View in searchable PDF format: 1971 Fall – Leon Letwin, Evidence Class, UCLA Law.OCR
=====
Raw text:
( I ,~
l
lL, LETWIN
Fall 1971
Evidence
10. How would you evaluate the teacher in terms of effectiveness
and talent?
(a) superior
35
(b) good
31
(c) average
17
(d) below average
3
LOS ANGELES: SCHOOL OF LAW
January 18, ~ 972
To: John Bauman
From: Leon Letwin
Re: Student evaluation of my evidence course, Fall 1971
Attached is a summary of the student answers to those
questions which seem to be generally regarded the most significant
index of student feeling about the instructor.
I also attach a typed copy of every “additional comment”
made by the students and their comments on the course and the
material.
A total of 88 forms were turned in out of a total enrollment
of 108 students.
Let me know if you’d like to see the student forms themselves.
LL:ij
-~
<.·.’·’fill; INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION FORM
Course ________________ Instructor ______________ Year _______ Quarter ____ _
Your evaluation of this course and its instructor will be of
great help to the School, the instructor, and your fellow students.
This form is designed to enable you to place your comments in context,
although at the end of the specific questions a space has been provided
for your own comments on any aspect of the course and instructor
you consider significant. If the space for answers is inadequate,
continue your remarks on the back of this form. In the multiple
choice questions, more than one answer may be appropriate. Please
check or circle all appropriate answers.
Please take your time to think through your answers, since they
will be seriously read and considered. Please complete the form if
possible. It is important to base this evaluation on the broadest
possible expression of views in the class.
I. THE COURSE (Note: These questions refer to the course only,
not to the teacher.)
1. How would you rank this course in terms of its intellectual
interest?
1 (high) 2 3 4 5 ..
2. In terms of its contribution to what you view as your
professional education?
1 2 3 4 5
3. What topics should be added or given more attention in the
course?
4. What topics should be eliminated or given less attention
in the course?
. :
11. Compared to other teachers you have studied under
law school, this teacher is:
a. distinctly above average
c. distinctly below average
b..,.. about average
33
at the
12. How well does the teacher stimulate interest in the course?
a. very stimul ating b. interesting c. fair d. dull
13 . The teacher’s knowledge of the subject matter appears:
a. excellent b. good c. fair d. poor
14. How effective is the teacher in communicating his ideas to
the class?
a. very effective b . effective c. fair d. poor
15. How well did the teacher cover the assigned reading in class?
a. completely b. well c. spottily d. poorly
16. Were the class sessions organized and coherent?
a. always b. usually c. sometimes d. never
17. Was the teacher regular and punctual in his attendance?
a. always b. usually c. sometimes d. never
18. Did the teacher set a reasonable pace and accurately gauge
when the time came to move on to a new point?
a. races too fast to keep up with; b. moves quickly but can
be followed; c. goes deliberately, but maintains motion;
d. becomes bogged down.
19. Did the teacher relate the specific subjects studied to the
larger concerns of the law and society?
a. often b. sometimes c. rarely
20. Did the discussion in classes lead to post-class discussion
with other students and/or to further reading on your part?
a. often b. sometimes c. never
21. Was the teacher’s presentation aimed at the comprehension
level of: a . the top of the class only? b. most of
L • • – – —– —…. A .,.+,Non+c:? c_ the entire class? d. students
Comments on the teacher.
Kept me awake–that alone says something since the class meets in
Rm. 1425.
I like the course but don’t like the idea of objective finals in
law school. In practice the questions are not that way. If they
were essay questions cases wouldn’t be tried. Objective tests
lend themselves to cheating as well. I think essay tests are the
only ones acceptable in law school.
Made material interesting. Bad habit though when student commented
in class he didn’t acknowledge this comment and just called on the
next person to comment. Made you feel your comment was stupid.
Generally, he presented the material in a clear and concise manner
understandable to anyone who at least made a minimal effort with
the materials. His emphasis on hypotheticals facilitated “anchoring”
the law in the real world.
