1.  Eisenberg is very sharp, but also nice and sweet. She seems to honestly enjoy class discussions even though most of the points raised are 100% clear from the readings. Her teaching style is a bit like driving through a suburban residential, she sometimes ends up in cul-da-sacs and has to maneuver back to the main point. However, this wandering style is because she insists on answering students questions to the best of her knowledge (a good thing) even if sometimes the class would have been better served if the questioner was asked to pose the question again after class. When calling on students she knows the law cold but uses it in a very constructive manner to help support student's arguments. She calls on people in alphabetical order, so you have some sense of when you will be called on. When its your turn she isn't too pushy and seems to give people who are struggling slack pretty fast. She is always willing to stay after class to chat about various points and is very approachable. She highly recommended, and because her classes are somewhat niche oriented they are easy to get into.

2.  This [FDA] is her area of expertise and she is one of the leading scholars on the biotech industry (FDA and Patent law). I took Patent and really enjoyed it, you can see that she knows a great deal about the subject and is enthusiastic about it.

3.  I took FDA Law with her.  She knows her stuff, and I enjoyed the class.  She calls in alphabetical order, which is nice in that it's low pressure but problematic in that nobody does the reading (especially since there's a paper, instead of an exam) and class "discussions" can be pretty tepid.

She seems to really want students to put some work into their writing and get published.  It was almost like undergrad again.

Widget is loading comments...

Make a free website with Yola