Top Law Schools

neptunian wrote:Just got section assignment! What are your thoughts on Seligman,Greiner,Okediji, Sustein, and Donahue?

I think if you search this thread I've probably posted my thoughts on Donahue before:

He is very old, ridiculously brilliant, and hilarious. However, he is so smart that it's just unfathomable to him how little 1Ls know about law, so he doesn't do a great job of breaking things down. He goes off on bizarre tangents and assumes all sorts of baseline knowledge that's not there -- I remember he spent like a half hour talking about estoppel, which was the first time any of us had heard the word. Somebody finally asked, "what's estoppel?" He paused, looked confused, and said, "well, it's where one party is estopped from something" and kept on talking.

I think there's a particular outline he recommends, and this is one of the few classes where it makes sense to buy it and follow along.

You can also get all of his class discussion questions online from the exam / notes banks, if you're into that.

His exams are wild. Don't you dare look at one until at least November because you will cry. But they're actually quite interesting as law school exams go. Or maybe I'm just a huge nerd.

The thing about Donahue is to just relax and enjoy the ride. Don't worry if you don't understand everything right away -- nobody else does either.

flyingboy wrote:

wubwubwub wrote:

neptunian wrote:Just got section assignment! What are your thoughts on Seligman,Greiner,Okediji, Sustein, and Donahue?

Congrats on Section 2! Greiner is fantastic, but assigns a massive amount of reading. Sunstein is one of the most prominent professors at HLS but I don't know anything about what he's like as a teacher. Donahue is probably the worst professor at HLS but surviving him will be a bonding experience for your section. Who's your LRW prof? If it's Ian Samuel you're in for a treat. Just wait until you discover his twitter.

I believe Sunstein is one of the worst rated professors at HLS too. Most people I talked to did not like him as a teacher.

Same section here. Aaaaand now these comments are making me worried.

flyingboy wrote:

cannonballer wrote:Guess I'll jump on the bandwagon and see if anyone has any feedback regarding profs for Section 3:

Rubenstein (CivPro)
Kennedy (Contracts)
Ristroph (Crim)
Mann (Property)
Encarnacion (LRW)

You wouldn't really learn Contracts from Kennedy, who will mostly just talk about whatever interests him. I've heard good things about Rubenstein as a teacher. For Bruce Mann, get a hornbook and read it before class, it will help you follow along with his questions and actually learn Property; Bruce will tell you not to get hornbooks, ignore him.

Seconding the recommendation regarding Mann to get a hornbook and read it before class. I believed him when he said not to and I didn't; I came to regret it. I don't know if he's changed anything in the last six years (seems unlikely), but my notes — which basically transcribe the class — are probably still floating around the ether (in outline banks somewhere or other).

bobgenghiskhan wrote:

flyingboy wrote:

wubwubwub wrote:

neptunian wrote:Just got section assignment! What are your thoughts on Seligman,Greiner,Okediji, Sustein, and Donahue?

Congrats on Section 2! Greiner is fantastic, but assigns a massive amount of reading. Sunstein is one of the most prominent professors at HLS but I don't know anything about what he's like as a teacher. Donahue is probably the worst professor at HLS but surviving him will be a bonding experience for your section. Who's your LRW prof? If it's Ian Samuel you're in for a treat. Just wait until you discover his twitter.

I believe Sunstein is one of the worst rated professors at HLS too. Most people I talked to did not like him as a teacher.

Same section here. Aaaaand now these comments are making me worried.

Greiner is absolutely a treat, and I had Seligman and am happy to provide more thoughts if you PM.

tomwatts wrote:

flyingboy wrote:

cannonballer wrote:Guess I'll jump on the bandwagon and see if anyone has any feedback regarding profs for Section 3:

Rubenstein (CivPro)
Kennedy (Contracts)
Ristroph (Crim)
Mann (Property)
Encarnacion (LRW)

You wouldn't really learn Contracts from Kennedy, who will mostly just talk about whatever interests him. I've heard good things about Rubenstein as a teacher. For Bruce Mann, get a hornbook and read it before class, it will help you follow along with his questions and actually learn Property; Bruce will tell you not to get hornbooks, ignore him.

Seconding the recommendation regarding Mann to get a hornbook and read it before class. I believed him when he said not to and I didn't; I came to regret it. I don't know if he's changed anything in the last six years (seems unlikely), but my notes — which basically transcribe the class — are probably still floating around the ether (in outline banks somewhere or other).

Thank you to you both!

bobgenghiskhan wrote:

flyingboy wrote:

wubwubwub wrote:

neptunian wrote:Just got section assignment! What are your thoughts on Seligman,Greiner,Okediji, Sustein, and Donahue?

