Lee Bollinger

This was easily the best class I have ever taken. Having said that, though, I can see how it might be disliked by some. Bollinger teaches using the socratic method, as others have mentioned, and guides students to come to an understanding of the material rather than just telling them outright. The class is entirely discussion between him and the selected students for that class period, but others are allowed to contribute if he invites the class to help out, which he does often. I found Bollinger to be a brilliant individual and a very interesting teacher. Sometimes he went on almost tangents about related things but things that did not show up in midterm/final. It was still incredibly interesting to hear his takes on issues. He also dedicated an entire class to fielding questions about law school, which was cool. I also enjoyed the cases we read. In the beginning they were incredibly difficult to digest, but as the semester went on, we learned how to read and digest the cases.

I thoroughly enjoyed PrezBo's class; he really did earn the silver nugget. I imagine the quality of this course is entirely dependent on whether or not he's in town, but this semester he taught 90% of the time and seemed consistently on the ball. Bollinger is a surprisingly good lecturer. Granted I cared about the topic beforehand, but some genuine learning took place (as opposed to the disinterested lecturing you might expect). Of course, PrezBo also commanded the total attention of the class due to his position of authority. He never expelled anyone for being late though. Hearing him introduce himself each class as a hypothetical case subject - e.g. "I think violence is the answer to political problems" - was quite satisfying. Miklos Harszati is still "co-teaching" the course. He lectured two or three times this semester and kinda sat in the back like a poor housepet. I'm sure he deserves sweet-ass rewards for being part of the Hungarian Soviet resistance, but don't come to class when he's teaching. Dude just gives a middle-school quality summary of the previous class. Dates and names related to the cases studied are not important (except if you're called on in class). Only the basic holdings of modern cases are. I do wish I knew this earlier. In fact, we spent a disproportional amount of time on cases which we weren't even supposed to use in tests, as they were deprecated.…

In a sentence (I really hope others on CULPA would start summarizing like this): I loved this class, and I can't believe I am saying this but I also love prezbo as a lecturer and a professor in general. As someone who has always been passionate about laws, this was the class that made me realize Columbia is the best undergraduate institution for a pre-law student in the entire country. No other schools provide any opportunity that is even remotely close to this -- the president of the university, who also is a leading 1st amendment scholar, lecturing an exclusively undergrad class. I have realized that most ppl don't actually seem to appreciate how rare and amazing this is. I went into the class having read shitty comments concerning prezbo and with the mindset that "I am the prelaw CC polisci major kid like any other and this is obviously the unrequired required class for someone like me." This class will help you understand if law is really for you, because many many CC kids go to law school and end up in basically finance anyways. DO NOT go to law school if you don't like law per se enough, because you truly will be miserable, as literally every single law student I know has told me. Con law is a required class in the very first semester at any law school, and 1st amendment is weird but important. Many have also written about cold calls, but the truth is, statistically spea…

I'm pretty sure the review below this one was written by someone from Bollinger's office. He is a very image-conscious guy, so I wouldn't put it past him. I guess that's the first thing everyone needs to know about Bollinger: he is a bit of a prima donna, yet tactful at keeping his annoyance with the inferiority of the world under wraps. Though eloquent, I walked away with this distinct impression that he lacks any genuine intellectual rigor. If he does have the intellect of an average Columbia professor, then it is obviously taken up by his occupation as president. It certainly wasn't expended in writing the incredibly thin and reductive volume "Uninhibited Robust and Wide Open", a required reading for the class. Bollinger only lectured for a small portion of the class. The second half was done by this guy named Miklos Haszrati whose accent was the most atrocious thing I have encountered at Columbia. I did not understand a single thing he said. Bollinger was present for a large portion of Miklos' lectures, but had difficulty understanding his accent as well. Occasionally Bollinger became visibly frustrated and would offer aggressive questions to Miklos who often seemed lost on the most obvious points of the class he was supposed to be teaching. A look around the room during Miklos lectures revealed 40-some students who had managed to secure a study hall under the supervision…

