Spring 2022 Course Evaluations

First page I Next page Last page

Spring 2022 Law School Course Evaluations

Prepared by Office of Institutional Research

Provided by Office of Academic Services

Spring 2022 Law School Course Evaluations

Prepared by the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment

Instructor: Kelli Proia Course: 21ST CENTURY LAWYER Course Enrollment: 15 Response Rate: 20%

Table 1: Law School Course evaluations for Spring Semester 2022. Modality comparison includes all courses delivered in same course delivery (in person, hybrid, or online). All law course comparison includes all Spring 2022 law courses. Individual Course

Modality

All Law

Question

N Mean SD Min Max

N Mean

A scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) is used for these questions: The professor provided a syllabus that clearly described the goals, content, and requirements of the course. 3 5.00 0.00 5

5 2229 4.52 2569 4.52

The course materials and/or assigned text(s) helped me understand concepts and ideas related to the course. The professor presented course material in a clear and organized fashion. The professor responded effectively to questions. The professor promoted a respectful learning environment. The professor promoted useful classroom discussions, as appropriate for the class. The professor provided opportunities, either in or outside of class, for me to access or gauge my understanding of the course material. The professor helped make the course material interesting and/or relevant. The professor was available to help students outside the classroom by being available to meet during regular office hours or scheduled appointments, as well as by responding to email and phone calls. Overall, this professor is an effective teacher.

3 5.00 0.00

5 2227 4.42 2567 4.42

3 5.00 0.00

5 2226 4.33 2565 4.32

3 4.67 0.58 3 4.67 0.58 3 4.00 1.00

4 4 3

5 2229 4.45 2569 4.45 5 2226 4.66 2565 4.65 5 2225 4.51 2565 4.49

3 4.67 0.58

5 2228 4.50 2568 4.49

3 4.33 0.58

5 2228 4.44 2568 4.43

3 5.00 0.00

5 2229 4.56 2569 4.54

3 4.67 0.58

5 2229 4.46 2569 4.46

A scale of 1 (Far too much) to 5 (Far too little) is used for this question: Please evaluate the amount of work assigned in this course. 3 2.33 1.15 1 A scale of 1 (Far too chal lenging) to 5 (Not at al l chal lenging) is used for this question: Please evaluate the level of challenge that this course presented. 3 3.00 0.00 3

3 2226 2.74 2566 2.73

3 2228 2.81 2568 2.82

Modality

All Law

Question

N Mean SD Min Max

N Mean

A scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) is used for these questions: I attended all or nearly all class sessions. 3 5.00 0.00 5

5 2231 4.79 2571 4.79 5 2223 4.50 2563 4.49 5 2230 4.49 2570 4.48 5 2226 4.12 2566 4.12 5 2229 4.31 2569 4.32

I came prepared for each class I attended. I paid attention and was fully engaged in class. I sought additional help as needed. I have learned and understand the fundamental principles of law and/or lawyering skills relevant to this course. Note: N represents the total number of respondents.

3 4.67 0.58 3 4.67 0.58 3 4.33 1.15 3 5.00 0.00

4 4 3 5

Table 2: Course Response Breakdown.

Summary by Count and Percent.

Question

5 %

4 %

3 %

2 %

1 %

A scale of 5 (Strongly Agree) to 1 (Strongly Disgree) is used for these questions: The professor provided a syllabus that clearly described the goals, content, and requirements of the course. 3 100% 0 0% 0 0%

0 0%

3 100%

0 0%

3 100%

0 0%

2 66.67% 1 33.33% 0 0%

0 0%

2 66.67% 1 33.33% 0 0%

0 0%

1 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 0 0%

0 0%

2 66.67% 1 33.33% 0 0%

0 0%

1 33.33% 2 66.67% 0 0%

0 0%

3 100%

0 0%

2 66.67% 1 33.33% 0 0%

0 0%

A scale of 5 (Far too little) to 1 (Far too much) is used for this question: Please evaluate the amount of work assigned in this course. 0 0% 0 0%

2 66.67% 0 0%

1 33.33%

A scale of 5 (Not at al l chal lenging) to 1 (Far too chal lenging) is used for this question:

Table 2: Course Response Breakdown. (continued)

Summary by Count and Percent.