Congrats on Section 2! Greiner is fantastic, but assigns a massive amount of reading. Sunstein is one of the most prominent professors at HLS but I don't know anything about what he's like as a teacher. Donahue is probably the worst professor at HLS but surviving him will be a bonding experience for your section. Who's your LRW prof? If it's Ian Samuel you're in for a treat. Just wait until you discover his twitter.

I believe Sunstein is one of the worst rated professors at HLS too. Most people I talked to did not like him as a teacher.

Same section here. Aaaaand now these comments are making me worried.

Same here PMed

despina wrote:

neptunian wrote:Just got section assignment! What are your thoughts on Seligman,Greiner,Okediji, Sustein, and Donahue?

I think if you search this thread I've probably posted my thoughts on Donahue before:

He is very old, ridiculously brilliant, and hilarious. However, he is so smart that it's just unfathomable to him how little 1Ls know about law, so he doesn't do a great job of breaking things down. He goes off on bizarre tangents and assumes all sorts of baseline knowledge that's not there -- I remember he spent like a half hour talking about estoppel, which was the first time any of us had heard the word. Somebody finally asked, "what's estoppel?" He paused, looked confused, and said, "well, it's where one party is estopped from something" and kept on talking.

I think there's a particular outline he recommends, and this is one of the few classes where it makes sense to buy it and follow along.

You can also get all of his class discussion questions online from the exam / notes banks, if you're into that.

His exams are wild. Don't you dare look at one until at least November because you will cry. But they're actually quite interesting as law school exams go. Or maybe I'm just a huge nerd.

The thing about Donahue is to just relax and enjoy the ride. Don't worry if you don't understand everything right away -- nobody else does either.

Hahaha thanks for the insight! Do you think we should just raise our hands whenever he starts talking about something we don't know or would he get annoyed by that?

TCR for property in general is to just buy the Gilbert Summary. I had Glendon and literally did not know any property the day before the test. But I bought the Gilbert guide, took a couple practice tests, and passed.

Seriously, Gilbert will keep you straight.

tomwatts wrote:

flyingboy wrote: You wouldn't really learn Contracts from Kennedy, who will mostly just talk about whatever interests him. I've heard good things about Rubenstein as a teacher. For Bruce Mann, get a hornbook and read it before class, it will help you follow along with his questions and actually learn Property; Bruce will tell you not to get hornbooks, ignore him.

Seconding the recommendation regarding Mann to get a hornbook and read it before class. I believed him when he said not to and I didn't; I came to regret it. I don't know if he's changed anything in the last six years (seems unlikely), but my notes — which basically transcribe the class — are probably still floating around the ether (in outline banks somewhere or other).

Thirded. There was someone my year who DS'd Mann's class but otherwise getting straight Ps for the semester. That person used a hornbook (Gilbert's, I think).

Any thoughts on Singer, Sullivan, and Frug? Also on the best way to handle early morning classes?

neptunian wrote:

bobgenghiskhan wrote:

flyingboy wrote:

wubwubwub wrote:

neptunian wrote:Just got section assignment! What are your thoughts on Seligman,Greiner,Okediji, Sustein, and Donahue?

Congrats on Section 2! Greiner is fantastic, but assigns a massive amount of reading. Sunstein is one of the most prominent professors at HLS but I don't know anything about what he's like as a teacher. Donahue is probably the worst professor at HLS but surviving him will be a bonding experience for your section. Who's your LRW prof? If it's Ian Samuel you're in for a treat. Just wait until you discover his twitter.

I believe Sunstein is one of the worst rated professors at HLS too. Most people I talked to did not like him as a teacher.

Same section here. Aaaaand now these comments are making me worried.

Same here PMed

I only had Sunstein for a policy course (his inside government course with Larry Summers). The course was kindof a mess, but I enjoyed him as a lecturer on it. I have heard it said that he is very different in a doctrinal course, though.

.

sidequest wrote:Any thoughts on Singer, Sullivan, and Frug? Also on the best way to handle early morning classes?

Thoughts on Sullivan: lol, good luck.

slippin_jimmy wrote:

sidequest wrote:Any thoughts on Singer, Sullivan, and Frug? Also on the best way to handle early morning classes?

Thoughts on Sullivan: lol, good luck.

Could you elaborate on that?

cathy95 wrote:

slippin_jimmy wrote:

sidequest wrote:Any thoughts on Singer, Sullivan, and Frug? Also on the best way to handle early morning classes?

Thoughts on Sullivan: lol, good luck.

Could you elaborate on that?

You will not learn any criminal law from the class; you will sit around and discuss your opinions on criminal law about which you are completely uninformed. Or you can do what I did and skip almost every class.

QuentonCassidy wrote:

cathy95 wrote:

slippin_jimmy wrote:

sidequest wrote:Any thoughts on Singer, Sullivan, and Frug? Also on the best way to handle early morning classes?

Thoughts on Sullivan: lol, good luck.

