Post on 20-Feb-2023
Paul Nichols, University of California, Los Angeles
1
Teaching Portfolio
I. Teaching Statement
II. Sample Syllabi
A. Introduction to Philosophy of Language: Frege, Russell and Strawson
B. Introduction to Philosophy of Mind: The Nature of Human Mentality
C. Knowing a Language (advanced undergraduate/graduate)
D. Language and Thought: Action at a Distance (advanced undergraduate/graduate)
E. Human Cognition: Computation and Its Limits (graduate seminar)
F. The Semantics of Definite Noun Phrases (graduate seminar)
G. Historical Foundations of Contemporary Philosophy of Language (advanced
undergraduate/graduate)
H. The Self in the System: Conceptions of Self and Ideals of Human Life
(undergraduate)
I. Introduction to Logic
J. Introduction to Meta-Logic
III. Student Evaluations
A. Quantitative Data
B. Student Comments
Paul Nichols, University of California, Los Angeles
2
Teaching Statement
Teaching philosophy to undergraduate students is as much a matter of developing skills
as it is imparting knowledge. My main goal as an undergraduate teacher is to help my students
learn how to build their understanding of any subject, carefully, on solid, deep foundations.
Thinking philosophically requires the ability to question the invisibly obvious (what are the
underlying assumptions? what are the reasons we believe what we do?), to assess the validity of
an inference, and to develop arguments for one’s own beliefs. These abilities come through
guided practice.
The first step in helping students develop the skills of philosophical thinking is adapting
goals realistically to the situation at hand. Teaching, like any communication, is adding
something new to the common ground of the participants. If, for instance, students cannot yet
recognize the argumentative structure of relatively simple texts, they are not ready to begin
making arguments of their own, and may even need to begin by simply working on identifying
the main point an author is trying to make in a paragraph or a short passage. Near the other end
of the spectrum, if students are already able to formulate solid arguments for a thesis that has
been provided for them, it is time for them to begin developing arguments for their own ideas.
But, wherever the starting point, the way forward is focused practice, with feedback targeted
specifically at the goals of the particular exercise.
In order to guide students in their development as philosophical thinkers, along with a
plan for the content of a course I develop a parallel plan for skill development appropriate to the
students in the class. The starting point and the ultimate goals depend on the current abilities of
the students, but some basic principles are always applicable. Progress is maximized by focusing
on a small number of goals at a time, and by practicing new skills regularly, in different
modalities (reading, writing, class discussion, one-on-one conversation), with clear feedback. For
students who are still learning the basics of argumentative structure, this can mean frequent short
assignments of outlining and formulating simple arguments. Intermediate students benefit from
weekly short writing assignments with a focus on developing a written argument for a thesis. For
students who are capable of writing longer coherent essays, writing drafts and responding to
feedback from other students and the instructor cultivates greater sophistication in the skills they
have already developed.
Learning new skills is challenging and often frustrating, and the benefits of a
philosophical education are not always clear. In my role as a teacher I think it is important to
meet people where they are in terms of values and interests as well as abilities. In order to
encourage students to learn about Russell’s theory of descriptions or Spinoza’s idea of Nature, I
do not hesitate to try to bridge the gap for them with an essay by Errol Morris or a film by
Werner Herzog. Seeing the value in philosophy, and the connection between its grand and very
abstract ideas and the meaty substance of human life, is also something that must be taught.
Paul Nichols, University of California, Los Angeles
3
Introduction to Philosophy of Language:
Frege, Russell and Strawson
Course Description
In this course we will explore some of the main themes of current analytic philosophy of
language as they occur in the work of three of the most influential philosophers of the early
analytic period. The questions we will consider include: What is the nature of meaning? What
connects our words with the things we use them to talk about? How are we able to think and talk
about things we have never experienced? How do we know what other people mean by their use
of language?
The texts we will read are quite difficult because the ideas they present are being newly
worked out by the authors. But despite the difficulty, there is an advantage to being introduced to
theories in their early stages of development, before the main ideas have yet to become implicit
assumptions.
This course will assume some previous background in analytic philosophy. In the analytic
tradition, the philosophy of language is heavily influenced by formal logic, so some experience
with logic will be especially helpful. It may still be advisable for some students without this
background to take this course, however, so if you are interested in the class but you are new to
philosophy, please contact me.
