Professor
Andrew Hsu
3 of 3
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
AD
3 of 3
