Professor
Andrew Hsu
2 of 2
Most Helpful Review
Ten out of ten. 185 was revolved around Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations; I found Hsu's unique interpretation of the text very interesting and engaging. The reading load was manageable (150-200 pages for the entire quarter), and the assignments were challenging but fun to work with. We had to complete two essays (10 pggs each) and an in-class final; all three assignments were weighted equally. Hsu is a very clear and organized lecturer. He starts every lecture with a fifteen-minute-or-so summary of the previous lecture, and then proceeds from there logically; Hsu does a good job of tying ideas together and establishing overall themes in the class. Another thing I particularly enjoyed about 185 was its oppenness to student participation. That said, don't take Hsu's classes if you want easy A's. We were assigned to complete two ten-page essays and an in-class final exam
Ten out of ten. 185 was revolved around Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations; I found Hsu's unique interpretation of the text very interesting and engaging. The reading load was manageable (150-200 pages for the entire quarter), and the assignments were challenging but fun to work with. We had to complete two essays (10 pggs each) and an in-class final; all three assignments were weighted equally. Hsu is a very clear and organized lecturer. He starts every lecture with a fifteen-minute-or-so summary of the previous lecture, and then proceeds from there logically; Hsu does a good job of tying ideas together and establishing overall themes in the class. Another thing I particularly enjoyed about 185 was its oppenness to student participation. That said, don't take Hsu's classes if you want easy A's. We were assigned to complete two ten-page essays and an in-class final exam
AD
Most Helpful Review
Probably the worst philosophy professor at UCLA (up there with Carriero). Another commented claimed that his classes are "intellectual tyranny" -- I could not agree more. Anyone that thinks this man is brilliant needs to take a class with Gavin Lawrence or Sam Cumming. Hsu's points are tangentially connected, he _never_ answers questions in a straightforward manner, his lectures are mishmash of loosely-related claims (note-taking is nigh impossible), and he purposefully chooses the most difficult texts -- in 191, for example, we had to read Strawson's Persons the first week. His deconstruction of philosophical arguments is also abhorrent -- as in, you might as well Google or JSTOR a better explanation. When asked about specific advice on papers, he avoids any sort of direct critique. Once you do get your paper back (with the inevitable B+/A-), his comments are mostly platitudes. I would avoid him. His soft-spoken nature is a facade for intellectual pretentiousness.
Probably the worst philosophy professor at UCLA (up there with Carriero). Another commented claimed that his classes are "intellectual tyranny" -- I could not agree more. Anyone that thinks this man is brilliant needs to take a class with Gavin Lawrence or Sam Cumming. Hsu's points are tangentially connected, he _never_ answers questions in a straightforward manner, his lectures are mishmash of loosely-related claims (note-taking is nigh impossible), and he purposefully chooses the most difficult texts -- in 191, for example, we had to read Strawson's Persons the first week. His deconstruction of philosophical arguments is also abhorrent -- as in, you might as well Google or JSTOR a better explanation. When asked about specific advice on papers, he avoids any sort of direct critique. Once you do get your paper back (with the inevitable B+/A-), his comments are mostly platitudes. I would avoid him. His soft-spoken nature is a facade for intellectual pretentiousness.
AD
Most Helpful Review
Hsu takes secret pleasure in making philosophical texts impossible to understand. Whether it's to make himself look smart or just plain ignorance and lack of basic intellectual integrity, I don't know. He takes special care to take the most repulsive and intellectually horrifying logical paths to reach absurd conclusions. He then relies on asking loaded questions to preclude the possibility of counterargument. Hsu's class is the opposite of an honest open forum where true, collective philosophical inquiry would be possible. The best way to describe it is intellectual tyranny.
Hsu takes secret pleasure in making philosophical texts impossible to understand. Whether it's to make himself look smart or just plain ignorance and lack of basic intellectual integrity, I don't know. He takes special care to take the most repulsive and intellectually horrifying logical paths to reach absurd conclusions. He then relies on asking loaded questions to preclude the possibility of counterargument. Hsu's class is the opposite of an honest open forum where true, collective philosophical inquiry would be possible. The best way to describe it is intellectual tyranny.
2 of 2
