1.  I'm in the class now. Health law is idiosyncratic, complicated, and fragmentary, so just bear that in mind if you're thinking about this as an elective that might be kind of cool. That said, if you're really interested in the substance of health policy, and some nuts-and-bolts mechanics, it's an excellent course and Horwitz is fantastic. The reading load in the first half of the course is somewhat heavier than average, tapering off to average loads the second half of the course.

2.  The name [of the class] is accurate. We spent about half the time going over cases (law) and we spent the other half talking about academic articles (policy). Personally, I was more interested in the law; I like reading cases and getting a clear sense of "the rules." I was a little disappointed to spend so much time talking about the articles, but this is arguably important to understand the background. The class was very discussion-based. We had about 30 people so the classes were mostly free-for-alls, and Horwitz would occasionally break the class into groups to consider different sides of a problem.


3.  One writer has two friend taking the class who "both agree that it's a great class and that Horwitz is an excellent professor--and both of them have an interest in practicing health law, so I trust their judgment."


4.  The nonprofit seminar is great if you're at all interested either in non-profits generally, or an area of law that has much contact with non-profits (think health law, education law, public finance). It's a lot of reading though, so be prepared.


5.  Professor Horwitz is excellent. She engages with the class well and cares about what her students are getting out of it. I'll definitely be trying to take more classes from her as time goes on.


6. I had her for Torts. I found her teaching style and exam very straightforward. I think she's a pretty good teacher, but build up your patiences for some loooonng cold calls with endless hypos.


7. I had Horwitz for Torts.  In class, Horwitz is a good instructor.  There isn't much to legitimately complain about there.  Her exam is a classic law school exam. However, my impression is that the exam is a typing test. Exams that do well seem to have massive word counts, e.g. 17,000 words.


8. I agree with the sixth and seventh comments. She is very straightforward, and a nice person. Doesn't really have time for you outside of class, however, and the class discussions/hypos were so boring they made me want to cry. The exam was fair, and you can prep easily enough by taking old exams.


9.  Nonprofit law was pretty bad. it seemed like she disliked some people in the class and just did not want to be teaching it. reading was pretty boring and long. the class just felt lackluster.


10. I loved Horwitz for torts. She conducts a very straightforward class, and the way that the entire course is structured shows a real mastery over how to teach a course as clearly as possible. She does tend to put students "on the spot" and can be harsh if you don't know the answer or she thinks you did not adequately prepare for class. One time she stared at a student for at least a minute of silence while the student frantically searched for the answer in his book. Awkward. Overall though, I really felt like I learned the material - she definitely didn't have the propensity that many law professors do of "putting her own spin on things" or picking out minute details to obsess over. You get the law, and the issues with the law, and some interesting class discussions, and that's it. I liked it. Also, the exam is open-book, so I pretty much studied for like, two hours total prior to the exam.


11. She makes it pretty clear who her favorites are. Example- if you are an extreme suck-up and talk to her about where you go to temple outside of class she will love you and call on you everyday despite ignoring the raised hands of some other students. I wasn't the only person to notice this.


Widget is loading comments...

Make a free website with Yola