Mr. Letwin is a highly articulate, well-read instructor. His guidance
of the class discussions was superb, never allowing the more
argumentative of the class to waste class time in tangential (sometimes
irrelevant) forays.
(As to#.l6) Sometimes the class lapsed into semi-confusion in attempts
to trace out specific details on the application of evidence rules.
The level of class discussion was quite low, this being the result
of both the low level of students who engaged in class discussion
and Mr. Letwin’s inability to consciously direct the discussions
into productive channels, overcoming the inane superficialities that
the class discussions consisted of.
Sometimes he finds it difficult to understand problems the students
have with the material. This comes from being familiar with it himself.
Mr. Letwin is the best professor I have had at UCLA Law School.
Excellent pace, use of assignment sheets and hypotheticals was
extremely valuable. Took the time and cared enough to make sure
material was understood.
There were times when you left a thought although not through with it.
He organized the course very comprehensively and did a tremendous
job in preparing additional material relevant to the subject.
Appears to have a genuine concern for the student understanding
the rules of ev. and their application. His class presentations
reminded me of Mort Sahl (a compliment).
• • : _•..z :
Comments on the teacher (cont.)-2
The best teacher I’ve come across in this law school.
Possibly most effective teaching method used in this school–really
makes you think out the issues for yourself–none of the handholding
other profs. engage in.
Excellent approach to a seemingly difficulty and unruly subject.
A fairly good teacher. However, he too often got sidetracked arguing
with individual students over minor points.
Does a good job for teaching a rather boring subject.
A credit to the institution.
Raced a little too fast.
Excellent!
A paradigm of a professor.
Without a doubt, Mr. Letwin is one of the more interesting professors
this school employs. If he has a fault; it is in being too concerned
that some students are not following the class discussion.
His manner of preparation and presentation of the materials is
indicative of an uncommon concern for the students and an awareness
of his role as Professor. Beyond a doubt, the finest professor yet
encountered in the law school.
He did an excellent job of preparing and his hypotheticals really
helped understand evidence issues. Maybe a few less hypotheticals
would have been better–but this is not to infer that they should
be eliminated.
Will take more classes from him.
Prof. was of a very high caliber. Particularly, eliminated unnecessary
reading materials w/use of good hypos. Good organization etc.
Recommended very highly.
One of the nicest people in the Law School–perhaps that’s what gets
him into trouble–i.e. giving too much time to those who are unprepared
in class.
A terrific person, but too honest for everyone’s good.
Great effort made by teacher–but could have been more assertive.
Personally I liked him, he was perhaps a little too concerned about
the welfare of the students and therefore classes became bogged down
somewhat.
I
… ·- f ….. ‘
Comments on the teache~ (cont.)-3
Very good instructor, interested in helping students and doing all
possible to see they understand. Relies on liberal classroom
discussion allowing everyone free discussion.
Appears to try to be too much like a young hip teacher and this
detracts from his otherwise good performance.
He is probably the second best teacher I have had here. Murray
Schwartz’s Crim. Law I was pe~haps a little better organized, but
this professor is unusually accessable to questions in class–which
has its own advantages.
He’s an interesting character, which helps to motivate what could
be dull material.
Mr. Letwin combined several innovative teaching aids–such as
minimizing reading by using hypothetical questions to summarize,
and encouraging class discussion and generally was effective, except
for the limited class response.
Mr. Letwin is one of the best teachers we have here. He is one of
the few goad teachers who is also very approachable asAhuman being~.
Mr. Letwin obviously knows the material well but has some trouble
in clarifying it to the class–partly perhaps because of his ferver
in attempting communication. He should explain things a little
slower and more logically rather than trying to explain the whole
problem in one quick burst. Also, the class itself was a bad one
and did not help him in his task at all.
Great stage presence–he ought to go into comedy. Also, the only
5 day-a-week class I could stand to regularly attend.
Good pace in class. Good organization. Entertaining. Good politics
and groovey sweaters. Also had something to say usually.
Excellent professor. Definitely relates to students, not so preoccupied
with other matters as to slight us; definitely saw correlation
between Evidence and outside world and saw need to relate it
to each other.
