1983.01.14: Nomination of Professor Leon Letwin for 1982 Distinguished Teaching Award by the School of Law

View in searchable PDF format: 1983.01.14 – Nomination of Leon Letwin for UCLAW Teaching Award.OCR

Related materials:
1970 – Leon Letwin, Civil Disobedience Law Seminar.OCR
1971 Fall – Leon Letwin, Evidence Class, UCLA Law.OCR
1972 Fall – Leon Letwin, Evidence Class, UCLA Law.OCR
1974 Spring – Leon Letwin, Criminal Law II Class.OCR
1978 Winter – Leon Letwin, Evidence Class.OCR.pdf
1981 Spring – Leon Letwin, Evidence Class, Student Evaluations.OCR
1982 Fall – Leon Letwin, Law 145 Student Evaluations.OCR
1983 Fall – Leon Letwin, Law 145 Student Evaluations.OCR
1995 Fall – Leon Letwin, Law 145 Student Evaluations.OCR
1991.08.28 – Leon Letwin, Criminal Law Seminar 503 (UCLAW).OCR

=====

Raw text:

NOMINATION OF

PROFESSOR LEON LETWIN

FOR

DISTINGUISHED TEACHING AWARD

BY

THE SCHOOL OF LAW

NOMINATION OF

PROFESSOR LEON LETWIN

FOR

1982-83 DISTINGUISHED TEACHING AWARD

BY

THE SCHOOL OF LAW

c

,. ,.

LOS ANGELES: SCHOOL OF LAW

: …. _:~.- … ·_-:._ ..; ~~ .. :

~anuary 14, 1983~ .-/–~ :_ .. . –: . . · · <: ‘: .. :’Xt:

….. : .. -. · ~:. ‘; :-·::- -;-.

-: :;

.. .. . ~ …. ·

~~~~e:!~~;n:=~-1committee On Teaching c• J~_-:,:,;;

Campus ‘ ·· _,· .• \.6ftji:?1Y:

. Dear Members of· the· ·committee on . Teaching: . ~-~ .·- .. , –~ _·:– .. ~Ä:~~>-:~~-~~~~0~~-

~ … ·,. . . . – –·-.· -“-~’-~:-~_;i·-~~:·~ -~-~i~~~

…. – On behalf _of _the School of .Law I ·am extremely _pleased to nominate-~–~->:-~-;- .. ~–~–·:··

·: , _ Professor of _Law,. Leon Letwin, fqr a University Distingliished .·_. =-;:<~~::/.–<~ ><~<··-~

_,._:_·:·.~:::_:Teaching Award.·.·. As you .·will note,: the recommendation grows out .. ,~ ~<·~~<·_:. 2>.~·-;,;

~:··.,.of a collaborative process between faculty _and students and. ~t.-is·-.. ·~:::~~~~;~r-)· .. ·

_- : one which I ·fervently _support, ·all the more so now that ·I have the ,:~'<-~_”;;·.:::”‘ ‘· ~ ·

· · · ben~fit of·~the ·detailed comments from Professor Letwin’s current ;–.i·-:·:~_;·~·:~: ·-·

and former·· students.· …. _·. ·~. ·.- .. ~~~-~~~~~:Ä~~;,,::_·~~-~-~_:!~~,~ . : . . . . ~ ;:,. ..

– . . .:. As I began working with the evidence of Letwin’ s teaching I . I quicki;? –.r’ ·~· ..

learned- that the student evaluations done at ·the end of each semes- ~-~>- ~

· ter confirmed the wisdom of the· recommendation. I provide a few _. ~ _.- . !

_ · representative conunents from the 1st year required Civil Procedu.re ._ __ : ·_

.·.· course: ·· -~~ : … –

~~~·::_~_:.:· __ ._·.

.. :

. ….. .- .. . .

Best course I’ve· had in 9 years- of higher education-.-· · · :. ~: · _.. ·.. ·

and the subject matter has .the reputation of being . . ; , .·. ). j . _,. _,.

_the dullest aspect of· _the 1st year of law. Remarkable! .. ::/~ .. :…~~—·. _

• : 7·~;:::.-·~~ .’.

An excellent ·inspiring instructor. I wish there were ._ . -~~—-~-“·;.;. -~._.

‘more ·like him. <“~, :.— _·, _… : ‘:·/:~:~~:~-:-_;{~~::~-·

. .

Professor Letwin· combines personal warmth,· intellectual

enthusiasm and ·exceptional powers of _commun·ication.:.·-

:- ...... : ~- .–. .

One first-year student wrote on the evaluation.form:

He is very approachable and willing to help, to explain,

to .. elaborate on class material. He never makes students

feel stupid~-confused, maybe, but not stupid.

This student went on to say:_

I wish all professors wer·e as concerned about and

interested in’ our progr”ess as students in absorbing

and ·understanding the ·course material. My·_major

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-(Letterhead for Interdcputmental Use)

Academic Senate Committee on Teaching -2- January _14, 1983

regret is that this· course doesn 1 t go all year so

that we could have· Mr. Letwin· for another semester.

·I would like ·to say _more, but, uncharacteristfcally,

words f~il me. Let it. suf~ice to say _that Mr. Letwin

is ~bsolutely_the best professor I’ve ever had.

But what makes Leon Letwin very special. indeed is his ability _to

help ·law students begin·. to examine their role as lawy~rs in a

larger social perspective. Profes·sor Jerry _Lopez, himself a recipient

of .. this· award, in· making the recommendation on behalf .of.

· the Faculty-:S~udent Relations Committee, wrote:

Through his· courses on Civil Procedure and Evidence,·

Leon manages to generate and to nurture a deep interest

in· the very _nature of _law and our legal syste~.

Students learn rules and doctrines, to be sure, but

they.learn far more.·· They .learn to’appreciate that

rules and doctrines are not ahistorical, are not

apolitical, and·are not without social implications.

They··:learn that lawyers are people who work with

people ~nd that a.self~critical assessment of .one 1 s

work. ·might well operate to improve (though perhaps

not increase) the role of _law in our communities.·

They _learn, too, ‘that while a lawyer • s work ‘is instru-.

mental, ·a lawyer·’ s vision can neither be shortsigllted

nor turinel without endangering a client 1 s, interest

a~d.the lawyer’s. and the system’s legitimacy.

Ms. Nori· Gerardo, now a lawy~r with one of the prestigious Los

Angeles law f~rms wrote ~o us:

Professor Letwin· was one of a handful of Professors

· who stressed the importance of _determining the so~ial

impact of _choosing one legal principle over another ••••

He made us analyze whether a particular rule of _Civil

Procedure would provide some fqrm of _”justice” to

those who entered the legal process. We f~equently.

discussed’ the ·meaning of justice and. the morality .. of

invoking a gi·ven rule.

I believe these discussionswexainvaluable. Professor

Letwin helped me to realize that as lawyers we have

an obligation to help preserve the integrity _of our

legal-system, which can only be accomplished by reflecting

·on the effect of various laws in our legal

system. The rules of law urider which we operate are

not some.·”end” in and of themselves, but the means

of achieving some form of _social justice. For this

j I ~’ • i .

·”‘ Academic Senate Committee on Te.aching -3- January 14, 1983

&

realization I am grateful to him because as I practice

I see.that many~of .us. tend to focus so closely

on the :iules themselves that we lose sight not. only __

of _their· ultimate objectives, but also their eventual–·

.. impact .. · ..

Judith Weqner, ·new a member of .the University of North Carolina law

faculty,_: .. re~al:ks: ..

. -~ .. : . .

·· .. · .. · .. ·.:··:.Yet,. without: a recognition of Mr., Letwin’s. themes, I .

· · . .-.:.:·.-_~-. ·-; think: studen·ts would leave law. school intellectually ·

· · ._. ·.~’- · and morally :ill-equipped· to f~ce the practice of law

· ·: ···: ·_and thei~· role as responsible· advoca~es ~nd commun-ity

.. . · ·. leaders. – · · ~ .

. .. . .

Bruce-.. Po:t.ichar·, one of Leon•·s f~rst students at. UCLA in the mid-1960’s,

and· now ·Vice President ·at the Samuel. GoldWyn Company, wrote: _.

:–.·-.-~~~:_.He.is’the kind of_educiator who·leaves.a specia~.”k~d

· · ·_-~ ‘· .. · of … stamp -on his· students: . the stamp that says it

·-> – <really .matters .to .be. dedicated and committed to doing_

– ,. · something well and in. doing it well for more than

… · · self~sh· ·reasons.·

Letwin has .. served· as an important role model for students in that ~e , -~ 1

1 has encouraged’ them to see the lawy~r·s. diverse roles in the public .. ·.9″!.

interest. _· Virginia ·sloan, now Assistant Counsel to the House Com-. ·!·

mittee. on the Judiciary,~ writing of .. Leon!s role as teacher in. the

context of .a· pro~ bono case~ where she served as student assistant,

· reflects: ·

··While other professors at the law· school distin.guish

. , th_emselves in high paying 11of counsel” positions with

··law firms, Leon distinguished himself in my eyes with

· .~ . ·. · his·· generosity ~f spirit.’ energy,’ and time. ·

·Letwi.n has ·served as a model fn quite· a~other sense, .·for he is proof ..

that a law professor can be kind, thoughtful and supportive, without

sacrifice to precision· and rigor. Thomas McFadden, one of

Letwin’s students last semester discusses this quality:

But-the most outstanding balance he strikes is that

between being a rigorous educator and a friendly,

·genuine h~man being.: There was no cutting corners

in his class to slide cheaply out of _an intellectual

challenge.·· But we always kriew that he was on our

side in the learning process–even to the point of

acknowledging where ·some of our ideas illuminated him.

2

Academic Senate Committee on Teaching -4- . January _14, 1983

Such transparency shows nothing of pedagogicaL weakness

but rather much of _that strength and humility .

that comes from intellectual excellence and personal –

integrity.: His whole ·approach to our class was filled

with such attitudes. He’d teach us f~ne points of.

the law of .a ·case, and then get us to see their implications

for the very .human situations of _the litigants.

And he taught us a great deal.about. such human concerns

by _his· relationship to us–accessible, honest, and supportive.

·

Jeffrey .Douglas, now in· a. small f~rm criminal· law practice in.praising

his education in· the rules and abstractions of evidence, .concluded:

Leon Letwin is a warm, gentle individual, with a

sense of humo~ ·and graciousness that inspires trust

and respect. ·

The letters from current students are remarkable. For fear that it

is difficult·to capture them I will leave them to you with the

thought that I have found no more warming reading in my deanship·.