Could you elaborate on that?

You will not learn any criminal law from the class; you will sit around and discuss your opinions on criminal law about which you are completely uninformed. Or you can do what I did and skip almost every class.

QC summed it up. Or do what I did and go and take care of your emails during class and just read a supplement. If you're remotely interested in crim, prepare to be disappointed.

slippin_jimmy wrote:

QuentonCassidy wrote:

cathy95 wrote:

slippin_jimmy wrote:

sidequest wrote:Any thoughts on Singer, Sullivan, and Frug? Also on the best way to handle early morning classes?

Thoughts on Sullivan: lol, good luck.

Could you elaborate on that?

You will not learn any criminal law from the class; you will sit around and discuss your opinions on criminal law about which you are completely uninformed. Or you can do what I did and skip almost every class.

QC summed it up. Or do what I did and go and take care of your emails during class and just read a supplement. If you're remotely interested in crim, prepare to be disappointed.

Gonna 100% disagree on this one. Took the bar this summer and did the crim questions without reviewing the bar prep lectures/outline. Still knew the law from Sully's class. Didn't use any supplements during his class, just read what was assigned.

Plus, he's one of the only profs at HLS who is actually, you know, a lawyer. Watching him get into his trial mode is serious value.

4.5/5 would recommend.

And complaining about Sully not teaching the law when on a list of 3 including Frug is nuts (unless the previous posters didn't have Frug).

nothingtosee wrote: Plus, he's one of the only profs at HLS who is actually, you know, a lawyer. Watching him get into his trial mode is serious value.

4.5/5 would recommend.

Didn't have for Crim, but gonna +1 this regardless since his trial-ad workshop is probably the best thing at HLS.

Section 6 here:

Crim - Suk Gersen
Legislation/Regulation - Tushnet
Torts - Hanson
Civ Pro - Rubenstein
LRW - Roisman
Property - Glendon
Contracts - Fried

Thanks!

The_Pluviophile wrote:Hello! Just got section 7! Thoughts on Reynolds (Civ Pro), Rakoff (contracts), Freeman (Legislation and regulation), Smith (prop), and Tobin (LRW)??

Rakoff is great, though I never had him for contracts, which he teaches less often than LegReg. People either love or hate taking class with Freeman, but more I have heard skew towards love than hate. Susannah (Barton-Tobin) runs the LRW program and will be the only LRW professor who is not a first or second year fellow. She's great. On the whole looks like a good lineup.

husk123 wrote:Section 6 here:

Crim - Suk Gersen
Legislation/Regulation - Tushnet
Torts - Hanson
Civ Pro - Rubenstein
LRW - Roisman
Property - Glendon
Contracts - Fried

Thanks!

Suk Gersen is a mixed bag -- a lot of people really like her, some have a pretty strong negative reaction. I liked her, though had some quibbles. She's tough. She's into the "lots and lots of short cold calls every class" method, so you'll be called on a lot, and she doesn't take kindly to people who clearly haven't done the reading. Occasionally she'll also go hard after people who clearly HAVE done the reading but for whatever reason aren't able to get to the answer she's looking for in a certain cold call, and that can be really painful to watch. That said, her method keeps you engaged and leads to some pretty interesting class discussions. I was definitely never board in that class. She has a pretty ice queen persona, but I think she really does care about her students. Be prepared for the most awkward office hour of your life if you go to her office hours, though.

Tushnet is a disaster. Very nice man, brilliant scholar, but totally unable to lead a class discussion. Don't expect to learn any leg reg tbh.

agnes_bean wrote:

husk123 wrote:Section 6 here:

Crim - Suk Gersen
Legislation/Regulation - Tushnet
Torts - Hanson
Civ Pro - Rubenstein
LRW - Roisman
Property - Glendon
Contracts - Fried

Thanks!

Suk Gersen is a mixed bag -- a lot of people really like her, some have a pretty strong negative reaction. I liked her, though had some quibbles. She's tough. She's into the "lots and lots of short cold calls every class" method, so you'll be called on a lot, and she doesn't take kindly to people who clearly haven't done the reading. Occasionally she'll also go hard after people who clearly HAVE done the reading but for whatever reason aren't able to get to the answer she's looking for in a certain cold call, and that can be really painful to watch. That said, her method keeps you engaged and leads to some pretty interesting class discussions. I was definitely never board in that class. She has a pretty ice queen persona, but I think she really does care about her students. Be prepared for the most awkward office hour of your life if you go to her office hours, though.

Tushnet is a disaster. Very nice man, brilliant scholar, but totally unable to lead a class discussion. Don't expect to learn any leg reg tbh.

+1.

