Northwestern 1L/2L/3L/Grads Taking Questions and Challenges Forum

[chadwick218]

Does anyone know if I can take an online class at the School of Continuing Education?

Yes, but only with Dean's permission in writing.

It will likely be Cliff or Leslie deciding. I would come in with a good story first and make sure that you tie the class to something that you want to do professionally that the law school does not otherwise provide.

[crumpetsandtea]

Can anyone comment on Rubinowitz, Brennan, Friedman, or Silbernagel as professors? Tips? Advice? Warnings?

Also, is anyone looking to sell any of the following books:

• Contracts: Cases and Doctrines, Fifth Edition - Randy E. Barnett; Hardcover
• Legal Reasoning, Writing, and Other Lawyering Skills - Robin Wellford Slocum; Paperback
• Basic Legal Research: Tools and Strategies, Fifth Edition (Aspen Coursebook Series) - Amy E. Sloan; Paperback
• Basic Tort Law: Cases, Statutes, and Problems, Third Edition - Arthur Best; Hardcover
• Civil Procedure: A Modern Approach (American Casebook) - Richard L. Marcus; Hardcover
• ALWD Citation Manual: A Professional System of Citation, Fourth Edition - Association of Legal Writing Directors; Spiral-bound
• Concepts and Case Analysis in the Law of Contracts, 6th (Concepts and Insights Series) - Marvin A. Chirelstein; Paperback
• Criminal Law and Its Processes: Cases and Materials, Ninth Edition - Sanford H. Kadish; Hardcover

Any help would be GREATLY appreciated. Thanks so much <3

[Eugenie Danglars]

Brennan is awesome. Awesome. Sometimes is too nice and lets students go on tangents, but overall great. Nicest cold-caller ever. He always kind of apologizes when he calls on you, and you can just restate the question a couple times before he moves on to the next person if you're clueless.

Friedman is good but super economicsy. If you don't understand economics, sme of his stuff is hard to follow, but only about 1/4 of it. He tells stories in funny ways and is appropriately humorous about torts cases.

Also, remember that SFPIF sells used casebooks for $50 and used supplements for $15. They're having a booksale twice during orientation.

[Bumi]

Rubinowitz

I had no idea who this was until I looked it up.

[bjsesq]

Brennan is awesome. Awesome. Sometimes is too nice and lets students go on tangents, but overall great. Nicest cold-caller ever. He always kind of apologizes when he calls on you, and you can just restate the question a couple times before he moves on to the next person if you're clueless.

Friedman is good but super economicsy. If you don't understand economics, sme of his stuff is hard to follow, but only about 1/4 of it. He tells stories in funny ways and is appropriately humorous about torts cases.

Also, remember that SFPIF sells used casebooks for $50 and used supplements for $15. They're having a booksale twice during orientation.

Friedman looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooves him some negligence. Aka, wtf is an intentional tort WE DO NEGLIGENCE HERE.

[cactuarX3]

Awesome 3Ls (or 2Ls or whoever is a lot less clueless than me),

Anyone know about the following professors?

Robert Bennett
Janice Nadler
Kathleen Narko
Martin Redish
Shelley Murphy

EDIT: never mind, found out how to get books (wow, i'm retarded)

<---- Obviously clueless, tyia

[Eugenie Danglars]

Awesome 3Ls (or 2Ls or whoever is a lot less clueless than me),

Anyone know about the following professors?

Robert Bennett
Janice Nadler
Kathleen Narko
Martin Redish
Shelley Murphy

EDIT: never mind, found out how to get books (wow, i'm retarded)

<---- Obviously clueless, tyia

Nadler is a terrific person, and GREAT in office hours. Hers were the only ones I went to more than once. She loves just chatting with students about crime/law/stuff even if it's unrelated to class. She's very friendly in class, but her exam was a LOT more difficult than expected. You want to actually write out analyses for the case studies you do, and get feedback from her and the TA. I blew this off, and I regretted it.