We could not summarize Professor Letwin’s accomplishments as a . 1 ~ 1

teacher at UCLA without recognizing the critical role that he has ·

played in the education of minority students, first in·developing !

the program, :then. in .. helping··individuai students ·.and ·throughout, in

keeping our goals. before us. Colleague Ken Graham and former: .

cplleague, Dick.Wasserstrom, address Leon’s role in the education

of minority lawyers in their letters, as do a .number of our minority

alumni.

Letwin has.the quality that all the great te~chers who have real

staying power seem to possess, the· freshness, the openness that permits

continued·growth.

Peter McAllen, now in the Denver office of the law firm of Kirkland

and Ellis, touched it when he commented:

Professor Letwin is not one to rest on past labors,

nor to allow his students to do so. For him, a solution

in hand is never the end of inquiry; indeed,

it is usually scarcely the beginning. This is true

whether the issue is substantive or pedagogical,

familiar or unfamiliar, straight-forward.or complex.

Professor·Letwin always seems to be motivated by the

thought that there might be a better answer, a diff~

rent and uritried perspective, a fresh tactic to

Academic Senate Committee on Teaching -5_- January .14, 1983

experiment with. This sense of unfinished inquiry~

was something that was transmitted, also, to his students

(by inspiration, however, rather than by demand).

Far from getting ·stale as the y~ars go on, as Letwin nears the completion

of his second decade at UCLA, he is getting better, ·and that

faCt SetS an important eXample for Other faCUlty 1 nOViCe and. Senior.·

alike. · · ·.

We are ·proud. that UCLA has one of _the strongest teaching law faculties

·in the nation, and we get confirmation of that fact each year

as we experience. visitors from other ~chools. Leon Letwin p~ays an

important role in· keeping the value of teaching prominent·in.our.

minds. Not.only :does he· hold ·a special place in the memories of generations

of .students,· but he does in the minds of _his coll:-eagues as

well. ·

SWP:lr

N.B.

Sincerely’·

Susan Westerberg Prager

Dean

The Faculty-Student Relations Committee

recommendation follows this letter.

-.’

TO:

FROM:

RE:

LOS ANGELES: SCHOOL OF LAW

November 16, 1982

Dean Prager It Prof. Jones

Faculty-Student commendation for Campus Award for

Excellent Teaching .

. The Committee’s recommendation was unanimous. The

statistical data, which you have in the chair’s .repor.t., is ·

-~uite supportive, as are the written commentaries of students.

Leon joined us in law school classrooms in 1964. Over

the years I have formed an opinion shaped by the various

inputs which are common to law professors (students, colleagues,

alumni) that Leon excels “in ‘the pit.” That he does so with

warmth and compassion does does not lessen his impact on the · 1

students ~n their grasp of technical legal materials (Procedure

and Evidence are surely “technical”) while it ·enhances their

realization that even the most technical legal problem reduces

to a human one of competing inter~sts and claims for preference

requiring the exercise of human judgment under the stresses of

conscience and professionalism.

EAJ:ep

c

LOS A.l’llGEL.ES; SCHOOL 0~ LA.”.’J

November 5~ 1982

TO: Dean Prager

FROM: Gerald P. Lopez

Chair~ Faculty-Student Relations Committee

The Faculty-5tlldent Relations Committee nominates ·Leon Let:wi.n for theUniver-

Sity’ s· Distinguished Teaching Award. The Committee re.v:i.ewed the

st.udent. .e.valuati.ons (hath. the· numerical. ratings. and. the wri.tt:en

obseJ:Vaticms}· of. many· cutstanding teachers au this facul.i::y inc1.udi.ng;

Alison.. Anrlec;ott,…·Mi..c:hael .. Asimow,. Davi.d. Binder. Murray Schwartz.,. and

Wil 1 i am. \iac:eu- .·. Eveu.·in· such. distinguished.. company2 . Leon.’ s. teaching

achi.evemeuta are.. st:x:::ik:fng_

Through his· course$ <m Ci:ril. Procedure- and Evi.den.ce • Leon manages to .

generam. and..·· ta·. ~ a. deep interest: in t:he very . nature. law and

·our legal.. system-~ Stlldents:. learn rul.es· and. dac:trlnes-,. ta ba sure, ~but

they learn.. far: more-. They· learn to appreciate: that:. rules and doct’d.nes·

are not ahi.storlc:al.._. are.llDt: etpolitic:a.l.s- and are. not without social.

-:::iJ!Ipl±cati.ons- ·They-·learn· ..that. lawye:cs az:e. people: who w.Ork wi.th people .

and that:. a. sel.f-criti.ca.I. assessment of one-~ s work might. well operate. to .

improve {though perhaps nat. increase) the role. of .law in our CDIIDilUIIities.

They·le~rn,_. t:ocr,. thar whi.le a lawyer’s work is instl:Umental,. a. Lawyer’s

vision can nei.ther be·· shortsighted. nor tumtel. without. endangering a

client’s interest and the lawyer’s and the system’s legitimacy.

-~-

At: a time when legal. education is being berated for being both

inadequate1y theoretical and insufficiently practi.cal, Leon’s work

in the large classroom might well. serve as a !nodel of· what can be

dane-. The- Commi.ttee- enthusiastic.al~y support_s his nomination.

GPL/dhb

UNrVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA–{Letterbead for JDtmdeputme2!bli Use)

Dear Dean Prager:

As you are a”..tare, I am one of the two student members on the UCLA Law School

Faculty-Student Relations Committee. Recently, our Committee selected Professor

Leon Letwin as the Law School’s nominee for the Distinguished Teaching

Award. I write to give you rrry thoughts on our selection. ·

Eighteen months ago, I was in the position of deciding which law schoo1 I

would attend. All of. the schools from which I could choose had fine reputations,

distinguished faculties and challenging curriculums. Yet,. UCLA.

stood out from the rest in its emphasis on providing students with a relaxed

co:mmunity staffed by talented and caring teachers while sti.l~ offering a

rigorous and comprehensive course of study. That emphasis is what brought

myself and so many other la”.r students to UCLA. and it is because of people

like Ieon Letwin that we haven’t been dissapainted.

While I know of’ no magic formula that defines what makes a great teacher~

it seems to me that such a person must have the. talent to hold the interest

of the students, the confidence and ·security in his or her own lmow).edge

to risk challenging the students to go beyond the superficial answer,· the

daring to question the policies that underlie the status quo, the patience

-and genuine interest to ·listen to students’ thoughts, the generosity and

warmth to be accessible and the concern to truly care. From speaking li’i th

rrcy fel.low students and reading their evaluations and comments,. and from. rrr:r

own observations,. I feel confident in saying that Leon has these qualities. ·

Leon primarily teaches Civil Procedure and Evidence, two statute-based

classes wi. th a high potential for tedium and boredom. · But the students

in Leon Letwin~s classes are not bored! Using a keen sense of” humour and

a stimulating style of presentation, Leon is well-known for bringing

otherwise dry material to life. He brings a special passion and vitality

to the classroom and that enthusiasm rubs off on the students. Tney be-

~-.._c;:ome motivated to look beyond the simple answer and examine what lies beneath

·. and Leon has the lmowledge, practical experience and intellectual

ability to guide them in that exploration.

Wrapped up .in all these teaching talents are those characteristics for which

Leon is so well-known on our law school campus: warmth, compassion and .

h~~ess. That compassion comes through outside as well as inside the

classroom. Leon has a well-founded reputation for helping students with

their special problems. Students often say: “He reallT cares.” I think.

that’s quite a compliment.

As one of only two students on our Committee, I felt that I had a speciaL

duty to rrry fellow students to make sure that whoever we nominated was in

fact a Disttnguished Teacher. For it is the students who are the prime

benificiaries of great teaching a.”ld it is we who are the main victims o:C

poor teaching. tvi th that duty in mind, I believe that both myself and the

Committee as a whole can be proud of recommending Leon Letwin as the Lav

School’s nominee for the L[stinguished Teaching Award.

TO:

FROM:

RE:

LOS ANGELES: SCHOOL OF LAW

January 18, 1983

Dean Susan-~esterberg Prager

Barbara Koskela, Assistant Dean for Students i.:t].J(/;<f>’/4-L_

Distinguished Teaching-Award

I am writing in support of Professor Leon Letwin’s

nomination for the University’s Distinguished Teaching

Award. As Assistant Dean for Students at the Law School,

I Qften hear uncensored comments from students about various

law professors. Not all comments are complimentary.

But students, without exception over the years.) regard

Leon Letwin as “willing to listen”, “accessible”, “humanistic”

and “a brilliant classroom teacher”. ·This high

praise.comes as no surprise. I have served on several

law school committees with Leon and it is clear that he

is always interested in· the student’s point of view: he

values and respects it. He. i_s sensitive to changes in

law students’ attitudes a~d seeks input from the staff

and faculty about their reaction to policy decisions.

It is most appropriate that.Leon Letwin be considered

for this award, and I can say with confidence that his nomination

has the overwhelming support of the .student body.

r

lTNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, L,OS ANGELES UCLA

~ BEKHLH • lHVI’ • IH\”IXE • LOS .\SCELES • RI\”E S:\:\ T.\ R.\RB:\R:\ • S:\:\ T.-\ CRl”Z

SCHOOL OF L-\ W

LOS A~CELES. C.\UFOR.”I.-\ 9002-l

….

November 9, 1982

Dean Susan Prager,

Susan. I would like to personally explain my selection

of Leon Letwin as the law school’s candidate for the Distinguished

Teaching Award. · ·

First. Leon’s eXcellence is ref~ected by tangible criteria.

His numericaL rankings on student. evaluations are·superior_

Furthermore. those highmarks take on additi9na~ significance

because Leon·has taught a remarkable variety of subjects;

unlike many of the other candidates Leon has charted. the.vast

exP.anse of the law with his students.

·-·Also, Leon has. not merely focused on upper division

courses; he has dedicated a considerable amoun~ of his teaching

to first year student·s. It is this counterpointing of diversity

of subject matter and students with a consistency of high student

marks which is enviable; his unique teaching abilities tran- ·

scend well beyond narrow fields of specialty or interest …

But perhaps it is Leon’s intangible teaching qualities

which are even more important than his raw statistical data~

I have never reviewed student. evaluations ·which underscore

. students’ admiration and appreciation of a professor more than

-~.Leon’s. Most student comments about professors are measured

· in the number of words; however·, students write paragraphs

concerning Leon. The warmth glows from the page. The comments

reflect.students’ gratitude for a·thorough and organized

presentation ..

. .

But again~ the student evaluations must be viewed in

perspective.. Leon’s approach is not an easy·one; he challenges

students to analyze the most difficult aspects.of the law.

Examination of stereotypes, facile generalizations~ inequality,

access to the courts, underlying policy considerations, and

basic concepts of humanity and fairness permeate.his student’s

consideration of the law. This is no easy task. One would

expect that such emphasis on controversial or at least problematic

material might factionalize students into ideological

camps, the Pro and Anti Letwinites. But the student evaluations

belie that expectation.

