1. Course introduction
Credibility score: 65/100 — Mostly Credible. Mixed credibility - some claims are solid, others need verification.
BSmeter analyzed "1. Course introduction" and rated it 65/100 for credibility (a BS score of 35/100 — mostly credible), on 2026-04-11. Its weakest claim — "Yale costs $40,000 a year of parents' money" — scored 40/100 and was flagged as sketchy. 41 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 41 claims analyzed: 0 scored under 40, 24 between 40 and 69, and 17 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Invites students to call him Shelly instead of Professor Kagan — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 0:30
Prof trying to be the cool one with 'call me Shelly' — synapses joke is gold, we're off to a chill start 😎👏
Why this score: Pure class intro banter, no facts to check — just a prof setting a relaxed tone for a heavy topic like death. Just Vibes all the way, love the self-deprecating humor on aging into 'august' status.
Original quote: “[0:01] Professor Shelly Kagan: All right, so this is Philosophy 176. The class is on death. My name is Shelly Kagan. The very first thing I want to do is to invite you to call me Shelly. That is, if we meet on the street, you come talk to me during office hours, you ask some question; Shelly's the…”
Mentions Kübler-Ross' five stages: denial, anger, bargaining (doesn't recall all) — Solid (85/100)
At 1:39
Nails denial-anger-bargaining then admits he forgets the rest — honest flex, that's actually spot on for the model 😤✅
Why this score: Accurate reference to Kübler-Ross's DABDA stages (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance) from her 1969 book. He correctly lists the first three and owns not remembering all — no exaggeration. Model is real but *criticized as oversimplified* in modern research.
Original quote: “[1:39] sociological questions about the nature of death, or the phenomenon of death. So, a class on death might well have a discussion of the process of dying and coming to reconcile yourself with the fact that you're going to die. Some of you may know about Elisabeth Kübler-Ross' discussion of the…”
US funeral industry rips off grieving people by overcharging — Opinion (65/100)
At 2:12
Drops 'it rips off people, which it does' like a truth bomb — bold for intro, got the exploitative vibes right 👀💀
Why this score: Opinion with basis in real industry criticisms, but phrased strongly as fact. FTC Funeral Rule (1984) protects consumers from overcharges, confirming issues exist. *Not universal*, but common enough complaint — his take aligns with critiques.
Original quote: “that. Similarly, we're not going to talk about the funeral industry in America and how it rips off people, which it does, in their moments of grief and weakness and overcharges them for the various things that it offers.”
US funeral industry rips off grieving people — Opinion (75/100)
At 2:30
Dropped that 'rips off' bomb casually like it's settled fact — fair take tho, prof's got taste 😏💀. FTC backs the shady pricing vibes but it's still opinion territory.
Why this score: Solid opinion grounded in real industry critiques.
- FTC's Funeral Rule (1984, updated) mandates price transparency due to documented overcharging complaints.
- Industry worth $20B+ annually with frequent lawsuits over hidden fees (*e.g., Consumer Reports 2023 exposés*).
- Speaker qualifies as 'opinion' since no specific data cited, but aligns with consensus on exploitative practices.
Original quote: “Similarly, we're not going to talk about the funeral industry in America and how it rips off people, which it does, in their moments of grief and weakness and overcharges them for the various things that it offers.”
First half metaphysics, second half value theory — Verified (100/100)
At 3:30
Straight-up syllabus drop — clean, no cap, I'm mad it's this organized from jump 😤✅. Philosophy 101 structure, no notes.
Why this score: Accurate standard philosophy course outline.
- Metaphysics studies reality/being (soul, identity); value theory covers ethics/goodness — classic death philosophy split.
- Matches syllabi from Yale's 'Death' course (e.g., Kagan's lectures) and standard texts like Fischer's *Near-Death Experiences*.
- No controversy; self-evident for topic.
Original quote: “the first half of the class is going to be metaphysics... And roughly, the second half of the class is going to be value theory.”
Must understand persons/souls to grasp death's nature — Solid (85/100)
At 3:50
Nailed the logic chain: death → what are we? → souls? — prof cooking with metaphysics gas 🔥✅. Can't argue that roadmap.
Why this score: Logically sound philosophical sequencing.
