Students’ Evaluations

Easiness: Helpfulness: Clarity:	“I took the Moral Foundations of Capitalism with Professor McCaskey, and it was a great class. Professor McCaskey is all you could ask for and them some: smart, fun, helpful, and caring. I looked forward to going to his class because it was fun and I learned so much. He is also a fine writer; your writing will improve if you take his class.”
Easiness: Helpfulness: Clarity:	“Professor McCaskey is good at helping students think about the course concepts. He did this by relating the readings to each other, providing readings with different moral arguments, and giving us detailed feedback on completed papers and drafts. The class environment made it easy for students who weren’t familiar with the material to participate.”
Easiness: Helpfulness: Clarity:	“Professor McCaskey is everything a college class needs. His course provides a variety of viewpoints on ideas that are important to students and demands nothing but the best thinking from all. Best professor at Stanford thus far.”
Easiness: Helpfulness: Clarity:	“Professor McCaskey opened my eyes to an entirely new world of that that I had not previously explored. He did of incredible job of helping grasp complex philosophical concepts and begin to formulate my owns opinions and judgments on the subject. He shared a genuine excitement for the material that was infectious and inspiring.”
Easiness: Helpfulness: Clarity:	“Professor McCaskey is an amazing professor. I took Moral Foundations of Capitalism, and it helped me formulate my own beliefs much more coherently. He handles discussions well, he brings a lot of passion to class, and his explanations are crystal clear. It was the best class I’ve taken so far, and I recommend that everyone try his classes.”
Easiness: Helpfulness: Clarity:	“Professor McCaskey is a talented educator. I looked forward everyday to attending his class and sharing the excitement he brings to learning. He did an incredible job of teaching a difficult subject and addressing the variety of student backgrounds and needs in the course. I highly recommend that everyone studies with McCaskey during college.”
Easiness: Helpfulness: Clarity:	“Professor McCaskey’s enthusiasm for course material was contagious. The course was well designed with a clear progression and development of central themes. I took a lot away from the course and highly recommend Dr. McCaskey to other students. He’s one of the best professors I’ve had at Stanford.”
Easiness: Helpfulness: Clarity:	“McCaskey is everything higher education needs: a teacher who cares about his students, incorporates a wide variety of viewpoints, and thoughtfully prepares the course.”
Easiness: Helpfulness: Clarity:	“McCaskey knows his subject, and his enthusiasm is infectious. Even students who had no prior interest in 19th century philosophy of science seemed engaged and excited. Overall, a great experience. Take a class from this guy.”
Easiness: Helpfulness: Clarity:	“McCaskey is by far and away the best professor at Stanford university. I have never taken such an enjoyable and interesting class. He is thoroughly devoted to teaching and every section is an exciting opportunity to hear his brilliant insights and learn from excellently lead discussions with your peers. He is an incredible professor!”
Easiness: Helpfulness: Clarity:	“Prof. McCaskey is amazing. This class was one of the best classes I’ve ever taken, and most of that is due to his way of teaching and engaging students in meaningful and insightful discussions. Awesome!”
Easiness: Helpfulness: Clarity:	“The class was very enjoyable, largely due to Dr. McCaskey’s charisma and an excellent reading list.”
Easiness: Helpfulness: Clarity:	“this man was enthusiastic and passionate about the course. the course covered 2500 years of the history of science and logic, and he was versed in every topic of discussion. he is as likable as he is intelligent. if you like the history of science and want to read Newton, Galileo, Aristotle, Heisenberg, Copernicus, and others, this is the course!!”
Easiness: Helpfulness: Clarity:	“He is a great teacher whose enthusiasm is contagious. This was the most enjoyable class I have taken at Stanford or anywhere else for that matter.”
Easiness: Helpfulness: Clarity:	“Prof McCaskey was awesome, especially with the small discussion class we had he was great at leading our talks and really emphasized student involvement. The class got really passionate, in large part because he relayed his own enthusiasm to us. I’d love to take another class with him, or just the same one again!”
Easiness: Helpfulness: Clarity:	“Prof. McCaskey is extremely knowledgeable, and his class was really cool and interesting. His standards are high but fair. His real strength in class is leading excellent discussions which are engaging and informative and, most of all, really bring the readings to life.”
Easiness: Helpfulness: Clarity:	“Excellent teacher. Very excited about the material, very interested in what the students have to say. The best class I have taken here.”
Easiness: Helpfulness: Clarity:	“He’s a great teacher and makes you really care about what you’re learning. Much more exciting than most history classes. Workload can be heavy at times, especially when there’s a paper due. Papers are graded hard but fair; the class grading system is nicely structured. Be prepared to participate!”
Easiness: Helpfulness: Clarity:	“Excellent Teacher. Inspires learning and curiosity. Eager to help each individual student.”