.I …

,. . H! page 2

Dean Prager

11/9/82

What Leon does as well as any professor in this university

is light the fuse; however, the result is not an explosion, but

rather an implosion. Students no longer can blindly accept or

avoid, but must continue to explore.

Sincerely,

()~!)~~

William Wesley Patton

“WWP:ch

I

L

. .

r.. . _ • – , .. r — .

• L_,.

I

~ ~~-

L. — •• -rl

I

-I

…. I •

..

..

~ ;. i

• • fl d-C l.t vt.-~

. .

·. ‘J -J

I …..

.I

I .. .. I- I ..

I • , ,. .. .-...!-.1. I ,ltJ I

~ -~

I

I .II. I

t • I -.: ~

~

$:.

I

L.

Summary of Professor Letwin’s Teaching Evaluations

Winter 1973

Spring 1973

Fall 1973-74

Fall 1973

Spring 1974

Winter 1975

· Spring 1975

Spring 1975

Fall 1975

Fall 1975-76

Spring 1976

Fall 1976

Fall 1976-77

Spring 1977

Fall 1977

Fall 1977

Winter 1978

Year 1978-79

Fall 1978

Sp~ing 1978

Spring 1979

Year 1979-80

Spring 1980.

Fal1.1980

Spring 1981

Spring 1981

Fall 1981

Winter 1982

Fall 1982

PROCEDURE

CRIMINAL LAW II

PROCEDURE

EVIDENCE

CRIMINAL LAW II

EVIDENCE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

SEMINAR/CONSTITUTIONAL LITGATION

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

PROCEDURE

EVIDENCE

EVIDENCE

PROCEDURE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

CRIMINAL LAW II

SEMINAR/INTERNAL LAW OF ACADEMIC

INSTITUTIONS

EVIDENCE

PROCEDURE

SEMINAR/CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PROCEDURE

With Steve Yeazel!

EVIDENCE

EVIDENCE

CIVIL PROCEDURE

EVIDENCE

CIVIL PROCEDURE

EVIDENCE

SEMINAR/CRIMINAL LAW

SABBATICAL LEAVE

EVIDENCE

CIVIL PROCEDURE

7. 86 *

8.17 *

7.70

7.59

6.77

7.28

7.44

8.64

7.39

8.34*

6.95*

5.40

7.75

not available

7.65*

not available

not available

not avai~abl~ 1

7 .so

?

7. 31

7 .50*

8.12

8.15

8.27

7. 87

not available

7.88

8.63*

*computer summary not available; we have hand tabulated responses

c

TEACHlNG EVALUATION

Course ——– Semester ——–

Instructor

—————– Date ——————–

J.t’IRST, complete this entire form. (In answering questions 1 through 8, 9 reprcacnta the

highest possible rating and· 1 represents the lowest possible.)

SECOND, using the soft lead pencils provided. please carefully transfer your answers to

questions 1 through 8 to the computer form.

10. This instructor’s grea~eet areas of weakness are————————~—

– Comments: Please add any comments on the above questions or on such matters as the .

instructional materials, improvement of the course, or any other subject.

~—————————————————————————–

(Use back of sheet if more space needed)

PERCEl-l! Or turru. F1Sf·Oi·IS£S II liD VALID STD.

or: ~.A (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) .K£S.P. RE$P. ~FhN DEV

——–·—————————~—–·————~——-·————————–– ——-~————————-~~-· 1: 0 0 0. ·o 0 0 1 18 -12 3Y 3 7?. a.ts 0.77

2: 0 0 0 I) 3 a 7 23 34 25 2 73 7.52 1.30

3: 0 1 .& ]. 4 34 15 18 7 4 .. 71 s.dt 1*83

4: 0 1 . 1 1 14 1·1 33 23 lG ‘· ., ., 6.73 1.59 &. I~

5: 8 0 2 0 0 a 5 17 30 31 1i -~4 7.69 l • .J2

c.~ 0 0 () G 0 ~ 4 8 26 St 2 73 8.3-t 0.96

7: 0 0 0 3 0 3 a 18 45 ‘l’) 2 .73 7.67 1.!5 -~ B: 0 0 0 1 1 1 Es 10 48 so 2 73 7.e.s lelS

9: 0 0; .: 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 33 o9 6 8.33 0.47

f 1 ° I ‘

1

• • I •: II ‘ t I o I ‘ & 0 ° 0 f ‘

0

I I o ~ ·-~-. ··–……….. ·–··—…… –.. ..,.rJ-~.-·~~ ·”‘~~ -··~···~~·~·”-..:—-~·”–·–· ……. ~..; ….. :..-~ -·J .. ·;·l

. J’t:–~ . . . J” . . ‘

tttttt••• UCLA EVALUATION OF~NSTRUCTr0t’J-, OGR~M–.•• SUMMJÄR~F-‘INSTRUClOI~ EVAl:Uin’rDR”-R~TI·NG-s- t•..-sPR1~Git99T•’t•1’t•’f’1’1’•- · ..

EPARTMENT: LAW QUESTIONNAIRES PROCESSED: 77 ()

OUJ:(SE: 211 SEC 01 · , REP DR TED ENROLLMENT: 98 . .

NSTRUCTOR: ··-·LETWIN–.. ·–·—·· —-·- —- • ESPONSI!-R~TE •.. 78 –·;:::::-~:-::::~:::~~~i~~~~-:~:~::·:~::~::·—T::~–~::ATiNGs·c;;;·;-o;;:~~~i~-;;~s~o;;sEsi·–·:;::T;-::-~-:s~~[iSTiCs··–:~:~ o

·-···—-·-··—-· —-·–·——— ··”PPl:e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 RESPe RESP-.–ME~~EVe

)

——————————————~-~———————————~—–~—-~~~—-~———————————- ~)

I• QUESTIONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTMENT 0 0 ·O 0 0 1 2 18 35 42 I 76 Bel4 Oe89

··2e-OUFSTIONS”SUPPLIED ay· INSTRUCToR-O~EPARTMENT o-o 0 0 I :S 3 23 40 25 I 0″–TeT7–t-.oo··

3e QUCSTIONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR DR DEPARTMENT 0 0 · 2 5 5 27 26 17 II 3 I 75 . SeBB 1•51

4e QUESTIONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR DR DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 2 . 6 13 ·’ 25 . 25 · ‘· 19 7 ‘, .: . 1· ’76 6.53 le41 · ·. 0

Se OUE::ST IONS SUPPL fED BY INSTRUCTOR Ol DEPARTMENT·. 7 0 . 0 0 ‘;: 1 6 <.11 , . 23 ·:·’·.’ 19 27 5 72 7. 50 le 30

-fli’OUESTIONSSUPPLIEO’BY-·INSTRUCTOR”1lR4lEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 1 •.. 6 20 3r.-36′ Z 7s—Te93-:;:-t-i’O

7e QUESTIONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR 0~ DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 34 40 14 1 76 7.5~0.94

B. QUESTIONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR 0~ DEPARTMENT 0 0 ~ 0 0 2 4 18 51 22 3· 74 7.87 Oe89

9e OUEST IONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTMENT 0 0 ‘0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 100 75 2 9 • 00 0 .00

lO’i”‘OUESTtDNS SUPPLIED· 8Y’-UIJSTRUCTOR-oR-oEP11.RTMf!NT 0 0 0 0 0 0 ., 0 .,. 0 :.· 0 . 0 . T’7. 0 Oi”O’O–o.OD 11. QUESTIONS SUPPLIED BY INSTPUCTOR 0~ DEPARTMENT 0 . 0 0 . O· . .- 0. o· •. ;.: 0.·.:,; 0 … ,. 0 .. ;. ·:o·: .. /:.~,. 77,· 0. 0.00 o.oo ·. ·.. Q

12. QUESTIONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR DR DEPARTMENT ·o .Q. o·~:··o:.-,•0 0 .·’,0′ .. /. 0· i;·.:o . 0 .. 77 . 0 0.00 OeOO

13. QUESTIONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTMENT ·o: . .-,. 0 .. o··-~~· O.;,:. 0 o·· .. 0 .• ~·.” . .’0 ··:.· 0 0·· 77 .. 0 OeOO OeOO

14;· QUESTIONS SUPPLIED oY-INSTRUCTOR-QR-OEPARTMr!NT 0-o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TT o–o-.”0″‘-1)’i1)

1Se QUESTIONS SUPPLIED DY INSTRUCTOR Dl DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 0.00 o.oo

16. QUESTIONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR DR DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 .· 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 0.00 0.00

17. OUESTIUNS SUPPL1ED BY INSTRUCTOR 0~ DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 o.oo OeOO

ts;·-auESTIONs .. ·suPPt.:IED aY-INSTRUCTofrmr-nEPAATMENT o o o o . o o ., o … o. o o ” o o.-oo–o-.D. o

19. QUESTIONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTMENT 0., • 0 , .0 .o·. ::·. 0 .··, 0 ::.j·. 0 >.n .. 0:. ‘,, 0 0 . . 77 0 0.00 0.00 . ~

20. OUEST lONS SUPP1.. I ED BY INSTRUCTOR 0~ DEPARTMENT 0. :; ·. 0 ;’.:.’ ·. ·0 0 :·i .! 0 {./ 0 >~}. ·.o ::} … 0 .. · .:; 0 0 ~ .’.; ·77 0 Oe 00 0 • 00 .·

21. OU£.STIUNS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR 0~ DEPARTMENT 0 0 ‘0 ‘· 0 . 0 •. ~. 0 ).~.·· 0 · ‘.·’ 0 ·:·· 0 ,. · 0 >;; · 77 . 0 0.00 OeOO

22eDUEST IONS ·suPPL lED BY'”INSTRUCTmrOR-DEP~RTMENT 0 0 0 0 0—-o 0 . 0 0 0 T7. 0–o.-oo–o-.

~ o! .

~ Of

!

23. QUESTIONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR 0~ DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 0.00 0.00

24. QUESTIONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 0.00 OeOO

25. OUEST IONS SUPPL I EO BY INSTRUCTOR DR DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 ‘· 0 0 77 0 o. 00 Oe 00

o-

26a-OUESTIDNS ‘SUPPLIED ey··tNSTPUCTOR-o~–oEPARTMENT 0 0 0 . . 0 0 … 0 . 0 OJ 0 0 “1’7 0 0.’00—ct.i”OD 27e QUESTIONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR DR DEPARTMENT 0 0 10 …… 0 0 0~.;< 0::.0 .·: .. 0 :. o·.~ 77 ·o OeOO OeOO . ()

28. QUESTIONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTMENT . 0 0 . 0 .. 0 0 .· · 0 .~· ~ 0. ·.· 0 ·.• ::· 0 .. ,.· 0 :’,. 77 · . 0 0.00 OeOO ·

29. OUt.;ST IONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR 0~ DEPARTMENT 0 0 0. . 0 ‘ 0 .. :• 0 ” .. 0′” 0. ·’::. 0 · -‘ 0. 77· . 0 OeOO · OeOO

“3o;·–auESTIONS. SUPPL:’IED ‘BY-,NSTRUCTOR Ute DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T7 ‘-o-.o-o-o·eO

31• QUESTIONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 OeOO 0.00

32 • OUEST IONS SUPPL lED BY INSTRUCTOR Ol DEPARTMENT 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 Oe 00 0 • DO

33e QU~STIONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR Ol DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 OeOO OeOO

0

34’~0UESTJONS ·suPPt:tED-aT-tNSTRUCTOI< oR DEP~TMENT o o o o o o o.. o o o T7 ‘0’-01′”0’0–o•oo

35e QUESTIONS SUPP~IED BY INSTRUCTOR 0~ DEDARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 OeDO 0.00 · ·

36. QUESTIONS SUPPLIED ~y INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 0.00 0.00 ()

37e QUESTIONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 OeOO OeDO

‘3Be-1lUESTtCNS SUPP~ IEDt3T-·tNSTRUCTOR-D~LJEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 o–o.oo–o.-o

39. QUESTIONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR DR DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 o.oo OeOO

40e QUESTIONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR DR DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 OeOO 0.00

v– .

——–~~-~—————————~———–~~–·———-~–~——~~————~———–~~—————————-

()

111–·———· — .. ·———·–··———-·——————————————–J

~0

——-.—————————–,——/-~~———-~~~

. ·. •. ~

. , . .. . ..

~ ···-4

f) ··· .... ...:. ...·. .. ··~ .~ …. ··. ... ·: A·.::.·:·: … ·.: :: ,~ ;:-~. … :.. : .->)~-.~.:.· .: …. :· .. := ·.· >·:·:.::~ ·,..-·:.:· _::.· .. ;::· .. :~·-· ·. :.::. ~ ..- . · · :~·· ·~~;-~:- …~ . ..:. ~ ………….. ___ .._ …….. .._ ….. -~—-···- ,,~.._., __________ ,. __ .. ______ ·····–·– }·-··—-~

r-.. —-··00.– 0 ……. _- .. —– –··—–·———————————,—————,·

L••o•••••••• UCLA EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTION PROGRAM ••• SUMMARY OF-INSTRUCTbR EVALUATION RATINGS

1

••• SPRING.l9Bt••••••••••

0

_____ .. _ .. __

0

• – – llUESTI ONS –··–· —~—–~ATlNGS”‘Ä”AS-x-cF-·VOÄt.1trRESPtlNS~ – ST”ATI’STICS _ (RlFER TO OUESTtOUNAlRE FOR FURTHE~ DETAILSt NOT LOW MEDIUM HIGH • NO • VAt: ST)e r

o• APPLe 1 2 3 •. S 6 7 8 9 RESP. RESPe MEAN DEVe

—————————————————————–~———–~——~—–~———–~—————————– 0-;-:··~~ES-~~-~~~ ~0~~~~;~~–~·~·–~~~;RUCTOR OR DEPARTiotENT 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 .. 0 0 77 0 0.00 OeOO

42e QUE:.STlUNS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 .. 0.: ·. 0 0 · 0 77 0 0.00 OeOO I ,.

43e QUESTIONS SUPPL lED BY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. 0 .. ,-. 0 . 0 0 ·:·. 77 0 Oe 00 Oe 00 ,

44·; QUESTIONSOSUPPLit:D’DY’INSTRUCTOR-orDEP~RTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II 0 O’e””o-11e00

45. OUCSTIONS SUPPLIED DY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 0.00 OeOO

46. QUESTIONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 OeOO OeOO

47e QUESTIONS SUPP-lED BY INSTRUCTOR DQ DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 OeOO 0.00

[

48;”‘-QUESTIONS SUPPLIED. BY ,NSTRUCTORllJr’DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 O. 0 0 0 0 /1. 0 Q-;lnr–u-;-oo

49. QUESTIONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTMENT 0. 0 0 0 0 0 °.0·;0

0 o.·· 0 77 0 OeOO OeOO .

SO. QUESTIONS SUPP~IED BY lNST~UCTOR 0~ DEPARTMENT 0 ~0 0 0 . ‘0 0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 77 0 OeOO OeOO . . (

S le OUEST I ON$ SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 ·· 0 0 0 0 77 0 0 • 00 0.00

~2e.OUESTIONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR”Lm:UEPARTMENI 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 II 0 u~a–0~

53. QU£STIONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR 0~ DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 o.oo OeOO (

54. QUESTIONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR 0~ DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 0.00 0.00

55. QUESTIONS SUPP~IED OV INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 D DeOO OeOO

[

56eo-QUESTIONS OSUPPLIED”BY”lNSTf’UCTDR-oo~-DEPARTMENI o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 It u-o;-ocr-o-;oD

57e QUESTIONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR D~ DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 0.00 OeOO

58e QUF.STJONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 · 0 °~~ 0 0 0 0 77 0 OeOO 0.00 1 (

59e QUESTIONS SUPP~IED OY INSTRUCTOR D~ DEPARTMENT 0 · 0 0 0 0· · . 0· 0 0 0 77 0 OeOO OeOO

60; “OUEST IONS. SUPPLIED’ BY “lNSTRUCTOR'”‘QR-DEPARTMERI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D I I 0 0-;”‘tr–o-;-D

————————————————————————————————————————————— c

C —-. —- —·–·- ——; …… READI … G THE UCLA EVALUATION OF .. :, INSTRUCTION PROGRAM SUMMARY REPORT •••••••

FOR COMPLETE. lETA1LS ABOUT THE QUESTIONS AND RESPONSE -OESCRIPTI~NS DF D4TA

SCALEs– USED FOR THIS .. CLASS”‘”SUMMARYi’–“PL'”EA”Se–REFE’Rio-TH

r,_

SURVEY INSTRUMENT ADMINISTERED TO THE CLASSe THE STATISTICS RATING DISTRIBUTIONS MAY BE GROUPED f:e Ge

PRESENTED ON THIS SUMMARY ARE DESCRt3ED BELOWe FOR FURTHER LOW(1-2-3),MEDIUMeeet OR UNGRDUPED (E. Ge le2e3eee9)e FOR

INfOHMATION ABOUT THIS SUMMARY OR ANV OTHER ACTIVITY OF THE GROUPED DATAe THE GROUPED RESPONSE VALUES ARE INDICATED

[

OCLAO – EVALUA T1 ON OF .. 0 ·–t NSTRUCT·torr-pR’QGRAMe PLEA~WR’ITE'” UNDER IHe–“COt:UM~E~tNGS.-lUTTON~-FOJrl:ACH-aUESTI ON -AR:=J

(MS-3945) DR CALL (56939)e EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF THE NUMBER OF VALlO (I• Ee NOT .

BLANK) RESPONSES FOR EACH QUEST.IONe .

DEFINITIONS OF TERM STATISTICS SUPPLIED FOR EACH RATING QUESTION INCLUDE

.. — …. — • –

0

• • ·- –·- ….. ——·· HE-NUMBER-oF·-l4tSstNG~F.S;::tO’fSE-s-t-t·.-NO~l!SP …… 1-.-TME-NUMOc

THE NUMBER OF 1 QUESTIONNAIRES PRD:ESSED• INDICATES THE OF VALlO RESPONSES c•• VAL RESP.•It THE MEAN OF THE VALID

NUMBER OF NON ALANK RESPONSE FORMS RETJRNED BY THE CLASS. RATINGS (EXCLUDING RESPONSES OF ‘NOT APPLe•), AND THE

‘REPO~TED ENROLLMENT’ IS SU?PLIE) BY THE DEPARTMENTAL STANDARD DEVt4TION ( 1 STDe OEV.•a, WHICH ~ESC~IBES THE

(

c

GOURDINATOR·FOfl lNSTRUCTlONAL-E.VALUAT·JOrte PREAO-QP–·RESPONSeS A80UT–T11E—MeA’N..—THe–“‘S”AL'”l.-E~H:=J

THE •RESPONSE RATE• MAY BE GREArER THAN IOOX IF EXTRA STANDARD OEVlATIONt THE GReATER THE UNANIMITY OF RESPONSE TO

STUDENTS COMPLETED EVALUATIONS OR IF REPORTED ENROLLMENT ANY QUESTION. · . . 0

(

IGURES ARE NOT CO~~LETELY ACCURATE. . . DATA DESCRIBING THE SURVEY RESPONDENTS t~CLUlES THE .

–·–·THE· • 01•· .. REFERS ·TO· THE-NUMDfR-Qf’-1’HE-Qtll!9f··tiJH-oN-THI! –NUMBER–oP–VAt-l·f)–RI!’SPOHSES—FOR-t:ACH-·QUf:ST-t”Otr-ArotO-ntf!

SURVEY INSTRU~ENT ADMINISTERED TO THE CLASS. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF THE

,- VALID RESPONSES. -·- —·————·. —–··

L_ ______ o• —– —-·. ·-·-·· .. -·—-··——————-

-·-· .. , …•.. “‘:”:_,.-:– ····~·· .

. .. ··: t •• • :. : . ,.

.. . .

·. • • ‘: .:, • •• • • ••••••• :. ~ t • • • • ; • • • • 0 •• ·:

.• .•

·’

……. ! . . ~ ~ . .

~~d

·:. f …’ ·.’

.·, . ·’ •,

t 0. ·.· .. ;, ..

..

.. :

,, ..

‘,

J …. :··

0 • • •• ·: ~. •• ~ ;·~~·:.

f) • :I ~. ‘• •• . . . ·:;, . ;· .~·. ·. …. ~ ……………….. ·-· ~ J :.-· ..;.,.. ·;: ..·...: ~; .L.. ·-;··:;·(:,·: ·..·<‘”” ./.. ‘.\:_·: .,.;.,:.;_·,:.;. .. ‘_ >_. .:.·,_.:.,:.. . ;_, _·._:’ ,_. ..·.:,:::. .~~ ..)..·.. .·:~:– -;IJPÄ.-:. . :. · _-·~ –‘f{ _}.—-·–…. —·

.