TLDR: Bollinger is a good professor, but only take this class if you're interested in law. Now, let me try to be clear and elaborate on Prezbo and this class. I am interested in law. My friends that took this class were mostly interested in law. We all loved it. American constitutional law is fascinating, as is First Amendment jurisprudence. That being said, the people I know who took this class just because President Bollinger is teaching it found it boring and didn't like him as a professor. He teaches as I believe any law professor would teach a class, giving you a hypothetical case at the start of each class and picking on 2 students to try and 'solve' it. I found this approach to work best for a law class, while others felt Bollinger should have been more involved. Apparently, he does hold office hours if you email him, and sticks around for a few minutes after class for questions. The entire class is invited to his house for cookies and apple cider at the end of the semester, which is fun and a good opportunity to interact with him. I enjoyed the class greatly and recommend it for anyone with an interest in law (or just the First Amendment) and found that if you go in with an open mind (i.e. you don't go in with a visceral hatred for Prezbo) then you'll enjoy it to

If you have the opportunity to take a class with President Bollinger, take it. I was ambivalent at first because a. I knew nothing about First Amendment law and b. figured it'd be a GPA killer, but both of these concerns were largely unfounded. President Bollinger is an amazing teacher, probably one of the best that I've ever had, and even though his co-teacher (Prof. Miklos Haraszti) had difficulty with English, I'm glad I stuck through it. Prof. Bollinger's thesis about building a global free press is provocative and definitely worth knowing about, and because the class incorporates students from the law, journalism, international affairs, and undergrad schools, I spoke with really interesting people that I probably wouldn't have met if it weren't for this course. I can't speak to the grading policy very well since I don't know how other students did, but I think that, if you work really, really hard, you can get an A. Anyway, the grading is irrelevant, take this class for the experience...and to be invited to a reception at Prof. Bollinger's house afterwards!

Class was challenging but rewarding. I feel like I learned a substantial amount and can speak intelligently about free speech. The reading material was dense and long, and oftentimes it was not clear what sections of the book we needed to cover. The confusing format of the textbook made it difficult for me to tell what cases were more important than others. Classes themselves pretty consistently started with prezbo randomly selecting two students to pick on for the entire class period. Then he would present a hypothetical situation and ask the "cold-called" people to analyze the free speech issues. I guess this is a standard law school class format, but I personally wished that prezbo would have done more "teaching" himself (rather than relying on students to try to answer the questions). Since classes themselves were sometimes confusing, TA sessions were essential to actually understanding the material. I wouldn't take this class if you like to be spoon fed the stuff that is going to be on the exam. There were no assignments whatsoever to prepare us for the 2 exams, meaning that we had to make our own judgements about what would be on the exams and how to study for them. All that being said, the class was definitely thought-provoking and overall, I am glad that I took it. I don't think that the fact that Prezbo taught it made it any better or worse. I would definitely not rec…

Our only graded assignments were the midterm and final (last day of class). Both were open book/notes and supervised solely by TAs. The midterm involved two essays about hypothetical cases, the final was 20% multiple choice and one essay. The reading from our constitutional law book is as dense as I've ever seen. I studied an average of 90 minutes/night for the entire semester. This could have been because I didn't have my notes in order at first. Came out with a (probably average) B+.

Since CULPA has a minimum word count, I'll go into more detail: The class is a farce. PrezBo doesn't respond to unplanned questions in class, doesn't hold office hours, and doesn't stick around to take questions. It's obvious he neither prepares nor gives a shit and the class is a half-assed attempt to pretend he cares about undergraduates and wants to keep his "feet on the ground" at the university. The TAs (who are NOT law students) do not respond to emails. When they do (rarely,usually about a week later), they tell you to ask another TA, who does the same thing. The class bears almost zero resemblance to a true law class and never lays the conceptual foundations to proceed through the case law in a clear-headed fashion.

fair: two take home exams with relatively flexible time frames. The readings were generally unnecessary, but sometimes remotely interesting. The court cases are the most interesting part, but skip the bullshity op-eds and news clippings.