Mr. Letwin is not only an excellent teacher but a fine person as
well. I have really enjoyed and benefited from our association.
The most comfortable in terms of easing tensions in the classroom-very
relaxing atmosphere.
Mr. Letwin is a human being. He is sensitive to students, something
which cannot be said of other Profs. in law school. His presentation
is democratic.
He doesn’t seem to be the school’s sharpest intellect. In fact, he’s
below average in that area and it made the course a bit dull at times.
But, he’s fair, pleasant, conscientious, and unpretentions. I wouldn’t
want to “put him down.”
Comments on the teacher. (cont.)-4
Often got feeling he was one day ahead of us in his reading. Seemed
confused sometimes by the cases–which he had apparently just read.
Thought his mimeos were helpful, however and .he trys to be helpful
and concerned in class.
Mr. Letwin possessed a rare quality among law professors–he was
self-effacing and considered himself but one among equals in the
classroom situation; this without sacrificing communication of his
superior knowledge of the subject matter.
A concerned, dedicated and effective teacher, not a great teacher.
He did a very good job and I would take him again.
–l . • –
… – !.- __.::.
Comments on the course. (211. Evidence)
Tactics (topic to be added or given more attention)
Just about covered everything in Code.
Excellent balance between the law and its application.
Became uninteresting when dealing purely and technically with
whether evidence is admissable or not.
Course was merely a study of the codes; there has to be a better,
more intellectual (conceptual) approach.
(Added or more attention) Evidence
(Eliminated or less attention) Metaphysics
(Added or more attention) Code–better case material
(Eliminated or less attention) Textbook
I enjoyed it.
Good choice of topics.
I think the course material was balanced well to maintain interest
and present the relevant material.
Best course I’ve had in the law school.
Prof. Le~win gave adequate attention to those subjects which were
important, glanced over the minor topics (although making sure that
they were put in their proper perspective).
More on privileges.
Cal. Code book was helpful. So were hypos. I didn’t think the
text was so good.
(Added or more attention) All topics w/ transcripts added. More
time w/ code.
(Eliminated or less attention) Textbook
1 quarter is just not enough time!
(Added or given more attention) Transcripts of trials and preliminary
hearings.
The initial part of hearsey was too extended.
Too much for one quarter! Make it 2 quarters and cover more material.
(Added or given more attention) Relevancy
‘ : __
Comments on the course (cont.)–2 (211. Evidence)
(Topics added or given more attention) Competence; privileges
(Topics eliminated or less attention) Hearsay was given too much
emphasis–it perhaps is the most difficult subject of course, but
not that difficult.
Method of preparation (Hypotheticals) with limited number of cases,
far superior to case method.
Relevancy and mode of procedure in court (added or more attention).
Hearsay material (eliminated or given less attention).
Privileges (added or more attention).
A little something on how one actually gets evidence introduced at
trial.
Hearsay more developed, privileges.
Parole efidence, competency (Added or given more attention).
Not bad.
A little more organization to often rambling class discussions wouldn’t
hurt–but the material admittedly is conducive to such discussions.
Hearsay was rather long.
(Topics added or given more attention) — I’m not sure–Letwin seems
to have sufficiently covered everything.
Letwin runs a well-organized yet not a high pressure course.
Less time on Hearsay or Exceptions.
Adequate as it is (Additional comments)
Course is adequate as it is. (Additional comments)
Privilege (Topics added or given more attention).
The course should be spread over 2 quarters and an additional hour
should be added.
Practical application of evidence rules to real situations. (Added
or given more attention)
Fed. proposed rules should get more attention even though Cal. Code
can remain primary.
(Add or given more attention) Mock trials maybe two, to illustrate
method and scope of x-examination.
Can evidence really be taught in a traditional, large, law school
class? I can’t be sure at this point, but I doubt it.
Comments on the course (cont.)–3 (211. Evidence)
Courtroom situations might play a greater part in order that students
would see how questions of admissibility come up.
Comments on the material.
Handouts were helpful.
