Ratner is fantastic. He wrote the book, which is always an advantage. I’ve heard other professors have a hard time following his book, because it’s written much different than a typical case book. It’s a “problem-based approach” or whatever. He does cold-call though, but it’s like 2 people a day, so once you’ve been called you’re unlikely to get called again (his class is usually huge).
Anyway, I just wanted to offer you my advice about Transnat with Steven Ratner. This, other than Crim Pro, is my favorite class in all of law school. I am going to be in the vast, vast minority of people who actually like Transnat, but I really enjoyed the class and learned a lot in it, and have actually retained much of the information, which are three things I can’t say about most other law school classes. I find Ratner’s Transnat book really clear and helpful, and he is incredibly smart and talented in his field. I went abroad during the fall semester of 3L, and to Ratner’s credit, I had learned much more in his Transnat class than I did while abroad, even though we covered subjects like human rights for 8 weeks, rather than a few days. Ratner’s class was invaluable. Also he’s just a really nice person and stays after class to offer help to students all the time. On the negative side, and these are some of the things people don’t like about him and his class: He’s kind of esoteric. Not like having a philosopher as your professor, but he is pretty nerdy/intellectual and he really digs the material, so he does go off on little rants and tangents sometimes that aren’t as clear. Some people also don’t like his book because it’s set up differently than a lot of other books, but I found this style helpful.
I feel compelled to submit a review for Prof. Ratner, since the only two are positive and neither I nor my half dozen friends who took the same Transnat class enjoyed him. Two miscellaneous things first: you’ll love or hate the casebook (latter for me). Also, Ratner was sometimes unwilling to fairly evaluate viewpoints that differed from his own. The remainder of the drawbacks I suspect stem from him teaching a class about which he is passionate, but many people don’t care and are required to be there. He occasionally lashed out at those who were unprepared or just confused. He took pride in failing or giving D’s to a few students every year, and swore to do the same to anyone who was pass/failing but didn’t put in enough effort. Overall I just got the impression he wasn’t very nice…or was at least temperamental. I hear, though, that he’s great in upper-level courses. Maybe he was just fed up with people not caring about Transnat, and maybe it’ll get better since the P/F system changed…but I did not consider him a good professor and have heard great things about the others for Transnat.
While Ratner may be good in Transnat, or not, never, ever take Protecting Human Rights in International Law unless you already know the material and care about/love it deeply, and just want 3 hours a week to share opinions with other people about it. Worst, least substantive class that I’ve ever taken, anywhere. Again, avoid unless you are absolutely passionately in love with the subject of international human rights.
I had Ratner for International Investment Law. I learned a lot in this course and even liked it for the most part. However, I will likely not take another class with him again. The reason for this is his tendency to make his exams artificially difficult and I’ve heard from others that he does this across multiple courses.
The exam was 2 hours and 15 minutes and had an issue spotter, a policy question, and a True/False section. Despite the limited time, the issue spotter referenced three treaty provisions which weren’t included with the exam. Instead, students had to frantically sort through 1200 pages of assigned reading in the course to find what we needed to reference. The readings are compiled from hundreds of sources, so the numbering isn’t standardized. Furthermore, this is a blocked exam, so you can’t ctrl-find terms.
It was unnecessary and ended the course on a very sour note.
I had Ratner for International Law. The Problem-based teach from a book he wrote was refreshing in the beginning, but gradually became hard to follow. Additionally, he would periodically change readings without much prior notice (the day before class or the day of class) which was frustrating to keep up with. Additionally, he would avoid discussing issues or problems beyond the problems assigned for class, which made the materials dry or isolated at times and it was unclear often what we were meant to take from the problems. Overall, he makes himself available for questions and has positive qualities, I would not recommend.
Steven Ratner has been the highlight of my LLM experience! I had him for International Law, and love him both as a professor and as a person (although he penalized me for submitting an assignment late by 8 minutes ). He always makes himself accessible after the class hours for questions. He teaches wonderfully, and you can grasp things quite easily if you listen carefully in class. He’s at times funny in class.
He cold-calls, but doesn’t mistreat those who fail to respond to his calls properly. He’s quite accessible in his office hours (although we need to shoot him and email before we drop in, but that was perhaps because the office hours are virtual this year).
I once didn’t understand the instructions to write an RP, and he gave me a second chance (and a week’s extra time) to resubmit.
Overall, I’d strongly recommend taking class with him. He knows not just the law, but also the practice (and politics). Degrees in international relations from Princeton and Graduate Institute Geneva, and law from Yale. Worked in the State Department, served in UN Secretary-General’s expert panels, hi-fi guy, but down to earth.
But, he’s quite strict when (it appears like) you take him for granted. I gave an example above. He’s quite a principled man, and will stick to the rules.
Again, couldn’t be happier about my decision to take a class with him! Recommended 🙂
I’ve had Ratner for 3 classes. He’s the most effective teacher at the law school and follows good pedagogical practices. One thing I really liked was how quick he was to let you know when you are incorrect so you can get back on track before you have confused yourself and the rest of the class on a cold call. His exams are short and test whether you know the material well enough to apply it critically, not whether you made an expansive outline and can type fast. He does tend to curve his classes even when not required, but you’re here to learn, not book International Law, right?
I’ve had Ratner for two classes. Int law and int inv. law. I think he is one of the best professors in the law school. Although he is tough and can be awkward (even rude) at times, he really motivates me to learn and do better and think deeper into the issue. I think to do well, you need to really have strong logic and very good understanding of the materials. He is clear and is always willing to answer questions but his attitude is not the best. lol. I don’t find his exam to be especially hard but it is also not easy.
MLaw Prof Reviews
Ratner is fantastic. He wrote the book, which is always an advantage. I’ve heard other professors have a hard time following his book, because it’s written much different than a typical case book. It’s a “problem-based approach” or whatever. He does cold-call though, but it’s like 2 people a day, so once you’ve been called you’re unlikely to get called again (his class is usually huge).
Anyway, I just wanted to offer you my advice about Transnat with Steven Ratner. This, other than Crim Pro, is my favorite class in all of law school. I am going to be in the vast, vast minority of people who actually like Transnat, but I really enjoyed the class and learned a lot in it, and have actually retained much of the information, which are three things I can’t say about most other law school classes. I find Ratner’s Transnat book really clear and helpful, and he is incredibly smart and talented in his field. I went abroad during the fall semester of 3L, and to Ratner’s credit, I had learned much more in his Transnat class than I did while abroad, even though we covered subjects like human rights for 8 weeks, rather than a few days. Ratner’s class was invaluable. Also he’s just a really nice person and stays after class to offer help to students all the time. On the negative side, and these are some of the things people don’t like about him and his class: He’s kind of esoteric. Not like having a philosopher as your professor, but he is pretty nerdy/intellectual and he really digs the material, so he does go off on little rants and tangents sometimes that aren’t as clear. Some people also don’t like his book because it’s set up differently than a lot of other books, but I found this style helpful.
I feel compelled to submit a review for Prof. Ratner, since the only two are positive and neither I nor my half dozen friends who took the same Transnat class enjoyed him. Two miscellaneous things first: you’ll love or hate the casebook (latter for me). Also, Ratner was sometimes unwilling to fairly evaluate viewpoints that differed from his own. The remainder of the drawbacks I suspect stem from him teaching a class about which he is passionate, but many people don’t care and are required to be there. He occasionally lashed out at those who were unprepared or just confused. He took pride in failing or giving D’s to a few students every year, and swore to do the same to anyone who was pass/failing but didn’t put in enough effort. Overall I just got the impression he wasn’t very nice…or was at least temperamental. I hear, though, that he’s great in upper-level courses. Maybe he was just fed up with people not caring about Transnat, and maybe it’ll get better since the P/F system changed…but I did not consider him a good professor and have heard great things about the others for Transnat.
While Ratner may be good in Transnat, or not, never, ever take Protecting Human Rights in International Law unless you already know the material and care about/love it deeply, and just want 3 hours a week to share opinions with other people about it. Worst, least substantive class that I’ve ever taken, anywhere. Again, avoid unless you are absolutely passionately in love with the subject of international human rights.
I had Ratner for International Investment Law. I learned a lot in this course and even liked it for the most part. However, I will likely not take another class with him again. The reason for this is his tendency to make his exams artificially difficult and I’ve heard from others that he does this across multiple courses.
The exam was 2 hours and 15 minutes and had an issue spotter, a policy question, and a True/False section. Despite the limited time, the issue spotter referenced three treaty provisions which weren’t included with the exam. Instead, students had to frantically sort through 1200 pages of assigned reading in the course to find what we needed to reference. The readings are compiled from hundreds of sources, so the numbering isn’t standardized. Furthermore, this is a blocked exam, so you can’t ctrl-find terms.
It was unnecessary and ended the course on a very sour note.
I had Ratner for International Law. The Problem-based teach from a book he wrote was refreshing in the beginning, but gradually became hard to follow. Additionally, he would periodically change readings without much prior notice (the day before class or the day of class) which was frustrating to keep up with. Additionally, he would avoid discussing issues or problems beyond the problems assigned for class, which made the materials dry or isolated at times and it was unclear often what we were meant to take from the problems. Overall, he makes himself available for questions and has positive qualities, I would not recommend.
He’s not a very accessible professor. His time is precious to him and he’s not really willing to share it.
Steven Ratner has been the highlight of my LLM experience! I had him for International Law, and love him both as a professor and as a person (although he penalized me for submitting an assignment late by 8 minutes
). He always makes himself accessible after the class hours for questions. He teaches wonderfully, and you can grasp things quite easily if you listen carefully in class. He’s at times funny in class.
He cold-calls, but doesn’t mistreat those who fail to respond to his calls properly. He’s quite accessible in his office hours (although we need to shoot him and email before we drop in, but that was perhaps because the office hours are virtual this year).
I once didn’t understand the instructions to write an RP, and he gave me a second chance (and a week’s extra time) to resubmit.
Overall, I’d strongly recommend taking class with him. He knows not just the law, but also the practice (and politics). Degrees in international relations from Princeton and Graduate Institute Geneva, and law from Yale. Worked in the State Department, served in UN Secretary-General’s expert panels, hi-fi guy, but down to earth.
But, he’s quite strict when (it appears like) you take him for granted. I gave an example above. He’s quite a principled man, and will stick to the rules.
Again, couldn’t be happier about my decision to take a class with him! Recommended 🙂
I’ve had Ratner for 3 classes. He’s the most effective teacher at the law school and follows good pedagogical practices. One thing I really liked was how quick he was to let you know when you are incorrect so you can get back on track before you have confused yourself and the rest of the class on a cold call. His exams are short and test whether you know the material well enough to apply it critically, not whether you made an expansive outline and can type fast. He does tend to curve his classes even when not required, but you’re here to learn, not book International Law, right?
I’ve had Ratner for two classes. Int law and int inv. law. I think he is one of the best professors in the law school. Although he is tough and can be awkward (even rude) at times, he really motivates me to learn and do better and think deeper into the issue. I think to do well, you need to really have strong logic and very good understanding of the materials. He is clear and is always willing to answer questions but his attitude is not the best. lol. I don’t find his exam to be especially hard but it is also not easy.