Teaching
My teaching is organized around a simple purpose: students should leave my courses with a stronger capacity to understand the social world around them. I want sociology to provide both analytical tools and a disciplined way of connecting concepts to institutions, markets, states, expertise, population change, inequality, and everyday social relations.
Across different subjects and levels, I ask students to move from concepts to application: to understand what problem an argument helps explain, put it to work on evidence or a concrete case, and then evaluate what it reveals and where it falls short.
Across different subjects and levels, I ask students to move from concepts to application: to understand what problem an argument helps explain, put it to work on evidence or a concrete case, and then evaluate what it reveals and where it falls short.
Teaching Philosophy
Four principles organize this approach:
Principle One
From Concepts to Use
I approach sociological concepts as analytical tools rather than material to be memorized. Students should understand not only what a concept means, but what kind of problem it helps us see, what assumptions it carries, and what becomes visible or remains hidden when we use it.
For this reason, I organize much of my teaching around movement from concept to application. We begin by reconstructing an argument carefully, then use it to interpret empirical evidence, a historical episode, a contemporary institution, or an everyday social problem. Students are also asked to compare competing explanations and identify where a concept becomes less useful or requires modification.
My goal is for students to leave a course able to transfer ideas beyond the examples in which they first encountered them. Whether we are working with ethnographic evidence, historical documents, demographic data, or statistical results, I want students to ask the same questions: What does this evidence allow us to claim? Which concepts help explain it? And what alternative interpretation might challenge our conclusion?
For this reason, I organize much of my teaching around movement from concept to application. We begin by reconstructing an argument carefully, then use it to interpret empirical evidence, a historical episode, a contemporary institution, or an everyday social problem. Students are also asked to compare competing explanations and identify where a concept becomes less useful or requires modification.
My goal is for students to leave a course able to transfer ideas beyond the examples in which they first encountered them. Whether we are working with ethnographic evidence, historical documents, demographic data, or statistical results, I want students to ask the same questions: What does this evidence allow us to claim? Which concepts help explain it? And what alternative interpretation might challenge our conclusion?
Principle Two
Structured Disagreement
I treat disagreement as a central part of sociological learning. Students should be able to distinguish between disagreement over evidence, disagreement over interpretation, and disagreement over values, and to understand that serious intellectual exchange requires making those differences explicit.
In class, I use structured debates, competing explanations, and evidence-based discussion to help students practice making claims, defending them, and responding to counterarguments. The goal is not to reward confrontation, but to make disagreement analytically useful: students learn to identify what kind of evidence would strengthen or weaken an argument and where competing perspectives genuinely diverge.
I want the classroom to be intellectually serious without being solemn. Students should feel comfortable testing an idea, revising a position, or acknowledging uncertainty while still being held to clear standards of reasoning and evidence.
In class, I use structured debates, competing explanations, and evidence-based discussion to help students practice making claims, defending them, and responding to counterarguments. The goal is not to reward confrontation, but to make disagreement analytically useful: students learn to identify what kind of evidence would strengthen or weaken an argument and where competing perspectives genuinely diverge.
I want the classroom to be intellectually serious without being solemn. Students should feel comfortable testing an idea, revising a position, or acknowledging uncertainty while still being held to clear standards of reasoning and evidence.
Principle Three
Participation, Reflexivity, and Co-Construction
I see the classroom as a space in which knowledge is produced collaboratively, but not without structure. I establish the core concepts, learning objectives, and analytical standards of the course, while creating opportunities for students to bring their own experiences, questions, cases, and intellectual interests into the discussion.
Participation therefore takes several forms. Students contribute examples from current events, propose cases that complicate a reading, connect course material to other fields, and reflect on how their own assumptions shape the questions they ask. I also use student feedback to adjust examples, activities, and sometimes readings when doing so strengthens the intellectual goals of the course.
Co-construction, for me, does not mean that every interpretation carries equal weight. It means that students learn to become active participants in the production and evaluation of knowledge: they are encouraged to contribute, but also to examine their own claims, listen carefully to others, and revise their understanding when new evidence or arguments require it.
Participation therefore takes several forms. Students contribute examples from current events, propose cases that complicate a reading, connect course material to other fields, and reflect on how their own assumptions shape the questions they ask. I also use student feedback to adjust examples, activities, and sometimes readings when doing so strengthens the intellectual goals of the course.
Co-construction, for me, does not mean that every interpretation carries equal weight. It means that students learn to become active participants in the production and evaluation of knowledge: they are encouraged to contribute, but also to examine their own claims, listen carefully to others, and revise their understanding when new evidence or arguments require it.
Principle Four
Feedback and Revision
I treat feedback as part of the learning process rather than as a judgment delivered at the end of it. Whenever possible, I structure assignments so that students can develop an argument over time, receive feedback, and use that feedback to improve both their reasoning and their final work.
My comments focus on the substance of an argument: the clarity of the question, the relationship between evidence and claims, the use of concepts, and the organization of reasoning. I want students to understand not only what could be improved, but why a particular revision would make the argument stronger.
I also treat teaching itself as iterative. Student feedback, classroom dynamics, and assessment results help me identify where an explanation, activity, or assignment is not working as intended. Revision therefore operates in both directions: students refine their work, and I refine the course.
My comments focus on the substance of an argument: the clarity of the question, the relationship between evidence and claims, the use of concepts, and the organization of reasoning. I want students to understand not only what could be improved, but why a particular revision would make the argument stronger.
I also treat teaching itself as iterative. Student feedback, classroom dynamics, and assessment results help me identify where an explanation, activity, or assignment is not working as intended. Revision therefore operates in both directions: students refine their work, and I refine the course.
Student Feedback
Student evaluations provide one way of seeing how these principles translate into the classroom. The comments below reflect different stages of my teaching across UC Berkeley, Bowdoin College, and the University of Oregon.
“He is such a great teacher and communicator and I really appreciate how he was able to create such an open and safe environment even though debates can get heated. He always found a way to break the ice and make sure we knew what to take from discussions. One of my favorite professors throughout my entire school at UO.”
University of Oregon
University of Oregon
“Professor Villacis is a great instructor. He was always trying to get student feedback and adjust the syllabus accordingly. The topics and readings were also really interesting as were the structured discussions and debates we had in class. He also is a great instructor for office hours connecting students to further resources.”
University of California, Berkeley
University of California, Berkeley
“I felt like he truly listened to student feedback and cared a lot about catering the class to how we learned. I also liked how every activity we did included high degrees of positionality. We almost never examined something in a vacuum; there were always outside social, economic, and political factors at play with everything we discussed. Certainly one of the best professors at Bowdoin.”
Bowdoin College
Bowdoin College
My courses span sociological theory, economic sociology, demography, expertise, elites, and the sociology of measurement.