Course Requirements
It will be nearly impossible to succeed in this class unless you attend lecture regularly
and keep up with the reading. Neither the lectures nor the texts will be possible to follow unless
you have been keeping up with the other. There will be weekly short writing assignments, which
will usually be based on a question about the reading. There will also be two longer essays. For
both essays there will be a series of preliminary assignments: an introductory paragraph, a rough
draft, and an outline for the final draft.
Your grades will be determined as follows: weekly assignments (25%) + first essay
(25%) + second essay (40%) + class participation (10%). The weekly assignments are intended
as practice exercises and will be graded more leniently than the essays, which are your chance to
demonstrate the skills you should be developing as the course proceeds.
Primary Texts
1. Gottlob Frege, Begriffsschrift.
2. Gottlob Frege, “On Sense and Reference.”
3. Bertrand Russell, “On the Meaning and Denotation of Phrases.”
4. Bertrand Russell, “On Denoting.”
5. Peter Strawson, “On Referring.”
Paul Nichols, University of California, Los Angeles
4
Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind
Course Description
Before it becomes appropriate to consider the relationship of the mind to the body, or to
try to determine the best model of human cognition, we must ask “What does it mean to have a
mind?”, “Do we have one?”, “Is the human mental faculty a feature of individual humans?”.
These questions will constitute the focus of this course.
This course does not presuppose any knowledge of analytic philosophy, but it is not
intended as an introduction to philosophy, and it will likely be challenging for students new to
philosophy. If you are interested in the class but you are new to philosophy, please consult with
me about whether this course is appropriate for you.
Course Requirements
It will be nearly impossible to succeed in this class unless you attend lecture regularly
and keep up with the reading. Neither the lectures nor the texts will be possible to follow unless
you have been keeping up with the other. There will be weekly short writing assignments, which
will usually be based on a question about the reading. There will also be two longer essays. For
both essays there will be a series of preliminary assignments: an introductory paragraph, a rough
draft, and an outline for the final draft.
Your grades will be determined as follows: weekly assignments (25%) + first essay
(25%) + second essay (40%) + class participation (10%). The weekly assignments are intended
as practice exercises and will be graded more leniently than the essays, which are your chance to
demonstrate the skills you should be developing as the course proceeds.
Primary Texts
1. Gibert Ryle, The Concept of Mind.
2. Jerry Fodor, The Language of Thought.
3. John Searle, The Rediscovery of the Mind.
4. Michael Tomasello, The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition.
Paul Nichols, University of California, Los Angeles
5
Knowing a Language
(Advanced undergraduate/graduate)
Course Description
Human beings are capable of creating and comprehending an unlimited number of unique
linguistically encoded messages. What this ability tells us about human cognition and about the
nature of human languages has been a matter of perennial debate. Are human linguistic
capacities innate or acquired? What is the relationship between syntax and semantics? How can a
theory of language respect the social nature of language? Is interpretation determinate or
indeterminate? In this course we will consider these questions as they are discussed in the works
of several recent and contemporary theoreticians, with the goal of developing our own views on
the issues raised.
This course assumes familiarity with basic formal logic and some previous experience
with analytic philosophy. Undergraduates should consult with me about whether this course will
be appropriate for you.
Course Requirements
Attendance and completion of reading assignments is required. There will be weekly
homework assignments based on the reading. In addition there will be a short paper due mid-
term, and a longer paper due at the end of the course. For undergraduates the papers will
approximately 5 pages and 10 pages respectively. For graduate students the papers will be
approximately 8 pages and 15 pages respectively. Students are strongly encouraged to write
drafts of both papers and to consult with me prior to choosing a topic. If you are not sure what to
write about, I will be happy to help you develop a topic. Re-writes of the first paper will be
accepted with permission.
The grade for the course will be determined as follows: weekly assignments (25%) + first
essay (25%) + second essay (50%).