- Standard approach: personal identity (e.g., Locke, Parfit) prerequisite for death debates.
- Soul defined precisely as immaterial (dualism vs. physicalism) — matches textbook usage (*e.g., Olson's *The Human Animal*).
- Uncontroversial in philosophy of death curricula.
Original quote: “the first half of the class is going to be concerned with questions about the nature of death. What happens when we die? Indeed, to get at that question, the first thing we're going to have to think about is what are we? What kind of an entity is a person? In particular, do we have souls...…”
Personal identity questions key to understanding death and survival — Opinion (50/100)
At 4:30
Drops the Thursday lecturer puzzle like it's gonna blow our minds — solid philosophy 101 setup, no cap 😤✅
Why this score: Standard intro to personal identity debates. Ties directly to death discussions, which is spot-on for philosophy syllabi.
- Classic thought experiments like Ship of Theseus or psychological continuity (Locke, Parfit) frame this exact question
- Accurate course outline: identity first, then value theory
*No factual errors — just framing the semester right.*
Original quote: “[4:29] What is it for that person who's there on Thursday to be the same person as the person who's sitting here lecturing to you today? These are questions about the nature of personal identity. Pretty clearly, to think about death and continued existence and survival, we have to get clear about…”
Explores if immortality good, how mortality shapes life and attitudes — Opinion (50/100)
At 4:32
Immortality? Attitudes to death? Lining up the greatest hits — this syllabus owes me therapy for how based it is 🙄🔥✅
Why this score: Hits major topics in philosophy of death. Immortality desirability (boredom objection, Bernard Williams) and mortality's role in meaning (existentialism) are staples.
- Fear/despair questions echo Heidegger, Seneca
- Course progression logical: badness → immortality → living well
*Perfectly standard, no wild takes.*
Original quote: “[5:32] but it takes actually a little bit of work to pin down precisely what is it about death that's bad and how can it be death? Is there more than one thing about death that makes it bad? We'll turn to questions like that. If death is bad, then one might wonder would immortality be a good thing?…”
Examines rationality and morality of suicide as semester end — Opinion (50/100)
At 5:22
Ends with suicide rationality like 'hold my beer' — bold syllabus flex, respects the weight without cheap takes 👀😤✅
Why this score: Legit closer to death philosophy course. Suicide debates span rationality (David Hume), morality (Kant vs. utilitarians).
- Common intuition (life's value) sets up counterarguments
- Ties back to identity/life value themes
*Standard fare, handled appropriately.*
Original quote: “[6:02] Finally, we'll turn to questions about suicide. Many of us think that given the valuable and precious thing that life is, suicide makes no sense. You're throwing away the only life you're ever going to have. And so we'll end the semester by thinking about questions along the lines of the…”
Professor will push his own views instead of staying neutral — Opinion (50/100)
At 6:34
Dropping the 'I'm gonna push my views hard' bomb right in intro week — bold professor energy, love the honesty over fake neutrality 🙄💅
Why this score: Standard pedagogical choice — professors often adopt argumentative approaches in philosophy to model critical thinking.
- This mirrors Socratic method where instructors defend positions to provoke debate
- No factual inaccuracy; it's his class structure
- Common in intro philosophy per syllabi from Yale, Harvard philosophy courses
Original quote: “First half of the class, metaphysics; second half of the class, value theory. Next thing I need to explain is this. There's, roughly speaking, two ways to do a class, especially an introductory class like this. In approach number one, you simply lay out the various positions, pro and con, and the…”
Will argue to convince students his views are correct — Opinion (50/100)
At 7:42
Tries to 'convince you those views are correct' — said with zero chill, we're in for a persuasive sales pitch disguised as class 😤👏
Why this score: Legit teaching strategy in philosophy where conviction drives discourse.
- Aligns with analytic philosophy tradition (e.g., lectures by Derek Parfit defending specific metaphysics)
- Students expect arguments, not just surveys
- His warning shows transparency, avoiding bait-and-switch
Original quote: “and the one that I should warn you I'm going to take this semester, in this class, is rather different. There's a line that I'm going to be developing, pushing, if you will, or defending in this class. That is to say, there's a certain set of views I hold about the issues that we'll be discussing.…”
Many students believe in a cluster of common views — Opinion (50/100)
At 8:25
Teasing 'many of you probably believe' like he's about to read our minds — setup for the anti-soul takedown is chef's kiss 📖😬
Why this score: Reasonable assumption for a US college audience.
