Herzog is hands down the best professor I’ve ever had. He problematizes the doctrine really thoroughly and creatively, which is sometimes a mind fuck, but in a good way…and he’s funny as hell.
Haven’t had defamation, but had Herzog for First Amendment, which touches on some of that material. He’s brilliant, funny — and also a very challenging Socratic prof. Not sure how that would translate in a seminar, but expect to be challenged, occasionally frustrated, and also to learn a lot.
I loved this course (first amendment). He assigns a lot of reading and the course requires a lot of preparation (when you get grilled, you get grilled for 20-25 mins and he is not nice if you are not really well prepared). However the material is complicated con-law-y stuff and fascinating for those who liked con law and like rights. Some people think he pushes an agenda too hard but I thought his perspective was really interesting and he was willing to listen if you had a reasonable and different view.
Let’s just say Don turned my life around. He’s a fantastic prof, a great mentor, and a very respectable person. I’d take any class with him in a heartbeat.
I think it’s important to offer another perspective here. I had Herzog for 1A. I think he is a nice person and cares about his students. That said, I found him to be one of the least effective teachers I had in law school. His teaching is completely Socratic. But where one reviewer says “challenging,” I say it’s bad. The more effective Socratic teachers I have had have always been able to bring students around to the right answer. I never felt Herzog did that. He kept asking questions, and those questions certainly made you think, but you hardly ever got a sense if the student’s response was analyzing the issue correctly. While some ambiguity is inherent in 1A law, I thought Herzog could have done a lot more to focus the doctrine for us. As it stands, most of what I “learned” came from the reading, not from anything Herzog said in class.
All that said, there’s clearly a faction of students here who love him, and you may too. But not everyone does, and when you peel back the layers of “cool,” I didn’t actually think he was that great a teacher.
I like Herzog. I don’t think he’s a particularly effective teacher. He’s antagonistic and doesn’t really give straight answers to anything. When you’re answering a question, you never know if you’ve done the analysis correctly. And then if someone disagrees with you, you never know if they’re doing the analysis correctly. It’s a pretty frustrating experience.
I do think he’s a nice guy. He has great taste in music. But I don’t think he’s a great teacher.
If Herzog is on the menu, do know that it comes with a unhealthy helpings of both hubris and obfuscation. He loves finding and pressing on puzzles in the law, which makes for a thirty-minute conversation but a less than satisfying doctrinal experience, especially if your intent is to learn the law. Most frustrating is that these puzzles are somehow magically answered by answers that comport with Herzog’s theory of constitutional law. As the class progresses, you will find that First Amendment law is the subtext to Herzog’s constitutional theory, a theory that he himself admits is an outlier. But that does not dissuade him from pressing forward with trumpeting his theory, altogether removed from First Amendment law.
I would wait until Niehoff teaches this course. Herzog is a nice Professor with an excellent taste in music, but he doesn’t properly teach you First Amendment law (based on the many First Amendment outlines I have from peer schools) and insufferably harps on a constitutional theory that should be the subject of a 2-credit seminar, not a First Amendment course.
Don Herzog is the reason 1L was tolerable for me. His style is polarizing, because he constantly wants to get to the ~why~ of the law, but as someone who is generally frustrated by the methods of law school, I found it incredibly refreshing. He made me a better student and he made happier during a bad year, because he generally cared in a way that most profs just don’t.
Absolutely incredible professor to take for First Amendment. I would say your law school experience has not been complete without taking Herzog. I agree with the comments that you leave class with more confusion than knowledge of the doctrine, but it is totally worth it. Just buy a study guide supplement to learn the law for the exam.
Don Herzog is truly a terrible teacher and he is also a deeply racist person. He is super antagonistic and he is absolute ass. I have never felt more sick by an individual in my life. He is also incredibly repetitive in his hypos. Herzog is an ass, so if you think of taking him don’t. Especially as a black student
It takes a genuinely outstanding professor to get students to engage with the subject matter outside class as much as we did. Don’s style might be controversial, but he makes confusing subjects more digestible by stating them in plain English. I don’t find him abrasive, as other reviews suggest, but he’s not going to pretend to be impressed when someone blows a cold call. He was the only one of my professors to hold open office hours during the two days prior to our exam. He was also the only one who gave detailed feedback on a practice exam, which was incredibly useful, considering we had never taken a law school exam before. This is not to say that other professors were inaccessible; it’s just evident that Don truly loves teaching and goes above and beyond to help his students learn the material.
