Professor Panagia was an extremely helpful and interesting professor, who had a variety of ideas to contribute to the class. Your grade is based off of only four essay assignments and participation, so you have to be good at writing papers (max word count was 1000 though, so nothing bad). I went to office hours the first week, and my TA's office hours once, and got an A- in the course, however I know people who went more often who did better, so I would take advantage of the opportunity. My TA wasn't the most helpful, but overall I didn't find the course too challenging. A couple of warnings-
The professor absolutely truly does NOT lecture on the essay assignments. That is 100% true. You have to go to lectures because you want to learn more about the philosophers and are genuinely interested in the subject, because ultimately it will not help you write your paper.
I did not find this course particularly challenging, but that is because I have studied philosophy over four times in the past two years. If you have never taken philosophy before, it might be much harder for you to be able to interpret the works correctly AND apply it to politics without stumbling on one of the essays. Possibly dangerous, since each essay is 20% of your grade.
Overall, if you genuinely like the subject, the professor is humorous and brilliant when it comes to subject material, and I enjoyed the course immensely.

The lectures and professor were fine, easy to understand, and slightly interesting. I took it as a GE and it seemed pretty easy until I got my essays back. If you decide to take this class DO NOT GET NAVEED. If you show up to discussion and you have Naveed switch as soon as possible or find another poli sci elective to take because the highest grade he gives on essays is a B (if he's in a good mood, max, A-). Completely unfair class if you have him, everyone else gets A- A-'s and Panagia does not normalize or curve.

I'm a senior and this class was hands-down my worst experience at UCLA. My TA Naveed was absolutely the most unreasonable grader and the most useless TA. Panagia DOES NOT normalize grades which is so unfair because every other TA was so much easier than Naveed. It's only fair to normalize grades in a class where 80% of the grade is super arbitrarily graded essays. Ignore the good reviews from quarters prior to Fall 2016 because he completely changed his grading scheme. Do yourself a huge favor and don't take this class

I took this class the first quarter of my freshman year and I wish I had't. The class its self is not too difficult. Your entire grade is made up of 4 essays and 5 pop-quizzes in section. As long as you do some of the reading you should be fine. As for the TA you choose DO NOT GET NAVEED!!!! He was sooooo unhelpful and ridiculously strict on grading. If you get him as your TA try to switch. Also if you do not like philosophy this is not the class for you.

Selling the books he requires for class email me if interested:
getaholdofbrie@gmail.com

Selling these books for the class, all the editions Panagia asks for (which can be hard to find), all in great condition, and cheaper than anywhere online!
EMAIL ME AT SEEYAVS@AOL.COM
-Nietzsche on Truth and Untruth
-Karl Marx Capital Volume I
-The Basic Works of Aristotle
-Rousseau: Discourses and other early political writings
-Hobbes: Leviathan
-Martin Luther Selections From His Writings (Dillenberger)
-Freud The Uncanny
-The Communist Manifesto (Hobsbawm Modern Edition)
-Basic Writings of Nietzsche

Absolutely a great class and great professor. Highly recommend going to class and paying attention. Get to know your TA and find out what he/she expects.

Great professor. Challenging but rewarding class.

Selling ALL reading materials. Message me at (818) 620-6800 for more info!

Summary: take it if you're a political science, english, or philosophy major; don't bother if you aren't. It's pretty much a philosophy class about truth and power with lots of reading and interpretation.

This was a very interesting class. Let me begin that, unlike most, I enjoyed the majority of Panagia's lectures. He has a very deep and interdisciplinary way of teaching the material, and I really liked how he would give us a wider view on the overarching importance of the works we were analyzing.
The grading for this class consisted of eight essays, one a week after the second week, and a participation grade for discussing the readings each week in section. There were no tests, quizzes, or other papers/projects. The readings would take a significant amount of time, and we would sometimes cover two authors in one week. However, the papers were only 300-400 words each, and where meant to be concise and well thought out analyses of the texts on specific questions. I had Kye as TA, and he was awesome whenever I needed help with the readings. He had outlines and discussion questions that he would email out the night before discussion if we asked.
The issue that most people had with this class was that the lectures had nothing to do with the assignments. Yes, Panagia would lecture on the significance of the readings and provide general explanations, but the majority of interpreting the text was left to us. As a political science major I enjoyed the assignments and figuring out how the readings applied to the prompts, but everyone taking the class to fulfill a GE was dissapointed with how much you actually had to read and think.
A final note: Panagia is straight outta some liberal arts school in Canada, so our class was kind of an experiment for him and the department. I don't think most other POL SCI 10 classes go through so many readings so quickly, or have the same grading structure and assignment list.

Prof. Panagia is perhaps one of the most engaging and interesting lower-div Poli Sci professors. His lectures are informative but can sometimes feel like you're being inundated with too much info at once. Still, this class is very worthwhile as it creates the foundation of knowledge of which the rest of the major is built upon. There is no final or midterm for the class- your grade is made up of four 1200 word essays and participation, each counting for 20% of your grade. The essays can seem deceptively difficult at first glance, but take the time to talk to your TA in discussion or office hours about it.

Pros: interesting readings, great lectures, podcasted, and Panagia is fine with people interrupting him for clarification which is really really cool of him and he has the patience of Yoda.

Cons: the class is almost too easy, and people sort of take advantage of the fact that the reading is kinda sorta (meaning you can get by with sparknotes and going to lecture) optional. Which is sad, because he tries so hard to make the material relatable and fun and it is in fact relatable and fun if you do the reading!

Easy and fun class . . . . consists of 4 essays, all of which if you follow the prompt you'll do well on. You only need to read about 5-6 pages after a spark notes summary to find the right pages to get an A on the essays. BUT, I only did that once because the readings he assigns are interesting as are the lectures.

Now, he explicitly states the following: "I do not lecture on the essay topics" which is complete and utter bullshit as he totally does just not exclusively (to his credit he avoids doing so in the beginning and refrained from doing so for the first 3 weeks).

Your arguments for this class only need to be logical and NOT SUMMARY based. They don't have to be convincing and only require a sentence or two disclaimer about opposing views.

Finally, shoutout to Eric Baldwin, great TA, try to get him, facilitated great discussion during section.