Question

5 %

4 %

3 %

2 %

1 %

Please evaluate the level of challenge that this course presented.

0 0%

3 100%

0 0%

A scale of 5 (Strongly Agree) to 1 (Strongly Disagree) is used for these questions: I attended all or nearly all class sessions. 3 100% 0 0% 0 0%

0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

2 66.67% 1 33.33% 0 0% 2 66.67% 1 33.33% 0 0%

2 66.67% 0 0%

1 33.33% 0 0%

3 100%

0 0%

In what way(s) did this course benefit your professional or intellectual development?

in the way I will apply what I learned It gave me practical advices and new ideas of what does it mean to be a lawyer nowadays.

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

----- More discussion in the class and some dynamic activities. Content was really good and Prof. Kelli is really profesional, nice and prepared but sometimes the class became monotonous.

Additional comments

----- Really good class with a great professor, I definitely would take this course again!

Spring 2022 Law School Course Evaluations

Prepared by the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment

Instructor: James Matthews Course: ACCELERATOR SEMINAR

Course Enrollment: 9 Response Rate: 44.44%

Table 1: Law School Course evaluations for Spring 2022 Semester. Modality comparison includes all courses delivered in same course delivery (in person, hybrid, or online). All law course comparison includes all Spring 2022 Semester law courses. Individual Course

Modality

Law

Question

N Mean SD Min Max

N Mean

A scale of 5 (Strongly Agree) to 1 (Strongly Disagree) is used for these questions: The professor provided a syllabus that clearly described the goals, content, and requirements of the course. 4 4.00 1.41 2

5 340 4.47 2569 4.52

4 4.25 0.96

5 340 4.40 2567 4.42

4 4.25 0.96

5 339 4.28 2565 4.32

4 4.50 0.58 4 5.00 0.00 4 4.75 0.50

4 5 4

5 340 4.45 2569 4.45 5 339 4.57 2565 4.65 5 340 4.35 2565 4.49

4 4.50 0.58

5 340 4.42 2568 4.49

4 4.25 0.96

5 340 4.35 2568 4.43

4 5.00 0.00

5 340 4.41 2569 4.54

4 4.75 0.50

5 340 4.41 2569 4.46

A scale of 5 (Far too little) to 1 (Far too much) is used for this question: Please evaluate the amount of work assigned in this course. 4 3.00 0.00 3 A scale of 5 (Not at al l chal lenging) to 1 (Far too chal lenging) is used for this question: Please evaluate the level of challenge that this course presented. 4 3.00 0.00 3

3 340 2.70 2566 2.73

3 340 2.91 2568 2.82

Modality

Law

Question

N Mean SD Min Max

N Mean

A scale of 5 (Strongly Agree) to 1 (Strongly Disgree) is used for these questions: I attended all or nearly all class sessions. 4 4.75 0.50 4

5 340 4.80 2571 4.79 5 340 4.46 2563 4.49 5 340 4.38 2570 4.48 5 340 4.12 2566 4.12 5 340 4.36 2569 4.32

4 4.75 0.50 4 4.75 0.50 4 4.75 0.50 4 4.75 0.50

4 4 4 4

The fol lowing questions were asked to students in hybrid or online courses. A scale of 5 (Strongly Agree) to 1 (Strongly Disagree) is used for these questions: The online portion of the class provided me with added flexibility to “attend” class and complete my class-related obligations. 4 4.50 0.58 4 5 340 4.64 340 4.64

The online portion of the class enhanced my ability to understand and engage with the material in this course. The type(s) of technology used in this course was effective. The online portion of the course provided opportunities to gauge my learning (such as through quizzes) or to engage with my classmates or professor (such as through a discussion board).