Use of short concise hypotheticals as an alternative to wading
through the case book to find the law is an excellent idea.
Teacher’s hypos a helpful and well-used tool.
I liked not having to read cases only for their fact value. Hypo
sheets were very helpful.
Mr. Letwin’s supplemental material was excellent as a study guide
and course outline.
The hypos handed out in class for discussion probably most important
materials.
The supplemental materials passed out in class are in my opinion
much more valuable than the text–both from an “understanding”
standpoint and from an “intellectual” standpoint.
Prof. Letwin did an excellent job in condensing and supplementing
course material–very well organized.
It would be better to use more California cases.
I wish it was more oriented to Calif. Evidence Law.
Book is not much help. Code is.
Prof. Letwin’s concept of substituting hypothetical problems for
unimportant cases is outstanding.
The text of the proposed fed. rules are next to useless–the Code
is good, however.
Excellent choice to require the CEC and the proposed Fed. rules;
contributed to a good understanding.
More on code.
Wasted money on Fed. Code.
What can you do but look at the evidence code in an evidence class?
The Code is much better reading than the textbook. Cheaper too.
I got the impression written materials were secondary to class discussion
with organization of the course. With the professor at
least, this is an advantage.
Very good that Prof. edited out most cases and substituted own hypotheticals.
Comments on the material. (cont.)-~
Heavy emphasis on California Code which was good for a future Calif.
lawyer–could hurt others.
Shouldn’t require book. Instead shoWdmemeo the Fed. cases interested
in.
Elements of text material well summarized by class handouts.
Textbook was almost a waste–course could be taught with code alone.
Book wasn’t really very helpful.
Mainly used code sections–what can I say?
Handout outline. These help organize course.
The Code is excellent levining vehicle; the commentary to the sections
is extremely helpful.
Using hypos to ease reading load was an excellent idea.
The materials used should consist only of hypos and the Code. The
textbook was of no value whatsoever.
Everything was OK except for some organizational problems.
Perhaps some reference should be made to treatises on the subject.
(“Hornbooks”)
Casebook not necessary at all–syllabus of hypotheticals and a few
important cases (e.g. Jackson v. Denny) would be preferable.
Excellent idea to use the Ev. Code–a touch of real life–also a
good outline of Evidence.
The McCormick casebook should be elimenated from the course. Because
of Prof. Letwin’s excellent hypothetical method, the few cases
read from the booK do not jusitfy its expense.
I( – ;t; ~ t u.~-· /’~)’1-)
I~£. .,.t “T”” fnisTa~&iJR EvALuATION FORM 70 respondents out of 77.
Cour~e Procedure Instructor_L_e_ t w_1_n _______Y ea~971-72~uarter Fall-Winter
Your evaluation of this course and its instructor will be of
great help to the School, the instructor, and your fellow students.
This form is designed to enable you to place your comments in context,
although at the end of the specific questions a space has been provided
for your own comments on any aspect of the course and instructor
you consider significant. If the space for answers is inadequate,
continue your remarks on the back of this form. In the multiple
choice questions, more than one answer may be appropriate. Please
check or circle all appropriate answers.
Please take your time to think through your answers, since they
will be seriously read and considered. Please complete the form if
possible. It is important to base this evaluation on the broadest
possible expression of views in the class.
I. THE COURSE (Note: These questions refer to the course only,
not to the teacher.)
1. How would you rank this course in terms of its intellectual
interest?
Additional Comments on the Teacher:
1. Instructor generally way above average in all respects.
Very intellectually stimulating to relevant course. Instructor
should, however, make more of an effort to clarify material
presented in 1st quarter so that students are not quite so
frustrated.
2. Interesting and relevant side comments in a relatively·
boring (personal) subject matter type course. Best 8:00 teacher
I’ve had. ·
3. Mr. Letwin is one of the most relevant instructo~I’ve
ever had; even for a course I thought would be dull-subject matter.
4. EXCELLENT clarity in explaining fact situations of
complex cases. Excellent attention to tactical & strategic
considerations. Even more would be appreciated.
