First Year Course Profs: What does everyone think? Anything to watch out for, or be prepared for in advance?

[DonPablo]

Hello Everyone!

Just got the list of my instructors for the upcoming semester. For those who had the following professors in their previous year(s), would love to know your experiences.

Criminal Law: Prof. Kent Roach

Constitutional Law: Prof. David Schneiderman

Legal Research and Writing: Prof. Katherine Lopez

Property Law (Full Year): Prof. Larissa Katz

[Pecan Boy]

Schneiderman is a funny guy with a dry sense of humour who teaches very clearly and assigns a very fair amount of reading. LRW is a joke and Lopez is great. Katz speaks quickly but is always willing to slow down and help explain something even if it takes 10 times; her readings are also nothing egregious. Roach, to my understanding, assigns a shit ton of reading and hops around from topic to topic in lecture which isn't super helpful, but he's an extraordinarily highly regarded crim/Charter scholar so...that's the tradeoff, I guess.

[Twenty]

4 hours ago, Pecan Boy said:

Schneiderman is a funny guy with a dry sense of humour who teaches very clearly and assigns a very fair amount of reading. LRW is a joke and Lopez is great. Katz speaks quickly but is always willing to slow down and help explain something even if it takes 10 times; her readings are also nothing egregious. Roach, to my understanding, assigns a shit ton of reading and hops around from topic to topic in lecture which isn't super helpful, but he's an extraordinarily highly regarded crim/Charter scholar so...that's the tradeoff, I guess.

Re: Katz - A very pleasant, considerate professor. I recall her being extremely gracious in how she carried herself and interacted with students.  However, it's hard to digest what the readings are trying to convey. More specifically, what she wants us to take away from the readings. I agree that her pace can be too fast and her class is not generally a favorite as a result. That said, I did not have her for small-group (which you seem to have). So your experience may be different. Perhaps her teaching style is more conducive to year-long class. 

Re: Roach - his teaching style seems to be a hit or miss for people. There is a ton of readings from his class, but on the plus side, criminal law tends to have more interesting cases. Admittedly, his jumping around topics in lectures did make it hard to follow where he was going. However, his book is really clear and once you get the hang of how to strip a crime to its mens rea and actus reus (which may be tough initially for a new law student), you should be able to self study criminal law quite effectively. 

 

[cherrytree]

My advice for Roach's 1L crim (exam class as opposed to small group) is to get a good summary/map from an upper year ASAP. He's been teaching 1L crim for a few years by now so there should be good quality work floating around that you can leverage. As others have mentioned, he assigns a lot of readings and really tries to cover a whole range of topics. Fun to get his insights in lectures, not so fun when it's Week 8 and you're trying to organize all of your notes and/or catch up on readings you may inevitably miss because shit happens. Use a good existing summary/map done by past year's students, it will help you feel less overwhelmed and hopefully more prepared heading into exams. His exam is usually packed with material, just like his curriculum, so be smart about it and plan ahead. The volume of readings and cases to learn might seem daunting, but it's not impossible to get under control.

[Rashabon]

I don't know if things have changed in the many years since I went to U of T but I had Roach for 1L crim and enjoyed him, but for his exams in particular, you need to be on your toes and paying attention. At least on my exam, one of his fact patterns was 95% the same as well known cases he taught in class, but with a crucial distinction in that (as I recall - it's been years) the defendant had been arrested, whereas in the real case (think it was R v. Grant but could be mixing some things up), there was no arrest. So the entire analysis hinged on that nuance, but if you just read the facts quickly, you'd think it was the same as the case he taught.

 

[DonPablo]

On 8/22/2021 at 6:13 PM, Pecan Boy said:

Schneiderman is a funny guy with a dry sense of humour who teaches very clearly and assigns a very fair amount of reading. LRW is a joke and Lopez is great. Katz speaks quickly but is always willing to slow down and help explain something even if it takes 10 times; her readings are also nothing egregious. Roach, to my understanding, assigns a shit ton of reading and hops around from topic to topic in lecture which isn't super helpful, but he's an extraordinarily highly regarded crim/Charter scholar so...that's the tradeoff, I guess.

Thank you so much for taking the time to reply! Appreciate it. 

On 8/22/2021 at 11:02 PM, Twenty said:

Re: Katz - A very pleasant, considerate professor. I recall her being extremely gracious in how she carried herself and interacted with students.  However, it's hard to digest what the readings are trying to convey. More specifically, what she wants us to take away from the readings. I agree that her pace can be too fast and her class is not generally a favorite as a result. That said, I did not have her for small-group (which you seem to have). So your experience may be different. Perhaps her teaching style is more conducive to year-long class. 

Re: Roach - his teaching style seems to be a hit or miss for people. There is a ton of readings from his class, but on the plus side, criminal law tends to have more interesting cases. Admittedly, his jumping around topics in lectures did make it hard to follow where he was going. However, his book is really clear and once you get the hang of how to strip a crime to its mens rea and actus reus (which may be tough initially for a new law student), you should be able to self study criminal law quite effectively. 

 

Thank you for the reply! I read online reviews for Katz on 'RateMyProfessor' and did not find many favourable reviews. But, I am glad to know that she is a considerate professor!

[DonPablo]

54 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

I don't know if things have changed in the many years since I went to U of T but I had Roach for 1L crim and enjoyed him, but for his exams in particular, you need to be on your toes and paying attention. At least on my exam, one of his fact patterns was 95% the same as well known cases he taught in class, but with a crucial distinction in that (as I recall - it's been years) the defendant had been arrested, whereas in the real case (think it was R v. Grant but could be mixing some things up), there was no arrest. So the entire analysis hinged on that nuance, but if you just read the facts quickly, you'd think it was the same as the case he taught.