4 4.25 0.96

5 340 4.30 340 4.30

4 4.50 1.00 4 4.50 1.00

3 3

5 340 4.44 340 4.44 5 340 4.12 340 4.12

A scale of Yes (1) and No (0) is used for these question: Prior to taking this class, I took a class where a significant portion of the material in the class was offered online. I would take a class in the future that is an entirely online course (i.e. no in-person meetings).

4 1.00 0.00

1 340 0.95 340 0.95

4 1.00 0.00

1 340 0.88 340 0.88

Modality

Law

Question

N Mean SD Min Max

N Mean

I would take a class in the future that is a hybrid online course (i.e. a significant portion of the material is delivered online but there are some in-person meetings).

4 1.00 0.00

1 340 0.89 340 0.89

Note: N represents the total number of respondents.

Table 2: Course Response Breakdown.

Summary by Count and Percent.

Question

5 %

4 %

3 %

2 %

1 %

1 25%

0 0%

2 50%

1 25%

0 0%

2 50%

1 25%

0 0%

2 50%

0 0%

4 100%

0 0%

3 75%

1 25%

0 0%

2 50%

0 0%

2 50%

1 25%

0 0%

4 100%

0 0%

3 75%

1 25%

0 0%

A scale of 5 (Far too little) to 1 (Far too much) is used for this question: Please evaluate the amount of work assigned in this course. 0 0% 0 0%

4 100%

0 0%

A scale of 5 (Not at al l chal lenging) to 1 (Far too chal lenging) is used for this question:

Table 2: Course Response Breakdown. (continued)

Summary by Count and Percent.

Question

5 %

4 %

3 %

2 %

1 %

Please evaluate the level of challenge that this course presented.

0 0%

4 100%

0 0%

A scale of 5 (Strongly Agree) to 1 (Strongly Disagree) is used for these questions: I attended all or nearly all class sessions. 3 75% 1 25% 0 0%

0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

3 75% 3 75% 3 75% 3 75%

1 25% 1 25% 1 25% 1 25%

0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

2 50%

1 25%

0 0%

3 75% 3 75%

0 0% 0 0%

1 25% 1 25%

0 0% 0 0%

In what way(s) did this course benefit your professional or intellectual development?

It taught me how to be a more compassionate and effective lawyer. being able to represent clients

I landed my post graduation job because of the skills and knowledge I developed in the Accelerator. There were a lot of professionals that came to speak on a regular basis on their specialties, so I was able to hear and learn from them and ask questions.

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

None course work became a little redundant I would like more opportunity for case rounds. If we had a routine or a prompt we could go through them at the beginning of class or end. We did that once and I really enjoyed it. A more clear picture of what is expected from students.

What did you like most about the online portion of the course and what areas could be improved?

I liked how we had three different instructors and guest speakers who would teach us different things. Overall, Professor Matthews ability to organize and instruct helped a lot. He cared about this class and it showed. n/a The flexibility - even if I didn’t always take advantage of it, it was less stressful knowing I could zoom into class if I needed. As a hybrid course, I expected more to be online, but it had the majority of classes in person. I would have likely the option to attend virtually more than was provided.

Additional comments

This is an excellent program and should be given all the funding and staffing it needs to excel. Publicize this more!

Spring 2022 Law School Course Evaluations

Prepared by the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment

Instructor: Kevin Wall Course: ACCTG FOR LAWYERS

Course Enrollment: 12 Response Rate: 16.67%

Modality

All Law

Question

N Mean SD Min Max

N Mean

5 2229 4.52 2569 4.52

4.0 1.41

5 2227 4.42 2567 4.42

4.0 1.41

5 2226 4.33 2565 4.32

2 2 2

4.5 0.71 5.0 0.00 4.0 0.00

4 5 4

5 2229 4.45 2569 4.45 5 2226 4.66 2565 4.65 4 2225 4.51 2565 4.49

4.0 1.41

5 2228 4.50 2568 4.49

4.5 0.71

5 2228 4.44 2568 4.43

4.0 1.41

5 2229 4.56 2569 4.54

4.0 1.41

5 2229 4.46 2569 4.46

A scale of 1 (Far too much) to 5 (Far too little) is used for this question: Please evaluate the amount of work assigned in this course. 2 2.5 0.71 2 A scale of 1 (Far too chal lenging) to 5 (Not at al l chal lenging) is used for this question: Please evaluate the level of challenge that this course presented. 2 2.5 0.71 2