Primary Texts
1. Donald Davidson, “Theories of Meaning and Learnable Languages.”
2. Jerry Fodor, Language of Thought.
3. W.V.O. Quine, Word and Object.
4. Noam Chomsky, Knowledge of Language.
5. Michael Tomasello, Origins of Human Communication.
6. Jerry Hobbs, Mark Stickel, Douglas Appelt, & Paul Martin, “Interpretation as abduction.”
Paul Nichols, University of California, Los Angeles
6
Language and Thought: Action at a Distance
(Advanced undergraduate/graduate)
Course Description
The fact that we use language to convey knowledge of things we have not experienced,
and in some cases cannot experience, was a major influence on the early development of analytic
philosophy of language, and continues to be a central concern within the field. Through
language, things that no longer exist play a role in our mental lives. Also through language we
are able to expand our causal influence far beyond what we would otherwise be capable of. For
example, we can ask someone else to flip the light switch, or write a will that will determine
important events after we are dead. In this course we will see how these phenomena have
motivated descriptivist, causal, and social theories of meaning.
Course Requirements
Attendance and completion of reading assignments are required. There will be weekly
homework assignments based on the reading. In addition there will be a short paper due mid-
term, and a longer paper due at the end of the course. For undergraduates the papers will
approximately 5 pages and 10 pages respectively. For graduate students the papers will be
approximately 8 pages and 15 pages respectively. Students are strongly encouraged to write
drafts of both papers and to consult with me prior to choosing a topic. If you are not sure what to
write about, I will be happy to help you develop a topic. Re-writes of the first paper will be
accepted with permission.
The grade for the course will be determined as follows: weekly assignments (25%) + first
essay (25%) + second essay (50%).
Primary Texts
1. Gottlob Frege, “The Thought.”
2. Bertrand Russell, “On Denoting.”
3. Charles Saunders Peirce, “What Is a Sign?”
4. Saul Kripke, Naming and Necessity.
5. Keith Donnellan, “The Contingent A Priori and Rigid Designators.”
6. Gareth Evans, “The Causal Theory of Names.”
7. Fred Dretske, Knowledge and the Flow of Information.
8. Jerry Fodor, Psychosemantics.
9. John Searle, The Construction of Social Reality.
Paul Nichols, University of California, Los Angeles
7
Human Cognition: Computation and Its Limits
(Graduate seminar)
Course Description
Computation has proved to be a powerful, and very popular, model for explaining human
cognition. This course is meant both as a basic course in computation and the computational
theory of mind, and as an opportunity to consider the possibility that there are significant aspects
of human cognition that are not computational in nature.
Course Requirements
Attendance and completion of reading assignments are required. Each student will be
expected make a presentation on one of the readings. For the first half of the course there will be
weekly assignments of computational exercises. Cooperation on the assignments is encouraged,
though each student must turn in their own work. At mid-term, there will be an exam covering
the material from the weekly assignments. For the second half of the semester there will be a
paper (approximately 15 pages) due at the end of the course. Paper topics should be discussed
with me.
The grade for the course will be determined as follows: weekly assignments (20%) +
mid-term exam (35%) + final paper (45%).
Primary Texts
1. Jerry Fodor, Psychosemantics.
2. C.R. Gallistel and Adam Philip King, Memory and the Computational Brain: Why
Cognitive Science will Transform Neuroscience.
3. Hubert Dreyfus, What Computers Still Can’t Do.
4. John Searle, “Minds, Brains and Programs.”
5. Stanley Greenspan and Stuart Shanker, The First Idea: How Symbols, Language, And
Intelligence Evolved From Our Primate Ancestors To Modern Humans.
Paul Nichols, University of California, Los Angeles
8
The Semantics of Definite Noun Phrases
(Graduate seminar)
Course Description
In this course we will cover the semantics of definite noun phrases, with a particular
focus on descriptive noun phrases, and anaphoric pronouns.
Course Requirements
Attendance and completion of reading assignments are required. Each student will be
expected make a presentation on one of the readings. There will be a short mid-term paper
(approximately 5 pages) and a longer, final paper (approximately 15 pages).
The grade for the course will be determined as follows: mid-term paper (20%) + final
paper (80%).
