I liked Niehoff (I know he’s not one of the choices listed, but every year I think he teaches it either in the fall or spring). Pretty balanced and clear; I thought the exam was fair (no hiding-the-ball games).
Niehoff is much more Socratic in Evidence than he usually is with the other two classes he teaches. But, he calls on people by row, and it’s pretty clear when your turn comes. He goes through the case book and the rules pretty systematically. The exam is just a regular essay format (3-4 questions in total, and some questions have subparts). He gives some “practice questions” throughout the semester, and although they were helpful in seeing Niehoff’s question style and format, the so-called model answers (discussed in class) were not all that useful. Other folks recommended taking Gross in the Fall (if he teaches the class again) if you’re looking to avoid Clark’s class (which usually meets on Friday at 905 and has a multiple choice final).
Professor Neihoff mentioned in a panel discussion the other day that his Evidence class is much more civil law-focused, whereas some others focus a little more on criminal evidence.
His Evidence class is truly outstanding. One of the better profs I’ve had here. He has a lot of trial experience and seems to care about teaching. He explains things well and takes his teaching role seriously (rather than just “oh yeah, I have to stand around here for an hour before I go back to writing articles”). Thoughtful, skilled professor. Unless there’s a third Primus who teaches Evidence, I would unequivocally suggest that he be your Evidence pick.
Niehoff is a great professor. By far the clearest and most direct professor I’ve had thus far in law school. He asks tough questions on cold calls, but he’s really a big sweetheart.
Evidence: Incredibly fair exam. Clear professor who teaches the rule and illustrates it through class. Straightforward and not hard at all on cold calls. Takes attendance through sign in sheet every day. One criticism is the amount of reading. It’s pretty extreme.
Mass Media: This course is his bread and butter and you can tell he loves it. Course can have highs and lows in terms of how interesting the material is. A paper course, and each student presents their ideas, which can be pretty interesting. You also have to turn in at least 5 pages of something pretty early on. Don’t expect much feedback. A good course overall, and allows for some time off reading.
I took Civ Pro with him and almost everyone in my class didn’t know what we learned as we were studying for finals. Prof. Niehoff is indeed a nice person, but he is definitely NOT the clearest prof.
I had Niehoff both for Civ Pro and Mass Media Law and he is my favorite professor I’ve had at the law school. His lectures are always entertaining and he is a very passionate professor who cares for his students and the law school. His exams are long fact pattern issue spotters and he doesn’t hide the ball or anything. Definitely take a class with him if you are at all interested in the things he teaches.
I had Niehoff for Civ Pro and Evidence. I like him a lot, and he is an engaging professor who cares deeply about getting students to learn the material. He also does a good job of straddling the practical and theoretical sides of the law. Since he is a practicing litigator, he gives a good overview of how courts use the rules and doctrines while also ensuring to provide a theoretical basis that breathes life into the doctrines. Outside of class, he is one of the coolest people I know. A truly great person who cares about his students. I could not recommend his classes enough.
I cried after Niehoff’s class twice during my 1L year. He definitely took the approach of “I went through brutal training so you should too” during the semester when I was in his class. I think he means well but I did not enjoy his approach.
Had Niehoff for Civ Pro and thought it was fine overall. He’s an engaging lecturer and pretty clear more often than not. He does yell sometimes and gets up in students personal space…he’s a performer and clearly likes the sound of his own voice. My biggest issue with him is that he doesn’t make himself available to students. I get that he works while teaching a huge courseload, but maybe teach fewer courses if you aren’t able to commit? He cuts off his (already limited) office hours right at the end time (after wasting lots of time with stories and joking around) and doesn’t answer questions by email (it says so right in the syllabus). He doesn’t provide any practice exams or model answers (he says it’s so he doesn’t have to keep making the exams harder) and his exam is entirely a typing test, so the best strategy isn’t actually about getting the analysis right. But the readings are manageable and cold calls aren’t bad.