3 2226 2.74 2566 2.73

3 2228 2.81 2568 2.82

Modality

All Law

Question

N Mean SD Min Max

N Mean

A scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) is used for these questions: I attended all or nearly all class sessions. 2 5.0 0.00 5

5 2231 4.79 2571 4.79 5 2223 4.50 2563 4.49 5 2230 4.49 2570 4.48 5 2226 4.12 2566 4.12 5 2229 4.31 2569 4.32

2 2 2 2

5.0 0.00 5.0 0.00 4.5 0.71 4.0 1.41

5 5 4 3

Table 2: Course Response Breakdown.

Summary by Count and Percent.

Question

5 %

4 %

3 %

2 %

1 %

0 0%

1 50%

0 0%

1 50%

0 0%

1 50%

0 0%

1 50%

0 0%

1 50%

0 0%

2 100%

0 0%

2 100%

0 0%

1 50%

0 0%

1 50%

0 0%

1 50%

0 0%

1 50%

0 0%

1 50%

0 0%

1 50%

0 0%

1 50%

0 0%

A scale of 5 (Far too little) to 1 (Far too much) is used for this question: Please evaluate the amount of work assigned in this course. 0 0% 0 0%

1 50%

0 0%

A scale of 5 (Not at al l chal lenging) to 1 (Far too chal lenging) is used for this question:

Table 2: Course Response Breakdown. (continued)

Summary by Count and Percent.

Question

5 %

4 %

3 %

2 %

1 %

Please evaluate the level of challenge that this course presented.

0 0%

1 50%

0 0%

A scale of 5 (Strongly Agree) to 1 (Strongly Disagree) is used for these questions: I attended all or nearly all class sessions. 2 100% 0 0% 0 0%

0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

2 100% 2 100% 1 50% 1 50%

0 0% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0%

0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50%

In what way(s) did this course benefit your professional or intellectual development?

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

Additional comments

Spring 2022 Law School Course Evaluations

Prepared by the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment

Instructor: Richard Eustis Course: ADV CRIM LAW Course Enrollment: 14 Response Rate: 28.57%

Modality

All Law

Question

N Mean SD Min Max

N Mean

5 2229 4.52 2569 4.52

4 4.75 0.50

5 2227 4.42 2567 4.42

4 4.75 0.50

5 2226 4.33 2565 4.32

4 5.00 0.00 4 5.00 0.00 4 5.00 0.00

5 5 5

5 2229 4.45 2569 4.45 5 2226 4.66 2565 4.65 5 2225 4.51 2565 4.49

4 4.75 0.50

5 2228 4.50 2568 4.49

4 4.75 0.50

5 2228 4.44 2568 4.43

4 4.25 0.96

5 2229 4.56 2569 4.54

4 4.75 0.50

5 2229 4.46 2569 4.46

A scale of 1 (Far too much) to 5 (Far too little) is used for this question: Please evaluate the amount of work assigned in this course. 4 3.00 0.00 3 A scale of 1 (Far too chal lenging) to 5 (Not at al l chal lenging) is used for this question: Please evaluate the level of challenge that this course presented. 4 3.00 0.00 3

3 2226 2.74 2566 2.73

3 2228 2.81 2568 2.82

Modality

All Law

Question

N Mean SD Min Max

N Mean

A scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) is used for these questions: I attended all or nearly all class sessions. 4 4.75 0.50 4

5 2231 4.79 2571 4.79 5 2223 4.50 2563 4.49 5 2230 4.49 2570 4.48 4 2226 4.12 2566 4.12 5 2229 4.31 2569 4.32

4 4.75 0.50 4 5.00 0.00 4 3.50 0.58 4 4.75 0.50

4 5 3 4

Table 2: Course Response Breakdown.

Summary by Count and Percent.

