Spring 2022 Course Evaluations

I think the quizzes could be a bit easier. The way the questions are worded make it difficult to follow (ex: using double negatives) and after being in class from 10am-3pm, we have to take a tricky torts quiz at 4pm. Our our brains are fried by the end of the day so those sneaky tricks cost us a wrong answer Professor Glannon’s emails regarding what topic will be covered in the next class was sometimes unclear and it would have been better to have a page number to reference. Nothing comes to mind. I loved the way Prof. Glannon taught this class and felt thoroughly engaged/ challenged throughout. He did not tell us that he does not like IRAC method on his essays and so many of us used the law properly but got poor grades on our midterms because we used IRAC. I would have preferred Prof. Glannon’s syllabus to be organized in a table format - with the assigned readings listed by date so that it would be easier to keep track of where we were in the syllabus. Professor Glannon was very confusing at times, often contradicting himself. At times it was difficult to understand his objective and the bottom line of his lecture. Professor Glannon also overused hypos in class, some that we would go over multiple times in various classes. Although I found some of the hypos to be informative, a lot were confusing. Lastly, the language that he used in his quizzes were very confusing and sometimes ambiguous. I had to reread multiple questions because there were typos and the question overall didn’t make sense. I fully undertand that cold calls are a common practice in law school and utilizing them encourages students to not only participate but come to lecture prepared. That being said, Glannon’s cold calls instilled a feeling of discouragement and embarrassment to say the least. He consistently called on the same people when plenty of voices were barely heard and would be dismissive instead of providing feedback when responses were not what he was looking for. I felt picked on at best in this class and it is a learning environment I don’t care to ever experience again. None, loved the course! I recommend teaching Negligence in order of the prima facie case elements rather than jumping around like 1A did this semester. It sometimes seemed as though we got too into the weeds on certain topics for the material to really be understood. Additionally, the quizzes were overly confusing and only seemed to add stress instead of providing a benefit There’s nothing to improve upon. This course and the way Professor Glannon taught it left no room for error or confusion. Everything was clearly understood and interesting in a story-telling type of way. I cannot recommend Glannon enough. Nothing, this is a wonderful class.

12