• Attendance – 30%

Attendance is mandatory. Send requests for excused absences by email. For additional information about notification and documentation for missing class, please visit http://www.catalog.gatech.edu/policies/student-absence-regulations. 

• Midterm (March 4th) – 35%

Short answer & essay. We will grade your midterm and give you your grade through Canvas prior to the March 18^th withdrawal deadline. If you are unable to attend the midterm or final exam on the scheduled date, please tell us about the conflict at least one week prior to the exam if possible, and we will schedule a different time for you to take the exam. 

• Final (May 6^th 6:00 PM - 8:50 PM) – 35%

Short answer & essay. 

• Participation – Optional Midterm or Final for Top 5 Participating Students 

Participation will be graded on quality of discussion and engagement. Your participation should illustrate a comprehensive reading of the assigned material. The 5 students who have the highest participation score based on both quality and quantity for the classes prior to the Midterm will have the option of not taking the Midterm. The 5 students who have the highest participation score for the classes after the Midterm and before the Final exam will have the option of not taking the Final exam. 

Your final grade will be assigned a letter grade according to the following scale: A (90-100%), B (80-89%), C (70-79%), D (60-69%), F (0-59%).

Dates for Exams are not set in advance. Instead, exams will be announced at least 2 class periods in advance; and exams will be preceded by a brief review. Some Chapters MAY be covered only in designated parts. As indicated on the Syllabus Outline, Exams will be set to cover designated Chapters!

Students may make-up a single, missed exam. The Make-Up Exam will be a cumulative examination and will be offered only one time: at the end of the semester, at the scheduled time of the Final Exam.

The Make-Up Exam cannot be applied to improve a low performance on a regular exam.

Grading Policy

Each Exam will carry a designated number of points. The value of the exams may vary somewhat due to the substance and content of the materials covered by each exam. Thus, some exams may be worth more than 100 points. Notice will be given on the points for each exam.

Two quizzes will consist of mostly short-answer questions that focus on course readings but also will include material from class meetings. (10% each)

The final exam will invite you to synthesize what you have learned. (20%)

Discussions:  During the semester students will contribute comments and responses to five (5) Canvas discussion forums that pose assertions or questions related to course topics. (10% total)

Perusall readings:  Use this device in Canvas to annotate five (5) of the assigned readings with questions, comments, arguments, responses to other students' postings, etc. (10% total)

The professional memo will be a three-page presentation of the political aspects of a particular policy issue or problem of your choice (with my approval). Memo-writing skills are crucial in almost any profession. This isn't an English composition class but you will be produce a professional-quality document (format, spelling, grammar, etc.). You will receive detailed feedback on your first submission and you must use it to revise and extend your memo. Detailed instructions will be provided; significant points will be lost for failure to adhere carefully to all instructions. 

•  The first iteration includes Policy Background and a Stakeholder Analysis. (20%)

•  The final memo will be a substantial re-write of the first version based on the feedback and will add a discussion of the relevant Institutions and your Recommendations, with all four sections condensed into three pages (plus cover page and references).  (20%)

•  At the end of the semester students will offer brief presentations to the class to accompany the final versions of their memos. Specific instructions will be provided. (0%)

A: 90-100:  Superior performance—you clearly demonstrate excellence: going beyond what is required by showing enthusiasm and creativity on the memo, participation in class, generosity in responding to other students’ Discussion and Perusall postings, etc.

B: 80-89:  Above-average, high-quality performance—basically, you satisfy the requirements as prescribed in the syllabus.

C: 70-79:  Average performance. Competent and acceptable but not totally compliant with expectations for many of the assignments..

D: 60-69:  Below-average performance. Demonstrated a lack of ability or motivation to read and be able to discuss reading assignments, unfamiliarity with topics discussed in class, and a failure to follow instructions on course expectations.

F: 0-59:   Unacceptable performance. Failure to meet minimum criteria.