Question

5 %

4 %

3 %

2 %

1 %

0 0%

3 75%

1 25%

0 0%

3 75%

1 25%

0 0%

4 100%

0 0%

4 100%

0 0%

4 100%

0 0%

3 75%

1 25%

0 0%

3 75%

1 25%

0 0%

2 50%

1 25%

0 0%

3 75%

1 25%

0 0%

A scale of 5 (Far too little) to 1 (Far too much) is used for this question: Please evaluate the amount of work assigned in this course. 0 0% 0 0%

4 100%

0 0%

A scale of 5 (Not at al l chal lenging) to 1 (Far too chal lenging) is used for this question:

Table 2: Course Response Breakdown. (continued)

Summary by Count and Percent.

Question

5 %

4 %

3 %

2 %

1 %

Please evaluate the level of challenge that this course presented.

0 0%

4 100%

0 0%

A scale of 5 (Strongly Agree) to 1 (Strongly Disagree) is used for these questions: I attended all or nearly all class sessions. 3 75% 1 25% 0 0%

0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

3 75% 4 100% 0 0% 3 75%

1 25% 0 0% 2 50% 1 25%

0 0% 0 0% 2 50% 0 0%

Below are the responses to the three open-ended questions asked regarding the instructor and the course. Please note, student responses have not been edited in any way. Blank pages indicate no response for that question. What aspect(s) of the course or instruction enhanced your learning? The guest speakers we had were great and really provided insight into the complex field. We also watched some videos which were very helpful as well to conceptualize the subject matter. The experiential stories from both Judge Eustis and the guest speakers enhanced my learning how these problems are addressed in real life situations in the Commonwealth. With speciality courts in particular there is no uniform way things are done, I do not believe this knowledge could be found in any reading materials. Definitely gained a better understanding from Drug Court but also the major challenges that addiction has. The Professor, Judge Eustis, was phenomenal. He provoked extremely interesting discussion and presented the material in a way that really drove home its importance. Additionally, the various guest speakers we had gave us multiple perspectives on the reality of the issues we discussed.

In what way(s) did this course benefit your professional or intellectual development?

It has opened my eyes to a field of criminal law that needs a lot of work. I didn’t know much about Big Pharma, for example, until this class and now I feel like I know a lot. This was the only course I have seen offered at Suffolk which discusses specialty courts for more than one class period. I think this type of information is necessary for any criminal attorney in order to be able to properly advocate for a client with a substance use disorder or seek justice as a prosecutor. I gained a much deeper understanding of how substance abuse effects and is typically dealt with in the legal system. I feel far more equipped to deal with clients struggling with substance abuse issues and will be able to advocate for them much more effectively. Moreover, I am now knowledgeable of alternatives to incarceration to get these individuals the help they may need.

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

It would be great if it could be a Experiential Course or a Writing Requirement course I wished we had done more regarding how to "fix" the issues.

Additional comments

Thank you Judge Eustis for such a great semester!! Your dedication to the field is unparalleled and I have thoroughly enjoyed your class. This was the course I looked forward to the most each week. This was probably my favorite course that I have taken at Suffolk Law and I cannot recommend it highly enough for anyone seeking to step foot in a criminal justice setting. Judge Eustis is incredible at what he does and I absolutely loved this class.

Spring 2022 Law School Course Evaluations

Prepared by the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment

Instructor: Ragini Shah Course: ADV IMMIGRATION LAW

Course Enrollment: 16 Response Rate: 56.25%

Modality

All Law

Question

N Mean SD Min Max

N Mean

5 2229 4.52 2569 4.52

9 4.00 1.22

5 2227 4.42 2567 4.42

9 4.56 0.53

5 2226 4.33 2565 4.32

9 4.67 0.71 9 4.67 1.00 9 4.78 0.67

3 2 3

5 2229 4.45 2569 4.45 5 2226 4.66 2565 4.65 5 2225 4.51 2565 4.49

9 5.00 0.00

5 2228 4.50 2568 4.49

9 4.67 1.00

5 2228 4.44 2568 4.43

9 4.89 0.33

5 2229 4.56 2569 4.54

9 4.67 1.00

5 2229 4.46 2569 4.46

A scale of 1 (Far too much) to 5 (Far too little) is used for this question: Please evaluate the amount of work assigned in this course. 9 1.89 0.78 1 A scale of 1 (Far too chal lenging) to 5 (Not at al l chal lenging) is used for this question: Please evaluate the level of challenge that this course presented. 9 2.44 0.73 1

