I think Halberstam is a solid, smart professor, but much of the class time was spent discussing with classmates how a specific justice would rule. Very policy and thought oriented rather than learning rules.
Hallberstam is an extremely smart person. Maybe because of that, he can be very abstract in his teaching and difficult to follow. His exam, on the other hand, was very straightforward. He’s also witty and his classes are moderately entertaining.
I agree that Halbertsam is smart and so does he. If you ask a stupid question, he’ll let you know by laughing or facial expressions that say “how on earth can I rephrase this to sound like an intelligible comment?” I thought the exam was straightforward as con law exams go, but nothing in the course prepared us for that type of exam so seek practice exam questions elsewhere. He’s got fascinating insights to the Supreme Court and to the Michigan affirmative action cases, but you’ve got to push him to get him going on it.
Halberstam taught me Con Law. He’s funny, considerate, and easy to listen to in class. And his exam was fair. The word limit is an opportunity to put forward your best face. The short answers test you on your ability to spot and solve issues correctly. He did throw red herrings into the problems, but those should only trick you if you don’t know the rules.
I had Halberstam for EU Law. It was a great course. You slowly find out that he has played no small part in its formation and knows a lot of the key actors. It’s a cool way to get insight into major decisions. The exam had a word limit and was very straightforward.
I had Halberstam for ConLaw and liked him so much that I took his Global Constitutionalism seminar. I didn’t like him at first though. As others have said, he’s very smart and teaches ConLaw in way that felt abstract and disorganized for a long time. His cold calls are tough and he expects you to read carefully (the only prof I’ve had with similar cold calls is Leah Litman), and he sometimes can make you feel dumb (see other poster’s comment re: facial expressions). But he’s very sweet and willing to spend time with you in office hours to help you understand. I do think the material comes together toward the end and the doctrinal rules become clearer. He gives a couple of practice problems throughout the year, but could definitely do more so students know what to expect on the exam.
In Global Constitutionalism, he seemed to be much more himself: just a lovable nerd. He has so many interesting insights and hilarious takes, and often goes on adorable Seinfeld-related tangents. We frequently had guest speakers who were really interesting, and often you could tell that Halberstam was just incredibly excited to get to talk to them . He put a lot of thought into curating (and diversifying) our reading assignments. The readings were a bit long (about 50 pages per class, sometimes dense/foreign) given that we also had to write a pretty lengthy paper, but he didn’t expect as close reading as he did in ConLaw, and obviously there’s no exam at the end. We didn’t have as much structure in writing the paper as I might’ve liked, but he’s also a very generous grader in this seminar.
Both times I’ve had him, he was very responsive to class feedback, and even held a post-final exam office hours in May 2020 to get input on issues of race at the law school. In the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder and #MLawLoud, Halberstam got called out on Twitter for telling a struggling Black student that “maybe law school just isn’t for you.” That didn’t entirely surprise me given that he’s a very smart white dude in a profession with a hazing culture who spends too much time geeking out over the EU to do regular introspection. But I appreciated that he was willing to listen and learn and actively sought out to be challenged.
EU Law: was convinced by friends to take this class and was extremely disappointed. One of the worst lecturers in the law school: constantly hid the ball and seemed like he could not speak coherent sentences at times. His few guest lecturers were poorly put together and seemed to have no public speaking experience. His cold calls would ask you about random, unimportant details in the case. The worst part: he excerpts the cases himself and barely uses the textbook (which is actually well put together — he should use it more!) so the cases don’t make any sense. I was wanting to take the exam, but was so confused by the material/lecture that I ended up writing a paper instead. First class in law school that I *dreaded* going to. I did well in the class too lol
I didn´t like Halberstam for conlaw. He is supper disorganized and dry. He tends to lose the whole point of the class whenever he is excited about a topic. I would say the worst part is that he is super rude and often shows off that he was his favorite.
EU Law: agree with ANON’s 3/25/23 comment. Halberstam is sharp and, outside of class, approachable and understanding. I would love an oral history of his legal career–it’s super impressive and I can see why he would be a great asset to a judge, client, or litigation team. Class itself though felt like an interminable slog through cryptic, poorly written/translated cases. Readings were torturous, cold calls were merciless, and I, too, dreaded going to class. And I cannot say that I really learned that much about EU law (perhaps because I forgot as much as I could in an act of psychological self-preservation), though I managed a pretty good grade. The exam vs. paper option provided a much-needed pressure valve.
We had a class session towards the end of the semester that he ran more informally with more opportunities to volunteer for discussion and it was 100x lovelier than the usual structure–I imagine he opts for rigid cold calls to ensure more equal participation from students but I fail to see how those benefits outweigh the enormous cost to course as a whole.
I wanted to like this class because I respect Prof. Halberstam but I simply cannot recommend it, and in fact I encourage people to avoid it, unfortunately. If the subject matter interests you, an individual research project with Halberstam would be a MUCH less painful way to go.
Do NOT take EU law with Halberstam. Please, don’t do it. This was the worst and most confusing class I have taken here. 80% of the class was spent answering unrelated student questions and doing cold-calls during which Halberstam would “hide the ball” and not give a straight answer.
This meant that, at the end of the class, we basically received no instruction on any of the material. Please avoid at all cost. This 3 credit class was an absolute nightmare to take.