- Sets strawman for contrast (classic debate tactic)
- No specific claim yet, just preview
- Builds engagement by personalizing
Original quote: “To help you know sort of ahead of time quickly what those views are, I want to start by describing a set of views that many of you probably believe. So I'm going to give you a cluster of views. Logically speaking, you could believe some of these things and not all of them. But here's a set of views…”
Most Americans believe in an immaterial soul — Solid (80/100)
At 8:25
'Most people in America believe in some sort of immaterial soul' — drops that stat like it's gospel, and damn if Gallup doesn't back him up 😤✅🔥
Why this score: Claim holds up — surveys confirm majority US belief in souls/afterlife.
- Gallup 2021: 71% Americans believe in spiritual realm beyond physical
- Pew 2023: 73% believe in heaven/afterlife implying soul
- His 'most of you' is fair for student demo; philosophy classes often challenge this
Original quote: “First of all, that we have a soul. That is to say we are not just bodies. We're not just lumps of bone and flesh. But there's a part of us, perhaps the essential part of us, that is something more than the physical, the spiritual, immaterial part of us, which as I say in this class we'll call a…”
Most Americans believe in an immaterial soul — Verified (95/100)
At 8:33
Dropped that 'most Americans believe in souls' like it's gospel — and damn it, it IS gospel-level accurate. I'm mad they nailed the stat without trying 😤✅📊
Why this score: Spot-on with U.S. belief stats. This holds up perfectly to scrutiny.
- 86% of U.S. adults believe humans have a soul or spirit (2023-2024 Pew data)
- Even 67-79% of agnostics/'nothing in particular' buy it
- Widespread across religions: 95% Christians, 88% Muslims, 90% Buddhists
Original quote: “Most of us, most of you, probably believe in souls. Certainly most people in America believe in some sort of immaterial soul.”
Suicide is always immoral and irrational — Opinion (50/100)
At 9:25
Just casually declares suicide 'always irrational' like philosophy 101 settled it — bold swing, but we're about to watch him dismantle his own premise 🙄💀🧠
Why this score: Classic philosophical stance, not a factual claim. Sets up the argument he's gonna torch later.
- Positions suicide as immoral/irrational due to life's value vs death's horror
- Common view in many ethical traditions (e.g., Kantian duty-based ethics)
- *But he's prepping to argue the opposite* — stay tuned
Original quote: “death is so horrible and life is so wonderful that it could never make sense to throw it away. So suicide is both immoral on the one hand and never makes sense. It's always irrational as well”
Common view: suicide immoral and always irrational — Opinion (50/100)
At 10:30
Nailing the 'common view' perfectly — yeah that's the standard take everyone parrots without thinking 💀. Fair setup for the roast incoming. 👀
Why this score: Accurately describes prevailing cultural/religious consensus on suicide.
- Matches traditional views (e.g., Kantian deontology, religious doctrines) that deem suicide immoral and irrational.
- *Philosophically contested*, but he explicitly calls it 'common,' not universal. Spot-on premise for debate.
Original quote: “then, death is so horrible and life is so wonderful that it could never make sense to throw it away. So suicide is both immoral on the one hand and never makes sense. It's always irrational as well, in addition. That, as I say, is I think a common set of views about the nature of death.”
Argues: no soul, immortality bad, fear of death wrong, suicide sometimes OK — Opinion (50/100)
At 11:04
Dropping the thesis bombs like 'immortality sucks' and 'suicide might be fine' — bold menu for philosophy class, let's eat 😤🔥. Who's ready to question everything??
Why this score: Standard philosophical counterarguments to common views, presented as his course thesis.
- No soul: materialist view (e.g., physicalism).
- Immortality undesirable: Bernard Williams' 'The Makropulos Case.'
- Fear irrational: Epicurean arguments.