3 2226 2.74 2566 2.73

3 2228 2.81 2568 2.82

Modality

All Law

Question

N Mean SD Min Max

N Mean

A scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) is used for these questions: I attended all or nearly all class sessions. 9 5.00 0.00 5

5 2231 4.79 2571 4.79 5 2223 4.50 2563 4.49 5 2230 4.49 2570 4.48 5 2226 4.12 2566 4.12 5 2229 4.31 2569 4.32

9 4.56 0.73 9 4.44 0.88 9 4.11 0.60 9 4.11 1.27

3 3 3 1

Table 2: Course Response Breakdown.

Summary by Count and Percent.

Question

5 %

4 %

3 %

2 %

1 %

0 0%

3 33.33% 5 55.56% 0 0%

0 0%

1 11.11%

5 55.56% 4 44.44% 0 0%

0 0%

7 77.78% 1 11.11% 1 11.11% 0 0%

0 0%

8 88.89% 0 0%

0 0%

1 11.11% 0 0%

8 88.89% 0 0%

1 11.11% 0 0%

0 0%

9 100%

0 0%

8 88.89% 0 0%

0 0%

1 11.11% 0 0%

8 88.89% 1 11.11% 0 0%

0 0%

8 88.89% 0 0%

0 0%

1 11.11% 0 0%

A scale of 5 (Far too little) to 1 (Far too much) is used for this question: Please evaluate the amount of work assigned in this course. 0 0% 0 0%

2 22.22% 4 44.44% 3 33.33%

A scale of 5 (Not at al l chal lenging) to 1 (Far too chal lenging) is used for this question:

Table 2: Course Response Breakdown. (continued)

Summary by Count and Percent.

Question

5 %

4 %

3 %

2 %

1 %

Please evaluate the level of challenge that this course presented.

0 0%

5 55.56% 3 33.33% 1 11.11%

A scale of 5 (Strongly Agree) to 1 (Strongly Disagree) is used for these questions: I attended all or nearly all class sessions. 9 100% 0 0% 0 0%

0 0%

0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

6 66.67% 2 22.22% 1 11.11% 0 0% 6 66.67% 1 11.11% 2 22.22% 0 0% 2 22.22% 6 66.67% 1 11.11% 0 0%

4 44.44% 4 44.44% 0 0%

0 0%

1 11.11%

Below are the responses to the three open-ended questions asked regarding the instructor and the course. Please note, student responses have not been edited in any way. Blank pages indicate no response for that question. What aspect(s) of the course or instruction enhanced your learning? The readings were good, but there was too much of it. I rarely got to it all before class, and while the readings were interesting, a lot were repetitive/ expressed the same ideas so I think the amount we needed to read could have been reduced, especially for a 2 credit class. I enjoyed learning about the different schools of thought behind immigration reform. I also enjoyed the classroom discussions. Class discussion and the podcasts were my favorites and got me thinking. Class discussions were great. The reading we had to do contained a lot of information that at times could be really dense but Professor Shah was able to take that information and lecture in a way that allowed you to understand the concepts of the reading without getting bored or losing track of what the topic was. Classroom discussion clarified all topics. The class was organized and engaging. I enjoyed the class. I loved this class. Prof. Shah created a tightly organized syllabus with superb readings, and facilitated enlightening classroom discussion.

In what way(s) did this course benefit your professional or intellectual development?

