1.  I have Friedman for Evidence this semester and I wouldn't recommend him as a professor if you want a to get a clear picture of the law & rules as they stand. He told us straight out to get a commercial outline to study. In class he just talks about his theories for how the law schould be and goes off on 20 minute tangents about irrelevant details that tickle him for some reason. Also, he's not very good at explaining things -- he just keeps repeating the his same explanation until people give up asking questions (that will be awful for jurisdiction, which gets pretty complicated). To be fair, some people like him. He talks a lot about the rationales behind the rules and their historical evolution and he gives people a chance to reason things out. Also, he's not intense with the Socratic method - he doesn't really care what people say and he doesn't badger. He's kind of funny and endearing, so the class environment is pretty laid back. In Evidence he gave quizzes, so not all the weight was on the final.

2.  I had evidence with Friedman and it was awful. I don't recommend him for anything. His style is to ramble incoherently which some take to mean that he's intellectual but I take to mean that he's a bad professor.


3.  Rich Friedman is the greatest evidence professor ever. This is because:

1) he gives quizzes (you know how you are doing throughout the semester - no mystery at the end!),

2) he brings a bag of Wendy's food to (nearly) every class; and

3) the see-thru bikini hypothetical.


4.  I don't think Friedman has taught Jurisdiction in recent memory, but people I know who have had him for other things say he's very idiosyncratic, and not necessarily in a good way, for whatever that's worth. The word is Cooper will also either be teaching a section of Jurisdiction in the fall or spring; don't take him, unless you enjoy spending most of a semester in a state of utter confusion.


5.  Friedman was the man for evidence.  He's a genius.  His anecdotes and hypos are stimulating and hilarious.  If you study half as hard as you did for 1L civ pro you'll get an A.


6. Friedman seemed off-topic through much of Con Law, but his exam was among the most fair and balanced I can remember from 1L.


7. I had Friedman for Con Law. He is hard to understand and babbles a lot. Not to forget his racist and sexist remarks towards the end of the semester. However, his exam was surprisingly straightforward (not so if you did not read Chemerinsky because his lectures suck).


8. Took him for evidence.  His classes mostly consist of cold-calling people to talk about hypos in the book (which he wrote). He's not nearly as bad as everyone says he is, though he does ramble and mumble a great deal, so that gets pretty annoying (can't believe this guy argues in front of the Supreme Court!).  He does a decent job explaining the ins and outs of the rules, and he's particularly great at explaining the rationales for the rules.  Since evidence is just a ton of apparently random rules, it's actually pretty useful to know the policies behind the rules to help you remember them all (and maybe make a few creative arguments here and there).


9. He has been absolutely terrible for civ pro. utterly disorganized. And while the midterm is a nice way to give us a chance to see what he thinks. He gave us completely new stuff ON THE FINAL. I had no choice but to take his class & wonder if my career options have been reduced because of it.


10.  His civ pro exam included a question that gave us 1 page of totally new information and then asked us why the rule for it (that we just learned about) was good.  Another question asked us to make the best argument for why next year he should teach the class beginning with trials and verdicts and ending with pleadings.

Widget is loading comments...
Make a Free Website with Yola.