Had professor Anderson for both Leibniz and advanced topics in philosophy of religion. I enjoyed both classes and learned a lot. Phil classes are very tough to teach because few if any have a background in it. The goal of the professor is to challenge how people think and provide a framework for new perspectives. Anderson did that well.

Solid professor and teaches the material well but the final still found a way to come out of nowhere. I got 100% on the midterm, attendance and homework all done and still got a B+ from the final

I took this class Winter 2015. He had a sign in sheet for lecture. I found his lectures on logic to be insufficient. The material itself is very simple, and my TA Juliana Lima was incredible at breaking it down in section. If you are not blessed with her, just go to office hours for the TA or the professor for help. Tests are easy.

This was an easy class if you showed up and did the readings. I got A's on the midterm and final but got a B because attendance is mandatory. Lectures were fine, he just went over the readings, could be boringrepetitive. Midterm and final were very straightforward multiple choice. Overall I enjoyed it and would take a class with him again.

Lecture was a little hard to get by. 1 MT & Final, both were quite easy. Exercises from section helped a lot. Juliana Lima was my TA and she was awesome! She tries to make sure that everyone in section understandshas no other questions before moving on to the next topicexercises.

This professor is literally the worst professor I've ever had in my entire life. I had never met a professor who seriously had no clue whatsoever how to teach until now. I was actually interested in philosophy but I hated listening to this guy.

He went back and forth on agreeing or disagreeing with Sobel's positions. Came unprepared to lecture, and assigned un-necessary, and unclear math material which was weighted heavily. Reading assignments were not only dense and long, also un-interesting. The man is brilliant with a sense of humor, but much to be desired in his ability to teach.

The guy is a jackass; he doesn't clarify any of the material he attempts to teach. More often than not he makes the content of the course more difficult to understand. His grading isn't justified by any kind of scale. His tests require a seemingly secret source of information that only he knows about. Worst Phil teacher I've had at UCSB by far.

Hard for me to pay attention in his class. Really laid back and sometimes funny, however its too slow for my taste in philosophy classes. he will just go off on a tangent regarding some random example and speak about it for 10 minutes straight when it could be illustrated in one or two sentences before moving on with the rest of the lecture.

EASY class! you are required to go to lecture and section, which is annoying, but you don't need to pay attention in either. I studied for other classes. HW is annoying to do and it's assigned for every class. i studied for the midterm the day before hung over and got a 49/50. If you don't understand the material get help!

Makes logic funny, which is hard to do. He also looks identical (qualitatively, not numerically) to Gene Hackman.

These ratings are way to harsh. I will get the negatives out of the way first. he is unclear in his lectures, and goes on a tangent at times. Yet his requirements for getting an A are straight forward, you have plenty of time to prepare for the midterm, paper, and tests.If you read you will get a good grade,just don't worry about taking notes.