 

 

On 8/23/2021 at 8:57 AM, cherrytree said:

My advice for Roach's 1L crim (exam class as opposed to small group) is to get a good summary/map from an upper year ASAP. He's been teaching 1L crim for a few years by now so there should be good quality work floating around that you can leverage. As others have mentioned, he assigns a lot of readings and really tries to cover a whole range of topics. Fun to get his insights in lectures, not so fun when it's Week 8 and you're trying to organize all of your notes and/or catch up on readings you may inevitably miss because shit happens. Use a good existing summary/map done by past year's students, it will help you feel less overwhelmed and hopefully more prepared heading into exams. His exam is usually packed with material, just like his curriculum, so be smart about it and plan ahead. The volume of readings and cases to learn might seem daunting, but it's not impossible to get under control.

Thank you both for taking the time out of your day to provide some advice. Really appreciate it. Will definitely do so. Though, I find criminal law to be interesting, so I hope the readings and the cases are somewhat enjoyable.

2 minutes ago, DonPablo said:

Thank you so much for taking the time to reply! Appreciate it. 

Thank you for the reply! I read online reviews for Katz on 'RateMyProfessor' and did not find many favourable reviews. But, I am glad to know that she is a considerate professor!

 

[Rashabon]

10 minutes ago, DonPablo said:

Thank you so much for taking the time to reply! Appreciate it. 

Thank you for the reply! I read online reviews for Katz on 'RateMyProfessor' and did not find many favourable reviews. But, I am glad to know that she is a considerate professor!

I don't know Katz but I would take those reviews with a grain of salt. As with most reviews, the people most motivated to review are those disappointed with something. Someone that had a fine but unmemorable experience are unlikely to go out of their way to rate a professor. I liked most if not all of my professors and classes but never rated any of them, because it's not something I could be bothered to do/would do.

It could be helpful feedback on the prof, but you don't always know the full context so it's worth not having your expectations overly set based on what someone might say.

[EmplawmentLaw]

For Roach's class, I would definitely make good use of his Irwin Law textbook ("Criminal Law, 7/e"). 

Here's a somewhat-related tangent. A good piece of advice for an incoming 1L is to cater your exam answers/papers to your professors (which requires you learn more about them, as you're doing). Professors are human too, and will reward you on exams/papers for following their style of doing things, focusing on issues that are important to them, etc. There's no better way to get into the professor's head (for lack of a better term) than to read their work. More great ways are to get your hands on past marked exams from upper year students, discussing potential exam material during office hours, etc.

The three general tips I would give to you as an incoming 1L are:

1. To get good grades, you need to learn how to write good exams. Law school exams are a different beast from any exams or tests you've encountered in undergrad. Your entire semester should be spent preparing for the exam, and not reading every last page of the assigned readings (unless that's your thing), showing everyone how hardworking you are by living in the library, or trying to sound like the smartest person in class every week. 
2. Be nice and helpful to your classmates, even the ones you don't like. Your professional reputation starts your first day of law school and continues long after you've graduated.
3. Nobody in 1L knows what they're doing, yet everyone will make sure to act like they do. Keep this in mind as you navigate through 1L, whether you're dealing with imposter syndrome or an arrogant classmate.

Edited August 24, 2021 by EmplawmentLaw

[LegalPerson]

Can't speak to the others, but Katz is an absolute gem. She's incredibly smart and has a wonderfully cohesive and rigorous approach to property law. It's not an "easy" class I guess, but very rewarding. Don't be afraid to ask questions--she's very good about answering during class (spends a bit too much time on it IMO), in office hours, or by email. If you want an example of a successful exam answer in her class, feel free to PM me.

[jawnlegend]

Can anyone speak to how the readings are used in Crim with Roach and Constitutional with Schneiderman? I'm thumbing through the casebooks for both of these courses and it seems like most of the content doesn't come in the form of cases or statutes (more like a standard textbook), which is a departure from the case-focused approach I was expecting from law school. How do these profs lean on the readings on their exams and what kinds of issues do they tend to focus on? 

[Pecan Boy]

2 hours ago, jawnlegend said:

Can anyone speak to how the readings are used in Crim with Roach and Constitutional with Schneiderman? I'm thumbing through the casebooks for both of these courses and it seems like most of the content doesn't come in the form of cases or statutes (more like a standard textbook), which is a departure from the case-focused approach I was expecting from law school. How do these profs lean on the readings on their exams and what kinds of issues do they tend to focus on? 

99% of the readings in Schneiderman's con law class are cases (and I can only assume the same is true of Roach's crim class), so I'm not too sure what you mean. Is it the "Notes and Questions" section after each case that's throwing you off?

[jawnlegend]

10 hours ago, Pecan Boy said:

99% of the readings in Schneiderman's con law class are cases (and I can only assume the same is true of Roach's crim class), so I'm not too sure what you mean. Is it the "Notes and Questions" section after each case that's throwing you off?

I took another look through Schneiderman's syllabus and you're right about him, but it seems like the majority of readings from Roach aren't cases or statutes. 

[Rashabon]

51 minutes ago, jawnlegend said:

I took another look through Schneiderman's syllabus and you're right about him, but it seems like the majority of readings from Roach aren't cases or statutes. 

Well there’s only one statue that really matters for Roach but unless things have changed drastically he teaches the main cases for the development of Canadian criminal law.