LawSchool | RecentChanges | Preferences | Edit

(Sponsored Links, Helps Support Bandwidth Costs)

There are some who enjoyed Hackney's class and found him amusing.

I am not amused by a professor who keeps students artifically at arm's length, glowering at people; running hot & cold; addressing people by title & last name; cold-calling and making students squirm for 10-15 minutes who obviously are not prepared; falling behind in the syllabus (we covered maybe 3/4 of what Abrams's class covered) but leaving plenty of time for his own oh-so-amusing anecdotes...

If I hear someone mangle "excetera, excetera" one more time this year I may haul off & slap them. (It wasn't so much the mispronunciation that sent me up a wall; it was the attempt to express an idea without the commitment to complete it.)

What a singularly chilly, pretentious, ungenerous, and, frankly, unskilled teacher this is. He knows his subject, no doubt about that. But as easy as it is to teach Torts, he manages to teach very little.

I think he is knowledgable and a great professor, a little rough on evaluations but fair. I feel I really know the stuff. However, I don't like the idea of a professor who shows a disliking to you when you go toe-toe with him on a subject, a great professor should want his students to be able to do that...lets hear it for arrogance

Whoa! Its interesting to hear these impressions. I think Hackney is the bomb and I sat in the front row smack in the middle- he couldn't even pronounce my name right. I got called on but mostly I raised my hand. No, I'm not some over achiever--haha- far from it. But I felt that Hackney kept me alive and awake for his class. Maybe it was just my class but whenever the exact minute arrived for our class to begin everyone quieted. I don't think that was out of fear but respect. His stories added flavor to the subject and helped in conceptualizing the materials in real time. I attended extra help and got it- he even tried to change his hair appointment when I thought I might need more help. I don't know to each his own- but I don't need a professor to smile warmly in my face. I need him to explain his concepts- Hackney is a brainiac. He's beyond intelligent and I think that leads to his distant, absent-minded professor demeanor- but he's golden. He can take someone's confused question and make it concise- a dummy can't go that. And yes he does not do the 2 pages of evaluations. He gets to the point. So maybe its about students either having it or not for him to put down on the evaluations.

Cold calling is the the only reason I kept up with the reading and it proved to be excellent motivation for me. Students have the opportunity before class to let Hackney know you're unprepared and if you're stupid enough to gamble you should suffer the consequences. I liked when he harassed students who refused to just say "I don't know" because it's a lesson they'll need in court. I didn't like the extra work loaded up at the end, but I do think his stories are great. Excellent professor. He doesn't seem very amused by the kiss ups that line up after class to have a chat, but really don't have nothing to say. He's not here to be your buddy.

I have to say, Hackney's outlines are legendary, if you write what he put up on the board on a daily basis, you would have an outline fit to take the bar with (at least for torts).

I thought Hackney was probably the best professor I've ever had, for anything. I liked the fact that he extended courtesy titles to his students. He also showed respect for the class by arriving superbly prepared and always being in control of the material and his classroom, instead of letting some egomaniac students run away with the discussions as sometimes happens in other classes. I loved his humor; it clarified concepts and made them memorable. The man is brilliant, and, as someone else says, supra, he's not there to be our buddy. He was there to teach us and did. I think he's teaching Corporations this year, and if so, I will definitely try to get into that class. I'm sorry for those who couldn't appreciate his class; they wasted a great opportunity to learn from a superb teacher.
I think I hate the person, "supra". What a nob.

Hackney's evaluations are ridiculous. I'm sure that many professors take the same approach, it's just that he is so transparent! He basically has a few different categories, and then plops you into one of the categories. So there are, like, 4 or 5 different versions of evaluations. I got the same "very good" evaluation as 4 of my classmates - down to the letter. It just goes to show that regardless of what you call 'em, evaluations are the same thing as grades - and just as meaningless.
LawSchool | RecentChanges | Preferences | Edit

(Sponsored Links, Helps Support Bandwidth Costs)

This page is read-only | View other revisions
Last edited December 19, 2004 9:01 pm ET (diff)