5.
6.
7.
8. I am looking: forward to studying trial tactics from
Mr. Letwin.
10. I enjoyed the course taught by Prof. Letwin, albeit many
times I didn’t quite understand what was going on.
11. Fantastic; made a dull subject (in my opinion) very
interesting. Remarkable sense of humor. A thoroughly enjoyable
2 quarters.
12. First part of course concentrated too long on jurisdictional
problem — last half of course tried to cover too many items in too
spotty an approach. Too unsure as to how.much & what to know of
last part of course for final.
13.
14. Had tremendous personal rapport with the feelings of his
students — presented material in a fashion that made it useful
and realistic.
15o Very knowledgable and dynamic and interesting, but often
his superior grasp of the material allowed him to gloss over area
apparently he thought were understood, which really weren’t.
Always very stimulating and thought provoking, although sometimes
the answers to the thoughts were frustatingly hard to come by.
. l
. i
i
~
v
16. He was excellent giving the class its subject matter.
I will do my best to take other classes given by him. He was
very conscientious in taking the sting out of having to tell a
student that his comment was not valid; he went out of his way
to try to give a sense of intelligence to many stupid questions.
17.
18. Lucid, fair, stimulating
dull subject fascinating.
Letwin made a potentially
19. Inspiring. A very human professor whose professional
lifestyle is intriguing to me. In addition, he was able to make
procedure an interesting, provocative course.
20.
21. A fair and just gentleman at all times. Well-informed
and always willing to answer questions & discuss problems.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29. A master at his madness — if only I could become so
competent. Best instructor I’ve had!
30. Treats a potentially troublesome subject quite well in
terms of knowledge & stimulating presentation. Only complaint is
the adherence to an aspect-by-aspect approach.
31. Made the classroom a comfortable as well as educational
experience. Very congenial.
32.
2
33. Lively & entertaining, but obviously constrained by the
traditional Law School format of classes & exams — doesn’t have
opportunity to maximize his potential for making issues compelling
& relevant in large classes, etc.
34. Went slowly at first so that there was a noticeable
oust at the end which was unnecessary considering how few pages
of the book are actually read.
35.
36. He could have been a little more prepared.
·.-l
. I
. i
‘
37.
38. Mr. Letwin seemed to exhibit concern for his class,
but was [sentence wasn’t completed.]
39.
40.
41.
42. His organization and effectiveness improved markedly
during Wtr. Qtr.
43. He was excellent and w/ a more interesting topic would
be fantastic.
44.
45. Very good teacher — I like the way he conducts class.
He stimulates interest.
46.
47.
48. Very interesting to listen to tho unorganized at times.
3
Material fairly boring. But he tried to put in his personal opinions
to make it more interesting. (Did very good job considering rather
poor subject matter.)
49.
50. Letwin is good — He didn’t always seem real interested
in the class — this class — and this isn’t Letwin’s fault. Can
only be viewed one way. A requirement
51. Letwin was somewhat disorganized at first but the main
problem was the material. He vastly improved in the second quarter
of the course. His approach is interesting.
52. I’m not sure how other professors teach, but Prof. Letwin
tried to bring some interest to a fairly d~y subject.
~.
54. Good concept of how the course should be viewed. Too bad
he got stuck with procedure.
55.
56. Good man but his over~ll handling leaves one with an
uneasy feeling of being bogged down and not progressing steadily
forward to an understanding of the material.
57.
58.
I·
. !
. . I
59. For what I considered to be rather dull material,
Mr. Letwin was able to stir a considerable amount of interest –
at least at the class meetings.
60. By bringing in personal experience, Letwin related the
daily practice to the text. He should have introduced some
emerging theories & practices to give a sense of direction to
the future of C.P •. It could have been much worse.
61.
4
62. Has good practical approach — is concerned with implications
of law in society, etc. & is very honest with students.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68. Terrific individual. The type of person that I might
emulate. Conscientious and concerned.
69.
70. Nice·guy; generally good on speculating on what REALLY
went on in a case.
Leon Letwin (1929-2015) 