Primary Texts
1. Peter Strawson, “On Referring.”
2. Keith Donellan, “Reference and Definite Descriptions.”
3. Saul Kripke, “Speaker’s Reference and Semantic Reference.”
4. Stephen Neale, Descriptions.
5. Edit Doron, “The Semantics of Predicate Nominals.”
6. Daniel Rothschild, “Presupposition and Scope.”
7. Hans Kamp, “A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation.”
8. Irene Hein, The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases.
9. Sam Cumming, “The Semantic Dilemma of Indefinites.”
Paul Nichols, University of California, Los Angeles
9
The Self in the System
(Intermediate undergraduate)
Course Description
Throughout the history of both Indian and European philosophy there has been a divide
between views that see the universe as being composed of more or less discrete individuals, and
views that see individuals as parts of the undivided universe at some particular location. We will
begin the course by looking at examples of the two sides of the divide from both Indian and
European traditions: the works of Aristotle and the Bhagavad Gita on the one hand, and Spinoza
and Buddhist theories of self on the other. From there we will move on to a brief study of the
general theory of systems, followed by biological systems and psycho/social systems. Finally we
will try to develop an understanding of the human individual as simultaneously a part of various
systems, and a system in its own right. If time permits we will go beyond considerations of the
metaphysics of individuals to the ramifications of the systems perspective for ideas of self-
interest and ethical norms.
Course Requirements
It will be nearly impossible to succeed in this class unless you attend lecture regularly
and keep up with the reading. Neither the lectures nor the texts will be possible to follow unless
you have been keeping up with the other. There will be weekly short writing assignments, which
will usually be based on a question about the reading. There will also be two longer essays. For
both essays there will be a series of preliminary assignments: an introductory paragraph, a rough
draft, and an outline for the final draft.
Your grades will be determined as follows: weekly assignments (25%) + first essay
(25%) + second essay (40%) + class participation (10%). The weekly assignments are intended
as practice exercises and will be graded more leniently than the essays, which are your chance to
demonstrate the skills you should be developing as the course proceeds.
Primary Texts
1. Aristotle, Metaphysics.
2. Spinoza, Ethics.
3. Bhagavad Gita.
4. Nagarjuna, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.
5. Ludwig Van Bertalanffy, General System Theory: Foundations, Development,
Applications.
6. Gregory Bateson, Mind and Nature: a Necessary Unity.
7. Michael Kerr and Murray Bowen, Family Evaluations.
8. Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics.
9. Mohandas Gandhi, Hind Swaraj.
Paul Nichols, University of California, Los Angeles
10
Historical Foundations of Contemporary Philosophy of Language
(Advanced undergraduate/graduate)
Course Description
In this course we will study the logical works of Aristotle and William of Ockham with
an emphasis on their contemporary significance for our understanding of the semantics of natural
language, and in particular reference in natural language.
Course Requirements
It will be nearly impossible to succeed in this class unless you attend lecture regularly
and keep up with the reading. Neither the lectures nor the texts will be possible to follow unless
you have been keeping up with the other. There will be weekly short writing assignments, which
will usually be based on a question about the reading. There will also be a mid-term exam, a final
exam, and a final paper.
Your grades will be determined as follows: weekly assignments (25%) + mid-term exam
(25%) + final exam (25%) + final paper (25%). The weekly assignments are intended as practice
exercises and will be graded more leniently than the exams and final paper, which are your
chance to demonstrate the skills you should be developing as the course proceeds.
Primary Texts
1. Aristotle, Categories.
2. Aristotle, On Interpretation.
3. William of Ockham, Summa Logicae.
4. Hilary Putnam, “The Meaning of Meaning.”
Paul Nichols, University of California, Los Angeles
11
Introduction to Logic
Course Description
This course will cover basic sentential and first-order predicate logic. In addition it will
include preliminary accounts of the philosophy of logic, meta-logic and the role of logic in
reasoning and in analytic philosophy.
Course Requirements
There will be weekly homework exercises, a mid-term exam and a final exam. The grade
for the course will be determined as follows: homework (40%) + mid-term (25%) + final (35%).
Primary Texts
1. Anthony Grayling, An Introduction to Philosophical Logic.
2. Donald Kalish & Richard Montegue, Logic: Techniques of Formal Reasoning.
Paul Nichols, University of California, Los Angeles
12
Introduction to Meta-Logic
Course Description
In this course we will cover some of the fundamental theorems of meta-logic. We will
begin with the consistency and completeness theorems for sentential logic. Next we will cover
consistency and completeness of first-order predicate logic. As time permits, we will make
exploratory forays into computability, incomputability, and incompleteness theorems.
