1.  I've heard Hakimi is a nightmare for Transnat.

2.  I had Hakimi and she definitely didn't work for me.  Her teaching style is much like Brenske-Primus (ie. highly adversarial), only more confusing.

3.  I had Hakimi for Transnat. Maybe it was just the subject material or maybe it was her teaching style but I really disliked the class. She was vague and took herself way too seriously, even by Michigan law prof standards.

4.  For what it's worth, I've heard negative things for Hakimi.

5.  Hakimi, while a nice and very knowledgeable person, can't teach to save her life.  My transnat class was terrible.  [adds that there is "no question": Dickinson is better.]

6.  I'm in Hakimi's class right now.  Looking back, she's not THAT bad.  She cold calls like none other and her questions are often very vague and obtuse....and she'll ask the same question 10 times in 10 different ways, but she's always willing to talk with students if you ever have a question.

Things to consider:


She has a really high pitched voice that can be a little unnerving at times

She does not allow laptops in her class, so you have no choice but to pay attention.

She seems to me to be trying to imitate Primus....she's just not quite as smart (and I hated Primus, so that doesn't help her in my eyes either). 


I don't know anything about Dickinson, so I can't compare.

7. She's not as bad as everyone says she is.  I'd say the problem is that she sometimes doesn't make it clear what the structure of the class is and how it all fits together, so that you're left confused.  For what it's worth, I think she handled the faux-debate aspects of her style relatively well, and also think she seems interested in the subject and cares about making international law actually work.

8. These reviews are absurdly unbalanced. Yes, she takes an aggressive position in class - but not absurdly so. And there's clearly no malice to it - she's out to make you think on your feet, not humiliate you. And (unlike not a few other Mich Law professors) she's extremely nice and friendly, always prepared to discuss a point in depth or just chat. She's also quite funny.

9.  Hakimi is great. Funny. Approachable. Human (cf. most other law professors). She does use the socratic method energetically, but not in a mean way.

10.  I have her for foreign affairs. Unlike most of the reviewers here, I really enjoy Hakimi. She's extremely adversarial and socratic (called almost every person almost every day of class), but that made for lots of ideas in the room and a lot of great debate. You definitely can't afford to slack off in her class, but it's usually interesting enough that you won't want to. Maybe this isn't the case in a 100-person transnat class, but her style works really well for foreign affairs law. She's also very friendly and not stuffy at all, which is a nice change of pace. Oh, and her abs are better than mine. :(

11.  Aggressive, insufficient knowledge of anything but her own little executive branch realm, distorts readings to fit her own theories, bad communicating skills, dislikes opinionated people. Save your brain - avoid her.

12.  Transnat: Good luck with her, given her teaching style.  She's unclear, hostile, and obtuse, and breathes way too heavily in the microphone every 20 seconds.

When someone asked about the structure of the exam, she said, "Well it's not an issue-spotter. I mean, some people might think it's an issue-spotter, but I don't think it's an issue-spotter so I don't think you should, but you might." That was enough to get me to stop going to class for the last three weeks.  What followed was the most issue-spottiest exam in the history of law school.

13.  You guys are total entitled assholes. In what universe is it appropriate to talk about a professor this disrespectfully, regardless of your feelings? Be respectful and constructive. Jesus Christ.

Widget is loading comments...

Make a free website with Yola