1.  Prof. Krier was unclear and unfriendly for much of the class discussion. The multiple choice exam was not a fair representation of the material we covered.

2.  People either like him or hate him. I liked him. Go to office hours, pay close attention to what he emphasizes in class, and don't take things too personally.

3.  The course & lectures were great, and Professor Krier was always happy to answer questions outside class, via email or in person. The exam was fair in its coverage, but the MC format probably led to grades being somewhat more arbitrary than they would've been in a traditional essay format. Lots of policy and economic analysis on the exam, so do not tune those parts out in class since they're often not covered in the book.

4.  This class didn't feature nearly enough movies. I learn best from movies. This class should have featured films like "Glengarry Glenross", "The Money Pit", "Duplex", and "Mousetrap". I would have benefited immensely from exposure to the content of these films.

5.  Krier's funny as hell, but other than that the class isn't much. If you read the Gilbert's (that he wrote), you don't really have to go to class or even do the reading. Seriously, the Gilbert's teaches you everything you could possibly need to know for this class. So that's nice I guess.

6.  The above commenter is right: either you love Krier's teaching style or you don't. Can be perceived as harsh in class at times, but it's not personal. Very helpful and willing to answer questions/ shoot the breeze in office hours. The class is heavy on Krier's view of law and econ as applied to property, but he's willing to entertain challenges to it, if you can coherently articulate one.

7.  If Krier is doing a multiple choice exam again...beware. He admitted it was not a representation of what you learned in the class or your aptitude for property. His class is entertaining, I would recommend memorizing Gilbert's as opposed to trying to read the massive assignment in the case book. Also, raise your hand so he doesn't have to antagonize over no one volunteering.

8.  Prof Krier isn't funny; he's offensive and personally attacks students. Because he knows he's an "institution," he assumes he has carte blanche to say and do anything he pleases. (Those who liked his class were likely of his same demographic and least likely to recognize his blatant sexism, racism, and homophobia). His exam was the worst I've ever taken - it mattered more how you strategized than what you knew about property. If all possible, avoid him.

9.  I think Krier has made significant efforts to improve his friendliness and offensiveness. He gets frustrated easily when students aren't sufficiently prepared or engaged or understanding. I do think he cares a lot about students and property issues, but since he has disdain for exams just makes them as easy to grade as possible no matter how unfair they are. Multiple choice, multiple correct answers possible, penalties for guessing... good luck.

10. People either like him or hate him. I think he was awful as an instructor and possibly as a human being. FIRST, his exam is unfair: the multiple choice questions are very unclear, and he admits that he curved us on minor distinctions.  SECOND, he's difficult for most people to understand -- he jumps around a lot in lectures and he mumbles.  THIRD, he's rude and offensive. Those are the main things.

11. I liked Krier and I liked Property.  He's pretty damn funny. I'll admit though - I didn't do that great in the class, and Krier can be pretty offensive. The final exam (which is basically all multiple choice with multiple right answers, where you get docked for wrong answers) is ridiculous because I don't think it really tests knowledge of Property. Part of doing well on the exam is just learning when to bubble more than 1 answer in order to game the system (you get +1 for a right answer, -0.5 for a wrong answer...)

12.  Krier's property class is pointless.  He outright discourages reading before class. He's an amusing lecturer and I don't think he's offensive.  His exam tests nothing, however.  It's mostly multiple choice, but since you only have 4 hours for about 40 questions, it's just an exercise in looking the answers up.  If there are short answer questions, this will be what sets the curve. However, he words questions in obtuse ways or references pages in the text to describe terms in the question which are not actually defined in the text.  He does not think many students failing to understand what he asked is a sign that he wrote a bad question.  Being able to decipher his awkward drafting on one or two questions will determine whether you get an A or B.

13. Krier is amusing. Class is pointless. Grades are relatively arbitrary. The exam is multiple choice with some short answers. Everyone looks up exam answers in the Gilberts text. Because everyone has plenty of time to look answers up, the multiple choice questions only distinguish students if students misinterpret questions. Short answers are written in ambiguous ways, but Krier doesn't think that they're ambiguous. The school was thinking of making property and criminal law optional to make room for legislation/regulation; after Krier complained, they made con law a 2L course. So if you get Krier, you're pretty much stuck. Sorry

14. Oh how I wish I had Krier for Property...I was one of the unlucky ones stuck with Kochen that year. He is as brilliant with law as his son is with music. Worship him.

Widget is loading comments...

Make a free website with Yola