Checked my grade on myUCLA, and I got a pretty decent grade. This class is very difficult in my opinion, and I feel that anyone interested should prepare to work very hard. (Hopefully the other classes you are taking are not too bad, because this class will take up quite a lot of time) The lectures were an hour and 50 minutes and I think they could have just been 50 minutes because the professor asks the opinions of other students which takes up a lot of time. Furthermore, the material is hard to grasp, and sometimes I wasn't able to write all of it down. I advise listening to the podcasts because you can pause whenever needed, and ensure you get the information you need. Also, the 3 essays are pretty difficult. The first is a bit easier since everyone writes on the same topic, but regardless, the grading in this course is strict. Go to your T.A.'s office hours, the professor's office hours, and it may be helpful to go to the AAP tutors for help. The 3 papers pretty much determine your grade, so I'd be wise to do your very best on them. The final was fair because it required you to know the arguments of each philosopher. As long as you review your notes and go to the review session you should do well. This is definitely not an easy A class, but if you work very hard this should be a manageable B.

this was the worst lecture and worst professor I've ever experienced. You will NOT get an A maybe not even a B, if you are not EXTREMELY good at writing philosophical essays that is graduate student level. Very few people went to the lectures, the ones that did go were either confused or asleep, in class discussion was completely dead, prof Hieronymi was a very terrible lecturer. Also, grading is ridiculously harsh. DO NOT TAKE THIS CLASS.

This is a philosophy class about ethics. Anybody who thinks that such a topic would not require in depth thought and some dense reading is mistaken. That being said, if you are interesting in the topic, as I would hope everyone is, then you should take this class! Professor Hieronymi is brilliant and she is the only professor I have had that actually encourages class participation and discussion in lecture! She really does a great job describing the moral theories of each philosopher. You definitely have to work for a good grade, but I don't understand why a person would avoid a great opportunity to really learn and think about the greater things in life, just to get an easy A. If you ask me, those people do not deserve to be at UCLA.

10% Reading Responses (credit/no credit)
15% 1st Paper (she REALLY EXPLAINS THIS)
25% 2nd Paper
30% 3rd Paper
20% Final (50-60 MC)

I just finished taking this writing class with Professor Hieronymi, and to be honest, I didn't think it was too bad. I guess people below didn't like the subject, but I thought it was very interesting. The class is about ethics: what actions are morally right or wrong. If you don't think it's interesting, or in other words, if you think you're going to be falling asleep in class all the time, I guess you shouldn't take it. BUT, if you think you might enjoy this class, it's not that bad. She assigns 15 reading response assignments and if you complete 10 of them, you get the a, if you do 9, a-, and so on. The readings are due before the lecture, so when you go to lecture and you've done the reading, then you're pretty much going to follow what she's saying. She'll just clarify things for you. If you DON'T do the readings, you're obviously going to go to class and just get confused. She also assigns 3 papers, the first is 15%, 2nd is 25% and the 3rd is 30%. She expects you to write to a cold audience, and I'd say this type of paper is a lot easier to write than other papers. You just have to write as if you're explaining something to somebody VERY dense. Get somebody to read it for you and ask them what they don't understand also. The final exam tests the readings throughout the course. Some of the questions were from lectures, some were straight from the text, so it'll help to go to lecture. Overall, I enjoyed her class because I like the topic, and I think that's what helped me out in the end. If you're uninterested, the readings won't sink in and the lectures will be confusing. (Though, despite liking this class, I often began falling asleep after approximately 27 minutes. Really! I timed myself!)

The professor went to Harvard I heard, so I recognize the fact that she is a smart lady. However not all brilliant people are good teachers. She had this nervous energy where she would talk at us, not to us because she was hard to understand. After awhile, I couldn't stay awake because the concepts were difficult to begin with, her lectures were hard to follow. I'd never know when to take notes. She was a hard teacher for me because as a non-philosophy major, the things she talked about were beyond me. Do not take this as your first philosophy class.

She seemed like a very nice lady, and she was very knowledgeable about the material. But her lectures were so boring that I would have to drink 2 cups of coffee 1 hour before class just to stay awake. She is confusing and unenthusiastic and her teaching style is extremely ineffective. She is very accessible outside of the classroom, and I appreciate this availability. However, I should not have to attend every office hour in order to understand the lectures. Most of my understanding should come from class, and my visits to her office should be only for clarification of a few minor details, not for a complete reexplanation of the entire lecture.