Project Structure and Processes:

Students will work in teams to address a policy problem using a structured HCD solution sprint approach, including:

• Exploration: problem framing, mapping, narrowing, and validating.
• Ideation: brainstorming, combining and reconfiguring, proof-of-concept development.
• Solution: customer discovery, proof-of-concept refinement, evaluation, iteration.

Project Scope and Client Engagement Requirements:

• Teams will identify a policy problem in collaboration with instructors.
• The selected problem must be feasible to address within a two-year implementation horizon.
• Each team must work with a client or partner organization willing to:
  • Meet regularly with the team during the semester
  • Provide feedback on problem framing, prototypes, and proposed solutions
  • Engage in validation activities where appropriate

In-Cass Exercises:

We will complete in-class exercises that focus on scoping and defining feasible problems, illustrating the relationship between feedback and prototype reconfiguration, giving and receiving feedback, and how HCD may apply to career preparation. Insights and lessons learned will be discussed.

Capstone Design Expo:

A significant emphasis of the course is preparation for the Georgia Tech Capstone Design Expo. Course milestones and deliverables are intentionally aligned with Expo evaluation criteria, with particular emphasis on proof of function through validated prototypes, pilots, simulations, or structured stakeholder feedback.

Teamwork and Peer Evaluations:

Teams are expected to exhibit equitable contribution to results and participation during presentations. Peer evaluations are an important component of final grades and will be used to assess individual contributions to team-based work.

Grading Policy:

Assignments/Distribution (percentage)

10 Problem Background Research / Client Identification

10 Low-Fidelity Prototype / Presentation

15 Medium-Fidelity Prototype / Presentation

25 Final Presentations and Report 

15 In-class Exercises 

15 Peer Evaluations (2)

10 Class Participation

Grading Scale:

Final grades will be assigned as a letter grade according to the following scale: 

A 90-100%

B 80-89% 

C 70-79% 

D 60-69% 

F 0-59%

The final grade will be based on:
Exam 1: 25%
Exam 2: 25%
Reflections (10 total, lowest 2 dropped): 16% (2% each)
Group Proposal: 34% 

Letter grades will be assigned according to the following scheme:
•    A > 90% Excellent
•    B 80-90% Above Average
•    C 70-79% Average
•    D 60-69% Below Average
•    F < 59% Unacceptable
 

Assignments:
There are three kinds of assignments in the course.

Exams are in-class, handwritten tests with both short-answer (2-3 sentences) and long-answer (1-2 pages) questions. The short-answer questions will ask you to define terms or explain concepts. The long-answer questions ask you to analyze a scenario from different perspectives or to explain an argument and counterargument. There will be 5 short-answer questions (10 points each), and you may choose 1 long-answer question from a small selection (50 points). You may not use books, notes, or electronic devices. There are two exams for the class.

Reflections are short (3-5 sentence) in-class writing assignments in which you may ask a well-developed question about a “muddy” (unclear) idea discussed in class or explain an idea from class that you found particularly helpful or insightful. Your reflections help me see which ideas need further explanation or which ideas would be most interesting for us to explore further. They also help you process the class discussion. These are graded as incomplete (0), complete (1), or sufficient (2). Doing the assignment gets you a point, but the extra point is earned with good support for your questions or claims from the texts or from real-world examples. There are 10 reflections in the course, and the lowest two grades will be dropped. This means that there are 16 possible points for 8 reflections.

The Group Proposal is an opportunity for you to practice democratic discussions aimed at creative solutions to pressing real-world problems. Environmental policies are almost always group decisions, not individual ones. The goal is for you to work together by including different perspectives and interest groups rather than by arguing against opponents. In the last few weeks of class, you will choose one of the 5 problem studies that we discuss as a class to think about more carefully in a smaller group. The team will come up with a proposal for a solution to the problem and then present this proposal to the class. The teams will be assessed based on their consideration of different perspectives, use of ethical principles from the course to evaluate the problem, demonstration of how the proposal mitigates harm to different stakeholders, and response to questions and concerns. Individuals within the team will be assessed based on an anonymous peer evaluation of each member’s contributions, cooperation, role fulfillment, communication, and accuracy. Peer evaluations count for 20 points of the total grade, and the proposal and presentation count for 80 points of the total grade. 
 