Instructor:

• “Best instructor I have had at Stanford. Forced students to think clearly; did not let anyone get away with hand waving in class discussion. Got students to think without belittling them, an unusually rare skill. Great attitude towards students. I felt challenged and respected.”
• “Professor McCaskey served the perfect role in this class. He was a supporter and a facilitator, but rarely was he a lecturer. That allowed us to grow and to learn because we never spat opinions at us. Rather, he questioned and drew analysis out of us. That is what a seminar is for.” “I’m naturally aggressive in debate and discussion. I’m always willing to share my thoughts, share my opinions, and think out loud. There were some other students who tended to be dominant, but not everyone was. Towards the middle of the quarter, Professor McCaskey made some attempts to draw out some of the quieter students. Professor McCaskey was successful in drawing them out, but I think he could have worked on that a bit earlier in the quarter.”
• “Professor McCaskey is the most talented instructor that I have encountered at Stanford. He personally engages with students and gets everyone in the room excited to be there learning. Even when a student is hesitant to participate, he finds a way to coax them into discussion and thus get the most out of the people in the room. His dynamic and brilliant work in the classroom extends to a dedication to students outside of the classroom that includes email conversations, dinner chats, and in general every effort in his power to make sure that one gets the maximum benefits of his course.” “He is too good of a teacher. He makes all other classes disappointing in comparison to his.”
• “Prof. McCaskey is very clearly passionate and extremely knowledgeable about the material covered in this course, and his enthusiasm for teaching makes class discussions engaging.”
• “Very effective teacher—one of the first I have had who was able to allow for rampant discussion in class while simultaneously ensuring that students were grasping the most important material. Very open to engage with students outside of class, and very thoughtful towards each individual teacher.”
• “Prof. McCaskey is a phenomenal teacher. Deftly facilitated engaging and intellectually exciting classroom dialogues. Some of the best class discussions I’ve ever had in college.” “Too little classroom time. Course definitely deserves at least another 30 more minutes a week”
• “Professor McCaskey is a really good instructor. The seminar was really intimidating at first because I was not already knowledgeable about the material. He sets a tone in the class that makes the environment relaxed so people feel comfortable expressing their ideas. I also liked the fact that he encouraged everyone to speak from the beginning. I also liked the fact that he didn’t tell us what to think or give us his opinion on things. His bias definitely would have made it difficult to give an opposing view. He was always pleasant. And he responded well to questions and gave plenty of good feedback on the papers. Overall, I think that he was a really good professor.” “In terms of teaching style, it would be nice if he could highlight the key take-aways from the readings by the end of class. The class discussion would always be great but many times I would leave and wonder whether I grasped all the concepts that he wanted us to grasp.”