Redish is highly entertaining. He has tangents, and if you let that bother you, you're going to have a bad time. Just sit back and enjoy the ride, and do the reading. You should understand his reasoning on each of the cases by the end (but you probably won't before that). Try to get a good outline for the class from an older students- that helps a lot. I ended up making my own based off of it, and that was good. Also, he plays favorites, but it seems to be mostly for entertainment and not because he thinks they're smarter. He's helpful in office hours but can be a little brusque. I recommend going in pairs.

[homestyle28]

Awesome 3Ls (or 2Ls or whoever is a lot less clueless than me),

Anyone know about the following professors?

Robert Bennett
Janice Nadler
Kathleen Narko
Martin Redish
Shelley Murphy

EDIT: never mind, found out how to get books (wow, i'm retarded)

<---- Obviously clueless, tyia

Nadler is a terrific person, and GREAT in office hours. Hers were the only ones I went to more than once. She loves just chatting with students about crime/law/stuff even if it's unrelated to class. She's very friendly in class, but her exam was a LOT more difficult than expected. You want to actually write out analyses for the case studies you do, and get feedback from her and the TA. I blew this off, and I regretted it.

Redish is highly entertaining. He has tangents, and if you let that bother you, you're going to have a bad time. Just sit back and enjoy the ride, and do the reading. You should understand his reasoning on each of the cases by the end (but you probably won't before that). Try to get a good outline for the class from an older students- that helps a lot. I ended up making my own based off of it, and that was good. Also, he plays favorites, but it seems to be mostly for entertainment and not because he thinks they're smarter. He's helpful in office hours but can be a little brusque. I recommend going in pairs.

On the flipside, Narko is rough (most CLR profs have that reputation though) I'd read through her CTEs so you can get a sense of what your facing. I will say this for her, I think she's trying to get better at giving feedback. If I had 1 tip for her its that you have to push her on getting mroe feedback on assignments and help before you turn things in. If (like me) you sit back and don't forcer her to tell you what she wants, it will hurt you.

[Georgia Avenue]

On the flipside, Narko is rough (most CLR profs have that reputation though) I'd read through her CTEs so you can get a sense of what your facing. I will say this for her, I think she's trying to get better at giving feedback. If I had 1 tip for her its that you have to push her on getting mroe feedback on assignments and help before you turn things in. If (like me) you sit back and don't forcer her to tell you what she wants, it will hurt you.

This is 100% correct. Her comments on returned assignments are generally very broad, and while helpful in a very overarching sense, don't often allow you to really nail down what she's looking for. You have to show up to her office and really get her to spell out exactly she wants from you - as in "you said to focus on X on my last brief, here's what I have so far where I use case Y and contrast it with case Z to prove X, what do you think?" Otherwise, you will be lulled into the trap where you think you're improving, but keep getting punished and have no idea why.

It took me a semester to figure this out. Narko is a tremendous resource if you can utilize her.

[splitsplat]

Anyone have some thoughts or experiences with any of these professors?

R. Allen - Civ Pro
E. Kadens - Contracts
C. Martin - Comm & Legal Reasoning

[rayiner]

Anyone have some thoughts or experiences with any of these professors?

R. Allen - Civ Pro
E. Kadens - Contracts
C. Martin - Comm & Legal Reasoning

I had Allen for Civ Pro. People have mixed reactions to him, but I thought he was great. He doesn't necessarily teach all of the things you need to know, and he has long digressions about evidence and epistemology, but he doesn't bullshit you or hide the ball. He says up front that everything in the reading and everything said in class is fair game, but that nothing outside that scope will be covered on the exam, and that's exactly what happened. He also cut through all the bullshit APEX feeds you and told you exactly how to study for and write a law school exam.

Word of advice: be on time to his class. He hates people walking in late. He's a good professor to have first semester (especially at 8 am) because he forces you to develop good attendance habits off the bat.

[homestyle28]

Narko is a tremendous resource if you can utilize her.

Lets not go overboard here

[bjsesq]

Anyone have some thoughts or experiences with any of these professors?

R. Allen - Civ Pro
E. Kadens - Contracts
C. Martin - Comm & Legal Reasoning

I had Allen for Civ Pro. People have mixed reactions to him, but I thought he was great. He doesn't necessarily teach all of the things you need to know, and he has long digressions about evidence and epistemology, but he doesn't bullshit you or hide the ball. He says up front that everything in the reading and everything said in class is fair game, but that nothing outside that scope will be covered on the exam, and that's exactly what happened. He also cut through all the bullshit APEX feeds you and told you exactly how to study for and write a law school exam.