Course Requirements
There will be weekly homework exercises, a mid-term exam and a final exam. The grade
for the course will be determined as follows: homework (40%) + mid-term (25%) + final (35%).
Primary Texts
All of the essential material for the course will be presented in lecture. Taking careful notes will
be essential.
Recommended Text
Stephen Kleene, Introduction to Metamathematics.
Paul Nichols, University of California, Los Angeles
13
Quantitative Student Evaluation Data
(Students answered on a scale of 1 to 9, with 9 being the best.)
Course Title Term
Introduction
to Philosophy
Fall 2007
8
9
8
8
9
8
8
8
of Mind
History of
Greek
Fall 2008
8
9
8
8
9
8
8
8
Philosophy
Medieval Winter
Philosophy 2008 7.5
8
7
7.5
9
8.5
8
8
Philosophy of Spring
Mind 2008 9
9 8 8 9 9 8.5 8.5
Philosophy of
Language Fall 2009 9
9 8 9 9 8.5 9 9
Philosophy of Winter
Language 2009 8
8.5 7 8 8 9 8 8
Philosophy of Spring
Language 2009 8
8 8 8 9 8 8 8
History of
Greek Fall 2010 8
Philosophy
8.5
7
8
9
8
8
8
Introduction Winter
to Philosophy 8 2010
of Mind
8
7
8
8
8
7.5
8
Responsibility Spring
& Free Will 2010 8
9 8 9 9 9 8.5 9
Ethical Winter
Theory 2011 9
9 7 9 9 9 9 9
Medieval Spring
Philosophy 2011 8
8.5 8 8 9 8 9 8.5
Philosophy of Summer
Law 2011 9
9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Modern Spring
Philosophy 2012 9
9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Evaluation
Average 8.321
8.679
7.786
8.321
8.86
8.500
8.393
8.429
Paul Nichols, University of California, Los Angeles
14
THE STUDENT ASSESSMENT OF INSTRUCTION SYSTEM
THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE
Philosophy 101 Sec # 30875 (LEC) Paul Nichols Intro/Philosophy (LEC) Spring 2015 Form A # of Students: 7
Questions Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Item Mean 1. Course as a whole 2 (29%) 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 1
(14%)
3.29
2. Course content 3 (43%) 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1
(14%)
3.71
3. Instructor's contribution to the course 3 (43%) 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1
(14%)
3.71
4. Instructor's effectiveness in teaching material 3 (43%) 2 (29%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 1
(14%)
3.57
5. Course organization 2 (29%) 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 1
(14%)
3.14
6. Clarity of instructor's voice 3 (43%) 3 (43%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1
(14%)
3.86
7. Explanations by instructor 3 (43%) 2 (29%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 1
(14%)
3.57
8. Ability to present alternative explanations 3 (43%) 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1
(14%)
3.71
9. Use of examples and illustrations 3 (43%) 3 (43%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1
(14%)
3.86
10. Quality of questions/problems raised by instructor 2 (33%) 2 (33%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1
(17%)
3.50
11. Students' confidence in instructor's knowledge 3 (43%) 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1
(14%)
3.71
12. Instructor's enthusiasm 2 (29%) 3 (43%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1
(14%)
3.57
13. Encouragement given to students' self expression 4 (57%) 2 (29%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1
(14%)
4.00
14. Answers to students' questions 2 (29%) 3 (43%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1
(14%)
3.57
15. Availability of extra help when needed 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 3 (43%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1
(14%)
3.29
16. Use of class time 3 (43%) 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%)
3.71
17. Interest in whether students learned 3 (43%) 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1
(14%)
3.71
18. Amount you learned in the course 2 (29%) 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 1 (14%)
3.14
19. Relevance and usefulness of course content 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 1
(14%)
3.14
20. Evaluative and grading techniques 2 (29%) 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2
(29%)
3.00
21. Reasonableness of assigned work 4 (57%) 2 (29%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%)
4.00
22. Clarity of students' responsibilities/requirements 3 (43%) 2 (29%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 1
(14%)
3.43
Relative to other college courses you have taken Much Higher
Average Much Lower 23. Do you expect your grade in this course to be: 1 (14%) 2 (29%) 2 (29%) 2 (29%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
24. The intellectual challenge presented was: 1 (14%) 2 (29%) 0 (0%) 2 (29%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 1 (14%)
25. The amount of effort you put into this course was: 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 1 (14%) 1 (14%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%)
26. The amount of effort to succeed in the course was: 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 1 (14%) 1 (14%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%)
27. Your involvement in this course (asgn, atnd, etc) was: 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%)
Paul Nichols, University of California, Los Angeles
15
Student Evaluation Comments
Below are complete student comments from evaluation forms for one course in each of the years
2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. No student comments have been omitted for any class. All sections
taught in a given quarter have been included.
