Monthly Archives: September 1972

1972-1973 – Leon Letwin, Evidence Class, UCLA Law

View in searchable PDF format: 1972 Fall – Leon Letwin, Evidence Class, UCLA Law.OCR

=====

Raw text:

. ,

vr• l/6t….

si” ~ntA~vll

211. Evidence Prof. Letwin Fall 1972 /31 fo f;l rt ~tNr.(

Prof. Letwin has a most entertaining style of lecturing. His

debonair cynicism makes one question the bases and assumptions

on which the law is built in a way I find very fruitful. I

enjoy his courses immensely.

I felt an urgent need to attend his classes which is more than

I can say for most other classes l’v,e had.

Mr. Letwin is a good human being. I enjoyed his teaching style.

I never once felt tense or uneasy in his class.

Tell Graham he’s a fink! Letwin’s okay!

Enthusiasm of prof added greatly to course. Half the battle in

Law School is getting a good prof.

The major problem was, I feel, organization. Your thoughts seemed

to jump around without continuity. Student comments were often

ignored whe~ they didn’t fit into your train of ideas at that

moment. Also, it would be helpful to have the handouts available

further in advance of the class for which they are to be read.

Perhaps most important, you relate well to students as people,

not as sub-human creatures. The school could use more people like

you.

Generally very concerned individual. Good person and prof.

Letwin’s a good teacher. This is my second course with him (you).

You’re approach is more practically (as opposed to academic) than

many profs here and is somewhat refreshing. The girl who sits

next to me thinks you’re sexy. She’s too embarrassed to write it

down, but I thought you’d appreciate knowing.

Found the course to be good but class discussions a bit unorganized.

Too much rambling. Hard to follow. Prof. Letwin is a good prof

and a good person. Totally unlike most lawyers.

Instructor was a little green, obviously a virgin when it came to

actual practice. But nicest guy in school as to help, cooperation

with student.

Did you understand this form or the keys — no?! Letwin knows his

stuff but sometimes he gets erratic. But he’s cute and cuddly

and that compensates for almost anything except cutting off his

beard.

? 25. How do you know since you have no way to gauge it!

Instructor was excellent! Presented material very well and was

careful to elaborate on all ramifications of the cases and

materials. Presentation encouraged individual students to really

think in evaluating material and hypotheticals.

More effort··:should be spent in tying the material together. I

liked the outside speakers; helped put course in perspective of

practical problems.

2

Down with the socratic method.

The course stunk. I didn’t learn anything.

Phew!

I do not understand this rating system.

This was my favorite course this quarter; I must admit that I

was a little disturbed over the lack of use of the casebook -either

don’t make us buy it (my choice!) or use it more. (Note:

I find the University Casebook Series one of the best.)

At times, Prof. Letwin is a superior instructor. Only major

exception (problem) is that he tends to mumble, ramble or, shall

I say, get off the topic. Thus, at times, lectures would be

hard to follow.

See: Advisory Committee notes.

Letwin’s a great guy; unfortunately he cannot teach. Moreover, he

conveys his inept attitude to the student, i.e., since he didn’t

know why should we? He is a manifestly inadequate professor who

is stealing the people’s money every month he picks up his check!

While very enthusiastic about the subject matter, Prof. Letwin

skipped around a good deal and was consequently difficult to follow.

I would have appreciated a more structured, organized approach to

the material.

The course seemed very elusive–conceptually due, I feel, to a

combination of the subject matter itself and the professor’s habit

of skipping from topic to topic. I’m not exactly sure how to

rectify this problem, but perhaps it might be more useful to lay

a more concrete conceptual foundation before exploring the subtle

nuances present in the diaphanous evidence code.

I think a little more lecturing and less use of intellectually

masturbating student comments during class would be desirable.

He always has a refreshing cynicism.

Very good prof. Imaginative but sometimes sloppy in use of terms,

a little too loose in class discussions. His interesting assignments

were better than most of his lectures, though a few lectures

were outstanding.

Course was poorly organized. I think that a syllabus would have

helped considerably. Very fine instructor.

I found the instructor to be one of the best I have had in my

education.

I loved it.

Letwin excellent if not always organized.

Excellent course taught by an excellent teacher.

Interesting, energetic and knowledgable prof. His mental

gymnastics sometimes made it difficult to discern key issues.

Generally, however, he clarified points in subsequent lectures.

Letwin is a very bright, capable teacher. Course units should

be reduced. Course not worth 5 units.

Felt there was very little organization to presentation of

subject.

Need for slightly more structure in class sessions in order to

more comprehensively cover the subject matter–fewer tangents

in course covering “completely new” material.

I had Prof. Letwin for 1st year Civil Pro. & his teadbing has

improved about 500%. We need an advanced course or seminar in

Evidence.

Very good instructor; knew material well, but could have spoken

a little slower sometimes when an important point was being

discussed.

The lectures seemed disorganized. I’m not sure I know the Code.

It seemed that we spent a great deal of time on some sections

3

but I don’t know if I really understand the Code and how to read it.

Professor Letwin’s enthusiasm was appreciated.

Fairly interesting course. No pressure.

Either the course material is very superficial or the professor’s

approach is very simplistic. He’s an entertaining, nice guy, but

the class became dull far··too often.

Did’t interrelate material sufficiently. Didn’t “lay it out” and

we wasted much time. Evidence should not be a 1/4 course. That’s

ridiculous!

Mr. Letwin is a very kind man who makes the clase feel at ease.

The course was quite enjoyable. I noticed class attendance was

very high. I wish Mr. Letwin would analyze hearsay from a set

system. Is it hearsay under 1200? Is it hearsay under case law?