Word of advice: be on time to his class. He hates people walking in late. He's a good professor to have first semester (especially at 8 am) because he forces you to develop good attendance habits off the bat.

On the other hand: he is an arrogant, narcissistic cocksucker who treats his students like they are idiots. And "doesn't necessarily teach" should be written as "openly talks about whatever the fuck he wants and dares you to do something about it."

[Georgia Avenue]

Narko is a tremendous resource if you can utilize her.

Lets not go overboard here

Next time I'll be more clear and make the "if" in 100 point font.

[Lieut Kaffee]

Anyone have some thoughts or experiences with any of these professors?

R. Allen - Civ Pro
E. Kadens - Contracts
C. Martin - Comm & Legal Reasoning

I had Allen for Civ Pro. People have mixed reactions to him, but I thought he was great. He doesn't necessarily teach all of the things you need to know, and he has long digressions about evidence and epistemology, but he doesn't bullshit you or hide the ball. He says up front that everything in the reading and everything said in class is fair game, but that nothing outside that scope will be covered on the exam, and that's exactly what happened. He also cut through all the bullshit APEX feeds you and told you exactly how to study for and write a law school exam.

Word of advice: be on time to his class. He hates people walking in late. He's a good professor to have first semester (especially at 8 am) because he forces you to develop good attendance habits off the bat.

On the other hand: he is an arrogant, narcissistic cocksucker who treats his students like they are idiots. And "doesn't necessarily teach" should be written as "openly talks about whatever the fuck he wants and dares you to do something about it."

Yeah but do you like him?

[Holly Golightly]

Anyone have some thoughts or experiences with any of these professors?

R. Allen - Civ Pro
E. Kadens - Contracts
C. Martin - Comm & Legal Reasoning

I had Allen for Civ Pro. People have mixed reactions to him, but I thought he was great. He doesn't necessarily teach all of the things you need to know, and he has long digressions about evidence and epistemology, but he doesn't bullshit you or hide the ball. He says up front that everything in the reading and everything said in class is fair game, but that nothing outside that scope will be covered on the exam, and that's exactly what happened. He also cut through all the bullshit APEX feeds you and told you exactly how to study for and write a law school exam.

Word of advice: be on time to his class. He hates people walking in late. He's a good professor to have first semester (especially at 8 am) because he forces you to develop good attendance habits off the bat.

On the other hand: he is an arrogant, narcissistic cocksucker who treats his students like they are idiots. And "doesn't necessarily teach" should be written as "openly talks about whatever the fuck he wants and dares you to do something about it."

I second everything bjs said. And I disagree with the having to go to class part. Go to class the first couple of weeks so you get a sense of his weird policy shit, and after that go if you feel like it/find it entertaining. Then read both Glannon books the weekend before your exam (and bring them with you to the exam!) and you'll be fine.

[Lieut Kaffee]

Anyone have some thoughts or experiences with any of these professors?

R. Allen - Civ Pro
E. Kadens - Contracts
C. Martin - Comm & Legal Reasoning

I had Allen for Civ Pro. People have mixed reactions to him, but I thought he was great. He doesn't necessarily teach all of the things you need to know, and he has long digressions about evidence and epistemology, but he doesn't bullshit you or hide the ball. He says up front that everything in the reading and everything said in class is fair game, but that nothing outside that scope will be covered on the exam, and that's exactly what happened. He also cut through all the bullshit APEX feeds you and told you exactly how to study for and write a law school exam.

Word of advice: be on time to his class. He hates people walking in late. He's a good professor to have first semester (especially at 8 am) because he forces you to develop good attendance habits off the bat.

On the other hand: he is an arrogant, narcissistic cocksucker who treats his students like they are idiots. And "doesn't necessarily teach" should be written as "openly talks about whatever the fuck he wants and dares you to do something about it."