• “all good except the following below:” “replace novak’s piece with something more on topic showing his argument instead of his historical analysis”
• “The readings covered a nice range of material and were neither too burdensome nor excessively easy.”
• “The readings were great—really interesting selection. They all fit together well in our discussions, and while I feel like there was a lot of reading that we had to do it was all very relevant and interesting, and was never overwhelming.”
• “Readings were great. I learned much from each one. The selection of works for the course was superb. A fascinating trip through time and space”
• “I really enjoyed all of the readings. I liked the fact that most of them were primary sources. I also liked the fact that the readings were assigned in chronological order. It helped me put the evolution of ideas into perspective.” “It was difficult to find time to read Atlas Shrugged in addition to the other course readings that we had to do. Perhaps every other week there could be a class that spends 30 minutes or so discussing the newly read chapters so that people don’t fall behind on the readings. The reading by Hayek was a little difficult to follow. I think it was because it was not one whole document or chapter but snippets out of a book.”
• “Excellent reading materials. Particularly the readings by Fitzhugh, von Mises, the Popes, and Rand” “Get rid of the Gilder piece.”
• “For the most part, the readings were fantastic. We tied them together well be comparing and contrasting them throughout the quarter. By reviewing the readings throughout the quarter, we were able to track major themes in political theory over time. Rand was great.” “The economists’ readings were dull in comparison to most of the other readings. I do think their take on capitalism is important, but I thought the emphasis we placed on them was excessive. More of Adam Smith and the Framers would be great.”

• “3 papers is perfect” “perhaps allow one of them to be a bit longer so we can really dive into a topic!”
• “The three papers required for the class seemed like an extremely fair way of evaluating students’ progress through the readings and understanding of the material. The fact that the papers were relatively short (900-1100 words) forced students to work on their technical writing skills in order to communicate effectively in fewer words.”
• “The assignments and exams were great at provoking a deeper level of thought towards the material. It was great that they were geared towards individuals pursuing their own interests in the readings. This allowed me to explore very thought-provoking topics, while simultaneously getting feed back from the professor so that I could engage with the ideas that I was exploring on deeper and deeper levels. I do not think I have ever gained so much from the assignments for a class, even though they were relatively short.”
• “Written assignments were valuable in reinforcing one’s command of the readings. The process of writing itself was great in polishing one’s mental organization and synthesis of the material, transforming it into written word. The feedback on the papers were extremely helpful.”
• “We had three papers in the course. The assignments enabled me to think about the concepts in different ways. They definitely enhanced my learning. I liked the fact that they were short. A lot can be said in 1000 words.” “I do feel as if the topics for the papers were too broad. Many times, I had no idea was the prof was expecting from the paper. I think that the professor could have helped gauge our learning by assigning a broad topic for each paper. He did it for the first but it would have been nice for the last two.”
• “The assignments were very appropriate for the course. Short and frequent papers were an effective way of getting students to think hard and write a little. This is a skill that many need to develop. Great call on assignment length. The short assignments were challenging because they were short; this is a good thing”
• “1000 word papers are nice, but they are difficult. There is so much material to work with that squeezing it all into 1000 words is a real task. However, the exercises do force us to cover very targeted issues and to do so concisely.” “Did Atlas Shrugged really need to be completed by week 7? Finishing by week 8 would have been (and was) fine for me. It was a lot to tackle, especially if one reads for ideas and concepts. If one is reading for speed, that’s a different story. But I almost never speed read because I think it’s a disservice to myself. Plus, I’m just a lousy speed reader. On top of the other readings Atlas was enjoyable, but sometimes it felt like a burden. I made Atlas the cornerstone of my personal course experience, but sometimes it was difficult to do that when I was concerned with the weekly readings.”

Overall:

