- Home
- Search
- Paul Tulipana
- All Reviews
Paul Tulipana
AD
Based on 2 Users
Worst professor I've ever had. The class was 60% reading responses, 35% final paper, and 5% participation. Reading responses are graded either Outstanding, Satisfactory, or Unsatisfactory. You can get all Satisfactory, for example, but you you won't know what your grade is in the class. At the end of the term, depending on what he wants your final grade in the class to be, he'll decide a numerical (or letter) grade for your final paper, reading responses, and participation. His grading is basically very arbitrary. He also offers 0 help over email or during office hours. Makes you feel stupid for asking questions. I'd stay away honestly.
This was not enjoyable. It was rather easy, however.
The first half of the quarter was spent just discussing ethics. Think Kant, consequentialism, etc. It was quite dry. I also don't think he had any experience with bioethics specifically, so the connections between course concepts from the first half and medical/biological examples in the latter half were not super evident or helpful. I feel as though I left with decent ethics knowledge, but that's not why I took the class. The only time I really gleaned *bioethics* knowledge was in my discussion section.
There were two reflection papers and one midterm for this course. The midterm was quite long and took forever, but it was take-home and open book. We did not have a final due to the TA strike. (I don't know if UCLA technically allows this but Tulipana told us he couldn't think of a better alternative because he didn't want to personally grade a bunch of essay-based finals.)
Worst professor I've ever had. The class was 60% reading responses, 35% final paper, and 5% participation. Reading responses are graded either Outstanding, Satisfactory, or Unsatisfactory. You can get all Satisfactory, for example, but you you won't know what your grade is in the class. At the end of the term, depending on what he wants your final grade in the class to be, he'll decide a numerical (or letter) grade for your final paper, reading responses, and participation. His grading is basically very arbitrary. He also offers 0 help over email or during office hours. Makes you feel stupid for asking questions. I'd stay away honestly.
This was not enjoyable. It was rather easy, however.
The first half of the quarter was spent just discussing ethics. Think Kant, consequentialism, etc. It was quite dry. I also don't think he had any experience with bioethics specifically, so the connections between course concepts from the first half and medical/biological examples in the latter half were not super evident or helpful. I feel as though I left with decent ethics knowledge, but that's not why I took the class. The only time I really gleaned *bioethics* knowledge was in my discussion section.
There were two reflection papers and one midterm for this course. The midterm was quite long and took forever, but it was take-home and open book. We did not have a final due to the TA strike. (I don't know if UCLA technically allows this but Tulipana told us he couldn't think of a better alternative because he didn't want to personally grade a bunch of essay-based finals.)