpler, entirely different logic system). This class doesn't even ask you to evaluate or symbolize the logic of rhetorical arguments, is taught by an ex-computer scientist (and a lot of the TA's were math or comp-sci majors), so I'm not sure how this could be applicable to law as some have suggested. This class is basically math without numbers, and I'd assume if you're a stem major you could do well. In general however, I'd highly advise avoiding this class if you like philosophy for its conceptual content and analysis of phenomena-- this class is much closer to math than a social science. I assume the grade distribution for this class/reviews are heavily skewed based on a large number of drops (30 in my class after the first midterm, where roughly half the class got below a C), and a lot of people (I'd confidently say a third) taking the class P/NP. I did well mainly because Levy began grading the exams more leniently (I got an C- on the first midterm, then an B+ then an A- on the final) but I also had to study an absolutely a ridiculous amount of time to get an A-. Additionally the grading system (20% midterm 1 and 2, 40% final, and 20% HW) makes it difficult to get an A, especially given each exam is only 15 questions (so miss one or two, your grade drops significantly). So, while the content of the class is relatively interesting, I don't think its worth your time unless you're a Philosophy major (even in that case I'd consider avoiding it).
Fall 2020 - I would take all the Bruinwalk reviews for this class with a grain of salt. I took this because A) reviews indicated it was easy-ish, and B) supposedly it was a good Law-prep class (Levy himself says it is)-- neither of which turned out to be true. This class is seriously difficult, demands a lot of studying time, and while Levy is a nice guy, he isn't awesome at explaining a lot of the concepts. Furthermore, it’s totally inapplicable to the LSAT (which has a much simpler, entirely different logic system). This class doesn't even ask you to evaluate or symbolize the logic of rhetorical arguments, is taught by an ex-computer scientist (and a lot of the TA's were math or comp-sci majors), so I'm not sure how this could be applicable to law as some have suggested. This class is basically math without numbers, and I'd assume if you're a stem major you could do well. In general however, I'd highly advise avoiding this class if you like philosophy for its conceptual content and analysis of phenomena-- this class is much closer to math than a social science. I assume the grade distribution for this class/reviews are heavily skewed based on a large number of drops (30 in my class after the first midterm, where roughly half the class got below a C), and a lot of people (I'd confidently say a third) taking the class P/NP. I did well mainly because Levy began grading the exams more leniently (I got an C- on the first midterm, then an B+ then an A- on the final) but I also had to study an absolutely a ridiculous amount of time to get an A-. Additionally the grading system (20% midterm 1 and 2, 40% final, and 20% HW) makes it difficult to get an A, especially given each exam is only 15 questions (so miss one or two, your grade drops significantly). So, while the content of the class is relatively interesting, I don't think its worth your time unless you're a Philosophy major (even in that case I'd consider avoiding it).
AD
1 of 2
