Accounting for Lawyers: Great teacher. There’s no reading. You fill out course packs off the slides that he uses each class. He does cold call, but its usually just to answer a simple question or two. Midterm and exam each with 45 MC questions and worth 45 points. 10 points are for “participation” (whatever that means). The curve is tight. Miss just a few questions on each exam and you are most likely out of the A range.
Prof. D’s grading scheme is the worst and arguably only bad thing about accounting for lawyers. I averaged a 90 on the two exams and ended up with a B+ bc I underestimated the weight given to participation as a result of the curve. Everyone in the class receives a participation grade on a scale of 0-4, every class. You miss class; you get a 0. Your final course participation grade is an aggreggate of those daily points. Unfortunately this rewards people who speak often rather than intelligently. Material and prof. are both otherwise excellent.
Second only to Jim Hines. The class participation is really the only downfall to this class; if you leave to go to the bathroom you’ll see his eyes follow you, and you know it’s coming out of your points. But as a teacher he’s just fantastic. Notes are very clear, taught like the undergrad classes of yesteryear.
Accounting for Lawyers: Great class. Great professor and lecturer. You can study the lectures thoroughly and take the practice exams without using the textbook and do very well in the course. Would recommend, particularly if you were a Bus/Econ person in undergrad and miss that type of course. Just one disclaimer – the curve is very tight.
Excellent professor and one of the most useful classes I’ve taken in law school (Accounting for Lawyers). There’s no outside reading or homework, but be prepared to pay attention in class (sometimes a challenge at 5:00 PM). The exam problems are much harder than what we did in class, but you’ll be fine if you review the old exams and solutions he posts online.
Probably one of the most useful classes you can take, particularly if you’re going the transactional route. Topics from this class have shown up in a few of my classes this semester, and my SO, who just started work at a firm, has looked over my notes several times. Prof. D has also adapted the class incredibly well over Zoom. He cold-calls but in alphabetical order, so you generally know when you’re on call.
Also, plenty of his former students (many law students) end up emailing him after for help with their firm assignments. Several partners from my firm who went to Michigan also recommended this class.
No work, clear explanations. It was great and you actually learn something. Literally no reading. I was doing the optional problem sets and reading toward the beginning, but they really weren’t helpful so I stopped and I don’t think it affected how I performed in the class.
Do the practice exams a million times and you’ll be ready for the real exam. Also don’t miss class I’m pretty sure that negatively impacted a lot of grades.
There weren’t “real” cold calls, just went down a list alphabetically and asked 1-2 factual questions.
I cannot understand the positive reviews about Accounting For Lawyers. This was without a doubt the worst class I have ever taken. Professor Desimpelare is a funny guy and he tries to make class entertaining, but the difference in what is taught in class and what you are expected to know on the exams is absolutely ridiculous. If the class is algebra, the exam was calculus. Really disappointed overall with this course. I do feel that I have a good understanding of accounting after this class, but that is not reflected at all by performance on the exams which is frustrating.
Prof D is one of the best professors I’ve ever had. Extremely clear teaching style, no reading, and very fair exams. If you master the practice exams you should be able to pass the exams, as they were easier than the practice exams imo. Also a hilarious guy.
MLaw Prof Reviews
Accounting for Lawyers: Great teacher. There’s no reading. You fill out course packs off the slides that he uses each class. He does cold call, but its usually just to answer a simple question or two. Midterm and exam each with 45 MC questions and worth 45 points. 10 points are for “participation” (whatever that means). The curve is tight. Miss just a few questions on each exam and you are most likely out of the A range.
Prof. D’s grading scheme is the worst and arguably only bad thing about accounting for lawyers. I averaged a 90 on the two exams and ended up with a B+ bc I underestimated the weight given to participation as a result of the curve. Everyone in the class receives a participation grade on a scale of 0-4, every class. You miss class; you get a 0. Your final course participation grade is an aggreggate of those daily points. Unfortunately this rewards people who speak often rather than intelligently. Material and prof. are both otherwise excellent.
May be a tight curve, but there’s literally no homework and class is low-stress.
Second only to Jim Hines. The class participation is really the only downfall to this class; if you leave to go to the bathroom you’ll see his eyes follow you, and you know it’s coming out of your points. But as a teacher he’s just fantastic. Notes are very clear, taught like the undergrad classes of yesteryear.
Accounting for Lawyers: Great class. Great professor and lecturer. You can study the lectures thoroughly and take the practice exams without using the textbook and do very well in the course. Would recommend, particularly if you were a Bus/Econ person in undergrad and miss that type of course. Just one disclaimer – the curve is very tight.
No reading. If you go to class every day and pay attention, you’ll do fine.
Super tight curve, but an amazing prof. and great class for anyone interested in business.
Excellent professor and one of the most useful classes I’ve taken in law school (Accounting for Lawyers). There’s no outside reading or homework, but be prepared to pay attention in class (sometimes a challenge at 5:00 PM). The exam problems are much harder than what we did in class, but you’ll be fine if you review the old exams and solutions he posts online.
Probably one of the most useful classes you can take, particularly if you’re going the transactional route. Topics from this class have shown up in a few of my classes this semester, and my SO, who just started work at a firm, has looked over my notes several times. Prof. D has also adapted the class incredibly well over Zoom. He cold-calls but in alphabetical order, so you generally know when you’re on call.
Also, plenty of his former students (many law students) end up emailing him after for help with their firm assignments. Several partners from my firm who went to Michigan also recommended this class.
No work, clear explanations. It was great and you actually learn something. Literally no reading. I was doing the optional problem sets and reading toward the beginning, but they really weren’t helpful so I stopped and I don’t think it affected how I performed in the class.
Do the practice exams a million times and you’ll be ready for the real exam. Also don’t miss class I’m pretty sure that negatively impacted a lot of grades.
There weren’t “real” cold calls, just went down a list alphabetically and asked 1-2 factual questions.
Echo everything above about it being a great class. I would take a bullet for Prof. D.
I cannot understand the positive reviews about Accounting For Lawyers. This was without a doubt the worst class I have ever taken. Professor Desimpelare is a funny guy and he tries to make class entertaining, but the difference in what is taught in class and what you are expected to know on the exams is absolutely ridiculous. If the class is algebra, the exam was calculus. Really disappointed overall with this course. I do feel that I have a good understanding of accounting after this class, but that is not reflected at all by performance on the exams which is frustrating.
Prof D is one of the best professors I’ve ever had. Extremely clear teaching style, no reading, and very fair exams. If you master the practice exams you should be able to pass the exams, as they were easier than the practice exams imo. Also a hilarious guy.