Helen Heise

Heise's okay, i guess. true, true, she's quite boring and she does have an awfaully interesting accent, but once you start really paying attention in the class, you'll do fine. i had this class once a week for 3 loooong hours.

she gives homework each week, a chapter per homework with all the questions mandatorily typed, two copies. but yeah, the class was extremely difficult to follow, especially for someone like me who cannot sit still for more than 15 minutes.

the t.a. was great though and when the class was taught by the t.a., everyone understood the lesson, maybe because he knew he was talking and teaching o students and not fellow phd's.

i was extremely restless during the class, as i said, but since i got really worried about my grade, so hard as it was, started paying attentiona nd then it wasn't too hard to follow anymore. BUT she is a hard grader! super hard grader.

if you do join this class, join with your friends. it's the only way you guys will stay awake in this class. or make friends and goof around a bit. it'll make the class more interesting and you don't really get in trouble if you don't get too rowdy... heise might end up liking you more too! it's up to you to make it fun. that's what we did!

Helen Heise's class is an extremely interesting class if and only if you are a student who desires to acquire tools to find your own truth or meaning to life. First of all, her exams and quizzes are definitely paralleled to the homework she assigns and the lectures she provides. Her lectures are easy to understand if you sit back and relax and hears what she has to say. It is common that a few people think that her lectures are boring and it is only because they didn't know why they took critical thinking in the first place. The book she prescribes is one of the best books I've ever read. it is easy to understand if you have taken political science before or concurrently or have lived in California for at least two years or is comfortable with American politics i.e. you watch the news at least once a month. In conclusion, Helen Heise is simply doing her job, and she has done everything a good teacher does--and that includes the teacher putting their own personal style of teaching into the job also! And about her speaking: She speaks clearly and has a nice tone of voice. I wouldn't want a teacher screaming at my ears nonstop for an hour three times a week. Of course it is not an easy A. For that matter, simply read the assigned chapters twice and just do the homework with a fair amount of concentration; don't need to get so tied up into the logic. Oh, don't forget its a liberal arts class--do some memorizing! I'm not saying it is a lot of memorizing--it was "some."

Heise is a competent proffesor. But she doesn't direct the lecture very well. The class can often go off into tangents for the entire time without going much into the material. Her exams are ok. She did give one "suprise" short paper due the next week (seemed more like extra credit I think). Overall ok, very nice lady. But the way she led the class discussion could have been better.

Okay, so I was one of her teacher's pets. I had no other choice. I had to hear myself talk to keep awake and stay sane during the three hours of her philosophical chinese fire drill. She turned what should have been a seemingly simple GE course into a banal crash course in jury duty.

The homework was meticulous, repetitive busy work that we would spend an hour and a half reading outloud in class and never see again. I would receive tests back with tons of anal-retentive notes, all scrawled in an eerie school marm-ish cursive that looked like it was slowly dragged across the page with a quill and ink well. She would count a question half wrong if I had placed a coma where grammatically there were supposed to be parenthesis. That bad. I mean, I don't mind counting off for grammar, but she would deduct major points. She would scrawl ambiguous phrases on the tops of papers like "Do you feel your language use matches your intelligence?" What?

She was militant about bibliographies. Helen wanted them in an extremely specific way from a book we had to purchase to use only that once. She counted off for footnotes and bibliographies on the same page. She insisted on every piece of work turned into her be typed. When we got to the diagramming, it became extremely tricky to type the homework how she wanted, though she demanded it, but she had admitted to not knowing how to use a computer.

She is challenging, and it was good sometimes, it made things a bit more interesting. She's also very nice if you stay on her good side. But my grades are going to come soon and I know I'm not going to be pleased. Although I was teacher's pet, I bombed all her knit-picky tests, ditched three weeks straight, and apparently, my language didn't match my intelligence.

Just don't take her for Phil 110. If only I had known... It's a waste of effort, unless you're serving on a jury anytime soon.

(I always wondered about her accent, too. Her and Madonna should get together.)

Dr. Heise is opinionated, and I do not consider this at all her downfall. Why would someone want to devote their time to studying and teaching a subfield of philosophy if they don't have any opinions on it? (And in my experience people who try to appear neutral rarely succeed, so it's best for people to be upfront about those things.) I disagree with her on just about everything (she's a Lutheran, or at least of Lutheran backround, and I'm an atheist; she's into Kant, I hate him; I'm a nihilist and she disagrees with my arguments for it.. we have very little common ground) but I have found her to be entirely respectful about these things and not one to shoot down an argument that really is well-reasoned (though I have seen her fail to understand what a student is arguing on some occasions, but it's hardly malicious.) She also holds people to their potential and kept insisting that she knew I was smart enough to do better than the papers I handed in (which was true.. I was doing B work on my personal scale of ability - BTW I am also currently taking PHIL605 Metaphysics with her.) She also lets people go off on another topic if it's what the students want to talk about, and lets comments take up as much of the classtime as they would naturally, she doesn't feel obligated to fill 90% of it with her own comments or use every student comment as a jumping off point for her next lecture topic if there's more to be said. I find her tests to be difficult but totally fair (they're not about trivial details, and really make you think.) I do have some complaints.. if she comes up against an argument that derails her own, she will try to sidestep it (the way most people do, to be fair.. it takes a very big person to admit that your student is clever enough to have shattered your worldview!), not everyone likes opinionated prof.'s, and some people find it more difficult to understand if there's more class participation and less lecture (I don't, but it's just an individual thing) but if you are serious about philosophy and working hard to make your arguments, I don't see any reason to avoid Dr. Heise.

(BTW, in her defense, yes, she is from Wisconsin, but I doubt her accent is affected.. someone in my class asked her about it and she said her parents spoke English that way because they were from Germany (obviously most Europeans are going to learn European English, not American English) and she grew up in a bilingual household (she also went to the University of Edinburg and her accent isn't entirely English, more of a cross between very urbane USAmerican and English.) It's possible that it's for show, but it's hardly definite enough to criticize her on it..)

Heise is not a good teacher, in fact she is horrible. Do not take her if you can at all avoid it. She is very opinionated and expects her students agree with her, or at least tell her they agree with her. She makes really poor use of class time by not getting anything done and explaining little of what you need to do the homework or write the essays. The material used for the class made no allowances for anything that wasn't concrete scientific fact, which seems to contradict the whole idea of philosophy. I also find it funny that she speaks with an affected British accent although she is from Wisconsin.

DO NOT take this teacher. Horrible experience in her class. She expects EVERY PERSON to talk in class ALL THE TIME. She practically FORCES people to do so. Participation is a major part of the grade. She gives little pop quizes from material from the book (which I may mention is really dry) that weigh heavily on the grade and yet have no value. I basically dreaded going to that class 3 times a week. She gives tons of reading each week from the book, it ranges from 40-90 pages and it's an insane amount considering all the other classes students have. She gives us 3 "free" absences, which of course everyone uses up (who actually wants to be in that class more than they have to!). She is particular about attendence and has a sign-up sheet every class period. There are a couple papers due throughout the semester and she grades more on grammar instead of CONTENT! She's a REALLY hard grader as well...good luck if you take the class, cuz I seriously do not reccommend it.

Helen Heise is indeed pompous, but what's more disturbing is that I got a poor grade on a very well argued position I took on a controversial subject, just because she disagreed with my point of view.

I met her afterwards to discuss several points in my paper that she commented on and it was clear that she didn't want to understand what I was trying to say. She only heard/read that I differed from her point of view -- and for that I was punished with a poor grade (B). This may sound like an OK grade, but the paper was really an A paper, because I checked it out with three other professors and it was indeed a well written paper. I agrued my point decisively and she objected to my point of view -- and graded me down accordingly.

In addition, she didn't really explain the material on which the exams were based. For the most part, she just liked to hear herself lecture and dialogue with her two "teacher's pets".

It's ironic -- she teaches critical thinking, and she is very critical, but doesn't really think.

Helen Heise appears in the beginning of the class to be an open-minded individual and she is to some extent-as long as what you choose to believe is what she deems "morally right." She often goes on and on about things that are hardly relevant to the subject matter and gives you a feeling of disapproval when you don't see things her way. I assumed this was a class going to be an enviroment where students would feel they could express their feelings without being embarrased or at least feel like their thoughts were valid. She might mean well...or maybe not, but her attitude is so pompous.

I like this teacher a lot. This material for this class is difficult, but she does a good job of explaining the main ideas. My advice is for you to come to class ready to learn something. Leave any preconceived ideas about American Pragmatism/Pragmaticism at home. If you are going to challenge her, make sure you really understand the issues or you will be shot down. If you offer a careful, thoughtful analysis of the issues and a valid criticism of Peirce's position or Heise's interpretation of Peirce, you'll be ok. Listen to what the other students have to say when they read their papers or essays out loud in class. This will help too. She does seem to have her favorites - who doesn't? I don't know if this is to the detriment of the other students but I suspect it isn't. She seems to be an ethical person and I think she tries to be fair to everyone.

all things said she is a very nice and intelligent woman on the surface. very amicalble and pithy about what she knows, like kant sartre and existentialism. The problem is that's all she either knows or wants to know; further her opinion dominates over the bare truths and facts of the history and theory. Its her way or no way: you can not succeed without following her reading, whether or not you want to forward another philosopher's take or have a legitimate opinion yourself. Trying to be an independant being is impossible in her class, if you don't conform you are wrong. its lame and sad.

Helen Heise is tough - there are no scantrons and no easy A's. All tests are short essay - usually four or five questions. If you have a decent grasp of the material (you showed up to class, did the reading, etc.) a B-something is almost automatic on the tests. An A has to be earned for sure. She is also fair, and always, ALWAYS encourages people with different views to engage in discussion. You can make up for bad test performance with good class participation. If you have a problem with the class go to her office hour - she is as down to earth as any professor I've met here. She loves to talk with people about nearly anything. The 110 class could be boring at times - I think her lack of enthusiasm for teaching kids who like their grades easy showed up in here. The text book for 110 was more than a little bit dry, but she didn't assign much reading in this class. Her enthusiasm is much greater in her other classes. There is also a lot more reading to do, but at least it's usually good stuff. Don't believe the person who wrote that Helen Heise treats Jean-Paul Sartre like a God - that reviewer obviously wasn't paying attention in class the times she criticized Sartre. For whatever this is worth - most of the people I've talked with who are also philosophy majors, love this instructor.

Prof heise simply dissapointed me. I worked very hard in her class, participated much more than most students in her class, respected the ideals of philosophical discourse, adn tried to represent objective perspectives in her class discussions. at first she seemed (or acted?) very receptive to this kind of participation, even encouraged it. as time wore on however, i learned that her own ideas and opinions dominate the sphere of her classtoom; ability to suceed in her environment meant accepting her opinions as truth and accepting the one you are arguing (i don't have many philosophical opinions, instead i represented Heraclitus, Plato, Neitzche, or heidegger's in her class, all philosophers she opposes. she didn't like me eventually for that. IT DID EFFECT MY GRADE...consider that if you want to be a free thinker and suceed as well) . Though she she is well learned it is in a small elite world which will not be permeated by any consientious student. you have to learn and write about her perspective of things period. If you are beginning, that may be ok because you do learn (though subjectively) if you have come along at all though, unless you hold her views you better be ready to pretend youdo if youwant or need an A.

Helen is a very good teacher. She is an idealist and doesn't like to admit it, but she knows her shit and she's very understanding. Aside from an all-out rejection of Heidegger, for which she lacks adequate reason, I have absolutely no complaints. She's extremely articulate and skilled at building and questioning arguments. Sometimes she caters a bit too much for my taste to the low end of the class, but that doesn't really impede an advanced study of the material. I sound a bit critical (that's my style) but I don't mean to put Helen down at all. She's one of the best philosophy teachers on campus and I would recommend her to anyone who wants to study existentialism, Peirce, critical thinking, Sartre, or anything else she teaches. For those non-philosophers who want to get a passing grade for the critical thinking requirement without doing any critical thinking, maybe you should take the class with a graduate student or something.

Very organized and very well prepared. Explains difficult material resourcefully. Too much reading expected. Length of papers kept at a manageable level. Refined and intellectualist style may alienate some. Tends to target Marxist views for special condemnation. Energetic but without natural and healthy cynical shadings. Will go the extra mile if student shows interest