B. Reasonable
n/r - Class discussion
Dispute Systems Design: Seminar E.Bordone r C. Clear about
B. Unclear about content expectations
C. Heavy but Average E.Bordone r
B. Seminar -
Dispute Systems Design:manageableClass discussion A. Clear about content C. Clear about expectations
A. Light A. Seminar E.Bordone r
Dispute Systems Design: Easy - Class discussion C. Clear about
B. Unclear about content expectations
C. Heavy but Average D.Bordone r
B. Seminar -
Dispute Systems Design:manageableVolunteers only A. Clear about content C. Clear about expectations
C. Heavy but Easy
A. Seminar E.Bordone r
-
Dispute Systems Design:manageableClass discussion A. Clear about content C. Clear about expectations
E. Organized G. PracticalH. Theoretical J. Boring M. Does not use the reading
E. Organized I. Engaging
G. PracticalH. Theoretical L. Adds meaningfully to/builds usefully on the r
E. Organized H. Theoretical M. Does not use the reading
E. Organized G. Practical I. Engaging L. Adds meaningfully to/builds usefully on the r
E. Organized I. Engaging
G. PracticalH. Theoretical L. Adds meaningfully to/builds usefully on the r
O. Focuses on theory, institutionalto disagreement history, economics, etc.easily r
M. Does not use the reading S. Is knowledgeable U. Is sidetracked by student questions/c
Q. Is open design, politics, from students about the material
O. Focuses on theory, institutionalto disagreement history, economics, etc. material
meaningfully to/builds usefully on the reading S. Is knowledgeable
Q. Is open design, politics, from students about the r
M. Does not use the reading r
S. Is knowledgeable about the material
O. Focuses on theory, institutionalto disagreement history, economics, etc. material
meaningfully to/builds usefully on the reading S. Is knowledgeable
Q. Is open design, politics, from students about the r
O. Focuses on theory, institutionalto disagreement history, economics, etc. material
meaningfully to/builds usefully on the reading S. Is knowledgeable
Q. Is open design, politics, from students about the r
r A. Available right before and/or after class
B. Did not enhance my understanding of the material C. Seems enthusiastic and/or proactive about
the materialr A. AvailableB. AvailableC. Seems enthusiastic and/or proactive about
right beforeduring the reading
and/or after hours
A. Enhanced my understanding of D. Lecture/discussion is easy to follow independent of office class
r
B. Did not enhance my understanding of the material C. Seems enthusiastic and/or proactive about
A. Enhanced my understanding of the material r C. Seems enthusiastic and/or proactive about
A. Available right before and/or after class
C. Lecture/discussion is
r follow if you right beforeduring office class
have not done the reading
and/or after hours
A. Enhanced my understanding of the material difficult to A. AvailableB. AvailableC. Seems enthusiastic and/or proactive about
F. No exam interacting with students outside of class
in this B.
enthusiastic and/or proactive about B. No class 2L n/r
D. This course added nothing to my understanding of the law on this subject
F. No exam interacting with students outside of class
in this B.
enthusiastic and/or proactive about A. Yes class 2L Absolutely great course. my is great at leading class on this subject
B. This course added substantially toBob understanding of the lawdiscussion -- I
F. No exam interacting with students outside of class were guest lecturers each week, so of the was on this subject
in this B.
enthusiastic and/or proactive about B. No class 2L There
C. This course added marginally to my understanding there law no consistency.
F. No exam interacting with students outside of classclass and amazing guest speakers. But, it's a lot on worksubject
in this C.
enthusiastic and/or proactive about A. Yes class 3L Great
B. This course added substantially to my understanding of the law of this for 2 c
F. No exam interacting with students outside of class me mastery of the law on this the way (i.e., I could write lega
in this B.
enthusiastic and/or proactive about A. Yes class 2L Very interesting material that added to subject I think about law, a go
A. This course gave
great at leading class discussion -- I looked forward to coming each week. The invited lecturers added enormously to my understanding of d
week, so there was no consistency. It was unclear how the topics related to each other. I still don't know exactly how DSD can be used in t
peakers. But, it's a lot of work for 2 credits.
ed to the way I think about law, legal institutions, dispute resolution, negotiation, and organizational management generally. The instructors
enormously to my understanding of dispute systems design, and really gave the class a great glimpse into this new (relatively) and growing fi
w exactly how DSD can be used in the real world or how to begin a career in this area. The class was too amorphous. And the professor is
nagement generally. The instructors are truly outstanding for their dedication to students and to teaching. The guest speakers also added m
to this new (relatively) and growing field.
oo amorphous. And the professor is an extremely tough grader who plays favorites.
g. The guest speakers also added meaningfully to the class. The reading was interesting and I found writing the paper to be a worthwhile ex
riting the paper to be a worthwhile experience. My only complaint is that, for students also enrolled in the Dispute Systems Design clinical, th
e Dispute Systems Design clinical, the combined workload of the seminar and the clinic turned out to be much higher than I expected (for pe
much higher than I expected (for people taking the seminar as a stand-alone class, it's probably much more reasonable). An easy solution
more reasonable). An easy solution would be to allow clinical work product to substitute for the final research paper, giving clinical students
earch paper, giving clinical students the option to write the paper for an additional credit.