very nice guy but PAINFULLY BORING class. lecture is way longer than it has to be and the material is a little abstract.

Boring lectures, but the midterm & final are pretty much based on it. Not much reading (the book is tiny) and the pace is slow. Section was incredibly helpful.

Ridiculously repetitive and boring lecture. He gives out the midterm questions before the exam and the TA's give you the answers in OHs. I stopped going to lecture after the first week and stuck with section. Final was take home. Overall, almost no work and I got a really easy A.

Hsu was a compelling lecturer, but he would spend 2 hours exhausting a point that really would take only 20 minutes to make fully and completely. Sometimes in this class I got to feeling like I had to do philosophy on his terms and not my own, which isn't fun; he was so steadfastly anti-Descartes that, if you didn't take a step back and create your own view of the material, you had to wonder "why on earth was this canonized as a great work of philosophy?"

Philosophy 21 Professor Hsu - Winter 03

This class was the hardest class I've ever taken. Not because the exams were difficult, but because the subject matter tested on was extremly abstract and didn't flow from the lectures. The lectures were ramblings that could have been summarized in a 15 minutes time frame, instead of the hour and fourty minutes wasted. Professor Hsu is a nice man, but an awful teacher and the TAs, especially Sachin Pai, are not effective communicators. I felt even more lost after section. DO NOT TAKE THIS CLASS!

I feel I owe it to the people who are signing up for this class to give them the other side, because at this point all people have done is sing the praises of Prof. Hsu's ability to articulate the subtlties of philosophy. For non-philosophy majors, it is boring as hell.

I'm a fourth year philosophy major, and love the subject, but in approximately a two hundred person class, it was always about half full, and at least 10-15 people were sleeping. On any given day at any given time, this was the case, and of the remaining people, there were probably 15 people paying attention and the others were reading newspapers or doing other homework. Be prepared to be bored, because for the first five weeks you just go over four pages of Descartes 1st meditation, which as far as philosophy goes, is blindingly easy. He is slow, and deliberate and I kid you not, spent more than an hour one time pondering over whether or not he could be incorrigible about his socks being blue or black. This you can deal with, just really try to pay attention and listen for value because it does have a point. If you can't listen for value, then don't take this class because you have to seek it out.

However, the real problem comes in with the midterms and the final, because although you can summarize the content of the entire course in approximately a page, UCLA tends towards an analytic style of philosophy, which means you can't just say things the way a reasonable, intelligent person would, you have to put it in a complex, formulaic method that looks sort of like, "Descartes is incorrigble about a proposition P, IFF P is true [necessarily] every time it is put forward by him, otherwise he could not be incorrigible about P." The problem is, there is absolutely NO instruction on how to write this way unless you have an exceptionally kind TA (yay for Joe Hwang!)who will sit down and explain all the intricacies of this mysterious, mandatory system. My suggestion is find out early what your TA looks for, and set up a time to practice this style before 30 or 40% of your grade rests on it. You could fail the class, knowing all the information WELL, if your TA adheres too rigorously to an analytic style and you're unfamiliar with it. Prof. Hsu instructs them to grade you harshly too, so be aware you're being graded by a standard that is probably foreign to you, and harshly at that.

Essentially my breakdown is this - For philosophy majors: This will be a great teacher for an upper division class, he really explains the subtleties and nuances well and I look forward to taking him for a more complex topic. I don't recommend for lower division classes, it stays too simplistic and redundant.
For non-philosophy majors: Find out the style your TA likes and cater to it as much as possible and as early as possible. Pay attention as much as you can and listen for the gold. If you're easily bored or don't like philosophy, don't take this teacher, because most of the class looked bored out of their minds. On a good note, Descartes is probably the easist thing you'll ever do in philosophy.

Phil. 21 was interesting to some extent and Professor Hsu is a very nice man, but what TA you get can make or break everything for you. My TA's name was Dawn Starr and she was an arrogant, egotistical teaching assistant. She suffers from what I would like to call the "yes, but..." syndrome, which is whenever anyone would respond to a question in section it was never the correct answer,and she would have to rephrase the answer in her own words. I did go in to see Hsu on various occasions and he is very willing to talk to his students, but overall I would not recommend this class unless you are a real philosophy buff (I took it as a GE).

I enjoyed Prof Hsu initially but as the quarter progressed, I found myself becoming more and more bored in class. This is primarily because he goes over the same thing a million times. It's very slow going, we cover most of one book but he still ends up behind schedule. We ended up spending so much time on one chapter the first part of the quarter and then having to zip through everything else during the last part. My TA was very helpful in explaining concepts to us but, overall, the class ended up being quite tedious.

One word: "Boring." That's exactly what he is. He simply repeats the same stuff over and over again. Maybe the last fifteen minutes or so of lecture he stops reviewing what we did in the last week, but I can't be sure because I was either sleeping or not paying attention by that point. He hands out notes in class of the main points to be covered, and that helps out a lot because you don't have to listen to him anymore; practically everything he'll say is typed out and in your hands! Then you'll learn that all of these handouts are available on the internet. Now you don't even have to go to class at all, which is especially good if it's your first class of the day. We had two midterms, one in-class and one take-home, and a take-home final. For the take homes, just use the handouts as a guideline. The in-class essays were easy, so don't worry. And hope that your TA is "easy-going," because that makes more than a little bit of a difference.

if you enjoy listening to the same three lectures each week, and the same points and ideas in the lectures, and being told what you should think and how to think, then take this class. i could not stay awake in that class, even for the last lecture. i'm sure prof hsu is a brillant man, but i'm not one to agree with that. the hardest part of the class is figuring out when he's going to get to the point, and staying awake. there's no work, just midterm and final graded by your TA. this is the first philosophy class i took, and he made me dislike it. but for as much as i slept in lectures, almost every lecture, i got a b+.