MLaw Prof Reviews
I liked Niehoff (I know he’s not one of the choices listed, but every year I think he teaches it either in the fall or spring). Pretty balanced and clear; I thought the exam was fair (no hiding-the-ball games).
I didn’t have Niehoff, but most people who did seemed to like his class.
Niehoff is much more Socratic in Evidence than he usually is with the other two classes he teaches. But, he calls on people by row, and it’s pretty clear when your turn comes. He goes through the case book and the rules pretty systematically. The exam is just a regular essay format (3-4 questions in total, and some questions have subparts). He gives some “practice questions” throughout the semester, and although they were helpful in seeing Niehoff’s question style and format, the so-called model answers (discussed in class) were not all that useful. Other folks recommended taking Gross in the Fall (if he teaches the class again) if you’re looking to avoid Clark’s class (which usually meets on Friday at 905 and has a multiple choice final).
Professor Neihoff mentioned in a panel discussion the other day that his Evidence class is much more civil law-focused, whereas some others focus a little more on criminal evidence.
His Evidence class is truly outstanding. One of the better profs I’ve had here. He has a lot of trial experience and seems to care about teaching. He explains things well and takes his teaching role seriously (rather than just “oh yeah, I have to stand around here for an hour before I go back to writing articles”). Thoughtful, skilled professor. Unless there’s a third Primus who teaches Evidence, I would unequivocally suggest that he be your Evidence pick.
Niehoff is a great professor. By far the clearest and most direct professor I’ve had thus far in law school. He asks tough questions on cold calls, but he’s really a big sweetheart.
He made evidence one of the most intriguing classes I have taken thus far. I would strongly suggest taking his courses.
Evidence: Incredibly fair exam. Clear professor who teaches the rule and illustrates it through class. Straightforward and not hard at all on cold calls. Takes attendance through sign in sheet every day. One criticism is the amount of reading. It’s pretty extreme.
Mass Media: This course is his bread and butter and you can tell he loves it. Course can have highs and lows in terms of how interesting the material is. A paper course, and each student presents their ideas, which can be pretty interesting. You also have to turn in at least 5 pages of something pretty early on. Don’t expect much feedback. A good course overall, and allows for some time off reading.
I took Civ Pro with him and almost everyone in my class didn’t know what we learned as we were studying for finals. Prof. Niehoff is indeed a nice person, but he is definitely NOT the clearest prof.
I had Niehoff both for Civ Pro and Mass Media Law and he is my favorite professor I’ve had at the law school. His lectures are always entertaining and he is a very passionate professor who cares for his students and the law school. His exams are long fact pattern issue spotters and he doesn’t hide the ball or anything. Definitely take a class with him if you are at all interested in the things he teaches.
I had Niehoff for Civ Pro and Evidence. I like him a lot, and he is an engaging professor who cares deeply about getting students to learn the material. He also does a good job of straddling the practical and theoretical sides of the law. Since he is a practicing litigator, he gives a good overview of how courts use the rules and doctrines while also ensuring to provide a theoretical basis that breathes life into the doctrines. Outside of class, he is one of the coolest people I know. A truly great person who cares about his students. I could not recommend his classes enough.
I cried after Niehoff’s class twice during my 1L year. He definitely took the approach of “I went through brutal training so you should too” during the semester when I was in his class. I think he means well but I did not enjoy his approach.
Had Niehoff for Civ Pro and thought it was fine overall. He’s an engaging lecturer and pretty clear more often than not. He does yell sometimes and gets up in students personal space…he’s a performer and clearly likes the sound of his own voice. My biggest issue with him is that he doesn’t make himself available to students. I get that he works while teaching a huge courseload, but maybe teach fewer courses if you aren’t able to commit? He cuts off his (already limited) office hours right at the end time (after wasting lots of time with stories and joking around) and doesn’t answer questions by email (it says so right in the syllabus). He doesn’t provide any practice exams or model answers (he says it’s so he doesn’t have to keep making the exams harder) and his exam is entirely a typing test, so the best strategy isn’t actually about getting the analysis right. But the readings are manageable and cold calls aren’t bad.