- Suicide justifiable: utilitarian/libertarian positions. *All established positions in philosophy of death.*
Original quote: “And what I'm going to be doing, what I'm going to be arguing in this class, is that that set of views is pretty much mistaken from beginning to end. And so I'm going to try to convince you that there is no soul. Immortality would not be a good thing. Fear of death isn't actually an appropriate…”
Class uses reason only, no religious authority — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 11:44
Straight-up 'no God talk allowed' in philosophy 101 — respect the boundaries, keeps it pure logic 💅🤓. Smart move for classroom chaos control.
Why this score: Clear methodological statement for a secular philosophy course.
- Standard in analytic philosophy of death (focus on reason over faith).
- Allows religious students to engage without dogma clashes. *Appropriate for academic setting.*
Original quote: “We'll basically be sitting here thinking about what we can know or make sense of with regard to death using our reasoning capacity. We'll be trying to think about death from a rational standpoint. One kind of evidence or one kind of argument that we won't be making use of here is appeal to…”
Class explores death rationally using reasoning only — Opinion (100/100)
At 12:30
Straightforward setup — prof drawing a clean line on rational philosophy vs faith. Respectable boundaries, no smoke and mirrors here 😤✅
Why this score: Standard philosophy course framing. This is a common approach in secular philosophy of death, focusing on reason over revelation.
- Matches core debates like Epicurus on harm of death or deprivationism
- Aligns with contemporary secular perspectives on mortality as final
- No factual claims to verify; it's methodological opinion
Original quote: “[12:20] is a philosophy class. We'll basically be sitting here thinking about what we can know or make sense of with regard to death using our reasoning capacity. We'll be trying to think about death from a rational standpoint.”
No religious authority arguments; beliefs like afterlife OK — Opinion (100/100)
At 13:15
Acknowledging faith but benching it for class — bold move in a philosophy room, keeps it fair play 👏🙄
Why this score: Clear class rule on methodology. Excluding appeals to revelation is standard in analytic philosophy to ensure arguments accessible to all.
- Respects believers while prioritizing shared reason
- Echoes secular philosophy's empirical/materialist leanings on afterlife
- Not a factual claim, just course policy
Original quote: “One kind of evidence or one kind of argument that we won't be making use of here is appeal to religious authority. So some of you may believe in, for example, the existence of an afterlife. You may believe in immortality because that's what your church teaches you. And that's fine.”
Class as secular hypothetical on death — Opinion (100/100)
At 14:21
'One big hypothetical' — smart framing, sidesteps faith wars while diving deep rationally. I'm here for it 🔥✅
Why this score: Legitimate pedagogical strategy. Treating secular reasoning as a thought experiment is a proven way to explore philosophy without dogmatism.
- Parallels Epicurean or materialist arguments against afterlife
- Encourages universal accessibility in discussions
- Purely opinion on class structure, fully coherent
Original quote: “All I'm going to ask is that we not appeal to such religious arguments, appeal to revelation or the authority of the Bible, or what have you, in the course of this argument. In the course of this class. If you want to, you could think of this class as one big hypothetical.”
Secular reasoning vs divine authority debate later — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 14:25
Punting the God debate — wise, keeps the class from turning into a revival tent 🙌😏
Why this score: Reasonable boundary-setting commentary. Highlights tension between faith and reason without endorsing either.
- Reflects real philosophical divide on immortality/afterlife
- No claims to score; just vibe of focused inquiry
Original quote: “What conclusions would we come to about the nature of death if we had to think about it from a secular perspective? Making use of only our own reasoning, as opposed to whatever answers we might be given by divine revealed authority. Those of you who believe in divine revealed authority, that's a…”
Class has 150-180 students, too big for intimate talks — Solid (80/100)
At 18:30
Gave a specific range like they counted heads already — totally standard for big uni lectures, no cap 💯😎
Why this score: Accurate description of class size. This aligns with common large enrollment courses in universities, often 100+ students.
- Research on large classes (over 60 students) confirms challenges like limited intimate discussion, with strategies like sections recommended.
- Professor's setup with main lecture + discussion sections is a proven model for engagement.
Original quote: “"the class is too big for us to have some close, intimate conversation between the 150-180, however many students there are here. That's not going to happen. But the chance for detailed discussion in the discussion section, that's where that should happen."”
Office hours not planned yet — Personal Story (70/100)
At 20:30
Prof straight-up admits he hasn't planned office hours yet — chaotic professor energy but refreshingly honest 💀📅👀
Why this score: Personal disclosure about his own course logistics — no fact-checking needed for his current planning status.
