Spring 2022 Course Evaluations

What aspect(s) of the course or instruction could be improved?

More example the upload of the slides

Clearly explaining the assignments. There were time when the explanations in class did not coincide with how the assignments were graded. There were times when the explanation in class on how to do the assignment was conflicting with how he grading. More precise instructions would be great. The course structure is, at times, very hard to follow. I think that this is the only real flaw in the class, as professor Illin does a good job explaining concepts, especially one-on one, but on the whole, the requirements for assignments care not always well communicated. i found myself, on several occasions, very unsure about what was expected or required for each assignment. This did improve with the opinion letter, for which he released a rubric, but I think that more detailed instructions/requirements would really help, especially when not all of the students have a background in any legal writing to begin with. Instructor needs to work closely with LPS professors so that this class builds on the strong foundation they gave us. This class did not meet the standards expected of a law school course. This could be a helpful course if instructor: 1. Works closely with LPS professors to make this class builds on LPS foundations; 2. Spends less time on redundant/irrelevant questions; 3. Expresses himself more clearly and organizes his material. Professor was very disorganized, syllabus and deadlines constantly shifted. We needed to follow up for parameters of assignments, and even then he remained vague. He explained only after we’d turned in our first participation/class exercise assignment how it would factor into our grade and what he was looking for. Professor asked many broad, basic questions and focused too much on the less important details. We had a ten-minute discussion about whether the word “factfinder” should be used in a letter to a client. We had an opinion letter assignment that constituted 30% of our grade. We were constantly confused as to the expectations for this paper. Professor seemed confused as to why we were confused. The prompt for the opinion letter was to advise a client about the viability of pursuing suit against a remodeling contractor based in Massachusetts. Given the hypothetical contractor’s mismeasurements, issues in communication, and massive delays resulting from these and other issues, there was an extremely strong case for breach of contract. Professor said to argue under 93A. Case law and legislation didn’t offer much support, so law had to be applied broadly and in pieces. There were also moments where students explained that their research had disputed some of his what he had said. Professor was confident in application of 93A based on the fact that he had settled a case on such grounds. Punctuation and grammar were an issue at times. Professor refused to post slides from class.

8