I second everything bjs said. And I disagree with the having to go to class part. Go to class the first couple of weeks so you get a sense of his weird policy shit, and after that go if you feel like it/find it entertaining. Then read both Glannon books the weekend before your exam (and bring them with you to the exam!) and you'll be fine.

The think the important point was to go on time IF you go.

[crumpetsandtea]

Thanks for the prof tips everyone!

And the SFPIF booksale was CLUTCH. Thought I was going to have to spend ~1000+ on books, will likely end up spending ~300. AMAZING. If anyone is looking to sell these few books/supps though I'm still looking to buy them off someone:

ALWD Citation Manual: A Professional System of Citation, Fourth Edition - Association of Legal Writing Directors; Spiral-bound
Concepts and Case Analysis in the Law of Contracts, 6th (Concepts and Insights Series) - Marvin A. Chirelstein; Paperback

TYIA <3

[splitsplat]

I had Allen for Civ Pro. People have mixed reactions to him, but I thought he was great. He doesn't necessarily teach all of the things you need to know, and he has long digressions about evidence and epistemology, but he doesn't bullshit you or hide the ball. He says up front that everything in the reading and everything said in class is fair game, but that nothing outside that scope will be covered on the exam, and that's exactly what happened. He also cut through all the bullshit APEX feeds you and told you exactly how to study for and write a law school exam.

Word of advice: be on time to his class. He hates people walking in late. He's a good professor to have first semester (especially at 8 am) because he forces you to develop good attendance habits off the bat.

On the other hand: he is an arrogant, narcissistic cocksucker who treats his students like they are idiots. And "doesn't necessarily teach" should be written as "openly talks about whatever the fuck he wants and dares you to do something about it."

I second everything bjs said. And I disagree with the having to go to class part. Go to class the first couple of weeks so you get a sense of his weird policy shit, and after that go if you feel like it/find it entertaining. Then read both Glannon books the weekend before your exam (and bring them with you to the exam!) and you'll be fine.

The think the important point was to go on time IF you go.

funny thing about Allen. today was the orientation day where all the sections got split up to have introductions with their professors. Allen didn't show up because he was staying on an extra long vacation. fuck this guy.

[chadwick218]

Allen on DVZ ...

http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leit ... allen.html

This has been posted and discussed before (albeit a while ago). And to think that when I first read this, which was before the hiring of D-Rod, I was convinced that the law school would continue to proper even if taken in a different direction. 18 months later, all that I am convinced of is that D-Rod is a D-Bag!

[roranoa]

How old are your peers at NU?

I've heard that students at NU are older than other schools on average b/c there's a lot of people who come in with extensive WE.

[IAFG]

Allen on DVZ ...

http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leit ... allen.html

This has been posted and discussed before (albeit a while ago). And to think that when I first read this, which was before the hiring of D-Rod, I was convinced that the law school would continue to proper even if taken in a different direction. 18 months later, all that I am convinced of is that D-Rod is a D-Bag!

If D-Rod has made a single move that wasn't 99% self-aggrandizing, I have yet to hear of it.

[Flips88]

Allen on DVZ ...

http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leit ... allen.html

This has been posted and discussed before (albeit a while ago). And to think that when I first read this, which was before the hiring of D-Rod, I was convinced that the law school would continue to proper even if taken in a different direction. 18 months later, all that I am convinced of is that D-Rod is a D-Bag!

If D-Rod has made a single move that wasn't 99% self-aggrandizing, I have yet to hear of it.

HE ONLY RAISED MY TUITION 3%.

There goes my heeeeeeeero, watch him as he gooooooooooooes.

[IAFG]

HE ONLY RAISED MY TUITION 3%.

There goes my heeeeeeeero, watch him as he gooooooooooooes.

And then used it to hire his wife as a "consultant," a new Yale JD to do his job for him, and to not replace Bill Chamberlain.

[chadwick218]

How old are your peers at NU?

I've heard that students at NU are older than other schools on average b/c there's a lot of people who come in with extensive WE.

Average age at matriculation is 26. During my three years at Northwestern, I never really thought of my peers as being either young or old. It seems well-balanced. I will say that the school's emphasis on work experience has produced a class body that is arguably more mature and shares a greater sense of collegiality than peer schools.