—-·····*****·-· ·uc:t::A””Ev.Ai.-u”Ar.io””NaF r’NsiR”UrnoN PRoGRAM ••• suMMARY oF INSTRucToR: ANu cLAss evALUATl oN RATIN~s ••* SPR lNG. 19so **********

DEPARTMENT: LAW ,· QUESTIONNAiRES PROCESSED: 83

-·—·COURSE: -·- .. _ —-·–· 211 ~ HE.e.oJtiJ:.D_EtiWll…J.!!EtiT! 1 ng I

INSTRUCTOR: LETWlN RESPONSE RATE: 7b%

————oi.TesT!oNs– —–~—~’TT’NG5lA~-i7″0f!-vArT01iE~llON5es’J—— sTAY’TSTrcs

—- …….. (REFEn TO .. OUESTIOJ-IN~HJI; __ EQR_fQ~THJ;B_PE_T_”lL.~.) _N.D!___L_~ HEDIU.H HIGH 11 N~_V.Al SIQ. ~-uUEslTONisO~P[TEo-aV-1N5YRUC~oH-BEPARTMeNy— ~eeSs-~—Z-o-· -~—~—5w-~~f~-~~~ij—BE~~~~~~

2. QUESTION SUPJ’lLIED 13Y INSTRUCtOR OR DEPARTMENT 0 .”0 .· 0 · ·a 0 2 1 · · 24 25 · IU · 0 . 83 8e13. Oe9B

_______ 3. auesTJoN … S!JPe~Il!ILP~-~~sJRl!~HHL..O.H_I-lr:e~t:uM~;Hr o 6 2 · , · tJ 33 te a s a · o a3 . s.2z •• 9 s

4. QUESTION SUPPLIED UY INSTRUCTOR OR OEPARlMENT 0 2 4 2 4 16 11 27 27 8 0 83 6e48 la8B s. QUESTION SUPJ’lLI~O BY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTMENT 11 0 0 0 0 9 3 19 27 31 13 70 7e79 1•23

6e QUESTION SUPPLIED DY lNSTHUCTOH OR DEPAHTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 13 29 50 1 82 8e20 le01

___ 7. QUESTION.SUPI-‘LlED_UY_JI’.I!.H~~~!OB.JHL..D.EP-~£U.MENT .o 0 I l 0 t 8 27 30 29 o R.J. l 8. QUEST ION SUPPL lEO BY INSTRUCT OR OR DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 : · 2 · 4 20 26 · .· 49 1 82

-~–=~:–Q~-~~~~~:-~~=~~ED ~~ INSTRUCTOR OH DEPAHTMf~T 0 0, 0 . 0 · 0, 0 ·’ 0 · 29 14 . 57 · 76 7. ·

~.-~~—~~~-~:-:_· ~~ . ·

L_ -· ·

~—-

..

4,,,

, “:f.

· ; . .:;’

[ ,- —-·–.. ··–··———–·—————————————-J —– –. .,( .,

— ·- -·- -·- —————— – I

. —-·– . .. . . .. -·- ·•.- —-·,-· ….. -~—

I.’IJihtpW®¥ iri’**bAMM lMiii$*’ mzw ‘ J . . . , …… _

‘1

• • •’ • ‘• • “• r • • -~· .. :.: ..· ,.:·:·., … :.. … :~:+J.~;.~-L.~:L~~:~;: .. i.L:.<LL~/Ä~~-L~ ,:;;,:~L-~-~~~-1~:·~~~-~~~~

0. 0

t”‘\ ~–·–·-··– ·- -·· ·—-·–·-·—–•••• -••• -REAoJNG-THE UCLA EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTI~N PROGRAM SUMMARY REPORT +••••••

· FOR COMPLErE DETAILS AOUUT THE QUESTIONS AND NESPONSE l DESCRIPTION OF DATA

.. _ _ _ SCALES . USEO FOR . T H lS CLASS- .SUMMARY •— PLEASE– REF. ER_ TO _T H~——__….;1 -=-:· ::-:-:::-:-::-:-=—.:::-:-::::;:=-:–;::-::;-:-;:::::-=—:-:-~——————‘

SUP.VEV INSTRUMENT ADMINIST~RED TO THE CLASS. THE STATISTICS RATING DISTRIBUTIONS MAY BE GROUPED (E1 Ge

(‘;\ PRESE:.NTED ON THIS SU141o4ARY ARE DESCR I UED BELOW. FOtt FURTHER LOW U-2-3) • MEDIUM. • •) Otl UNGROUI-IED ( E • Ce 11 2 1 3. 119). FOR

‘ INFORMATION ABOUT THIS SUMMARY OR ANY OTHER ACTIVITY OF THE GROUPED DATAe THE GROUPED RESPONSE VALUES ARE INDICATED

–·· UCLA EVALUATION_. OF . . _lNSTRUCT.lON_PROGRAfoo …. _PLEASE_WR.J..TE liNO.EIL.Y1:f.E.._COLUMN.-..HEAOl.N.GS–RA.I…l.NG5…-E.LlJI EACH nuESTI ON ARE l (MS-3945) OR CALL (~6939)e ‘ EXPHESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF THE NUMBEtt OF VALID (le Ee NOT

(‘ BLANKJ RESPONSES FOR EACH QUESTION1 •

· DEFINITION OF TERMS STATISTICS SUPPLIED FOR EACH RATING QUESTION tNCt.UOE.

– . . . . . .. ·-· .. -·-· ··–··——- ______ _:_________ IHE-.NUMUER-DF–MlSSl.NG–HESP.ONSES ( •• NO-RESR • , • TI:IE…Hu.KSE..R–..:

THE NUMB[R OF ~QUEST10NNAIR~S PROCESSED• INDICATES THE OF VALID RESPONSES (‘• VAL RESP.•)• THE MEAN OF TtiE VALID

~ NUMBER OF NON IJLANK RESPONSE FORMS RETU~NED BY THE CLASS. RATINGS (EXCLUDING RESPONSES OF •NOT APPLe•,, AND THE

. •REPORTED ENROLLMENT’ IS SUPPLIED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL STANDA~O DEVIATION (‘STD. DEVe•), WHICH OESCktBES THE

·-··. COOHDINATOJ.I FOI-t lNSH.TUClJONAL … EVALUAtlON• 2RE.AO-OF–R£SP-JJNSES ABQIIT THE MEAN THE-..SMAI…L..E’R–T..J:iE

[

lHE ‘RCS. PONSE RATE’ MAY BE GREATER THAN lOOX IF EXTRA STANDARD DEVIATION• THE GREATER THE UNANIMITY OF RESPONSE TO

0 STUDENTS COMPLETED EVALUATIONS OR IF REPORTED ENROLLMENT ANY QUCSTION. . ·

FIGU~ES AHE NOT COMPLETELY ACCUHATEe ·· DATA DESCRIBING THE SURVEY RESPONDENTS INCLUDES THE

___ . ·- . THE. 1 QI’ … _REFERS-TO_JHE_NUMt3ER_OFJHE __ QUEST.JOILOJil_T…HF NUMBER OF VAl ID RESP..LlHSES EnD EACH QIIEST.LQN—AND THE ‘

SURVEY INSTRUMENT ADHlNlSfEftED TO THE CLASSe DISTRIBUTION OF HFSPONSES EXPHESSED AS PEkCENTAGES OF THE

0 VALID RESPONSES.

~

0

e

c.

4V

c.

” r· •.. ·–··· ··— G),

·.-

1\.0 ~

0 f._~~-· . — .–··—

: . . . .··] q

(i q

(I r· -· … t

C)

C.• C)

“I Q

(!

c> [-

.. -· .- .– ·- — l ; -‘-,

. ··– — —··—–· q.:

() 0 · -·- -·– –,—-·~·-. –~· -: · . – —~ ~~~~—~—:.~ :~~;·:~T~ :~: : 3~-: ~ :;; ~:r;s~~;.v~~ ~::. ; · ::. .. .. ··-···· ·-·–· I

:,}:-:t::: .· ;

·. -‘: .. ·~::: t! … ·.•- . I I ‘.. •\.tl,; .•. •, ·-~· _. ~~

. . , .. ·. . ….. ~~·- ~- :. ; ~’ ;:·i·~·, :

~1ikWfi!BtisttJBUi&£i!&2iifk&Qerz:?37″5H’M’R

~ .. ~d

-,

.0

‘) …. ·: ………. .

• 1

1

, • I 1 o : ‘. : …. .

•• I “••• •• …… :.. . ::· . :.::. ~.Li.~.·~,.-~:.:~i::,:~:<~t~L;::iL;~::,:i~~:.:.SFJ;Ji£:,~1.:::;:, ~1-~-~~i ~~: ,: . · :

g

•••••••••• uocLoA·-e:vAl..”u.4Y.I;;,N”-ar.·IN”5″THUC~P”ko”G”HA;c· ••• suMMARY oF INSTHucToH AND cLAss EVALUATION RATINGs ••• sPRING. 1980 ••••••••••.

\

DEPARTMENT: LAW o QUESTIONNAIRES PROCESSED:

COURSE: ..• 0—- —14S.o.~oSEC-o~~=~~~~–~- £eOR~O~O~~t~·~~~8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

INSTHUCTOR: LETWJN ~ ~. HESPONSE HA~E: 70~

———–oDE~YTO’Ns ~—-,xrTNa5-‘TA5-iT’UF-vAi:To-‘ftE5PoN’SES1 ~ sYAYTS’i’l cs

•• ··-·· 0 (REFER TU OUEST lONtiAlR.E.FOR-F.UHloHEf.l_DETAlLS)o_ _NOT–LOW E.O.lUM til 11 11 ll

<“‘ [ !!f;-oOEsT1a”N-sn’PPLitoav-rNs’f1ro~YOJrnfi-5EPAHY’Ml!N ~ee~o~—Zo-1o–~–5cs–.-‘ts-1r. S& . ! . ~~~ BE$i§–~~~~~~

2• QUESTION SUPPLIED OY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTM~NT 0 · 0. 0 0 · 0 . 0 .. 8 15 · 44 32 . . 0 59 8.00 · Oe90

ooo 000 .. 3. OUC:STJON SUPPLIEO.DYo .. lNSTRUCTOR.ORooDE:PARrMENT– ..2-.7~ U 1 4.-…24 8 8 7 ° 0 GO 4.26 1o06″

(‘[ 59 0

c 0

~

4• OUESTIUN SUPPLI~O ~y INSTRUCTOR OU DEPAHTMENT 2 0 2 5 12 10 15 29 l9 7 0 59 6e31 le70

s. QUESTION SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR OR OEPARTMENT 7 0 0 0 7 14 12 21 21• 18 2 57 6e94 le55

6. QUESTION SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTMENT 0 2 0 0 5 J 7 19 32 32 0 59 7e58 le60

7e QUESTION SUPPLIC:D-.BY’.-olNSikUC.TOR..OR.DEP.AJUMENJ_ 0—-0 Q o on 2 12 1* 4 1 1 2 0 sn 7 1 4

R. QUESTION SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTMENT 0 0 ··· 0 . 0 .. 0 . 0 ·5 10 53 32 0 59

9e QUEST JON SUPPL lED BY INSTRUCT OR OR DEPARTMENT ‘ 0 0 o 0 0 7 0 ·.: .. 0 0 I 00 0. 57 o 2 ·

C’ ~ () r· ·————————————— ……. ·-··· ·— ·——·–

q

n 0

C’ L OoOOoo —-·o··—-00——~~~~~~–::–:-~—- o,” :• ,•” J

-0 •o-•oooO_O______ . · .. · ~’~ I . .. • .: ·~· .• ‘. ‘I ,

0

(:”; L_ —

(‘

(, r· -·.

c-.

c.