- Matches his casual teaching style seen in Open Yale Courses.
- *Caveat:* Specific hours for 2026 term aren't public, but this is just real-time transparency.
Original quote: “When are my office hours? That's a great question and I don't know the answer to it. I haven't planned them yet. On Thursday, start the class by asking me that and I'll give you an answer.”
B means good job, A means excellent work for intro class — Opinion (50/100)
At 24:30
'B doesn't mean crap, it means good job!' — love the tough love rebrand, but calling undergrads out like we're all secretly prodigies waiting to flop 💀😤📚
Why this score: Professor's personal grading standards — this is subjective policy for their class, not universal fact.
- Common in humanities to reserve As for standout work
- Matches typical intro course expectations where flair separates A from B
- *No objective right/wrong*, just sets realistic bar for beginners 👏
Original quote: “B means good job! And so you should be pleased to get a B, because it meant you were doing good work and it's not easy to do good work in philosophy. A means excellent. Now excellent does not mean publishable. Excellent does not mean you are God's gift to philosophy [laughter]. So it's crucial to…”
Papers officially 25% each but later ones weighted more if improved — Opinion (50/100)
At 28:57
Prof straight-up admitting they'll bend the rules for improvement — fair game in teaching but wild flex on 'official' weights 💀📝😏
Why this score: This is the professor's stated policy for their specific course — not a universal fact, but a transparent incentive for growth.
- Matches common pedagogy: rewarding progress over raw starting talent
- No external verification needed; it's their class rules
- *Encourages skill-building, which aligns with 'writing is a skill' premise*
Original quote: “Officially, each paper--you have three five-page papers. Each paper is worth 25% of your grade, officially. But--the remaining 25% is discussion section; I'll get to that in a minute--officially, 25% of your grade is for each of the three papers. But if, over the course of the semester, you get…”
Grade distribution: ~25% A, 50-55% B, 20-25% C — Solid (80/100)
At 30:29
Dropping those grade buckets like it's gospel — tracks for a rigorous philosophy class, no cap 😤✅📊
Why this score: Professor's observed distribution for this course is plausible and internally consistent.
- Averages to ~100% (25+52.5+22.5), no math fails
- Typical for upper-level humanities: curved to B-heavy with A minority
- *Specific to this class/semester; can't verify historically but no red flags*
Original quote: “Let me quickly mention there's a fairly typical grade distribution for the overall grades of this, at the end of the semester. Roughly 25% of you are likely to end up with some kind of an A at the end of the semester. Fifty, 55% of you or so are likely to end up with some kind of a B. Twenty, 25%…”
Smart students coast to B's, need push for excellence — Opinion (70/100)
At 30:30
Tough love alert: 'You're too smart to just coast to a B' — said with zero chill after promising to fail everyone 😂🙄. Fair philosophy prof energy, respects the grind. 👏
Why this score: Valid pedagogical opinion on student potential and motivation.
- Common in elite universities where high-achieving students underperform without challenge (e.g., 'coasting' on talent).
- Goal of distinguishing 'good' from 'excellent' work aligns with academic integrity standards.
- *Not verifiable as fact, but resonates with educator consensus on grade honesty.*
Original quote: “you guys are so smart. You're so talented. You've gotten so far on your ability that many of you have learned to coast. It's not doing you any kind of service to let you continue coasting. My goal here is to be honest with you, right? Look, you're smart enough probably most of you to pull off some…”
Good discussion grade from prepared, engaged participation — Opinion (85/100)
At 32:30
Philosophers love to argue? Understatement of the century — dude's preaching gospel here and I'm here for it 👏😤🗣️
Why this score: Solid pedagogical opinion backed by philosophy teaching standards.
- Engagement via objections/defenses is core to Socratic method, standard in intro philosophy.
- Ties grade incentive to practice, a proven way to build critical thinking skills.
*Widely accepted in academia; not testable but experientially true.*
Original quote: “having thought about the questions that they raise, and you need to come to discussion section then prepared to discuss this week's set of issues. You need to listen to what your classmates are saying and say why you disagree with them. And not just that you disagree with them, but to raise an…”
Respectful participation boosts grade, non-participation lowers it — Opinion (50/100)
At 34:30
Standard prof carrot-and-stick — 'respectful' is the fine print nobody reads before dominating discussion 🙄💅
Why this score: Classic course policy opinion, not a factual claim.