MLaw Prof Reviews
I think Halberstam is a solid, smart professor, but much of the class time was spent discussing with classmates how a specific justice would rule. Very policy and thought oriented rather than learning rules.
Hallberstam is an extremely smart person. Maybe because of that, he can be very abstract in his teaching and difficult to follow. His exam, on the other hand, was very straightforward. He’s also witty and his classes are moderately entertaining.
I agree that Halbertsam is smart and so does he. If you ask a stupid question, he’ll let you know by laughing or facial expressions that say “how on earth can I rephrase this to sound like an intelligible comment?” I thought the exam was straightforward as con law exams go, but nothing in the course prepared us for that type of exam so seek practice exam questions elsewhere. He’s got fascinating insights to the Supreme Court and to the Michigan affirmative action cases, but you’ve got to push him to get him going on it.
Halberstam taught me Con Law. He’s funny, considerate, and easy to listen to in class. And his exam was fair. The word limit is an opportunity to put forward your best face. The short answers test you on your ability to spot and solve issues correctly. He did throw red herrings into the problems, but those should only trick you if you don’t know the rules.
I had Halberstam for EU Law. It was a great course. You slowly find out that he has played no small part in its formation and knows a lot of the key actors. It’s a cool way to get insight into major decisions. The exam had a word limit and was very straightforward.
I had Halberstam for ConLaw and liked him so much that I took his Global Constitutionalism seminar. I didn’t like him at first though. As others have said, he’s very smart and teaches ConLaw in way that felt abstract and disorganized for a long time. His cold calls are tough and he expects you to read carefully (the only prof I’ve had with similar cold calls is Leah Litman), and he sometimes can make you feel dumb (see other poster’s comment re: facial expressions). But he’s very sweet and willing to spend time with you in office hours to help you understand. I do think the material comes together toward the end and the doctrinal rules become clearer. He gives a couple of practice problems throughout the year, but could definitely do more so students know what to expect on the exam.
In Global Constitutionalism, he seemed to be much more himself: just a lovable nerd. He has so many interesting insights and hilarious takes, and often goes on adorable Seinfeld-related tangents. We frequently had guest speakers who were really interesting, and often you could tell that Halberstam was just incredibly excited to get to talk to them . He put a lot of thought into curating (and diversifying) our reading assignments. The readings were a bit long (about 50 pages per class, sometimes dense/foreign) given that we also had to write a pretty lengthy paper, but he didn’t expect as close reading as he did in ConLaw, and obviously there’s no exam at the end. We didn’t have as much structure in writing the paper as I might’ve liked, but he’s also a very generous grader in this seminar.
Both times I’ve had him, he was very responsive to class feedback, and even held a post-final exam office hours in May 2020 to get input on issues of race at the law school. In the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder and #MLawLoud, Halberstam got called out on Twitter for telling a struggling Black student that “maybe law school just isn’t for you.” That didn’t entirely surprise me given that he’s a very smart white dude in a profession with a hazing culture who spends too much time geeking out over the EU to do regular introspection. But I appreciated that he was willing to listen and learn and actively sought out to be challenged.
EU Law: was convinced by friends to take this class and was extremely disappointed. One of the worst lecturers in the law school: constantly hid the ball and seemed like he could not speak coherent sentences at times. His few guest lecturers were poorly put together and seemed to have no public speaking experience. His cold calls would ask you about random, unimportant details in the case. The worst part: he excerpts the cases himself and barely uses the textbook (which is actually well put together — he should use it more!) so the cases don’t make any sense. I was wanting to take the exam, but was so confused by the material/lecture that I ended up writing a paper instead. First class in law school that I *dreaded* going to. I did well in the class too lol
I didn´t like Halberstam for conlaw. He is supper disorganized and dry. He tends to lose the whole point of the class whenever he is excited about a topic. I would say the worst part is that he is super rude and often shows off that he was his favorite.
EU Law: agree with ANON’s 3/25/23 comment. Halberstam is sharp and, outside of class, approachable and understanding. I would love an oral history of his legal career–it’s super impressive and I can see why he would be a great asset to a judge, client, or litigation team. Class itself though felt like an interminable slog through cryptic, poorly written/translated cases. Readings were torturous, cold calls were merciless, and I, too, dreaded going to class. And I cannot say that I really learned that much about EU law (perhaps because I forgot as much as I could in an act of psychological self-preservation), though I managed a pretty good grade. The exam vs. paper option provided a much-needed pressure valve.
We had a class session towards the end of the semester that he ran more informally with more opportunities to volunteer for discussion and it was 100x lovelier than the usual structure–I imagine he opts for rigid cold calls to ensure more equal participation from students but I fail to see how those benefits outweigh the enormous cost to course as a whole.
I wanted to like this class because I respect Prof. Halberstam but I simply cannot recommend it, and in fact I encourage people to avoid it, unfortunately. If the subject matter interests you, an individual research project with Halberstam would be a MUCH less painful way to go.
Do NOT take EU law with Halberstam. Please, don’t do it. This was the worst and most confusing class I have taken here. 80% of the class was spent answering unrelated student questions and doing cold-calls during which Halberstam would “hide the ball” and not give a straight answer.
This meant that, at the end of the class, we basically received no instruction on any of the material. Please avoid at all cost. This 3 credit class was an absolute nightmare to take.