1.  I've heard to avoid Croley for Admin.

2.  NOT Croley. Admin was the worst.

3.  My tutor had Croley last semester and hated him with an unbridled passion.

4.  Croley has the unfortunate combination of brilliance, laziness, and disrespect for his students. I skipped class and learned everything from reading an E&E. You might as well do the same, only without paying for class time.

5.  The difference could not be more stark. Khanna was one of the best professors I've ever had and Croley was one of the worst. The only way I can think of to describe Croley's lecturing style is stream of consciousness. His exams are all policy and no law, and they range in length from 50-150 pages (it's a 48-hour take-home and you have to read law review articles and cases to answer the questions). The only somewhat redeeming characteristics that Croley has is that he doesn't call on people in class (at least not in Admin) and many women find him attractive. Beyond that, I pretty much wanted to shoot myself in the face every day of class. It was also the only class I've ever taken pass/fail (as a graduating 3L)--I wasn't confident I could do well because the exam didn't have that much to do with Admin law.

6.  I have only taken Civ Pro w/ Croley, and while while he's not a boring prof, he's not a very good one either. As in buy a hornbook and don't plan on learning the materials from class.

for the love of god, stay away from croley!!!1

7.  Worst professor I've ever had

8.  Don't know anything about the seminar itself but I had Croley for Civ Pro and loved him.  People are of two minds about Croley -- they love him or hate him. I was in the former camp, obviously. He's extremely intelligent and appears to be very passionate about doing what he does. I also found him quite accessible -- he is always willing to make himself available to students for questions and the like. All in all, I felt like I learned a lot from him.

9.  Croley's biggest flaw as a professor is probably also the reason he teaches a course called "Good Government" -- he definitely allows his personal beliefs to inform his teaching style. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but often our class discussion took a decidedly normative turn. So be prepared for that. If you're of the Weberian "my professor should teach us the law and leave his vision of it at home" mind, you probably will not like him. Otherwise, I think he's fantastic.

10.  Great guy, funny guy, great litigator, bad professor. Had him for civ pro. He hadn't updated the syllabus for about 3 years, so the page #s were wrong and in some instances cases were listed that were not in the book. He didn't really teach the material so much as use classtime as a forum for his jokes. Come end of the semester, he was upping the reading and cramming things in. Awful. Avoid.

11. Worst prof i've ever had. i echo the comments above about his civ pro class.  the entire course seemed like an excuse for him to tell us how awesome he was.  he then jammed 1/3 of the course into the last 2 weeks (with additional class time), gave us an exam with completely illogical mult. choice options ("it's not a logic test, it's a civ pro test"), and a take home essay that i'm almost positive he never read.

12.  Solid prof, managed to make CivPro enjoyable. As the comments suggest, he's polarizing for some reason, but I had a great experience. He's very responsive to students, and his lectures have a persistent internal structure which makes them pretty easy to follow even on the days that they drag on. As an added benefit, the cold calls are relaxed and infrequent.


Widget is loading comments...

Make a free website with Yola