I don't want to write out the whole Suk Gersen story from my year, but let me just say: Be careful about how you use your absences. I know the syllabus says that you can use absences at any time for any reason, "no explanation" needed, but it turns out she gets pretty angry if too many people use absences on the same day. Also, traveling to see family over Easter weekend + LRW brief due the same Monday morning she assigns ~200 pages of reading is not a good enough reason to use an absence.

throwawayLS wrote:

agnes_bean wrote:

husk123 wrote:Section 6 here:

Crim - Suk Gersen
Legislation/Regulation - Tushnet
Torts - Hanson
Civ Pro - Rubenstein
LRW - Roisman
Property - Glendon
Contracts - Fried

Thanks!

Suk Gersen is a mixed bag -- a lot of people really like her, some have a pretty strong negative reaction. I liked her, though had some quibbles. She's tough. She's into the "lots and lots of short cold calls every class" method, so you'll be called on a lot, and she doesn't take kindly to people who clearly haven't done the reading. Occasionally she'll also go hard after people who clearly HAVE done the reading but for whatever reason aren't able to get to the answer she's looking for in a certain cold call, and that can be really painful to watch. That said, her method keeps you engaged and leads to some pretty interesting class discussions. I was definitely never board in that class. She has a pretty ice queen persona, but I think she really does care about her students. Be prepared for the most awkward office hour of your life if you go to her office hours, though.

Tushnet is a disaster. Very nice man, brilliant scholar, but totally unable to lead a class discussion. Don't expect to learn any leg reg tbh.

+1.

I don't want to write out the whole Suk Gersen story from my year, but let me just say: Be careful about how you use your absences. I know the syllabus says that you can use absences at any time for any reason, "no explanation" needed, but it turns out she gets pretty angry if too many people use absences on the same day. Also, traveling to see family over Easter weekend + LRW brief due the same Monday morning she assigns ~200 pages of reading is not a good enough reason to use an absence.

Also, for (at least) upper level courses, the syllabus explicitly states that religious holidays do not classify as excused absences. Which I think might be illegal since it caps your grade at a P? So if you're Orthodox, or Muslim, (or maybe some Catholics?) you probably want to talk to DoS or someone...who will tell you tough luck.

nothingtosee wrote: Gonna 100% disagree on this one. Took the bar this summer and did the crim questions without reviewing the bar prep lectures/outline. Still knew the law from Sully's class. Didn't use any supplements during his class, just read what was assigned.

Plus, he's one of the only profs at HLS who is actually, you know, a lawyer. Watching him get into his trial mode is serious value.

4.5/5 would recommend.

And complaining about Sully not teaching the law when on a list of 3 including Frug is nuts (unless the previous posters didn't have Frug).

Point taken; I neglected to mention in my original post he was off being a practicing lawyer in a high stakes case during the semester and that I have no idea what he was like in other years. When you see him go into lawyer mode in class, that is definitely impressive. The quality of his teaching, IMO, definitely slipped because of his other commitments, though, and I think it was a bad move for him to commit to teaching during that time period.

We didn't have any of the other profs on the list this past year, but yeah, have heard unfortunate things about Frug. My issue with Sully was more that we were attempting to cover the law and it never became clear to me (until I read my supplement) what the different tests and standards were, most of the time, and what we would be responsible for knowing.

husk123 wrote:Section 6 here:

Crim - Suk Gersen
Legislation/Regulation - Tushnet
Torts - Hanson
Civ Pro - Rubenstein
LRW - Roisman
Property - Glendon
Contracts - Fried

Thanks!

Hanson is pretty controversial too. Some people love him, others despise him. My year the majority did not like him, as least not as a torts professor. He basically has a theory of tort law and that's what he will teach you. You won't learn the elements of negligence or anything else remotely related to tort law. You'll have a Barbri supplement to learn the black letter law and little quizzes throughout the semester to make sure you're on track. There's a large group project that is a significant portion of your grade where you basically take some thing in the world and try to make the case for why it should be a tort (e.g., for-profit colleges, predatory lending, gambling). It's a big mess of a project and it is really time consuming towards the end of the semester. The final is similar in nature. Our final was to make a case for reparations using Hanson's theory of tort law. We had to read some materials and then pretend to be Hanson appearing at a conference and write a speech for him. The final definitely infuriated a lot of people.

On the plus side, he is far and away the best section leader. Section 6 has a little bit of a cult status on campus because Hanson really cares about making it a cohesive group. He really does care that his students are whole people in law school (to the extent that that's possible), and he really wants to make sure that people are taking care of themselves. He's also pretty funny and makes the classroom environment engaging and supportive (i.e., not competitive). It really sets the tone for the year and, really, for the entire time you're at HLS. Oh, and you basically don't have to do the reading because he doesn't cold call and basically lectures the entire time with slideshows. Most of the reading isn't case law -- it's law review articles or newspaper articles, so some of it is actually pretty interesting and multidisciplinary. But, when you're stressed with other things, you can definitely put it on the back burner.