With the exception of the Engagement assignments, all grading for the course will be done by the Teaching Assistants, with the guidance and supervision of the Instructor.

Also with the exception of the Engagement assignments, written assignments will be assessed on a 3-point scale, built around the expectations of each assignment as specified above: 3 = exceeds expectations; 2 = meets expectations; 1 = does not meet expectations; 0 = not submitted.

To meet expectations, accomplish the basic work of the assignment or exam prompt, demonstrating a solid understanding of the matter at hand, making the necessary distinctions and/or connections, and no more. 

To exceed expectations, do more than just put in effort: take a risk; reach for some new connection among ideas; try an unusual angle, a shift in perspective; or, really, just do anything that demonstrates full engagement with the process of inquiry aimed at understanding.

The final grade will be determined by an accumulation of points, up to a maximum of 74:

• 12 Engagement Assignments, dropping the lowest two for a total of 10 points;
• 9 Exercises, dropping the lowest one for a total of 24 points;
• 2 Exams, up to a total of 50 points. 

Final grades will then be determined by the following scale:

A = 66-74 

B = 57-65

C = 48-56

D = 40-47

Please note that the gradebook on Canvas will be of limited use to us: while it may provide a record of how many points you have earned on each assignment, it will attempt to calculate your final grade as a weighted average. Ignore that.

These assignments are subject to change. In response to the Institute's call for AI to be integrated in all courses we will be exploring opportunities to use it for novel forms of participation and deliverables.

Reports on readings:  40%

Midterm quiz:    20%

Congressional hearing:   30%  At the end of the semester we will conduct four congressional hearings. Students will be assigned a role as a member of Congress or as a witness (e.g., advocate for an NGO, academic expert, agency official). Roles will be assigned randomly.

Participation:      10%.  Class discussion is vital in this course. The standard for “adequate” participation is (a) not waiting to be called on, (b) cogently summarizing readings or providing new perspectives on issues, and (c) engaging in respectful exchanges with classmates in response to their reports on readings. At mid-semester you will be given feedback on the quantity and quality of your involvement.  

A: 90-100: Superior performance—you clearly demonstrate excellence: going beyond what is required by showing enthusiasm and creativity on the memo, participation in class, generosity in responding to other students’ Discussion and Perusall postings, etc.

B: 80-89: Above-average, high-quality performance—basically, you satisfy the requirements as prescribed in the syllabus.

C: 70-79: Average performance. Competent and acceptable but not totally compliant with expectations for many of the assignments..

D: 60-69: Below-average performance. Demonstrated a lack of ability or motivation to read and be able to discuss reading assignments, unfamiliarity with topics discussed in class, and a failure to follow instructions on course expectations.

F: 0-59: Unacceptable performance. Failure to meet minimum criteria.

Your final grade will be assigned as a letter grade according to the following scale:

A          90-100%

B          80-89%

C          70-79%

D          60-69%

F          0-59%

This is a list of the assignments and each grade percentage summing to 100%. This course follows the general guidelines for correspondence of percentage grades to letter grades. Percentage grades will be rounded. For example, 89.5 will be rounded up to an A. 

1. 10% Activities
2. 10% Attendance
3. 10% Rough Drafts of Final Paper (2)
4. 30% Exams (2)
5. 30% Final Paper Parts (2)
6. 10% Policy Analysis Presentation

The best way to gain a comprehensive grasp of philosophical history in the ancient world is to be continuously engaged with the material. We will accomplish this principally through discussions in class that are fueled by the commentaries in your philosophical journals. Our ongoing dialogue will be supplemented by the other graded assignments. The final exam for this class is the final paper, which is to be submitted electronically no later than the class’ final exam time. All written assignments must be submitted on Canvas. All assignments are due by 11:59pm on the date listed above. In other words, if they have the correct day stamped on them, they are on time. Otherwise, they are late (see below for the late policy).