~‘ ‘

….

[

oo•

…… O•OOoo

J

…. :—····

• =.

0

o•·—-o-·o·–·——————–:—-~–:-~-.,…—-:-!’—–:——-r————–

<..1

0

0

0

0

0 .~

0 , • . ,

•Cl ·o··d

(“\

(‘ I_·- –

0

I 0 [_·

0

0 [

0

0 [

0

0

……. __

1. “… .. ·–· ·-·-· .. I .. …………….. ,. ………. . ·’. ………… ·. -······–

·—-·-.;;·;;;;·-k~ADJNGTHEUCt.:A–EVALUAT I ON OF INSTRUCT I ON PROGRAM SUMMARY REPORT •••••••

FOR COMPLETE DETAILS ADOUT THE QUESTIONS AND RESPONSE DESCRIPTION OF DATA

SCALES . USED FOH JH IS._ CLASS –SUWo\Aii Y •-· PLEASE_. kE.F.ER _.JO_JH~——-……,.~~~—::-:-::~::-:-::::-:::-:–=:-::-::–~:-:-:–,_….-:—————1

SUUVCY INSTRUMENT AUI.UNJSTERED TO THE CLASS. THE STATISTICS RATING OfSTRIIlUTtONS MAY BE GROUPED (E. Ge

PRESENTED ON T~tiS SUMMARY ARE UESCRIIlED OELOWe FOR FURTHER LUW(l-2-3).MEDIUMeee) OR UNGROUPED (Ee G. le2e3eee9Je FOR

INFORMATION AUOUT THIS SUMMAkY UR ANY OTHER ACTIVITY OF THE G~OUPEO DATA• THE GROUPED RESPONSE VALUES ARE INDICATED

UCLA E V ALUA T 1 ON . OF — 1 NS.T RU<.:T.l ON .. -. PROGR AM•·-· PLEASE •. .lVR 1 JE ____ utiD ERJHE._C.O.LUMIIL-.H£ADLNGS–RA.I.J…N.GS.-E.OR….£.AC!L_QlJ..E.S.I…Ull;!l

(MS-39451 UR CALL (56939). ‘ EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF THE NUMBER OF VALID Cl. Ee NOT .

