online teacher evals
PH102: Philosophy of the Human Person
What did you like best about the course?
It was a good opportunity for students to practice their critical thinking skills. Oral exams are also an opportunity for them to practice their communication skills for use later on in the office.
What did you like least about the course?
I think the content was rubbish. At first I was really enthusiastic about the course but as time went by it became less and less comprehensible to me. The way the lessons were handed were very much wanting. It felt very simplistic, and some concepts were reduced into "slogans" that the hapless students felt they had to parrot all semester long in their papers and in class to get a good grade. The approach was also extremely one-sided, and it allowed no room for dissension from the norm. At its worst, the class felt like Ideology masquerading as an avenue for free thought.
What are your suggestions/comments for the course?
n/a
What did you like best about the teacher?
He was very cheerful and approachable in class. He had a way of simplifying lessons for the benefit of the students and he doesn't hesitate to repeat it or rephrase it in a way we would easily understand.
What did you like least about the teacher?
He has a tendency to think in a primarily "elitist" fashion. Subconsciously he believes himself to be superior in intellect to the students and this plainly manifests itself in his actions. During my first oral exam, halfway through he started laughing and cut me off when I wasn't yet done. I thought nothing of it at the time, but then later I realized he was laughing *at my expense*. His grading system feels arbitrary and subjective, and students constantly find themselves having to tumble head over heels in order to keep up with his (oftentimes contradictory) discourse.
He forgives his own lapses of logic in order to maintain a unified, totalitarian whole in the discussion, but immediately shuts down students when they try to counter him. This continually discourages students from reciting and speaking their mind in class, because nobody has the energy to continually flog a dead horse. Dead air is almost always a norm during his class lectures.
What are your suggestions/comments for the course?
Revise the syllabus so that more concrete ideas by different philosophers can be taken up, instead of the students having to continually paw their way in the dark.
Revise, or at least make more transparent, his method of evaluating a student's performance. If necessary make grading papers a more objective exercise, perhaps by removing the student's name (or just printing the student number) so that the teacher's valuation of the ideas in the paper is not compromised. There is no such thing as an *A* student.
What did you like best about the course?
It was a good opportunity for students to practice their critical thinking skills. Oral exams are also an opportunity for them to practice their communication skills for use later on in the office.
What did you like least about the course?
I think the content was rubbish. At first I was really enthusiastic about the course but as time went by it became less and less comprehensible to me. The way the lessons were handed were very much wanting. It felt very simplistic, and some concepts were reduced into "slogans" that the hapless students felt they had to parrot all semester long in their papers and in class to get a good grade. The approach was also extremely one-sided, and it allowed no room for dissension from the norm. At its worst, the class felt like Ideology masquerading as an avenue for free thought.
What are your suggestions/comments for the course?
n/a
What did you like best about the teacher?
He was very cheerful and approachable in class. He had a way of simplifying lessons for the benefit of the students and he doesn't hesitate to repeat it or rephrase it in a way we would easily understand.
What did you like least about the teacher?
He has a tendency to think in a primarily "elitist" fashion. Subconsciously he believes himself to be superior in intellect to the students and this plainly manifests itself in his actions. During my first oral exam, halfway through he started laughing and cut me off when I wasn't yet done. I thought nothing of it at the time, but then later I realized he was laughing *at my expense*. His grading system feels arbitrary and subjective, and students constantly find themselves having to tumble head over heels in order to keep up with his (oftentimes contradictory) discourse.
He forgives his own lapses of logic in order to maintain a unified, totalitarian whole in the discussion, but immediately shuts down students when they try to counter him. This continually discourages students from reciting and speaking their mind in class, because nobody has the energy to continually flog a dead horse. Dead air is almost always a norm during his class lectures.
What are your suggestions/comments for the course?
Revise the syllabus so that more concrete ideas by different philosophers can be taken up, instead of the students having to continually paw their way in the dark.
Revise, or at least make more transparent, his method of evaluating a student's performance. If necessary make grading papers a more objective exercise, perhaps by removing the student's name (or just printing the student number) so that the teacher's valuation of the ideas in the paper is not compromised. There is no such thing as an *A* student.