Graded Assignments

Video journals and mind maps (weekly, 4 total)              25% total

Debate (paper and in-class debate)                                   25%

Philosophical analysis paper and video                            25%

Final exam                                                                              25%

Video journals and mind maps

• Mind map:
  • diagram of all of the major ideas and the philosophers
  • arrows, annotations, drawings or anything else to show how the ideas and people relate to each other
  • If it doesn’t make sense to someone who is not in the course, it needs more detail
• Video:
  • 3-5 summary of all of the major ideas and people
    • It should make sense to someone who is not in the class
  • A casual conversation in addition to the summary (no time limit) describing:
    • Your reaction to and thoughts on the ideas
    • Anything you don’t understand (you are not expected to understand everything you read the first time – please be honest!)

The mind map should be so detailed that it covers all significant ideas and people so that it will still make sense to you a year from now (when you’re in the middle of another class and realize that you’ve seen the idea before when you were taking philosophy…) or even to someone who is not in the class. Make it as clear and simple as you can. 

I am principally looking for engagement with the material. Videos communicate a lot of information about how you are thinking about the material and how much time and energy you have put into understanding them. If you read the material, summarize it clearly, and reflect thoughtfully on the ideas, you will do well on this assignment. This does not have to be a difficult assignment… but there are no shortcuts. 

The structure of the videos should be as follows (each section is equally weighted):

What you need to get an A, B or C on the assignment is listed under each section below

1. Describe what the ideas are and how the arguments for them work

Rubric (letter grades correspond to the descriptions below):

1. Clear, accurate and thorough descriptions of the ideas, describing the philosopher’s arguments for them and a discussion of how those arguments work.
   1. Good, clear descriptions of the ideas and the arguments, lacking in some details
   2. Descriptions of the ideas that are lacking in significant ways.
2. Describe how they relate to similar ideas from earlier philosophers and their own contemporaries
   1. Clear and accurate discussion of the reception history of the ideas (how others responded to them) and any objections that they address in the work
   2. A good account of how the ideas relate to earlier ideas, but lacking in some ways
   3. An incomplete history and/or an account of how others responded and objections to the ideas that is significantly lacking or absent
3. Tell me what you think about the ideas
   1. A carefully considered and detailed reflection on the ideas, including an agreement or objection that details philosophical specifics about why you agree or disagree (e.g., citing a particular passage or specific detail of the argument) that also makes use of additional external sources that were not part of the assigned reading
   2. A good, thoughtful reflection on the ideas, including an agreement or objection that details philosophical specifics about why you agree or disagree (e.g., citing a particular passage or specific detail of the argument)
   3. A simple summary that restates the ideas without clearly conveying your own understanding of them

Weighting: 

• Mind map describing the main ideas and narrative threads      25%
• Video summary of the main ideas and figures                        25%
• Video discussion – your thoughts on the material                   50%

Note on the use of AI: This assignment changed when it became possible to generate the entire mind map from a single prompt with an AI image model in November 2025. I do not want to discourage you from using AI to do this to generate a first draft. It will be an essential skill for people to know how to do this with AI models. As such, I do not mind at all if you use an AI model to generate possible ideas for how to represent the material, potential narrative threads to describe, details to include, etc. That said, while AI is fairly good at philosophy, it is often rather surface-level in its detail. Your understanding of the material as a whole will be communicated with your presentation in the mind map. So it is, of course, imperative that you ultimately do your own work on the mind map itself. 

The same can be said for generating a script for the video portion. Do not read from a script. The conversation in the video should be casual and demonstrate your understanding of the material. It is difficult to fake natural nonverbal and verbal cues that communicate understanding. These are what I am looking for. Your comfort with the material and fluidity of thought when working through the ideas are ultimately what gets communicated with the videos. 