I. History of Modern Philosophy, Professor John Carriero (Spring 2012, 100C)
1. A good TA. Reasonably responsible, competent, kind.
2. Most helpful discussion for the 100 genes. Paul had clear explanations, concrete
examples, and a competent grasp of the material.
3. Really good communication inside and out of the classroom. Really open to questions
and emails. Discussions were helpful after lecture to go over confusing material.
4. Paul is an awesome T.A. who obviously cares about his students and understands the
material. My favorite T.A. <3
5. Paul was fantastic. Best TA I had all quarter. Helped me understand. Fair grader.
6. Excellent T.A.
7. Paul is awesome
8. Paul’s strengths as a teaching assistant is his engagement with the material. I believe he
has the most effective way of delivering the info.
9. Strong & easy examples to explain philosophical theories.
10. Paul Nichols is an excellent T.A. He is exceptionally capable of teaching the subject
matter.
11. He’s cool, knew his stuff. Super helpful, really prompt on answering emails. I like your
glasses.
12. Coming to section, I don’t really think I got any clearly of a grasp on the material. Office
hours with Nichols is more helpful. He is very willing to have office hours to meet
students’ needs, which is great.
13. Chill dude =-) Rock on Paul!
14. Paul was very kind and understanding. Discussions were active and engaging.
15. Paul’s very knowledgeable and personable. Helped a ton.
16. Paul was fantastic. He very obviously cares and he shows a high level of knowledge and
sparks interest in his students. My only regret is that my commuting schedule made it
hard to come on occasion.
17. Very good at breaking down complicated and confusing subjects, from lecture into
language easier to understand.
18. Paul was so great! He really knew and understood the material and could present them in
really accessible ways (via both metaphors and his impressive artistic abilities.) I really
appreciated the effort he (you, if you’re reading this Paul.) put in to helping us understand
things. Awesome job!
Paul Nichols, University of California, Los Angeles
16
II. Topics in Ethical Theory, Professor Alexander Julius (Winter 2011, C153B)
1. Paul made a great effort to help his students with extra office hours and encouraged
students to attend. Also Paul was very clear and expanded greatly on the course
presentations. Paul is the best TA I’ve had so far.
2. Bas ass! Rock on! Best TA in phil dept. Reasonable & down to earth. Good luck with
your work Paul!
3. Paul makes all of his students real welcome to seek as much help as they need outside of
class. Really cares about his students.
4. Paul is patient and knowledgeable. He is always willing to help you/discuss your ideas &
concerns. He explains things using clever metaphors; makes complex ideas easy to
understand. Sometime she can be ineloquent, but it is not distracting.
5. Paul was an amazing TA. His strengths were that he was very approachable and able to
help whenever you need it. He was also a very fair grader.
6. Paul is good.
III. Responsibility and Free Will, Professor Calvin Normore (Spring 2010, 154B)
1. Good speaker. Approachable. Good grader gave good feedback & returned paper
quickly.
2. Although I thought the topics prepared for discussion in advance were great, I feel like
attendance to section wasn’t high because we didn’t know what was going to be covered
in section in advance. Maybe try emailing a tentative topic ahead of time?
3. Thank you for being a wonderful T.A.
4. I’ve had Paul as a T.A. before and he is without a doubt one of the best in the department.
5. Great T.A.
6. Really nothing bad to say about Paul. One of his strengths I would have to say is his
communication skills. Also, I have always felt that Paul cared about all his students. It
was always easy to come up to him and ask him a question.
7. Paul has been a great TA. There were some times that I needed help and he was always
available and quick to respond to my emails, etc, which is extremely helpful. He knows
his stuff and was a pleasure to listen to in section.