• “In one’s academic career, it is unusual to find a brilliant professor at a top research university who is so genuinely dedicated to teaching. His class inspired me and provides me with that rare gift of an intellectual spark sufficient to push me to new heights of discovery. Learning from him reminds me why I came to Stanford because he renews my passion for the discovery of new knowledge every day.”
• “absolutely loved this class. I am not an Ethics or American History major, and have traditionally avoided philosophy classes but very much enjoyed the blend of philosophy and practicality that Prof McCaskey established in discussion. The small group of students allowed for extremely insightful and engaging discussions.” “I actually think making the class a two hours instead of an hour and fifteen minutes would benefit the depth of discussion. There were many occasions where I felt that there was much more discussion possible but the alloted class time was over (and in fact on several occasions discussions were simply taken outside and continued among interested individuals.)”
• “Most influential and insightful class I’ve taken at Stanford. A truly multi-disciplinary and immersive learning experience. Compelling readings. Captivating dialogues. Rewarding assignments. Passionate students. Exceptional instructor It would be a disservice to the Stanford community to not offer this class again. Students should have the fantastic opportunity to take this class in the future” “More classroom time. 2 and a half hours a week is way too short.”
• “Coming into this class I really had no opinions on individual rights or political systems. These were not subject taught in school or discussed. Perhaps it is partly because I got most of my primary and secondary school education outside of the United States. So being relatively green to this material, I can safely say that this course exposed me to a well rounded view of individual rights, and the morality of capitalism. The pace of the class was not too fast. And I really liked the review of the readings that we had every few weeks. This course was also different from others because it focused more on what the authors were saying instead of what students opinions of the authors were. I liked that.” “The class was heavily made up of conservative students. It would be nice next time if the course had a couple more non-conservatives. I think that the diversity in opinions would make this course really exciting.”
• “Definitely offer this course again. This course exposes students to concepts that many ought to be exposed to. It teaches students to think more completely than they probably do now. Please offer it again.”
• “I am excited when I can say that a class was in my Top 5 classes at Stanford. I can confidently say that this was the best class I have ever taken at Stanford. Honestly, most classes here are awful. The famous professors bring in attention and glory to the university, but they are really no good at teaching. They are boring, flat, and content to make their money reprinting the exact same editions of text books and politely taking issue with one another in academic journals. They are content to function in a rusty academic machine, one for which I have little respect. The Moral Foundations of Capitalism was a non-Stanford Stanford class. It was refreshing.”
• “Best professor I’ve had at Stanford University. Always warm, encouraging, and approachable. Provided excellent feedback on assignments. Clear goals, consistent with syllabus. Facilitated engaging discussions.”
• “This is one of the most fantastic courses that I have taken at Stanford. Professor McCaskey’s teaching makes my academic experience at Stanford worth the outrageous tuition expenses. He brings so much passion and talent to the classroom. Everyone should be required to study with him and benefit from his exuberance.”

• Professor McCaskey displayed an unbelievable amount of passion for the course, for its subject material, and most importantly, for the education of students in his class. He came to discussion every day with a clear idea of his lesson plan and how he was going to lead us to a better understanding of the texts we had read. While guiding discussion, he also listened to and genuinely learned from the points that students made. This impeccable combination of leading and listening, teaching and probing, makes him an excellent professor. He is the most exciting and talented instructor I have ever encountered in my life.
• Have more class time so that we can gain even more from the excellent opportunities he provides.
• Mill/Whewell was great
• add Bacon
• perfect
• I am thoroughly satisifed with every element of this course and I would take it again if I could. I plan to take every class that Professor McCaskey teaches at Stanford, because I can imagine no better use of my tuition or time, than learning from this incredible teacher.
• This was a great class. With only four students, it can be difficult to keep a discussion going, but McCaskey ensured that every student contributed and was heard. He clearly knows and loves his subject, and his enthusiasm is infectious.
• The focus on primary sources was absolutely spot on. The readings were well-chosen.
• I would add some Bacon next time, and maybe reduce Whewell and Mill to two weeks combined rather than three. I would not lose the statistics, though maybe some Peirce on chance rather than Jevons.
• Assignments were appropriately challenging.
• I would not encourage less reading. More would be OK (but I’m an unusual case, I suppose)
• Phenomenal class. Best educational experience I have ever had at Stanford. Can’t recommend it enough. Everyone should take it and enjoy McCaskey’s brilliance and passion for teaching.
• I really can’t speak highly enough. Even students in the class who appeared to have no particular need for or specific interest in the 19th century philosophy of science were engaged and excited by what many might consider dry material. That’s got to be down to McCaskey
• Professor McCaskey relates to students very well. He’s generous with his time, shares his enthusiasm for the material, and clearly cares about student progress.
• I loved the emphasis placed on primary texts in the course.
• I would include a few secondary sources that give a brief overview of the relevant history and major fault lines in the philosophy of science.
• The flexibility allowed in choosing paper topics made the assignments enjoyable and more helpful as a result.
• Professor McCaskey created the type of learning environment that makes a college experience: open discussion of all view points, an intimate engagement with the material, and demanding analysis of great works of scholarship.
• McCaskey is very engaging and helped drive the discussion to interesting places each class. I really felt like I learned alot about 19th cent. phil of science from this class.
• I really wish we read some Bacon. We often talked about Francis Bacon but had no solid background in it. Also, Jevons was probably the least interesting author.
• Short papers were great. They were challenging, but kept me engaged throughout the entire class.
• I really enjoyed this course and I feel like I now have a solid background with which to approach further study of 20th century philosophy of science.