Please notice that the “video discussion” is half of the assignment’s value and is a casual discussion of your thoughts on the topics. I am interested in hearing you comment on the following items: 

1. What was the experience like for you when reading the material for the first time?
   • Was it convincing, confusing, clearly wrongheaded, really aligned with or totally out of step with your worldview… maybe you even thought was just a series of terrible ideas – that’s ok! Many of the philosophers we will cover thought that about other philosophers’ ideas. It is important to be honest and candid here. There is no “right” answer. The purpose of this is to encourage you to introspect about what you felt and thought and why you felt and thought what you did. In the process of doing that, you will communicate a lot about how you are thinking. As I like to say, I know what the philosophers said and I’ve heard it many times – but the thing I don’t know is what it is like for you to encounter the ideas. That is genuinely interesting to me!
2. What was most difficult or confusing in the reading? What was the easiest? Any surprises either way?
3. Did you find it easy or difficult to relate to the ideas? In other words, how immediately intelligible were they in the context of your existing worldview?
4. How clearly do you feel this material is connected and is a natural continuation of the historical trajectory of the previous material we’ve covered (for those who were not in my Ancient Philosophy class, we will review this on the first day). In other words, after understanding the individual arguments and getting the ideas well in hand, what happens when you take a step back and trying to look at the bigger picture of history with these ideas integrated into it? I am not expecting you to say that everything fits perfectly and you understand everything. That’s not a reasonable goal in philosophy. There are always more things to discover in history. Again, I want to know what you honestly think about the ideas and how you feel that they fit into a larger historical narrative. 

Important note: The easiest way to do poorly on this assignment and have problems for the course is to not turn these in on time. They must be done on time to receive full credit. Please see the late assignment policy below for details.

Note that the journal entries are due before the class meetings that cover each entry’s material. This engages you with the material you are reading before we cover it in class and gives us a lot of fodder for class discussions. 

Debate

The in-class debate is meant to be fun. My past experience doing this at Georgia Tech has been overwhelmingly positive. It has led to great conversations and a lot of quality arguments being presented. The in-class portion of the debate will be graded mostly for participation. Take a chance with what you say, go out on a limb and offer up interesting ideas and let’s discuss them. 

Basically, the in-class portion of each debate is just a more structured and well-researched version of our daily class discussions. The class will be divided into small groups, likely resulting in groups of 2-4 students per topic, with 1-2 students per side. Though the debate will be a group exercise in class, you will only be graded individually. Each group will select a pair of thinkers from the list on Canvas. Half of the group will argue for one side and half will argue for the other: Hegel vs. Kant, Heidegger vs. Husserl, etc. Each person will write a paper with the following structure: 

1. Statement of the question
2. Articulation of arguments against the position that you are taking (steelman this!)
3. Articulation of arguments and marshalling of evidence for the position you are taking
4. A discussion which more fully explains the debate on the topic
5. Replies to the objections

YOU NEED TO RESEARCH YOUR TOPIC AND CITE AUTHORITIES

There is no substitute for research. If you’re seeing the material for the first time, you won’t be able to replace the scholarship of those who have spent their lives researching and writing on that particular philosopher and topic. Leveraging their work will save you a lot of time and will enrich your discussion. I highly recommend finding books from the library on your specific topic. 

Feel free to number your sections. There is no requirement for the written form to look like a traditional essay. Paragraphs, citations, quotes, research and your own ideas are good. If that means copying Aquinas’ structure or the structure above, using headings, diagramming the argument or any other artifice you can think of, that’s fine. Use whatever will clearly communicate the ideas. 

For an example of this kind of writing, look at Thomas Aquinas’ disputed questions on evil (On Evil, trans. Richard Regan, available as an eBook through the library) or Spinoza’s treatment of ethics. As you can see with Aquinas, doing this well requires concise and clear descriptions of the possible positions for each side. Most importantly, your writing needs to be precise. As you dissect the nature of the debate, you will need to find the clearest and fastest method for getting to the heart of each possible position. Similarly, your responses to the opposing positions must address the specific details on how your response effectively dispenses with the kernel of each objection. It is in doing this that the work with your group will be most valuable. It is often far easier to see the shortcomings and gaps in your own argumentation in conversation with others. We allow ourselves to gloss over the weak points of our stances when thinking about them in isolation in a way that we cannot do when we are compelled to try and articulate our positions so as to help another person to understand them. 