8. Paul is great at facilitating discussion but could be more organized.
9. Paul is, in my opinion, one of the best TA’s in the phil dept. Very knowledgeable. A good
teacher, able to explain difficult concepts. Flexible, willing to discuss things as they come
up (The ‘7’ on organization isn’t a bad thing, IMO). A great listener, very approachable. A
good, fair grader. I have been lucky to take classes with him several times. Each time my
experience is the same. Overall, great TA.
10. I have had Paul as a T.A. numerous times and he never ceases to impress me. His
particular amptitude for effective communication and instruction is unparalled by any
other T.A. His concern for students is apparent even when he is inundated w/ other work.
Paul Nichols, University of California, Los Angeles
17
IV. Philosophy of Language, Professors David Kaplan and Joseph Almog (Fall 2009, 127C)
1. The philosophy department is just so lucky to have Paul as one of the TAs. Paul is not
only a teacher to us but also a friend. We enjoy talking to him about any philosophical
and non-philosophical topics. I wish the best luck for Paul’s future academic career.
2. In the front of this paper I put the highest mark possible for each question. This wasn’t
because I was lazy or uninterested, this was because Paul is truly the best T.A. I’ve ever
had. With such a hard topic like Philosophy he was able to break down the lecture points
to aid in our understanding. He was very knowledgeable and welcomed questions. He
also always made time for us even outside of office hours.
3. Course was definitely not my favorite.
4. Paul is an excellent TA. He was super knowledgeable about the material – asking him a
question felt the same as asking the professor. Independent of his knowledge, though, he
is just a good teacher. Don’t read the ‘7’ on ‘organization’ as a bad thing. Some sections
were Q & A like, in others Paul expanded on lectures, still others were spent clarifying
difficult concepts. He approaches section with an ideal amount of flexibility and doesn’t
impose pre-set plans in a way that might interfere with student learning. Yet, he’s always
very clear and organized when explaining or ‘lecturing’ using the board. I’ve taken Paul
before and had the same experience; I’d happily take him again. One of my favorite TA’s
at UCLA.
5. Paul is one bad mama jamma! Not only is he ridiculously helpful during class, but also
after hours. There are very few TA’s that I have felt show his knowledge on any given
subject, but his involvement and devotion to student’s understanding is off the scale. Had
I the choice of taking him again, I would jump at the opportunity of a moment’s notice.
Awesome cat for sure.
6. Paul is an amazing TA. No weaknesses. There was one class, where he explained Quine,
that my mind exploded in a good way. I have been trying, since then to expand my mind
outside of section, unsuccessfully…
7. Paul Nichols is a great T.A. He is always able to clearly explain very complicated
concepts. I would love to have him as my T.A. or professor again in the future.
8. TA was concerned with all student’s understanding of the material. I guess one weakness
was that he moves too slow when going over class lectures and never get to finish what
he start it.
9. The TA was very knowledgeable about the subject material and was able to communicate
the information across to the students well.
10. T.A. would occasionally go off on a tangent when trying to explain the more difficult
subject matter. T.A. communicated class/grade requirements clearly. T.A. grading did not
explain reasons for any point deductions on graded midterm. T.A. was/had a pleasant
demeanor.
11. Paul was a good TA with great communication skills.
Paul Nichols, University of California, Los Angeles
18
12. Without you I would have been lost. The class was very hard to understand, but the
discussion really made things a lot easier.
13. + understands material and explains it well. – poor drawings.
14. Paul led a very informative discussion that allowed all students to discuss topics from
lecture. Some TA’s simply repeat the lectures where Paul expanded on the ideas and
helped us get though the information.
15. Paul is an excellent T.A. He does a fantastic job of making the subject matter accessible
to students!
16. Paul is a great TA. I have had him for several courses and each time he helps clarify the
confusing points in lecture. For example, explaining how Dartmouth is a name but does
not necessarily have a particular meaning. His comments on graded papers are also very
helpful. After any given paper he will make general comments on how to improve for the
future and that is great constructive criticism.
17. Paul is the paragon of an excellent philosophy teacher. He is always eager to ensure
students understand even the most difficult material. He is eminently approachable and
very easy to work with, he leads to understanding without giving anything away; the
teaching that leads to real knowledge. I’ve been glad to have him teaching me and I hope
to have him as a TA again.