Prof. was interested & “dynamic,” but it would help if he would

keep up with law and read his own assignments. The handouts were

valuable, but lectures, class discussions not “edited” at all.

Letting a constant group of voices dominate without end is not my

idea of a valuable discussion.

Refreshing detOxification of the law. Very humane. If he taught

other courses outside first year I would take them regardless of

course content or title. Re 25 he didn’t give us all. What we

got was well pared, for time spent outside of class.

I thought the handouts were quite helpful and well prepared,

especially as to the ~ypothetics.

“Outasight–dynamite!” Why the hell did he shave the beard?

Mr. Letwin is best all around teacher at UCLA Law School. He

should not have shaved beard!!

Course material {i.e., evidence itself) is very disorganized, &

so was instructor–poor combination. Professor needs to be

better organized to deal with the chaos of the subject matter.

Leon: Keep just the mustache–no beard.

4

Extremely brilliant professor. Very approachable and likeable.

However a bit scatterbrain. Needs to organize his lectures more.

I feel the problem is that he thinks faster than he can communicate.

Looks much better without his beard. Keep the mustache.

Professor should try to go a bit slower and provide more in-depth

explanations of difficult concepts, i.e., hearsay.

Interesting. Too much rambling. Fun. Too much time on some

questions. Talked too fast. Good sense of humor.

Professor is a very entertaining, interesting instructor who gives

students a feel for the practical aspects of the area. I object

to objective tests. Ridiculous to try to fit an ambiguous subject

into an objective test.

He seems interested in relating to students and is extraordinarily

friendly and human for a law professor. His teaching is, however,

sometimes disorganized and his sentence fragments difficult to

follow.

D tS fn bv h ~

If q}~J h

( ~ f I(!,. f+”‘- ~f t rJJJ f.

r:o I’ m-S ..} f ‘) fewn/14_

W I~~~ :t:f- ~ f() I

~ &fi<!-Jel.

………. ,._

.~ . . ~

jJ~.~:~·’, ..

. ‘2- ‘2..

1 2

very lov or inferior .

Student Evaluation Form

211~ EVIDENCE (Prof.

Fall 1972

j 17- ilj 31

4 S.

averqe,

6 ·7

\ ~ .&.I~C o J. 1 .. J. ~ I ~

·/31 ~~—

qt tr”- ·. :~· ·. · ·· .;

Letwin)~z. ~ J-.. ·.

, •’

3′( 1..1· ·-

. . 8 . 9

_very high o~ superior

•’- ‘h 4 ud. \.. ./i))’. INSTRUCTIONAL QUALITY ;’~~ tr.

TO WHAT EXTEh”T DO YOU FEEL THE INSTRUCTOR: :–.__ I · /l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 “9

~ !. ./’ un~er~stimated . – a~out. right – overis’timat~d

1) •: .was easy to approach-and. made you feel wel- ) l/ f9_URSE BENEFITS ,;;:·_.·-:.

·come in ~eeking out his/her help?

· TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU FEEL THAT THIS COURslf BELPBii’·YOU ~ ·’ ‘.J:.···l_ … ,. 2) • .. ·involved. students in’ ~lass dis~ussions? TO DEVELOP OR ENCOURAGED YOUR: .,

very much so not at all

f ·

1

2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ~-13 ) … understanding of proposed academic .or p~~fe;aional

ar too little about right far too much · plans?

3) • • .appeared to have broad knowledge of subject -· _14 ) ••• ability to think?

‘ · matter?

A) _l_l5 ) … skills relevant to future plans? ·~ ••• was concerned with whether students understood

t?e ~terial? · –T-16) … intellec.tual curiosity in the subject matter? .

5) … discussed points of. Yiew other than his/her own? · 17) … knowledge of basic principles/practic_es in. the

6.•) ••w as considerate of student opinion which differ- · 1\ , field? ·

· ed from his/her own? –;–‘”8) … understanding ,of the practical and/or social

7 ) • • • was enthusiast!c a b ou t t each in g t h is course? \· . it:zplications of the course materials

8) ••• held your interest during lectures? ~-+19) de

1

sire to do_. further coursework or roading in the

~) Ot’P8

~ ••• was free from any speech or languaRe habits

. which interfered ,with communication? QJCEN.tRAL SUMMARY COMMY.NTS

——- 10) ••• was.ab le to turn you on to the subject? 20) What is your overall rating of this instructor?

~—– 11. ) • •• was unnecessarily harsh or embarassing to students? ) What is your overall rating of thio couroo’l .

1 2 3 4 · s 6 7 8 9

__ 22) Before you began this course, what was your lovol

of interest in this subject?

___ 12) • .• accurately gauged student background knowledge

in the subject? · ·

1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9

very low moderate very high

. –·——–Ä:~· ··–·-··-

. :’

.. · ..

Commeri’t.

\

__ 23) How.much has your interest been changed by-this course·.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

greatly decreased no change greatly increased

___ 24)How many hours a veek, outside of

spend on this course?

1. 0 – 2 hrs. 4. 6 – 8 hrs.

2. 2 – 4 bra. 5. 8 – 10 hrs.

4 – 6 bro. 6, 10 – 12 bra.

class, did you

7. 12 – .. 14 bra.

8. 14 – 16 bra.

9. more t~n 16 bro.

_25) Considering the amount of nov material presented,

how difficult vaa it to adequately master the contento

of this course in one quarter!

1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9

too easy about right too difficult

—._26) What percentage of assigned readings did. y.ou roAd?

1. 0 – 10% 4. 30 – 40% 7. 70 – 80%

2. 10 – 2ox s. 40 – 60% a. so – 90%

3. 20 – 30% 6. 60 – 70% 9. 90 • lOOZ ·—-

.·7.

‘a