• This is probably the best class I’ve taken at Stanford, and I’m an engineering major. The material is extremely interesting and thought provoking, Prof. McCaskey is awesome, and the work is 100% useful. Everyone should take this class!
• John’s ability to engage students and make them excited about the material is what makes him such an excellent discussion leader.
• One of the best I’ve taken at Stanford.
• this man was enthusiastic, well spoken, and incredibly educated on the course’s information, which was no small feat as it covered 2500 years of Scientific theory and logic. Not only could he clearly and effectively explain course concepts, but he could encourage each and every student to articulate and communicate their own thoughts towards the topic of discussion. this amalgamation between expertise and ability to guide a discussion with students from varied backgrounds created for a very fruitful intellectual environment. This was my favorite course at Stanford.
• all the material was off the greatest quality possible. from Newton to Aristotle, to Heisenberg, Dr. McCaskey picked the best works for a history of science course and organized them in a coherent way. this organization was not just chronological but to aid students in comparing and contrasting concepts and observing course themes.
• the readings were time consuming and sometime difficult but totally worth the effort. the paper requirement was confusing at first, but after I heard his explanation, that because everyone came from different backgrounds and each person would want to focus on different things. it makes sense.
• it was my favorite course at stanford. this professor went above and beyond to help each and every student along. no matter what the problem he would accommodate the student. if the student had heath problems he would work with him to meet his needs. if there was a very smart but very quiet student in the room, the professor would engage the student in a special manner and help that student participate.
• incredibly engaging, he wanted to get students talking and thinking about the material. he does a good job of leading students down to the concepts he wants us to understand. i think he provide solid comments on papers and was willing to help students with their topics. he was good at linking course topics together.
• contagious enthusiasm for the material.
• covered a lot of ground, sometimes with great depth
• the grading criteria on the papers could be more clearly defined.
• fun, insightful, and a good experience over all
• all the reading was engaging, except for the boring history stuff. i think primary materials could have been used to provide historical context to the course, of which there was little to none. i think it was good that we focused on a few texts at a time.
• feedback on paper topics and grading procedures was good. i think mccaskey did a good job of indicating what he wanted from me in my papers.
• more guidance on potential topics would have been appreciated, but at the same time, it was good to have lots of freedom to write on topics that we found interesting. i think if topics were limited, we might have been able to have more histo [sic]
• this course is awesome. keep it, please . this course was great because we had a wide range of students with a variety of academic backgrounds.
• more should be done to publicize this course for students in the social and physical sciences. this course should be required for all students interested in science and those who actually use the scientific method.
• Prof. McCaskey is AMAZING. His unbelievably thorough knowledge of this topic inspires students to want to learn the material even more. Plus he’s just an all-around awesome guy .
• All of the readings were useful and interesting.
• The papers were completely reasonable .
• It would be good to have a little more direction on the papers. It was cool to have complete freedom, but a little initial guiding couldn’t
• Probably the best class I’ve taken at Stanford . All around fun, interesting, and informational.

