Active thread

Only the replies to the one thread you selected
Fox Hollow: Come a long way since the Legal Eagle video
Sateda: Thought that overall it was great. I think the class could benefit from more clarity on what to read for class, but otherwise it was great. On that point, when is the 1500 word paper due, and when is the 500 word response due?
Triangulum: Quick logistical question: When are our papers due? And this class doesn't have a listed exam on the exam schedule website, so how do we access that question? Are we even still doing the 500-word one?
White Bridge: When will we receive the prompt for the 500 word essay?
Chulak: I enjoyed the process of getting intimately familiar with a single case throughout the semester
Chulak: I'd like to make a suggestion for the 500-words: since our group projects already incorporated class discussions and involved significant outside research, they should count as the 500-word paper
Bremervoord: I appreciate the freedom we have in forming our final paper topics
Bremervoord: I like Chulak's idea
Tridam: Need a Law and Poker class.
Triangulum: I enjoyed the process of talking about procedural issues my classmates find interesting based on our discussions--today felt like a highlight in that respect.
Luna: Agree with Chulak
Fox Hollow: I agree with Chulak--I much preferred a case-specific and semester-long exploration of Advanced Evidence through a fascinating case.
Triangulum: I second Chulak's post
White Bridge: The the group projects were incredibly time consuming, so I think it would be great if they counted as the 500 word essay
Orilla: Thank you so much Professor Nesson! It has been an absolute pleasure to have you in both this seminar and in Fair Trial. I liked the case focus throughout the semester but would have loved to have at least another case to explore as well.
Triangulum: I'd prefer to do a paper only since we spent time we might have spent working on final papers on our group projects
Betelgeuse: I have been so honored to have a chance to learn from you. The experience of listening to the sentence hearing of Danziger won't be forgotten.
Shaerrawedd: +1 @Tridam
Dun Dâre: Class was interesting for times I was confused about what we were doing week to week
White Bridge: This class could have benefited from more structure but overall very interesting
Dagobah: It was very interesting to do a deep dive into one case. Especially one as interesting as Donziger's. It would have been helpful to get more exposure to the case from Chevron's side (certainly there is one) but you addressed this last class. I liked the focus on current events as applied to evidence and jury too--specifically the Rittenhouse and Death Penalty cases. It would be nice to have more structure, at least initially, as to where the class is going . . . sometimes it seems like we waste time searching for conversation early in our discussions.
Tatooine: Considering that this class does not require evidence, we have discussed some very complicated issues in evidence. I thought it was great but wonder how our llm students felt about it. On the other hand, while discussing the one issue in great detail, I wish we could have discussed other issues in evidence. I'm sure there are many more issues than what we covered. This was somewhat too Donziger-focused.
Fox Hollow: Sometimes it'd be helpful to get more advance notice of what we planned to do in class, I could listen to Professor Nesson discourse on anything
Triangulum: I agree w/ Orilla--more than one case might have been helpful. I think many students in the class were sort of unsure of how they felt about the Donziger case, and that made things a little more complicated.
White Bridge: Professor Nesson, could you provide clarity as to whether our group projects factor into our grade at all?
Triangulum: And if those count instead of our 500-word?
Luna: I've really, thoroughly, enjoyed this course. I wish there were a bit more of a doctrinal skew—that is, what "advanced evidence" looks like from a black-letter standpoint. But the case study on Donziger was fascinating, and this is unlike other classes I've taken in HLS (in a good way).
Death Star: ^ what Chulak said. Structuring the seminar around a singular case, and allowing us to become intimately familiar with it (to the point of meeting with Donziger himself and contributing to future strategic moves), was unique and insightful. The class conversations might have been even more fruitful if we had known the general topic(s) and had been provided any relevant readings at least a few days in advance
Tridam: love this unity
Uranus: these group project comments are absolutely wilding
Uranus: I can't believe I'm witnessing this
Uranus: I'm going to tell this story for years
Tatooine: Didn't we get an email today asking us to NOT include any personal identifiers in the exams?
Triangulum: Since the group projects ended in different places and we didn't really have a rubric or set endpoint, I think many of us might prefer to be graded on our independent final papers only. Is that okay?
Tridam: comic sans