1.  I think Halberstam is a solid, smart professor, but much of the class time was spent discussing with classmates how a specific justice would rule. Very policy and thought oriented rather than learning rules.

2.  Hallberstam is an extremely smart person. Maybe because of that, he can be very abstract in his teaching and difficult to follow. His exam, on the other hand, was very straightforward. He's also witty and his classes are moderately entertaining.

3. I agree that Halbertsam is smart and so does he. If you ask a stupid question, he'll let you know by laughing or facial expressions that say "how on earth can I rephrase this to sound like an intelligible comment?" I thought the exam was straightforward as con law exams go, but nothing in the course prepared us for that type of exam so seek practice exam questions elsewhere. He's got fascinating insights to the Supreme Court and to the Michigan affirmative action cases, but you've got to push him to get him going on it.

4. Halberstam taught me Con Law. He's funny, considerate, and easy to listen to in class. And his exam was fair. The word limit is an opportunity to put forward your best face. The short answers test you on your ability to spot and solve issues correctly. He did throw red herrings into the problems, but those should only trick you if you don't know the rules.

5. Pompous asshole who is full of himself. But hey, if you like that sort of thing. Oh right, you go to Michigan, so you probably do. 

Widget is loading comments...

Make a free website with Yola