1.  Really enjoyed this class (family law), thought Kochen did a good job of engaging people. Class discussions sometimes detoured to things that seemed tangential, but were generally interesting.

2.  I would say I was disappointed with this course overall. Most of the people I talked to in the class (like myself) thought we would be discussing some practical issues or at least the "typical" family law issues. Instead we spent a great deal talking about Constitutional issues. Nearly every class discussion got hijacked by the same three or four people and we constantly got sidetracked on highly-theoretical discussions about policy. The professor never really did anything to get the discussions back on track. I did not like two things from the professor. First, she decided about 2/3 of the way through the semester to make it a closed-book exam because it would "make it easier for her to write it." We covered roughly 140 cases in the 4-credit class and surveyed a lot of material and it was highly inappropriate to switch this to a closed book exam. Finally, the professor frequently let her own views of the cases shape discussion and only presented the opposing viewpoint in a sarcastic manner.

3.  Professor Kochen came to the table with so many stories of her time as an actual practicing attorney that it made the class a rarity!  For someone sick of learning law from people who've never been lawyers and only teach the academic side of things, this class was a life saver.  Kochen is without a doubt one the best profs I've had at UMich Law.

4.  I've heard good things about her other course, but for first year courses, especially property, she was an awful professor. Hapless lectures, confusing, and a final that was unrelated to the specifics of property law.  When it came time to study for the bar, I felt like I was learning several property concepts for the very first time.  She is very nice, but she should have known better than to teach property if she didn't know her material.  She's like the inverse of Sherman Clark.  No style, no expertise, but sincere and invites students over to her house for wine and cheese.

5. Awful. Awful. Awful. Sharp contrast between her and other UM professors I've had. Awful, just awful.

6. Awful. Kochen was all over the place. She would seemingly get frustrated with probing questions on one topic, and just move on to the next. Her actual knowledge of substantive property law may be great, but it hardly showed in class. She seemed fairly on-point for theoretical or policy concerns, but when it came to hard case law, she was totally inept at having it make sense to students. Oh, and much of the material covered was, she said, not going to be the on the exam. Maybe she's great at Talmudic law or family law, but she's really not compelling for this general property course. Also, there was no reason to purchase the casebook. We read maybe fifteen pages out of it, and the rest was in a cheap coursepack or on CTools. Was this some sort of kickback for Krier? I want a refund.

7.  Echoing what #6 said, just awful. She would get upset with students who did not realize some small minute detail of a case but then had trouble with them herself. Constantly confusing things like vertical and horizontal privity made the class extremely difficult to follow. She didn't even know the name of Penn Central, but if you missed the one sentence regarding the trial court outcome, you were careless. The book, as stated was completely unnecessary, yet expensive.

To be fair, Professor Kochen seems genuinely nice and seems to genuinely care about students and their ability to succeed. She just doesn't do her part to help them get there.

8.  Echoing #6 loud and clear.

9. Repeat #5-8. On the plus-side, when I go home for the holidays, I can now answer my family's many questions on cave law.

10.  I was there too, and agree with most of the above. At least she is axed now.


Widget is loading comments...

Make a free website with Yola