I feel as though I have a deeper intellectual understanding about crimmigration and theories for reform. I also really loved Professor Shah’s teaching style in class. She is brilliant and fostered a very comfortable classroom learning environment. She was also very helpful and knowledgeable about finding research for our papers. This is the field I want to go into so it is instrumental in my development and growth The material was overall very helpful and relevant to the course. As an immigrant I had no idea that crimes of moral turpitude or crimes that did not count as convictions could have such a significant impact on being able to stay within the United States and not be deported. It was also interesting to see how crimes, in general, played a much more significant role in immigration law than I had previously been aware of. The paper required for this class has really helped me in cultivating my research skills and improving my writing skills. The course material overall has helped me develop different perspectives in the topic of immigration and crimmigration especially. I thought about things through a different lens. We spent a lot of time looking at bigger-picture consequences to minor actions. It was a wonderful and challenging course that helped me connect the coursework with most of the other courses I have taken here. I learned a significant amount about the substantive doctrine in the four areas of crimmigration that Prof. Shah focused on. Moreover, her emphasis on thinking about policy solutions to these problems greatly expanded my perspective.

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

I wish we were able to do more practical work- such as actually working through a hypothetical case to determine if it is a CIMT or aggravated felony. We did some exercises as a group, but we read so much material that was generally high level- not so much practical- that I don’t know if I would feel confident in diving into a case on my own. The reading assigned was far too much for a two credit class. While I found the material interesting, some of the articles were unnecessarily dense and theoretical. I wish the reading was more specifically tailored, paired down and selected so that we could actually process new concepts better. It felt a bit like information overload, to the point that it made it difficult to grasp the concepts. I also think that a minimum 20 page paper for a 2 credit class is far too much- especially given the demands that we must write a law review style paper that has a different approach than what scholar’s have said. The amount of reading required to write such a paper, in addition to the reading for class simply created far too much work. I think breaking these concepts down further and reviewing more frequently would have helped me ground my knowledge more. Professor Shah ran the class like a sociology class, not a law class. The readings often had very little to do with the actual law we were studying and more on the social environment around the law. I was disappointed to have class after class with theoretical readings that are difficult to apply to practice. Additionally, she was very one-sided in the assigned readings and class discussions. Those that agreed with her, were encouraged by comments like "good point." I personally do not see how a 20+ minute hypothetical discussion of abolishing ICE will help me be a better lawyer. I would have liked to see more exercises where we could apply what we were learning to the real world. It would be helpful to have more guidance in selecting a topic for the paper. Maybe a discussion of current events or a brainstorming session in class? The topic plan and meeting were very helpful! Nothing. I think the way that the course was taught was perfect the way that it was given what we covered in class. The amount of readings seems to be a little too much for a 2 credit course, I think reducing the amount of reading to prepare for class would make the class less stressful. The timeline and deliverables for the final paper are very helpful but I felt lost when coming up with my topic and creating my outline because the instructions seemed too abstract. I also think that the paper topics should be chosen a little closer to the beginning as opposed to midway through the semester to give us enough time to do more research and efficiently complete a better written first draft. The reading was more than necessary. I read more for this two-credit course than my four-credit

courses. The reading was also repetitive. I think it could have been cut down without much, if any, learning-loss. There were too many students in the class who rarely spoke. I would have valued hearing their perspectives. Perhaps there are some "artificial" techniques for ensuring broader classroom participation (on-call panels, scheduled presentations about the weekly reading, etc.).

Additional comments

Even though I had quite a bit to say about what could be improved- I really believe Professor Shah is a great teacher. She is incredibly smart and respectful! Prof. Shah is a fantastic teacher, i think immigration is just so complicated that I struggled to follow the many intertwining components but it’s starting to click. Would not recommend this class to friends. FWIW, I also thought Prof. Shah kept a good balance of pushing us to think about significant reforms (or abolition), without tipping into stridency or indoctrination. Prof. Shah encouraged bold, expansive thinking -- while also allowing space for more moderate policy opinions.

Spring 2022 Law School Course Evaluations

Prepared by the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment

Instructor: Mikhail Ilin Course: ADV LEG WRITING

Course Enrollment: 16 Response Rate: 81.25%

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 148 Page 149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 153 Page 154 Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 159 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online