Eisenberg is very sharp, but also nice and sweet. She seems to honestly enjoy class discussions even though most of the points raised are 100% clear from the readings. Her teaching style is a bit like driving through a suburban residential, she sometimes ends up in cul-da-sacs and has to maneuver back to the main point. However, this wandering style is because she insists on answering students questions to the best of her knowledge (a good thing) even if sometimes the class would have been better served if the questioner was asked to pose the question again after class. When calling on students she knows the law cold but uses it in a very constructive manner to help support student’s arguments. She calls on people in alphabetical order, so you have some sense of when you will be called on. When its your turn she isn’t too pushy and seems to give people who are struggling slack pretty fast. She is always willing to stay after class to chat about various points and is very approachable. She highly recommended, and because her classes are somewhat niche oriented they are easy to get into.
This [FDA] is her area of expertise and she is one of the leading scholars on the biotech industry (FDA and Patent law). I took Patent and really enjoyed it, you can see that she knows a great deal about the subject and is enthusiastic about it.
I took FDA Law with her. She knows her stuff, and I enjoyed the class. She calls in alphabetical order, which is nice in that it’s low pressure but problematic in that nobody does the reading (especially since there’s a paper, instead of an exam) and class “discussions” can be pretty tepid.
She seems to really want students to put some work into their writing and get published. It was almost like undergrad again.
I took FDA law with Eisenberg and have mixed feelings. She’s the least engaging professor I’ve had in law school, and by a wide margin. To be fair, this class was remote which definitely didn’t help, but as others have said she tends to try to inspire class discussion but largely fails because 1) she doesn’t really cover anything that’s not crystal clear from the readings, 2) she ends up going off on tangents and just lecturing, 3) occasionally she just shuts students down and asserts her own view as fact (not in an aggressive way, and I don’t think it’s intentional). Which is mostly fine: she’s passionate about this material and clearly knows her stuff, and there’s no exam so it’s no big deal if you zone out for a bit. She does cold call alphabetically, which has its pros and cons, but I think is necessary given how long the reading assignments are. We regularly had 150 pages per week (3 classes), and she provides the readings on a weekly rather than daily basis, so you just have to guess where to stop for the first two classes each week. All the said, she’s really sweet and cares a ton about student scholarship, so if you want to try to get published, this is a great class for developing a paper. I also learned a lot, even when I didn’t do the reading.
I was in the Student Scholarship Workshop in Winter 2023 and it was one of, if not my favorite class throughout law school. Professor Eisenberg is really nice while simultaneously not afraid to ask hard hitting questions. I think this helps the workshop feel more like a group of peers rather than a traditional classroom experience. Anyone interested in pursuing academic research and writing or anyone looking to publish a specific piece should take this class.
MLaw Prof Reviews
Eisenberg is very sharp, but also nice and sweet. She seems to honestly enjoy class discussions even though most of the points raised are 100% clear from the readings. Her teaching style is a bit like driving through a suburban residential, she sometimes ends up in cul-da-sacs and has to maneuver back to the main point. However, this wandering style is because she insists on answering students questions to the best of her knowledge (a good thing) even if sometimes the class would have been better served if the questioner was asked to pose the question again after class. When calling on students she knows the law cold but uses it in a very constructive manner to help support student’s arguments. She calls on people in alphabetical order, so you have some sense of when you will be called on. When its your turn she isn’t too pushy and seems to give people who are struggling slack pretty fast. She is always willing to stay after class to chat about various points and is very approachable. She highly recommended, and because her classes are somewhat niche oriented they are easy to get into.
This [FDA] is her area of expertise and she is one of the leading scholars on the biotech industry (FDA and Patent law). I took Patent and really enjoyed it, you can see that she knows a great deal about the subject and is enthusiastic about it.
I took FDA Law with her. She knows her stuff, and I enjoyed the class. She calls in alphabetical order, which is nice in that it’s low pressure but problematic in that nobody does the reading (especially since there’s a paper, instead of an exam) and class “discussions” can be pretty tepid.
She seems to really want students to put some work into their writing and get published. It was almost like undergrad again.
I took FDA law with Eisenberg and have mixed feelings. She’s the least engaging professor I’ve had in law school, and by a wide margin. To be fair, this class was remote which definitely didn’t help, but as others have said she tends to try to inspire class discussion but largely fails because 1) she doesn’t really cover anything that’s not crystal clear from the readings, 2) she ends up going off on tangents and just lecturing, 3) occasionally she just shuts students down and asserts her own view as fact (not in an aggressive way, and I don’t think it’s intentional). Which is mostly fine: she’s passionate about this material and clearly knows her stuff, and there’s no exam so it’s no big deal if you zone out for a bit. She does cold call alphabetically, which has its pros and cons, but I think is necessary given how long the reading assignments are. We regularly had 150 pages per week (3 classes), and she provides the readings on a weekly rather than daily basis, so you just have to guess where to stop for the first two classes each week. All the said, she’s really sweet and cares a ton about student scholarship, so if you want to try to get published, this is a great class for developing a paper. I also learned a lot, even when I didn’t do the reading.
I was in the Student Scholarship Workshop in Winter 2023 and it was one of, if not my favorite class throughout law school. Professor Eisenberg is really nice while simultaneously not afraid to ask hard hitting questions. I think this helps the workshop feel more like a group of peers rather than a traditional classroom experience. Anyone interested in pursuing academic research and writing or anyone looking to publish a specific piece should take this class.