BLANK) RESPONSES FOR EACH QUESTION. ·

DEF1NJTION OF TERMS STATISTICS SUPPLIED FOR EACH RATING QUESTION INCLUDE

~~~~~~———-~T~H~E~NUHOER-OF~SS~NG–KESeDNSES ,,, ND-RESP-·”• THE NUHgB~EAR _ __

TtiE NUI~Bi!R OF-.-oueSTIONNAiteES f.’ROCESSED’ INDICATES THE OF VALID kESPONSES C•• VAL KESP.•). THE MEAN OF THE VALID

NUMBER OF NON BLANK RESPONSE FORMS RETURNED OY THE CLASS. RATINGS (EXCLUDING RESPO~SES OF ‘NOT APPL.• )• AND THE

‘REPORTED ENROLLMENT’ IS SUPPLIED BV THE DEPARTMENTAL STANDARD DEVJATJON ( 1 STDe DEV.•)e WHICH DESCRIUES THE

COUHDINAJOR FOR. INSftTUCT JONAL. EVALUA Jl ON•—- H.E..AO__DF—RESP..llNS.E!i..-ABOU.’L-…D:IE..-.MEAN.a..___U:tF__SMA

THE •RESPONS~ RATE’ MAY BE GREATER THAN lOOX IF EXTRA STANDARD DEVJATIONe THE GREATER THE UNANIMITY OF RE~S4P~O~N~S-E~T~O~–~

STUDENTS COI-tPLETED EVALUATIONS OR IF nEPORTED ENROLLMENT ANY OUCSTIONe

FIGUkES ARE NOT COMPLETELY ACCURATE. DATA DESCRIBING THE SUkVEV. HESPONDENTS INCLUDES

. . THE .!Of’ .. _REFERS.JO_.THE_NUMBER_OF..-‘[Hf._OUESTIOILDN.J.I:U”: NUMBER DE V.AUD-RESe.£lNSES FQQ..__£ACl:L_.UUES.:U.ON–.Al’I~~I:-DI~-.J

SURVEY lNSlRUMENT ADMINISTERED TO THE CLASSe DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF

VALID HF.SfJONSES.

—··——————————————————–,

0

()

q

0

0.

q

“·-··——–·—– —————————-~—————–~!;

~~

··-·- ——————·———————————————‘

0 . …… ……….

::’

• … 0 • . •·

~ .. .. · .. • • • ~ …… : •. • I

WMMA A

ll (“·

~

:J c~

!Il n.

l

~ lj c\

I

II 0.

I’

IJ

ll

0

·o

, .. 0 …. 0 -ow :. :: ••• ;; .. ,..,~ ,•.,~·.~ … ••’••-•- • .. -~- . .

.~.~*·;.·~;:.;·, ..; ~~·~·.;.:.·.~:·. ·.. : ·;·~~·*· ;:: ..~ ·.:. .. ~;·:.:~~.~~~~:~_:!~.–~-~~·.:~· ,;;. ..: ~ ~- .: …. :..· .;: ~ ….. ,…~~

• • l ·••• •

. . .

·~ …. , •• 4 .. ·—···—

·o

G

•••••••• UCLA EVALUATlON UF lNSTROCTl.ON PROGHA~ ii* 50MMA~v OF llirSTROtTOR EvALUATION RATINGS ••• fALLe198lllll*•••••••• 1

PA~TMENT: LAW • …. “‘ • .. 1) Q. -~ QUESTIONNAIRES PROCESSED: 97

UHSE: l4S ·SE~ ~ · REPORTED ENROLLMENT: 99 mm: LEIW,R . SPONSE”‘”RATc. 9TX:—————_.;..-~———–1

‘)

———————-~~ESTIONs———————-r——–RATINGS-iAS_X_OF_Y4LiD-RESP~SES,——————-sTATiSTiCS________ a

CREF£R 1’1 QUE!ST10NNAIRE FOH FURTHER DETAILSt NOT LOW ~ MEDIUM . HIGH II NO II VAL . STDe

~-=-·===:===-=—————~–.——~–:–~’ __ .:_~_..: ______________ .;.._~-~——-~—–~—–~==~=—~==~~–~=~~-~e~–·. ‘ ,. . . . .· 0

t::Sl IONS SUPJ.ll lEO BY INSlRUCTCR OR DEPARTMENT’ · . 0 .. 2 . 0 1 ·. 0 . . 0. . 6 . · q 37 43 ·. , 3 : 94 . B.Ot .. t e4l ..

• ESTTONs-5\JPPLIED B~SIRDCIOFc ulr!J’EJTI{RTRElQI 0 0 I i 2 5 to–zzr–zv—-25 6 91 1.¢1 le44

3. QUESTIONS 3UPPLtEO BY INSTRUCTOR OR UEPART”‘-ENT 0 3 5 15 12 19 14 15 6 6 . 3 94 5el8 2e02 O

4• CUESTlONS SUPPLJEO BY INSTRUCTOR UR DEPARtr-tENT 0 ‘3 · 1 I 0 6 12 21 33 21 2 95 7.22 1.73 s. ~UESTIUNS SUPPLitO BY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 16 33 40 4 93 7.98 t.09

~E”STIO~’SUPPCll!DifVL’NS’llro’crDR OR OEPmMENI 0 . U · 0 I 2 3 . 10 . 24 21 36 . 4 93 1. 66 1 e34

OUEST IONS SUPPL lEO BY INSTkUCTOR OR OEP4RT”4ENT ~ 0 .. ‘ . 0 .· ·. 0. 1 0 …. 2 I·. 8 . .’3 39 .. 35 3 94- 7.q2 1.09 I 0

a·uESTIUNS SUPPLIED BY INSTHUCTOR OR OEP~RTMENT 0 ‘ 0:. 0. .1. · 0 ·. o::·. 3 .··.·· .. 9 . 36. •a 5 .92 8e..2.7 Oe94

9. OUESTI ONS SUPJ•L lED BY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPAHTMENT 0 0 0 ·. 0 ‘0 0 ··:· :. 0 ‘· 0 50:· 50. 87 I 0. 1J

-o.–‘OOESTt”‘NS-s\JPPL”lED’I3r-tNSTRU’CTlJR-oJrOt:P’ll’RTMEN1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0—-J’OO 9~ 1 9

11• (.lliCSTillr.IS SIIPPLJEO DV.INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 97 0 0 • …,.., .., … . Q

12• UUESTI~NS SUPPLIED DY INSTRUCTOR OR VErAHTMENT 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 97 0 0.00 0.00

13. QUESTIONS SUPPLIED RY INSTRUCTOR OR DEP4RTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.

0

0

c

0

c:.

0

(.•

rzr.-cuESTTD~PLl~D Bf lNSnnJC I OR OR DEPAR I NENI :•’\ 0 0 • 0. 0 0 .. : 0 .· … 0.:: . . 0 •. , 0 0

OUESTIONS sUPPLIED DY INSTRUCTOR OR OEPAf.lTMENT · ·Q, 0 · 0 0 .. D 0,,,. O. •· O … 0. 0 ,. ,. vevv .,…… j Q

OUEST IUNS SUPPLIED BV INSTRUCTOR CUl UEP4RTMENT . :. ‘ :0: ‘0 : .. ‘ .. 0 . 0 ·., 0’ 0. >. 0 0 ‘· . D: G . 97 0 · 0.00 0 4 00 •

, __ OUESTIONS SUPPLI~D BY INSTRUCTOR OR DCPARTMENT 0 0 “: 0· 0- ~ 0 ‘·.,Q ..•. ·>O 0; ··o:.

1 be OUE’ST10Ns-stJPJl’LIEO-t3Y”I’NSTnUC fOR lJR DEPARTMENI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v .., 1 u u•

19• OUf:STI~NS SUP~Ll~D ~y iNSTRUCTOR OR DEP4RTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 0 0.00 v•vw

20. OUC::STJONS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTCR UR DErARTt4ENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 97 0 OeOO · 0.00 0

21• UUEST l ONS SUPPL lED OY tt•~TRUCTOR OR OEPARHIENT 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 ‘ 0 97 D 0. OO

mcC’STTO~OPPt:TF.D Bf iNS I RUCI OR OR DEP4R1 AENI 0 0 0 · 0 0 0 .· 0 · 0 0 0. 97 0 0.00

o•Jf.STim.tssuPPLl£DavrNsTnucroRoRoEP.t.RTMENT o ·~.o··.·:o· o o ···o·.· .. ;:·o o o o 97 o o.oo …. .., … I.

UUESTIONSSUPPLIF.DOYINSTRUCTORORDEPARTMENl 0 Q, 0. 0 ·0· o··. o· .. ‘·O 0· D 97 0 o.oo.O.OO ()

25. QUE:.STlCINS SUPPLIED BY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPA.RTMENT 0 .· .. 0 0. 0. 0 . 0. · 0 0′ 0 .”· 0 97 0 · 0.00

‘—-%6-.·-ouesT IUtotS’~t1Pf•t=U:o-8Y-t~s-r~ef’1lR 6ft 6EP”\ft”f”footeWT 0 0 G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9T 0 OrO’O

27. UUESl JUNS SUPPLU:’O OY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 0 0.00 o.oo “””

28. QUESTIONS SUPPLIED BY lNST~UCTUR UR DEPA.RTMENT D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 0 0.00 OeOO \J

29. UUESTILNS SUPPLI~D BY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 0 0.00 0.00 00…-mJE’STlUNS”-sUPPL”””t”ED Br INSlfCOCiuftÄl”A-n~PARIAeNI . 0 0 0 0. 0 0 · 0 0 0 .. 0 ‘9J 0 0.00 o.OO

t. ouestlONSSUPPLlEDeY INsrRucToR.oRoePARTMENT. o·· o .·o o .o o: ·.o o o a: 97 o o .. oo o.oo I

2• OUESTIUNS SUPPLIEU BY INSTRUCTOR OR nEPA.RTMENT.. 0 0 · 0 0 0 0 0 ·0 0 0 97 0 OeOO OeOO 0

3 • QUESTIONS SUPPL lEO flY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTMENT.·· 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 · 0 0 · 0. 97 O o.oo

~….-otJt:ST”‘ttms-stJPPt:”11:D-a”t”‘-t’NST”R1.1CTTR&lR-oeP~’RTMEN1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9? 0 0 • 00

35. QUESTIONS SUPPLIED BY INST~UCTCR OR DEP4RTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 0 OeOO -·–

36. UUEST IONS SUPPL lEO 8Y INST~UC ron OR DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 0 OeOO OeOO Q

37e UU~STIONS tiUPPLltD BV INSTRUCTCR OR DEPA.RTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 0 0.00

38 OUESirtmS SUPPClEIJ Bf ltiSIROCIUR OR DEPARIMENI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 0 OeOO

IJUEST IONS SUPI,L lf:::O BY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPARTMENT 0 0 . . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0. 0 97 0 0.00 · .. …… . I

QUESTIONS SUPPLI~D OY INSTRUCTOR OR OEP4RTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 97 D: 0.00 OeOO ‘ 0

———————————–~———————————————–~-~————–~——–~—~———-~—–~

0 uC _ ‘· l~ . . ·r~b.a.J

(J

. :~ !’, .” .; ·. • a •. _. :, . ···.’ ..

·:\! ,;, ,,··!··: ... . : .. ::. ·•

. .. :~· .. : ‘. ; ..

. . .i ,.

.. .. ·. . ·:·::· .. .

I f/1 •, lt•fJ.

... · ;… •. ~ . :

:~

.•. , .. , . ·:· ~ ..~’. ‘: . . ~. . ~:·~ .

~ ··*”‘

..

I. • ……….. ………. . .. • . ~~ .•••.. ··–~ •••·· …… ~ …. .! …….. · •. t-…… ‘ : ·’ : ….. _ ·-·· ..: …… ·.J-………….. : …. .: .. · . ~~ 0

/)

•••••c.••••· UCL4 EV4LU4TICJN Ot= INSTRUCTION f1RCJGR4M *** SUMM.I\RY OF INSTRUCTOR EVALU4TION. R4TINGS

1

F4LLoi980UU**U ..

—-uor::sTlllNS I R41tNG”S’\1ts-roF vALJtrR£”SPONSE~ . stAtiS11

(._~E.FE’R 10 OUESTIUNN.I\IRE FOR FURTHER DETAILSt NOT LOW 1 MEDIUM HIGH N NO II VAL STDe

ON .1\PPLe I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 RESPe RESl’e ME.I\N DEVe 0

u-··— ———————————————~————~——————————————————– 1. OUESTIUNS ~UPPLIEO BY INSTRUCTOR OR DEPART filE NT 0 0 .o 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 0 o.oo o.oo

2. OUESllONS SUPPLIED. AV INSTRUCTCR OR DEPI\RTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 0 o.oo o.oo

3• QUESTIONS SUPPLJCO llV INSTJWCTOR OR DEPAfHMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 0 o.oo o.oo

“11-;–ooCSTT Cil”l’S”-“‘5017P’Cl’EO-ur-TRSTRU C I OR 01( DEPAIC I MEN I 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 u 18 0 o.uo o.oo

45. OUEST 101..15 SUPPLIED flY I NSTkUCTGU OR DEPo\HTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 0 o.oo o.oo

46. uUEST IONS SUI,I,L JED av INSTHUCTOR 0~ OEPAHTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 0 o.oo o.oo

0

f)

47. OUC.STIONS SUPPLlf.O liV INSTRUCTOR OR DEPAf.CTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 78 0 o.oo o.oo

