Teaching Dossier

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


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.


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.”


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











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.


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.”


6

Language and Thought: Action at a Distance


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.


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.


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.”


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











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.


10

Historical Foundations of Contemporary Philosophy of Language


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




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.”


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.


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.


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


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%)


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!


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.


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.


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.

Teaching Dossier

Documents

Transcript of Teaching Dossier