Nathaniel Coleman

My first impression of Dr. Coleman was intimidating. I was taking both 220 and 324 at the same time. He made it clear that the classes would be tough to get good grades in, especially at the same time. I accepted the challenge and after a few weeks, I figured out how to retain notes and ideas from his lectures. His random tangents add a lot to his classes. He was one of the most inspiring teachers I've had. I got an A in both his classes.

One of my first memories of Dr. Coleman was the day he guest lectured in LA/Arch/ID 202. I remember thinking "is this guy for real?" Come to find out that this is the same lecture he gives as the intro to all his classes. Dr. Coleman is completely arrogant and loves to impress himself by using lots of big words, fancy quotes, and philosophical gibberish that really gets you nowhere. His lectures were always pure torture, and he never spent enough time on the material that we were actually getting tested on. The only upside is that while his tests weren't necessarily easy, they were not a reflection of the chaotic and overly philosophical nature of his lectures. If you studied a decent amount for them you could do well. This guy definately thinks way too highly of himself and I would have too agree 100% with the other evaluations (except the one that gave him all As). To the person who wrote that-you are probaby a good student anyway and liked the material enough to get out of it what you needed. Also, when we turned in our papers he gave everyone Cs and Ds initially, which is ridiculous considering it is a 200 level, non-writing class; I personally got a C- which is the lowest grade I've EVER received on a paper. Ridiculous.

Attending his lectures and taking notes was a pointless waste of time. I would have learned exactly the same information if I had only showed up for exams.

He's confused! He doesn't know the info he's lecturing on. I had to leave the class when he said that Michelangelo never understood the concept of perspective, or that Constantine effected Diocletian (not possible since he came after Dio), and about a million other mistakes that he's made. He seems to think the Romans spoke Italian instead of Latin, and attemps to pronounce everything as such. (The concept of an accent mark eludes him). If you know your art and your history then his lack of knowledge is nothing less than torture.

Satan Prays to this sorry excuse for a man