This is an exercise in attention to detail in philosophical argumentation. 

Please note! The debate paper is not a formal academic paper. Please avoid fluff and extra wordiness at all costs. Just get down to the essential elements of each step of the argument you’re studying, your argument in response and the potential objections. If bullet points or diagrams work better, go for it. Just be mindful of the recommended length (~5 pages, 1000-1500 words)

The in-class portion of this assignment is 25% of the grade, with the other 75% for the written portion. For both portions, you will be graded on the clarity of your presentation and your facility with the material.

Philosophical analysis paper and video

The paper: 

You will be asked to submit a paper on any substantive philosophical topic in the course. The papers should be at least 2000 words. You must use and cite external resources. Research is the key to succeeding on this assignment. Citations should be done according to the Chicago Manual of Style (https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/chicago_manual_17th_edition/cmos_formatting_and_style_guide/chicago_manual_of_style_17th_edition.html).

In the paper, you will describe a position of a particular philosopher or philosophers (not too many – depth is key!) and do the following: 

1. Say what your topic is and what your thesis is. The essay should revolve around your original philosophical contribution. In other words, this is not a book report.  
2. Introduce the problem in the context of philosophical history – what led to this thesis being given by this particular thinker at this particular time? USE RESEARCH FOR THIS!
3. Describe the thesis in the context of that philosopher’s thought in general (e.g., Kant’s moral claims about duty fit neatly with the remainder of his philosophical system) You’ll want to use research for this too!
4. Describe your objection, modification or twist on the topic
5. Try and determine how that philosopher would have responded to your objection (AI agents are excellent for this)

To do well on this assignment, you will need to understand the figure that you discuss and his or her place in philosophical history. Although this is not an English course, since philosophers cannot often lean on numbers to make the point for them, they are left needing to clearly articulate their ideas in words. Thus, clarity in writing and grammar are important insofar as they facilitate the effective communication of your ideas. 

The video:

Along with the paper, I will ask you to submit a short video. This is not a summary of the paper. I want you to casually describe the thought process of the paper, emphasizing points where you thought about going a different direction, didn’t quite understand something or were surprised by something in your research. I want to hear about the process of doing the research and writing the paper. If you put a lot of thought into your own original philosophical ideas in the paper, this will be easy. Those who have AI agents write the papers for them (which is not allowed, of course – see below) will find this much more difficult. 

Special note on using online AI agents like ChatGPT for the writing assignments

As we will discuss and demonstrate in class, I expect you to make use of online AI writing tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude. Using tools like this will be an important skill for you going forward. We will talk about how to use them and what the limitations are (viz., they are sometimes wrong and they haven’t necessarily read the academic journals). You are of course expected to submit only your own work for the paper and not copy and paste material from these agents. That said, they provide excellent starting points and can be used to find clear and concise ways of saying things. Since these tools are maturing rapidly and provide clear prose with a single click, the level of clarity and writing expected by this assignment has naturally increased in kind. Similarly, the bar will be set higher for getting the information right. That is, since I know how easy it is to provide Wikipedia-level content for your topic from these agents, the onus is on you to make sure that the arguments are represented accurately and provide citations and quotations that support that. This will make the process of writing much easier and better in a variety of ways. I hope that it will enable us as writers in philosophy to focus more on research and quality of argumentation and less on the craft of writing and editing. While some professors are concerned about assigning papers since it is now so easy for students to have these agents write for them, I am embracing the new technology and want to help you to learn how to effectively use it. 

Final Exam

You have 75 minutes to complete 50 multiple choice questions. This is what I meant when I said that if you try to look up the answers without having studied, you will not finish the exam. The questions are drawn from a large test bank. You have a fixed number of questions for each philosopher, but the questions themselves and the order of the answers are random. 

You are not allowed to use external resources, notes, AI or other people. It is just like an in-class exam. 

The questions are meant to interleave the lecture, original material and commentaries we’ve read in such a way as to make them hard to look up or to use AI to find the answers. However, if you have made comprehensive mind maps, kept up with the readings and attended class, you have a great foundation for doing well!