put the F in FCQ
buffslaw has thrown up some mighty useful posts about professors and FCQs. i tried to comment, but found i couldn't wedge all my complaints in the common comment space. that said: here's my take.
*avoid the adjuncts*. the reasons are both practical and principled. first: most of them really do suck, and they teach law more for a CLE crowd than an academic one. i'm no genius, but i'd much rather watch Campos run up to his office, mid-class, to pull a "perfect" quote from a Borghes text than watch some schmuck read from a powerpoint slide as he contemplates how much work he left back at the office. professors are a rarefied bunch, but they stretch the mind a bit. and i'd much rather find myself standing in front of a judge someday with a stretched mind than a sketchy recall of a powerpoint outline...
second: this administration has got to get the picture. i can see calling in an adjunct to teach a practical course on mediation. but a core class like evidence or tax? that's just crazy. unless CU hires an adjunct who can hang with the likes of Collins and Weiser, then we should put the "F" in FCQ. listen: we don't have to persecute the teacher; just write in the comments that, while this guy is surely a fine lawyer, we're going to see a lot of them in our lives. but we miss out on valuable educational experience by not having a professor. the F is really for the school. if we ever want to become top 25, we've got to stop pretending that key social issues like immigration and bar-related courses like family law can be handled by first-time teachers pulled from the local donor list. (after all, the professor for both those courses was hired just this year).
and we've got to start building on the major strengths we have. for chrissakes, phil weiser brings some of the top names in tech law to this school every year, but he's the only IP teacher we've got. anyone wishing to specialize in new media has to take everything he offers--and a boatload of powerpoint classes. i truly rue the day he takes sabbatical. and what about our international law profs? the choice between them is a hobson's choice, if anything.
ok, i'm getting bitter and a bit off topic. but this school seriously hired Rainman to teach evidence last year. and you never know when that's going to happen again. you get to choose 20 classes in your three years here--and when you think about the time and money invested, that's not a lot. as a late-stage 2L, i've been told often enough to value law school because it's hell when you get out. no one's going to give a shit about policy, unless you can manipulate it for your client.
in the real world, there won't be a hell of a lot more high ideas ... but there will be powerpoint.
*avoid the adjuncts*. the reasons are both practical and principled. first: most of them really do suck, and they teach law more for a CLE crowd than an academic one. i'm no genius, but i'd much rather watch Campos run up to his office, mid-class, to pull a "perfect" quote from a Borghes text than watch some schmuck read from a powerpoint slide as he contemplates how much work he left back at the office. professors are a rarefied bunch, but they stretch the mind a bit. and i'd much rather find myself standing in front of a judge someday with a stretched mind than a sketchy recall of a powerpoint outline...
second: this administration has got to get the picture. i can see calling in an adjunct to teach a practical course on mediation. but a core class like evidence or tax? that's just crazy. unless CU hires an adjunct who can hang with the likes of Collins and Weiser, then we should put the "F" in FCQ. listen: we don't have to persecute the teacher; just write in the comments that, while this guy is surely a fine lawyer, we're going to see a lot of them in our lives. but we miss out on valuable educational experience by not having a professor. the F is really for the school. if we ever want to become top 25, we've got to stop pretending that key social issues like immigration and bar-related courses like family law can be handled by first-time teachers pulled from the local donor list. (after all, the professor for both those courses was hired just this year).
and we've got to start building on the major strengths we have. for chrissakes, phil weiser brings some of the top names in tech law to this school every year, but he's the only IP teacher we've got. anyone wishing to specialize in new media has to take everything he offers--and a boatload of powerpoint classes. i truly rue the day he takes sabbatical. and what about our international law profs? the choice between them is a hobson's choice, if anything.
ok, i'm getting bitter and a bit off topic. but this school seriously hired Rainman to teach evidence last year. and you never know when that's going to happen again. you get to choose 20 classes in your three years here--and when you think about the time and money invested, that's not a lot. as a late-stage 2L, i've been told often enough to value law school because it's hell when you get out. no one's going to give a shit about policy, unless you can manipulate it for your client.
in the real world, there won't be a hell of a lot more high ideas ... but there will be powerpoint.
posted by legally intoxicated at
8:21 PM
7 Comments:
just wanted to see if it is all snowy where you are now! how crazy is snow in april? it's nice and sunny here, but i'm wiped from my friend's wedding. will email all about it. talk to you soon,
carrie
By
Anonymous, at 4:21 PM
Appropriately enough, Hill calls FCQs, "Get Even Day."
LI: I totally agree with the observation re: IP and Weiser. I guess Yee and Guruswamy were hired to address the lack of faculty diversity. It helps our ranking, but f-s us in class selection. I haven't heard one positive comment from anyone on either....
By
Ryan Kalamaya, at 9:49 PM
I know of one prof who reads them all. He was telling me about some of the comments he got last semester. Unfortunately, he's already pretty good, so that doesn't help a lot.
The adjunct rule is a good one with the possible exception of those who have been around for a number of years, such as Phillips and Judge Richardson. Phillips keeps an 8:00 class on Wills interesting and Richardson tells great war stories.
By
Lindsay, at 9:52 PM
like i said--if the adjuncts can hang with the best professors here, give them gold stars. if they're as bad as, say, the long list of adjuncts we've seen, then write them off!
By
legally intoxicated, at 10:44 PM
i have had really good luck with adjuncts. one of them was better than any professor i've had here. but i guess that experience can be counterbalanced by the intro to IP adjunct we had. i think you've got it right--look at the quality, not just whether they are willing to teach for a low wage.
By
Jaded, at 8:52 AM
By the way, I thought "putting the 'F' in FCQ" meant giving F's. Which I also think is a good idea, when totally necessary. Case in point would be the aforementioned IP Adjunct.
By
Lindsay, at 5:45 PM
I'm a Prof at CU Law, and I just want to add one thing -- PLEASE be honest on your FCQs. If someone is horrible, let them know. Yes, people read the FCQs. Things don't change quickly, but they are changing -- and FCQs help.
By
Anonymous, at 2:58 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home