really a very good course

Experience was good.

Very good course.

great course.

GREAT COURSE

No comments

Good

good

good

TL/DR: If you can get through it, its content might come in handy later, but look for other lecturers.

I'm a social justice nerd, with a Bachelors in Sociology, and ten months into a paralegal studies program, or as I like to refer to it, "law school beta". I took this course as a means to continue to do something productive while in this coronavirus quarantine state we're all under right now. Keep the mind active while in-between school quarters. This course was tough to get through at times. Took me 2x as long as the "three weeks" it claims to get through it, in part because I lost interest to sit through it at the pace it it proposes. The lectures are dry to listen to. The professor stumbles through his words, goes off on anecdotal tangents that aren't particularly helpful, and his attempts at humor and pop culture fall flat. The topics the lectures are super pertinent for any would-be legal professional, but his explanations often leave you having to Google or find other videos to clarify what he actually might have meant. The videos aren't particularly stimulating visually to maintain interest, and it's clear that there were some bumps in coordinating between the teleprompter, the slideshow, and the camera. If nothing else, the course serves as a helpful primer that not all law professors are going to be helpful in how they lecture, and that your success on the material is often in spite of the professor you have.

The most challenging part of the course was probably the readings and peer review assignments. Some readings are in excess of 30 pages, so the "10 minutes" that it says it should take you to read are grossly underestimated. Also, part of the assignment's grading is whether you can articulate these responses in under 250 words. That's basically trying to summarize complex legal principles or case law in a tweet. Most "classmates" wrote well excess of the prompt, averaging 320-450 words. Some of your peers are gonna grade tough, but offered great feedback for strengthening your argument or correct your incorrect premise. Others I'm pretty sure are those "atta boy" graders who just give everyone A's for effort. However, there were a number of peer reviews that I read that helped me make greater sense of the readings than I may have had on first impression.

In all, it took me about 24 hours to take detailed handwritten notes, skim the readings, and complete the prompts or roughly 3-4 hours a week. I would have liked if the course had been broken up into 4-5 weeks versus 3, and had perhaps some guest speakers, or varying content like supplemental videos instead of the very mediocre lectures in a dark studio and an under-prepared lecturer.

This course lies about how long it takes. You need much more time than predicted. If you plan to do the set reading, it it likely to take you a minimum of 100 hours. It is also badly organised, with more work in the first two weeks than in the final week and with easier topics in the final week than the first two weeks. The transcripts are full of misheard transcriptions. The passing grade for the assessments appears to be 80% and you cannot pass the course without getting a minimum of this grade on each of the assignments. Most of the assignments require considerable reading and therefore cannot be done in the time anticipated.

The course itself is fine - very engaging professor with interesting content and relevant links. However, the course grading is heavily dependent on peer-reviewed assignments, which seems to run a high risk of your work being failed fairly arbitrarily. On top of this, the course seems to be pretty inactive in terms of the number of people currently taking it - this means that you may only get one review on your work, and that that one review can pass or fail your assignment. Although it's a perfectly good and useful course, expect a bit of hassle and bother relating to your assignments.

The content is interesting but the professor is bad at lecturing (lack of structure, some rambling).

leading to much sources which is really good enough to seek for more info in law.

GOOD COURSE

good

I think the explanation of the whole course is too advanced. I'm a slow learner and it took me lots of self research for me to understand even a topic. The explanation is very extremely low and I don't these topics.

I'm getting queasy watching him sway back and forth--and since the links to the reading material are broken, I don't even know what I'm missing.

A waste of time.

Usless course and I cannot seem to get unenrolled

i want to unenroll