• The best professor I’ve had at Stanford—intelligent, interesting and interested, enthusiastic and endlessly encouraging.
• An amazing class—such a high level of intellectual stimulation, good discussions, and creative thought.
• I had such a great time in this class in large part because of McCaskey’s attitude toward the students and willingness to adjust the course to our interests. Showed a lot of passion and enthusiasm about what we were discussing and was really responsive to the student’s thoughts and comments.
• Personally, I thought a lot of the readings were really tough to get through. I was interested more in ideas rather than how the ideas were presented, so some of the primary sources weren’t always really clear as to what the author was trying to communicate. But reading the primary source is really important and I was glad for that experience as well.
• I loved it! Such a great group of students, great prof, great material. I learned so much and I’d take it again in a second because I know there’s so much more I could learn.
• Excellent intuition of students needs. The instructor knows how to ask good questions to help students think through what they were saying. He also knows how to just sit back and listen and let the student discussion take off.
• The scavenger-hunt assignments were very interesting! You learn so much when you take charge of the material and need to present it in an informal setting to the class. The readings were so inspiring for discussion: controversial, challenging, incomprehensible at times (in an insightful way). I liked that we read entire primary works and few secondary sources.
• I wish we could have not cut out the physics readings... If only the quarter were longer!
• Papers were excellent to review material and go more in depth in topics that interested the individual student. They were of good length and frequency— well balanced.
• The course content is excellent and greatly increases the student’s knowledge about history and, especially, helps to think about the current state of science/how science is done today. I really appreciated the thoroughness and intensity of the course! Thank you!!
• McCaskey’s passion for the material influences his students, and results in an incredibly enjoyable and informative 2 hour discussion seminar.
• The readings, though occasionally difficult, were refreshing, interesting, and always very different. I felt that after reading and discussing them I could improve upon and analyze my own understanding of science.
• Prof. McCaskey was fantastic. He was very encouraging and friendly, but he challenged every student to defend the implication of his or her assertions, which was a great exercise in critical thinking and argumentative skills. Prof. McCaskey made the material extremely accessible and engaging.
• The Aristotle reading was the most difficult, but it was still very worthwhile. Our short digression in the social sciences and chemistry was quite interesting and added to the breadth of the course. I felt that we covered some really important scientific concepts about which I have always been curious (evolution in particular).
• The workload could be spaced out between weeks a little more evenly, with a little more consideration for when papers are due.
• The papers were great assignments—they forced me to think critically and creatively about the material, and they really helped me engage with the readings. The number of papers (3) was just right. The final quiz was very easy but still helpful.
• Fantastic course; my best of the quarter. I’ve learned a lot about the subject of the course, but, more importantly, I’ve learned a great deal about how I think and about how others think. My critical thinking skills benefited greatly from this class.

Content: Teaching:	“Incredibly talented & approachable.” “A+"
Content: Teaching:	“I really appreciated the professor’s prompt feedback and help on essay topics.”
Content: Teaching:
Content: Teaching:	“Prof. McCaskey is very skillful at leading exciting, in-depth, & productive discussions. He encourages everyone to participate equally & is open to many viewpoints. Cares about students’ learning & respects their views. He made everyone comfortable.” “Best course I’ve taken in a long time. Best professor, too!”
Content: Teaching:
Content: Teaching:	“He kept individual contact with each student and inspired you to learn and research for your own interests.” “Excellent Class.”
Content: Teaching:	“Thorough knowledge of course material, passionate about the subject.” “The best history course I’ve taken here at Stanford. Do it again!”
Content: Teaching:
Content: Teaching:	“perfect” “Somebody should give McCaskey tenure. This was the best course I’ve taken at Stanford.”
Content: Teaching:	“Very interesting course overall-my first course on the history of science, and I really enjoyed it.”
Content: Teaching:	“One of the best courses I have ever taken at Stanford. Thank you.”
Content: Teaching:	“This course was very interesting. It was a wonderful insight into how history is written.”
Content: Teaching: