PHIL 1750

I took this course in Fall 2021, and it was moved to asynchronous online due to some scheduling mishap, but that honestly felt like a good format for the course - lectures were pre-recorded (2x a week), but discussion sessions were in-person. The lectures mostly covered the readings. I found some of the readings to be a bit dry and hard to follow, but they were generally reasonable length. The readings were meh, but the lectures and discussion sections were pretty interesting, and definitely made me consider a lot. The grade breakdown was 25% on weekly discussion posts (mostly just reflection on an idea from one of the readings and expanding on it), 15% participation, and 3 papers (weighted at 15%, 20%, and 25% for the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, respectively). Once you got into the routine of the writing style they looked for, the posts and papers weren't too bad. However, they screwed people on the participation. All assignments are graded on a 4 point scale (4=A, 3=B, etc), and I had a high A average for the 85% of the grade excluding participation. But TAs were instructed to grade participation between 2.8-3.2 (so essentially a grade cap), yet this was never mentioned in lecture or the syllabus. So despite attending all lectures and discussion sessions and actively participating, your grade can take a hit because of "participation."

There are some great Phil classes at UVA but this isn't one of them. Professor Ott gave interesting lectures and the workload was manageable but discussion was a boring waste of time. Participation grades were super poorly done and unfair and we were given no warning of that. My grade with all of the work in the class averaged to a 96 before participation but I was then given an 80 for participation, which, according to my TA James Reed was above average participation. The participation grade was decided after the end of the course and acted as a curve to lower the grades of Mr. Reed's section because the other TA had graded more harshly.

I really enjoyed the readings in this course, and Professor Ott gave some really interesting lectures. However, the grading system for the midterm and final was super unclear and a lot of students who knew the material fairly well ended up getting Cs and Ds. Ott capped the participation grade at a 90 (everyone starts with a B and can earn a 1/3 letter grade increase if they participate, so essentially a grade cap) and failed to mention that that was the system. He also capped an A at 95%, which just sucks when you're trying to make up for your subpar exam grades by writing a good paper. The grading was too harsh for an introductory level class, especially given that the material is philosophical and somewhat influenced by interpretation. However, if you're interested in getting an overview of Sartre, Nietzsche, Marx, and some other notables, I would recommend this class as it's an opportunity to talk about those guys.

This was probably the class I enjoyed the most this semester. If you are interested in the topic of the course, lectures are insightful and enjoyable to attend. Dr. Ott has a pretty neat sense of human and presents the information very well, breaking down the more complex abstractions that we read about to a level where it was quite simple to understand. I would take another class from him if I got the chance. The exams and paper were extremely fair in their assessment of what we had covered in lecture, and the weekly response posts were normally pretty quick to do, although the readings for class could get rather dry. Additionally, my TA, Nikolina Cetic, was stellar. If you take a philosophy course and have the opportunity to do it with her as your TA, I would highly recommend it. She was an excellent teacher in section, and a fair grader. I always felt like I knew exactly what I needed to do to meet expectations for the class, which relieved the stress of ambiguity. I would highly recommend this course.

This was a fantastic class--granted, there was some of dense reading material for homework, but the workload was manageable and the ideas that we read about and discussed were fascinating. Prof. Ott made the (sometimes quite complex) concepts accessible and engaging, and I would definitely recommend taking this course!

This course contains very interesting material. Some of the readings are rather dense; however, if you read them they will be cleared up in lecture and discussion. Walter Ott gives pretty good examples to help explain topics and he is an overall good teacher, he just isn't engaging at some points and would put me to sleep. If you do the readings for this course and develop a good relationship with your TA it isn't that difficult of a class. I learned a lot and it is a very good intro philosophy class. Overall, I recommend.

I didn't actually realize how much I learned in this class until it was over. This was my first Philosophy class and it actually made me step back and look at my view on the meaning of life and religion, interestingly enough. There's one paper and I wrote mine on Sartre, which was definitely a good move because I had a lot to argue against. The paper saved my grade in this class, because I just couldn't bear to go to a discussion at 3 on Friday. WORST DECISION EVER. Class was boring, discussion was a drag, but if you do the readings thoroughly, you should do well.

The lectures are incredibly boring. The readings can be interesting, but the course itself is not. Graded a little too harshly for an introductory level course (see 5% A's).

Professor Otts lectures are incredibly boring. it is my least favorite class this semester and i dread going to it. the readings are required if you plan on doing well on the midterm and final which are graded very strictly by the TA. I took this class because the topic sounded interesting but the class is basically reading very dry essays by philosophers on their take of the meaning of life. Reading 5 pages of text can take upwards of an hour. There is one essay that is worth 30% of your grade and is graded way harder than it should be. Overall i do not recommend this class at all. Do not take if you are just trying to fulfill a requirement.

Walter Ott is very nice but unfortunately is a very boring professor and the lectures were so dry and so hard to sit through. I dreaded coming to this class every morning and it was the slowest 50 minutes I have ever sat through. Initially the class was interesting but as it goes on it gets very repetitive and the information gets really hard to keep track of. The exams are pretty tough and there is one paper that is a big part of your grade that is graded VERY harshly. I do not recommend this class because it is extremely tedious but very time consuming and hard to get better than a B+

The class was fairly interesting but got kind of repetitive as the year went on. It was a nice break from my science-heavy schedule, but wasn't really great or bad otherwise. Ott tried to get everyone to participate in class but with 100+ students, that wasn't necessarily the case. I did most of the readings, save a few really long ones, and found the tests not too hard. The papers were graded pretty harshly but writing them was actually one of the most interesting parts of the class as you really got to explore your own views. Going to office hours for the papers as well as submitting a rough draft was very helpful.

This class was pretty interesting overall. Lectures were a bit dry at times, mostly because it was repetitive if you read. I worked my butt off in this class, studied hard, read everything, and spent countless hours on my drafts and papers. I ended up with a B in the class which, considering the time I put into it was pretty disappointing. Needless to say, grading is rough. It's all relative to the rest of the students in the class so as a first year competing with second and third years, not the best for grading. It's an interesting class worth taking as long as you're willing to work very hard and accept a mediocre grade.

Overall, this class shouldn't have been very hard, but it was! Grading is pretty tough on assignments, lectures aren't very engaging, although Ott is a nice and approachable guy. If you take this class do not take it with Garland as a TA, he is a very harsh grader. Instead take it with Boese who was super helpful and goes over exactly how to review for the tests!

If this is your first philosophy course, your brain might get screwed around a little in the first few weeks. The readings were mostly very easy and manageable; around 35 pages a week. Lectures were dry and professor Ott is a little awkward. Lectures are also repetitive and unnecessary if you can understand the points of the readings. Weekly paragraph responses, two papers, a midterm, and a final. Still easy and can be fun to see how different views of life interact.

Take this class if you want to be severely depressed and confused at the same time. There isn't a lot of work (hardly any), but the mid-term is tricky and everything depends on your TA and the paper is graded horribly. I went to office hours and changed my paper for my TA's preferences and did horrible. The subject matter is extremely repetitive as well. Essentially, everything depends on your TA, which I was unfortunate there.