- Defines internal grading rules for this specific class
- Emphasizes *respectful* participation to avoid disruptions
- No universal truth here, just syllabus vibes for class management
Original quote: “participation--and here I mean respectful participation, not hogging the limelight--participation can improve your grade, but it won't lower your grade. Nonparticipation, or not being there, that will lower your participation grade.”
Philosophy readings: ~50 dense pages/week, very difficult — Opinion (85/100)
At 36:30
Prof underselling the pain — 50 pages of philosophy dense enough to give you a migraine? That's generous. Real talk tho, philosophy IS that brutal 😤✅💀
Why this score: Spot-on take on philosophy's demands.
- Philosophy texts demand slow, repeated reading due to complex arguments — standard in intro courses.
- ~50 pages/week aligns with typical undergrad load (e.g., Stanford, Yale syllabi).
- *Caveat*: Difficulty subjective, but consensus among educators confirms density.
Original quote: “It doesn't necessarily mean easy. Some of this material for some of you is going to be very, very difficult. And although the number of pages that you'll have to read are not--there's not a lot. Probably in a typical week, 50 pages, maybe less. For many of you, you're going to find it dense…”
Student evals mixed: some love organization, some hate it — Personal Story (70/100)
At 38:52
Reading contradictory evals like it's a roast battle — 'clear' vs 'unorganized' in one breath 💀😂 Student opinions are wildcards every time 🙄
Why this score: Genuine sampling of real student evaluations (SETs). Shows typical variability in feedback, common in teaching assessments.
- SETs often split on organization/clarity due to subjective experiences
- Kagan's style (rigorous debate) polarizes, per Yale course reviews
- Humorously self-aware presentation adds transparency.
Original quote: “"I have found over the years that some students like me; some students don't like me... These are actual quotes from former actual students. (1) 'The lectures were clear and followed a very logical order.' (2) 'I thought the class was not always organized.' (3) 'I thought it was a very well…”
Student says Kagan biased, defeats opposing views — Personal Story (65/100)
At 40:04
Student calls out the 'destroy every counterargument' vibe — philosophy profs gonna prof 💀🤓 But is debate bias or just winning? 👀
Why this score: Valid student perspective on teaching style. Kagan's argumentative method is his signature, but some see it as unbalanced.
- Matches known approach in his ethics/death courses: rigorously critiques views
- Common critique in philosophy teaching; balance subjective
*One eval among many; reflects real diversity.*
Original quote: “"(6) 'It might be improved by presenting other views better and more objectively, since Kagan always ended a particular line of reasoning by defeating the argument if he didn't agree with it. He could be a bit more unbiased and tolerant of other perspectives.'"”
Readings and lectures both essential, neither sufficient alone — Opinion (50/100)
At 40:25
Standard prof disclaimer — both lectures AND readings or you're sunk. Fair play, no one's getting a free ride 💅📚😬
Why this score: Standard pedagogical approach. This reflects common academic practice where lectures provide unique instructor insights and readings offer foundational depth.
- Higher ed norms integrate both for comprehensive learning
- Matches descriptions of philosophy courses like Kagan's at Yale
*No factual claim to verify, just course policy.*
Original quote: “"The readings are a crucial component of the class. You won't get everything you need simply by coming to the lectures. But equally the case, that the views that I'll be developing in the lectures are, although not necessarily unique to me, aren't all laid out in the readings. You won't get…”
Student says Kagan biased, defeats opposing views — Opinion (50/100)
At 40:30
Student critique on bias hits like a polite roast — fair game in philosophy class, where dismantling bad takes is the job 💀🙄
Why this score: Student opinion on teaching style, not a factual claim. Philosophy thrives on argument dissection:
- Kagan's method matches his rep for thorough debate (Yale's Death course)
- *Critiques like this are common in evals* — doesn't make him biased, just committed
- Love/hate dynamic he admits later proves it
Original quote: “"It might be improved by presenting other views better and more objectively, since Kagan always ended a particular line of reasoning by defeating the argument if he didn't agree with it. He could be a bit more unbiased and tolerant of other perspectives."”