Don’s teaching style is definitely polarizing – I had him for 1L Torts and it felt like a struggle for much of the semester to grasp the material. Don is old-school and prefers class to be a discussion, with long cold-calls and questions he doesn’t always give the answer to. He’s pretty straightforward about what he wants on the exam though – and if he really grills you on a cold-call, it’s not because he’s picking on you but because you did well and he’s pushing you to go further and believes you can do it.
As to him as a person, Don will often ask questions to get students to think about a topic or injustice in the law, but does so in a way that can come off as blunt at best and insensitive or offensive at worst. That being said, he is incredibly receptive to student feedback and when called out will sincerely apologize and make changes to his behavior. He’s on the side of marginalized students and is one of the more vocal advocates for students (and their rights) in the law school.
This Professor is arrogant and racist against Black students. Unfortunately, his torts class is required for 1Ls, so you can’t really avoid it if you get assigned to it. Keep your head down, massage his huge ego and you should be fine.
First of all, he is definitely not racist. I feel like the comments above came from one student who had a bad experience. As someone else above mentioned, he is on the side of marginalized students and pretty vocal about it. As to whether he is rude or arrogant, I get why some people may think that, but really, I think he’s just sassy. I think if you approach him with good faith and a sense of humor, you will find that he also has a sense of humor, and that he is an extremely kind and generous teacher. He teaches classes that are pretty philosophy-based, so yeah, they’re not overly satisfying doctrinal experiences in the sense that you come away with a clear set of rules. His classes are a lot of fun, though. More fun than learning a set of rules, IMO.
MLaw Prof Reviews
Herzog is hands down the best professor I’ve ever had. He problematizes the doctrine really thoroughly and creatively, which is sometimes a mind fuck, but in a good way…and he’s funny as hell.
Haven’t had defamation, but had Herzog for First Amendment, which touches on some of that material. He’s brilliant, funny — and also a very challenging Socratic prof. Not sure how that would translate in a seminar, but expect to be challenged, occasionally frustrated, and also to learn a lot.
I loved this course (first amendment). He assigns a lot of reading and the course requires a lot of preparation (when you get grilled, you get grilled for 20-25 mins and he is not nice if you are not really well prepared). However the material is complicated con-law-y stuff and fascinating for those who liked con law and like rights. Some people think he pushes an agenda too hard but I thought his perspective was really interesting and he was willing to listen if you had a reasonable and different view.
Best class at law school (1A)
Let’s just say Don turned my life around. He’s a fantastic prof, a great mentor, and a very respectable person. I’d take any class with him in a heartbeat.
I think it’s important to offer another perspective here. I had Herzog for 1A. I think he is a nice person and cares about his students. That said, I found him to be one of the least effective teachers I had in law school. His teaching is completely Socratic. But where one reviewer says “challenging,” I say it’s bad. The more effective Socratic teachers I have had have always been able to bring students around to the right answer. I never felt Herzog did that. He kept asking questions, and those questions certainly made you think, but you hardly ever got a sense if the student’s response was analyzing the issue correctly. While some ambiguity is inherent in 1A law, I thought Herzog could have done a lot more to focus the doctrine for us. As it stands, most of what I “learned” came from the reading, not from anything Herzog said in class.
All that said, there’s clearly a faction of students here who love him, and you may too. But not everyone does, and when you peel back the layers of “cool,” I didn’t actually think he was that great a teacher.
I like Herzog. I don’t think he’s a particularly effective teacher. He’s antagonistic and doesn’t really give straight answers to anything. When you’re answering a question, you never know if you’ve done the analysis correctly. And then if someone disagrees with you, you never know if they’re doing the analysis correctly. It’s a pretty frustrating experience.
