1.  This professor has been teaching at MLAW since the "dawn of time" aka 1980's. Prior to that he went here and clerked for Justice Powell. Schneider teaches 1L property, and teaches in a heavily Socratic method. His exam is closed book and it would be wise to memorize the cases, which shouldn't be too hard because the pace is SSSSLOW (we spent 3 weeks on Pearson v. Post!). He also teaches various upper-class courses concerning law and medicine. He's cool.

2. Had Schneider for property. The class was unbearable at times. For the most part he didn't actually teach us property. As he said, it was a "skills class" and he was using property to teach us the skills he wanted us to learn. The final was ridiculous. Only one of the three essays required us to know property (what he little he taught us). For the other two essays we had to analyze two opinions. Two long opinions at that, for which there wasn't enough time. I think some people actually liked him, but I wasn't one of them. I will never take another class with him. He's clearly incredibly smart. Just not a good teacher. Or at least his teaching didn't work for me.

3. Very idiosyncratic professor. plays favorites, so get on his good side by talking in class or at office hrs and saying stuff he likes. he's a very good writer and has unique things he wants from his students in property.  talk to older students who did well.

4. My classmates were split on their opinion of Schneider's class, but everyone liked him as a person. He's articulate, worldly, and might be one of the most down to earth professors you'll ever have. He's also very funny.

As for the class, I enjoyed it. The reading was never overbearing, and he drove home the basic principles of legal analysis. This ended up translating well for other concurrent classes (torts and constitutional law). 

5. Absolutely hated him for property. We didn't learn any property, since, as the previous reviewer mentioned, he considers it a "skills" class. The class is entirely student discussion driven - we devolved into a weeklong discussion of personal views on marriage.  He couldn't have put less effort into making the final - analyzing two court opinions? Didn't require any knowledge of substantive property law. Self-important, condescending, and doesn't even try to teach. I'm very much interested in the other subjects he teaches relating to bioethics, but I refuse to take another class with him.

6. I've taken Bioethics and Regulation of Research. I really like him, but I know not everyone would agree. He refuses to give a syllabus which drives some students crazy, but I like that he doesn't try to stick to a schedule knowing that the class pace is based on discussion. Regulation of research involves writing 3 5-page paper and 1 25-page paper combining the 3 smaller ones. After you hand in the 25-page paper, you meet with him one-on-one and he critiques your writing and you do two re-writes of a particular section. I really liked the feedback and the process. I think he spent a lot of time on the students in the class and he really cares about the subject matter. That being said, it's definitely hard to argue against him in his classes. I wouldn't do it on the exam or the paper.

Widget is loading comments...

Make a free website with Yola