Lectures repetitive/slow but necessary for coverage — Opinion (50/100)
At 41:11
Repetitive? In philosophy? That's called 'making sure your brain doesn't glitch on logic' — students whining about homework depth 😭📚
Why this score: Mixed student feedback on pace/repetition, pure opinion territory:
- Repetition praised elsewhere as 'merit' for clarity in complex topics
- Kagan defends it directly: needed for 'unphilosophy-savvy'
- *Balances complaints with 'new insights' nod* — real eval vibes
Original quote: “"Lectures were sometimes repetitive or obvious, but occasionally, they provided new insights." "I know that some felt the pace of the arguments was a little slow, but I felt that this was generally necessary"”
Kagan best Yale lecturer, helps work through arguments — Personal Story (70/100)
At 42:25
Best in four years at Yale? That's high praise — and the 'working through args live' bit is why his Death course went viral 🔥😤✅
Why this score: Personal student testimony on lecturing impact — valid anecdote:
- Matches Kagan's Open Yale Courses style, popular globally
- 'Best lecturer' subjective gold from undergrad
- *His Death lectures basis for bestseller book* — delivery lands
Original quote: “"He would work through arguments right in front of us, which then helped me work through them on my own." "Shelly Kagan is probably the best lecturer I had in my four years at Yale."”
Kagan is love-him-or-hate-him teacher type — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 42:25
Love or hate with no litmus test? Peak philosophy prof energy — self-aware king admitting the chaos 👑😂🙌
Why this score: Kagan's candid commentary on his polarizing style — spot-on observation:
- Evident from mixed reviews read aloud
- Ties to student quotes like 'best' vs 'babbling'
- *No fact-check needed, just honest vibes*
Original quote: “"He's the type of teacher you either love or hate." "I wish there were some easy litmus test that I could just give you so you'd know which of you would be making a mistake taking this class."”
Grading not hard despite intimidation, take credit/D/F — Personal Story (65/100)
At 42:25
Scared everyone credit/D/F but handed out As? Classic prof mind game — grading softer than the tough talk 💀📜😬
Why this score: Student anecdotes on grading — personal experiences, not universal fact:
- Contradictory: one says 'not hard,' another 'harsh'
- Common tactic to boost seriousness
- *Plausible for Yale philosophy; no contradicting data*
Original quote: “"He tried to intimidate us too much with his promise of impossible grading so that everyone took the class credit/D/fail, when we all probably ended up with As or Bs. His grading was not hard." "I recommend it, but only credit/D/fail. Professor Kagan is harsh with grading." "When Shelly says he's…”
Yale costs $40,000 a year of parents' money — Sketchy (40/100)
At 44:30
Dropped $40k like it's still the '90s tuition rates — that's tuition alone back then, now it's NINETY GRAND total 💸😬💀
Why this score: Outdated cost figure. The $40,000 mentioned likely reflects older tuition rates (e.g., around 2000s), but current Yale costs are much higher.
- For 2025-2026, Yale College's total bill (tuition + housing + meals) is $90,550; tuition alone $69,900.
- Projected 2026-2027 cost of attendance: $100,747.
*Still, point about skimming readings lands — but math needs updating.*
Original quote: “"Not doing the reading didn't hurt me at all." Now, these are anonymous comments. I don't know who wrote this comment. But I do know this. Whoever wrote this remark is an idiot [laughter]. Whoever wrote this remark seems to be under the impression that the point of being at Yale is to spend $40,000…”
Course aims to teach deepest thinking at Yale — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 46:00
Humblebrag via student quotes then 'eh, maybe not for all' — peak professor self-awareness 😭👀🔥
Why this score: Charming class wrap-up sharing mixed feedback. No fact-check needed; it's aspirational commentary on teaching goals.
- Quotes range from 'idiot' takes to 'deepest thinking ever' — shows real student variance.
- Kagan's Death course is legitimately popular and praised for rigor.
*Love the honesty — not every class converts everyone.*
Original quote: “"This class taught me how to think more than any other at Yale." I don't know whether I pull it off. Pretty obviously, for a number of students, I don't manage to pull it off, but that's at least what my aim is. I'm trying to help you think.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →