Professor Helzner is brilliant at what he does, I'm sure. I think he would be a great professor for a logic course, or for probability or rational choice, etc. I felt like in this class, however, he was not very effective. For one thing, I was not happy with the readings on the syllabus. The class was taught almost exclusively out of a textbook, each class's reading simply following the last two readings from Huemer's "Epistemology." Some of the excerpts from that book were interesting and important works, but others were not. In a survey course, I prefer not to read some obscure 20th century analytic philosophers, especially since we didn't read even a short excerpt of Kant! I also found his lectures to be hit-or-miss. Sometimes, especially towards the beginning of the course, we would really dig into one of the subjects of our readings and explore all of its possibilities. Prof. Helzner is extremely thorough and when we stayed on topic, this was extremely helpful. Other times, though, this thoroughness would be directed at totally irrelevant exercises. Frequently, students would raise their hand with, in my opinion, stupid questions that Helzner would take almost the whole lecture responding to. We also spent an inordinate amount of time on digressions about probability or technology-related scenarios. I eventually stopped going to lecture. I think the class was a useful exercise but hopelessly disappointing.

Workload:

Four short assignments and a 10-12 page final paper. Readings for each class 5-20 pages, usually pretty straightforward.