LawSchool | RecentChanges | Preferences | Edit
(Sponsored Links, Helps Support Bandwidth Costs)
Showing revision 9
He always called on the same people, he's more of a lecturer at times than a Socratic kind of guy (which isn't bad, but not to my learning taste), and he loves himself -- frequent references to all the great things he has done, the great jobs he has had, blah blah blah. And to top it all off I think the consensus would be that he also is a tough evaluator. Torts is not a hard class but for a lot of people I know it was their worst evaluation. Maybe he is better in Sports Law...who knows, but I would think twice before taking him again.
Abrams the Entertainer *******
I would largely agree with the above evaluation, with a few clarifications. Abrams did involve the class quite a bit (and at this point, he's only taught one torts class at NUSL), but he was pretty easy on people (either b/c he realized after the first day of class when he "tore into" someone unnecessarily that he should soften up, or b/c he wanted to "balance" HIS opportunity to talk/lecture with students' ability to comment/ask questions). He didn't always answer students' questions adequately, imho, but that is partly a product of the constant flow of ludicris hypothetical questions from students. He doesn't hestitate to name drop and relate his accomplishments (sometimes in a self-deprecating way, sometimes not). It should also be noted though, that he was definitely the most entertaining of the professors I've had so far (with the possible exception of the adjunct Ira Sills). Lots of sports references, lots of personal stories, lots of effort on his part to make the class fun and interesting. Tendency for Abrams to "cross the line" and verge on being (or just be) offensive, especially when he gets into the moment and wants the atmosphere to be fun.
The feedback above is pretty much on target. Abrams definitely loves to talk about himself, though I didn't find it offensive, just annoying. The class was very entertaining; Abrams is quite charismatic. The thing that really grated on my nerves was how he would let certain students take hypos to the most extreme outer edges. It was irritating and it sometimes kept the class at an excruciatingly slow pace. It would have been better if he and the student had a conversation after class. Plus, he would call on particular people but consistently ignore others, which struck me as a bit of favoritism. I also agree that he is a tough evaluator. Though I enjoyed Torts, I'm not sure I'd take another class with him.
Worst 1L professor by far. Classes consisted of Abrams talking about himself, inane hypos from his favorite students, and only the most basic torts principals “discussed” for about 5 times longer than they should have been. Plus he when on and on about how easy his exam would be, and then gave people horrible evaluations.
I do not know why Abrams gets such a bad rap. I am not alone on this when I say I am in love with Abrams. If he was not married to Ms. Palsgraf, I'd marry him based purely on his wit and intellect. He is the greatest, most knowledgeable and entertaining professor at NUSL.
Abrams is the BEST! You'll have fun, and you'll benefit from a brilliant, experienced professor. He'd tell you that himself, but that's all part of the "shtick". After the first day I thought that I would go crazy from all his antics, but I ended up really liking him. VERY approachable, always glad to talk torts.
I agree that Abrams was at times way too into himself. I also felt that he sometimes did a poor job of managing the class and keeping the "outliers" in line. When he starting bragging, I played hangman. When the outliers started making up absolutely ridiculous hypos, I wrote notes to friends. However, minus those two downsides, I think Prof. Abrams did a great job of explaining Torts. Yeah, he went over things many times, but to this day, I still know essentially evertything that I learned. Also, as for him being an unfair evaluator, I don't agree. I got through the semester feeling like I knew what I was doing, I went into the exam feeling the same and Prof. Abrams agreed with me in my evaluation. Perhaps the people that got poor evaluations really deserved them. It always seems that people who are evaluated poorly tell you all about how shitty the professor was. Maybe it isn't the professor.