I do think he’s a nice guy. He has great taste in music. But I don’t think he’s a great teacher.
If Herzog is on the menu, do know that it comes with a unhealthy helpings of both hubris and obfuscation. He loves finding and pressing on puzzles in the law, which makes for a thirty-minute conversation but a less than satisfying doctrinal experience, especially if your intent is to learn the law. Most frustrating is that these puzzles are somehow magically answered by answers that comport with Herzog’s theory of constitutional law. As the class progresses, you will find that First Amendment law is the subtext to Herzog’s constitutional theory, a theory that he himself admits is an outlier. But that does not dissuade him from pressing forward with trumpeting his theory, altogether removed from First Amendment law.
I would wait until Niehoff teaches this course. Herzog is a nice Professor with an excellent taste in music, but he doesn’t properly teach you First Amendment law (based on the many First Amendment outlines I have from peer schools) and insufferably harps on a constitutional theory that should be the subject of a 2-credit seminar, not a First Amendment course.
Don Herzog is the reason 1L was tolerable for me. His style is polarizing, because he constantly wants to get to the ~why~ of the law, but as someone who is generally frustrated by the methods of law school, I found it incredibly refreshing. He made me a better student and he made happier during a bad year, because he generally cared in a way that most profs just don’t.
Don Herzog is the reason I hated my first semester of law school. He should be teaching philosophy courses, not 1L doctrinals.
Not a fan, great guy, but not a good professor.
Absolutely incredible professor to take for First Amendment. I would say your law school experience has not been complete without taking Herzog. I agree with the comments that you leave class with more confusion than knowledge of the doctrine, but it is totally worth it. Just buy a study guide supplement to learn the law for the exam.
Don Herzog is truly a terrible teacher and he is also a deeply racist person. He is super antagonistic and he is absolute ass. I have never felt more sick by an individual in my life. He is also incredibly repetitive in his hypos. Herzog is an ass, so if you think of taking him don’t. Especially as a black student
It takes a genuinely outstanding professor to get students to engage with the subject matter outside class as much as we did. Don’s style might be controversial, but he makes confusing subjects more digestible by stating them in plain English. I don’t find him abrasive, as other reviews suggest, but he’s not going to pretend to be impressed when someone blows a cold call. He was the only one of my professors to hold open office hours during the two days prior to our exam. He was also the only one who gave detailed feedback on a practice exam, which was incredibly useful, considering we had never taken a law school exam before. This is not to say that other professors were inaccessible; it’s just evident that Don truly loves teaching and goes above and beyond to help his students learn the material.
Don is a scumbag
Don’s teaching style is definitely polarizing – I had him for 1L Torts and it felt like a struggle for much of the semester to grasp the material. Don is old-school and prefers class to be a discussion, with long cold-calls and questions he doesn’t always give the answer to. He’s pretty straightforward about what he wants on the exam though – and if he really grills you on a cold-call, it’s not because he’s picking on you but because you did well and he’s pushing you to go further and believes you can do it.
As to him as a person, Don will often ask questions to get students to think about a topic or injustice in the law, but does so in a way that can come off as blunt at best and insensitive or offensive at worst. That being said, he is incredibly receptive to student feedback and when called out will sincerely apologize and make changes to his behavior. He’s on the side of marginalized students and is one of the more vocal advocates for students (and their rights) in the law school.
This Professor is arrogant and racist against Black students. Unfortunately, his torts class is required for 1Ls, so you can’t really avoid it if you get assigned to it. Keep your head down, massage his huge ego and you should be fine.
First of all, he is definitely not racist. I feel like the comments above came from one student who had a bad experience. As someone else above mentioned, he is on the side of marginalized students and pretty vocal about it. As to whether he is rude or arrogant, I get why some people may think that, but really, I think he’s just sassy. I think if you approach him with good faith and a sense of humor, you will find that he also has a sense of humor, and that he is an extremely kind and generous teacher. He teaches classes that are pretty philosophy-based, so yeah, they’re not overly satisfying doctrinal experiences in the sense that you come away with a clear set of rules. His classes are a lot of fun, though. More fun than learning a set of rules, IMO.