1L 1st sem. course led by brand new professor (adjunct?) Forum

[aPosseAdEsse]

One of our three substantive courses first semester will be led by an accomplished attorney, but from what I can ascertain this must be her first semester ever teaching law. She is not on the faculty website, and her Wikipedia page mentions nothing about teaching. I can’t even find a press release saying she’s been hired, so I’m thinking she may be an adjuct.

How (ab)normal (un)acceptable is this?

Are we screwed for this course with regard to relying on past exams/upperclassman for study focus, etc.?

Thanks

[b1ue]

-

[aPosseAdEsse]

Are we screwed for this course with regard to relying on past exams/upperclassman for study focus, etc.?

relying on these = already screwed

Clearly I didn't write relying "solely." There's not one law school guide post on this forum that doesn't stress the importance of a professor's old exams.

[b1ue]

-

[blurbz]

It certainly can make it more difficult! Just remember that everyone in your (curved) section will be in the same position.

From everything I've read, you should still try to take practice exams. Even if they are from other professors, conventional wisdom says they will still be useful as you learn the law and how to apply it.

[b1ue]

-

[blurbz]

From everything I've read, you should still try to take practice exams. Even if they are from other professors, conventional wisdom says they will still be useful as you learn the law and how to apply it.

I would disagree, somewhat. If you have legit reason to think that you might get a low, low grade in a class -- well below the median -- maybe general practice tests will help you nail down the substantive law.

However, if you plan on doing well in a class, other profs/commercial exams will only mess you up. Professors have a style they're looking for, and this will be reflected in the exam. Dipping in other wells just confuses this.

Read, pay attention in class, make your own outlines, and you'll be fine.

Fair enough! I'm just spouting things I've read--I don't actually know anything yet.

[Aeroplane]

One of our three substantive courses first semester will be led by an accomplished attorney, but from what I can ascertain this must be her first semester ever teaching law. She is not on the faculty website, and her Wikipedia page mentions nothing about teaching. I can’t even find a press release saying she’s been hired, so I’m thinking she may be an adjuct.

How (ab)normal (un)acceptable is this?

Are we screwed for this course with regard to relying on past exams/upperclassman for study focus, etc.?

Thanks

I don't see why the adjunct/not adjunct distinction would make much practical difference as to how screwed you are.

Anyway, I had two "brand new" professors this year and both were nice enough to (1) describe the approximate types of questions they planned to ask on the exam (e.g. 2 issue-spotter, 1 policy, etc) (2) talk generally about what they looked for in an answer and (3) recommend certain specific past exams and/or exam questions of other professors at my school as good ones to practice on. If your professor doesn't voluntarily do any of the above, you can politely ask if she'd be willing to.

[enygma]

i had the same thing my fall term 1L year and he ended up being fantastic. i wouldn't worry too much about it.

[xyzbca]

One of our three substantive courses first semester will be led by an accomplished attorney, but from what I can ascertain this must be her first semester ever teaching law. She is not on the faculty website, and her Wikipedia page mentions nothing about teaching. I can’t even find a press release saying she’s been hired, so I’m thinking she may be an adjuct.

How (ab)normal (un)acceptable is this?

Are we screwed for this course with regard to relying on past exams/upperclassman for study focus, etc.?

Thanks

I don't know why but I get put off when I hear the word unacceptable. It seems to me that the majority of the time I hear that word it is used by somebody who doesn't have the power do anything about whatever is unacceptable.

Anyhow, I wouldn't worry about the new professor too much. I had a rookie professor that had just retired from the federal bench during my 1L year. His lecture style was a little dull but he more than made up for it in his willingness to help students. I think he was so excited about teaching that he went above and beyond what other professors did in terms of answering questions, advising us what to expect on the exam in terms of topics covered as well as structure, and so on. He actually went so far as to write a practice exam, provide model answers to that practice exam and read through the E&E so that he could match what chapters of the E&E corresponded to what topics in the syllabus and then added it as an addendum to the syllabus about a month into the semester.

He also took the feedback from first semester and improved his lecture style second semester. I really wouldn't worry about it all that much b/c whatever your new professor will lack in experience/"paper trail" she will more than likely to make up for in passion and energy. Odds are your brand new professor is pursuing some kind of long held dream to teach and return to the law school environment.

[MrKappus]

Bad news: you're not going to be able to use old exams to prepare for her exact exam-administration style.
Good news: old exams still provide the chance to think about the material and apply facts to law, and if one's adept at this, you'll do well on any prof's exam.

Over the course of the semester, I'm sure she'll give you some clues as to the format of the exam and what kind of questions (i.e., short answer, issue-spotter, open-ended, etc.) will be on it. Also, as you probably already know, just listen closely to what she talks about in class so you know what her "pet" interests are, since they'll probably make their way onto the final (and you won't have old exams to provide hints). Old exams are usually sufficient for figuring out a prof's exam style, but not necessary. G'luck.

P.S. This goes w/o saying (but I'm saying it anyway): if she's a practicing attorney, dig down into nitty gritty details in the fact patterns, b/c highfalutin (sp?) policy args probably carry less water with recent practitioners.

[Jarndyce]

Fair enough! I'm just spouting things I've read--I don't actually know anything yet.

I say, with absolutely no sarcasm, that it is refreshing to see a 0L say this.

Don't sweat not having tests. If you want to practice taking law school exams in the subject, just take other professors' exams. Not the same, but better than nothing. And it will give you an advantage over the students who don't even do that.

[toaster2]

.

[aPosseAdEsse]

Thanks for the replies all. You've collectively put my mind at ease (for at least this specific concern!)

I don't know why but I get put off when I hear the word unacceptable. It seems to me that the majority of the time I hear that word it is used by somebody who doesn't have the power do anything about whatever is unacceptable.

You know what, I tend to agree with you. I don't really know used that word, probably out of frustration, but you're right, it's not like I know better than the law school faculty on who should be teaching law anyway. This situation just made me more nervous, and I was wondering how unique it was.