D”oooLSTTUNS”auPPLTEtru….-n.,otl oR oR ocr• R a MEN 1 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 18 u.oo 0.00 ~. OUtSTlONS SUPPLIED BY lNST~UCTC~ OR DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 0 0 78 o.oo 0.000

50. OU~STIONS SUPPLIED UV INSTRUCTOP OR DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 .0 0 .. 0 0 78 o.oo o.oo

51. UUCSTlONS SUPPLIED OV INSTRUCTOf.C OR DEP4RTMENT 0 0 0 ·o. 0 0 0 0 78 o.oo o.oo

5Z.-aUE’ST 1″0Ns-5UPPt.:1 t!o-nT&”NSTRUCT’OR-olr”Dt:~R I jiitEN1 0 0 0 0 0 0 () 18 u.tJO u.u

‘) I

t 53. UUCSTICNS SUPPLIED OV lNSrFWCTOA UR DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 o.oo o.oo

54. UUEST IONS SUPPLIED DY INS HllJC T CR OR DEP4RTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 o.oo o.oo ss. OUEST IONS SU~PLIED tiY INSTRUCTOU OA DEPART ME NT 0 0 o. 0 0 0 0 78 o.oo o.oo

F.S I I ON;, SUPPL I EO”tJr&

UUL:STl u14S SUPPLIED OY INSTRUCTOR

OUEST IONS SUPPLIED 13Y INSTRUCTOH

59. OUl.STIGNS SUPPLIED uv INSTRUCTOR OR

oe–m.Jt:S n ON S 5UPptiED-sY-tNSTROCTOR-QR . . ————————————————————————————————————————————

‘) i

I () I I 0 I () l I

I • l ••••••• RE.I\DlNG THE UCLA E.V4LU4TION. OF INSTRUCTION PROGRAM SUMM4RY REPORT ••*••••

FO~ COMPLETE DETAILS AROUT THE QUESTIONS AND RESPONSE DESCRIPTIONS OF DATA

–5C-At-E-S –us ED– FOR–TH 1 S -···CL:1ÄSS·~MM 1\R”W”‘T-PL-t:”A”SE–ReFt: R -To-Tt1e—————————————–1 I

0 , SUUVE:::V INSliWMENT 1\0t.UNISTERED TO THE CL.I\SSe THE ST.I\TISTICS RATING DlSTRI8UTIONS M.I\Y BE GROUPED (E. Ge

PRESENTtO UN THIS SUMMo\HY ARE OESCRIAED ~ELOWe FOR FURTHER LOW(l-2-3)eMEDIUM ••• t OR UNGROUPEO CE. Ge l•2•3•••9)e FOR

lNFCRMATJCN ~BOUT THIS SUMMARY OR .1\NV OTHER ACTIVITY OF THE GROUPED DATAe THE GROUPED RESPONSE VALUES 1\RE INDIC4TED

! .

0

0

CL’IÄ·–,;~t:UlÄTtOr• OF I”NSTROCTTON~OGRIÄMe PLEJt’SE-.,fi:-~R,.,lrTI II:’E—–.,.onN:r’u.,.,EI:’IR~r-Ti’w:IHP’C’E–c01:UM~piNGS. ROI(l lONGS FUR E”ACH UOESII ON A~

(MS-3945J OU CALL (56939te EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF THE NUMBER OF VALlO (leE. NUT. .

BLo\NK) RESPONSES FOR E.I\CH QUESTION.

OEFINITI~NS OF TERM STATISTICS SUPPLIED FOR EACH RATING QUESTION INCLUDE

~——————–~——————————————Ti~H~E~N~OMBER OF RTSST~ESPONSES l•W NO RESPe*le IHEIRUMB

THE N~MUER UF 1 0UESTIONNAIHES PROCESSED’ INDICATES THE OF VALID RESPONSES ( 1 M V4L RESP.•)e THE ME.I\N OF THE Vo\LID

NUMDER OF NON BLANK RCSPONSE FORMS RETURNED BV THE CL4SS. Ro\TINGS (EXCLUDING RESPONSES OF ·~OT APPLe•), ANO THE

1 FctP0~1ED EUROLLMENT• IS SUP … LifD 6V THE DEPARTMENTAL STANDARD DEVIATION PSTD. DEV.•t. WHICH DESCRIBES THE

DINAIUR FOR lNSTROCTiliNAL EnL0411UN. SPRE0\0 OF RESPONSES 0\00 •

r)

THE ‘FlESPUNSE RI\TE’ M.I\Y 8E GREI\TER TH4N 100¥ IF EXTRA STAND.I\RD DEYI4TIONe THE GREATER THE UN.I\NIMITY OF RESPONSE TO

STUOENTS COMPLETED EVALU4TIONS DH lF REPORTED ENROLLMF.NT ANY QUESTION•

FlGUH~S ARL NnT COMPLETELY ACCUHATEe D.I\TA DESCRIBING THE SURVEY RESPONDENTS INCLUDES THE

Tnc–ll”f.. “REFERSIU”Illc-‘”N’OROER OF iftE OOESTTON ON tHE NURSER UP vALID RESPONSES f~n..:::~rT’lrna-..,.,.,…….;;__~,..,_—-~

) [ _______ ·-··-·——-

SUHVCY INSlkUMF.tH AOMINISTEHED TO TttE CLASS. OlSTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF THE

———————————-·V~-A-L_I_D __R_ E_S_P_O._N_S_E_S_. __________________________________________________ ~~~ lt

:·~~—;: .. … ::<:.: .. .’:.’\ … ;-~~~~r 1-:·.; … ~ ···-~–··_··~.–~. ,;”;~·:’

. .’ • •: • I . . .. · • •. . ‘

. . . . . . : ‘: ‘ :;)_,: ‘~~;~-~~ ;. ‘· : . . . ·’ _”, :. ; ,. . I

:·- ~;

,J. ;:

‘, .. ,_ .. .: ,.

. -·· … – ….. ····–···–.—-· …. ···._..,..,..,· ·~ …….. ……. ,…, …….. ,.~ …. -~~tr.:~.,….,…,.,.~.-·-~…,..,.,.,…—.-.: .~ ……..

.. . .. .

.. · ·. …

ORG~NIZATION

Be PR!SENTATIONS ~ERE WELL PREPARED A~D INTEGRATED 2 2 • 16 80 0 55

9e MAfERlAL WAS WELL OUTLINED & CAREFULLY EXPLAINED 2 C. -:• ·t 19 , 74 ··· I 54

10. CU!IRSE OBJE,TfyES_ WERE OUTLINI=D ANQ MAINTAINED 2 0 fi 76 0 55 ::: :::: :i;. ;;;i :~;;::”:v::::, ::E:E::E g:u:::::g > “.\:: ;,·;::;;_;~:.: .:, .?’~~ :gt1 ~?/ ::i ~s’ ;. :X\C; t::;~ ~: ;i;j:.~[Ä ;~ / :~;:’: ‘.<:;

lle STJOENTS WERE ENCOURAGED TO ASK QUESTJONS 2 4 20 75 0 55

14• STJOENTS WERE FREE TO EXPRESS THEIR OWN IDEAS 2 0 13 85 1 54

~MOUNT OF CLASS DISCUSSION

WO~KLOAD / PACE OF COURSE .. .._

.; . · .. ·~ :.

43

14

……. •• …… -… – ………. ,-..- …. .,. …. …,., ..•. .,. …. ,. .. – .. _.. ….. ~~··-… ··~··• ·-~~·-·r- .•~ ·•·

53

59

4

27

H. . ~

~ ·::

;,,

.- ~ ..

7 .. 5 ……

> —–~-.-.- •. ·-:- 4 •

. ;0··· .. ·.. ·. I ·. . . . . ~: . . ; ·: . . . ·1,.

48

50

f!-ft

·7.54

7.tJ7

7e55 t.zo

7eBS

7.39

·6e57

4e67

7.50

6e96

2.35

2.27 z.so

z.oo

2·26

2.39

2e02

2e06

.·.~. •• : . • j J ‘ 0 •

• ‘ • 0 J .~ ~ ‘: : ‘ … ~: ·’· ‘ .. :. • • 0

. • ‘o •• ·• ··.·· :.

. . ,

‘. .;, :· .; :: – f ;:; ;j~~~f: :. :>.·: :·. .. : . ·. ‘

•• ·, .. 0 ·~

01

, ‘, • 0 •• .• •

•• ~ ‘ • • . .: . .:.. • . …_ -~!

:”

….. ,

I

,! .. ·,..

;·1• i 8 1.so

1 .11

; (.25

. 1•67

2.62

t. 52

t.36

Oe74 o.ot

o.so

0.82

0.66 o.7s

0.25

Oe31

0

J

j

; 0

0

{ -1 Q . ·~

0

.• 0 ~

· ….. . :. .:;; ;•

. f’,. …. . . ~ . . .. <·: ;·:·;:

!I: •. ~. y~·-

‘;....: :. :: . ~ ….. ;

Q

0

0

•’ ………. . . .. . :: .:. :…. .. 1:::~ ·:,L~ L.. i:: .::: .. .;;,;:-~:_.::~::::;: :~:~,~i·:,:;:L_}..:_~;~:2,·. =: .:.~~ .. ~ … :·.: ·. .·· •·. ·.· .l

·.. .; _ _. ·. -1 _:_~···–~ I’

. 0! ,,

•••••••••• UCLA EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTICN PROGRAM ••• SUMMARY OF INSTRUCTOR AND CLASS EVALUATION RATINGS*** SPRING, 1979********”*. :.~

DE SCRIPT ION ·OF. RESPONDENTS· (AS X OF VALlO RESPONSES) ·:-:~·· .; . · .. ·.· . ,.’· ‘·;·;: . , :: -~ .. ·: . · ·, .;: .. ····:·~

jl

0 d II jl

!! () ‘ll

-~,~~i~8e~~~Hpe”t1a~~~~ scg~t. ~ee~~Ke~~~~ toe ,.loaK, vX~e~~t~~· ~Bt~e :~ { t~~~~t~·~·~i~ ‘.. : >:.~-l~’:}.~·:::·v:fcz~~~hi·ttt:~~·.:;-;:_;:~ . tAE~~~~~ pi··~~~,.<::··.·::Ä

FRESHM*’N: 2 X NOT EST AB: 23X 0-2 2JI: A: 31 X , MALE: 54 X MAJOR: 86 X MAJOR DEPT: 97X

___ s.,_O…,_P”‘-!HlJ~ .. Q..!l.E.L_Q~ t.o-&.9; OX 2-4 26X B: SSX ‘ fEHALg: . 46X BEL FIELD: SX REL DEPT: OX ____ ~

o t:m~ 1 9!~ m~m~ u .,. . 9m ii~ . . :, Ä~ . ~i~E!u;~iu :;~;’:t:?l;,j~;Y,f~t:;f~t~if;~;~~,:tJ;,~·, ~~,~~~l~J. t~fJ~,:.; r~~~~·t:;r,~ .,:;rr:\;,:,(J :;r~l ij 01

o; 3el•3e4: 32X

3.4-3.7: 26X

0 3.7-4.0: 3X

C’ FQU~~UL~S ·::::: • T::A”~:s;::N~c~!~~v:~~:!~:z;,~t;:.·!’:~~~,f?~J:r~rt~6i1~~};r~~,~~!imm; ::f:;r::\;(,/.O;§:t·::,:;;:o:5·}·;,·., :D, -‘E:~::i:;~

—=s~C7A~LE;S USED FOR THIS CL4SS SUMMARY, PLEASE REFER TO THE

SURVEY INSTRUMENT ADMINISTERED TO THE CLASS. THE STATISTICS RATI””G DISTIHBUTlONS MAY BE GROUPED (E. G.

PRESENfED ON THIS SUMMARY ARE DESCRIBED BELOWa FOR FURTHER LOW(l-2-JteMEDIUMee•) OR UNGROUPEO (E. G• 1.2,3 ••• ~). FOR

~JW~NLABCUT THIS SUMMARY OR ANy OTHER ACIJyJiy OF THE GROl2fD QATAe THf GfiOUPED RESPONSE VALUES ARE INOJCAJED

0

UCLA :VALUATICN OF INSTRUCTION PROGRAM, .. PLEA,SE,·:.·.WRl~E.;···:~.· ·:}~:-:~·::~·:~UNDER ·THE ;COLUMN; t-IEADINGS. RATINGS FOR EACH OUESTlON.ARE: :·t

C1 ( MS•39,5) OR CALL (56939) • ·~· ,: . · ‘·· ~Ä;;:; .’;~.:<;~:.·EXPR!:SSeO AS PERCENTAGES ~oF THE NUMBER OF VALID .(1 .. e. f’oiOT . · · ·<

. . . ., .. ·~ … ·;?;·.··,.::.,_:::: … BLANK.) ·RESPONSES. FOR EACH OUESIION.··· · , …. ‘ ” ·, ·.’. .’l

0

c:

0

0

0

(,

0

QEEIN!TlON OF TERMS· ·.,.. .,. :~·.<:•·:>’·Ä,,~·.·:::· …….. STATISTICS ·:suPpLIEP’FOB EACH RATING ··auESTJON ‘INCLUDE·· ·r

THE NUM~EB OF MISSING RESPONSES C’M NO RESPe 1 ), THe NUMBER

T~~ NUMBER OF ‘OUESTIONNAIBES PROCESSED• INDICATES THE OF V4LID RESPONSES (‘• VAL RESP,•), T~E MEAN OF THE VALID

NUMBER OF NON BLA~K RESPONSE FORMS RETURNED BY T~E CLASS. ·R~TINGS (EXCLUliNG RESPONSES OF ‘NOT APPL•’•• AND THE

·~=eo~Q–~ROLL~ENT’ IS SUPPLIED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL . STANDARD DEVIATION C•STDe DEV•’It WHICH DESCRta~s THE

—:C:-::0::-:D~B~D:::-::-1:,;.Äi~ATOR FOR INSRTUCTIONAL EVALUATJONe · .· ‘ · : . ,,;· .. ;:~·~··:’··.SPRE4D OF RESPONSES., ABOUT. ,THE.:-MEAN. · THE SMALLER THE …. )

ToiE • RESPONSE RATE’ MAY BE GREATER THAN lOOX IF. EXIRA ·r:’.-/f.:(‘”::· :’:/”STANDARD· DEVI~T,.,O.N .. • .’!~E ‘GREATE~:.THE. UNANIMITY. oF· RESPONSE. TO …. <· /}

STUDENTS COMPLETED EVALUAThlNS OR IF REPORTED ENROLLMENT : ~ ::.~.~~ ·~~:’·.ANY. DUES T lONe .. :< . .:·:. • -;• … : …. , ‘-‘:··;:~·~ • ‘· ·< ‘.· .~.:.,, :>::~ ·. .. · ‘ ….. :, · :. ‘· ; :· · .. :’> ·t

Fl GURES *’RE NOT COMPLETELY ACCURATE • · · · .:: :. · . · “. >.·.-.:.: ··~· .• :• .. ~·.’:’,· ·. · · PAT A …. D£SCR I B lNG’ THE” ~’SURVEY··, RESPONDENTS ” I NCLU!l ES THt: <‘ ·· ”’)

ti; •011• REFI!RS to THE NUMBER OF THE QUESTION ON THE NJHBER OF VALJO RESPONSES FOR EACH OUESTION AND · THE

SURVEY INSTRUMENT ADMINISTERED TO THE CLASSe DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF THE

V4LID RESPONSES•

·· · ·~. · .. . :, ., :! >'” W~: ‘X!·::::’,)f~,;’ :‘ ;’:~:;~:;:;. ;p. :: ;:·,

··:.,:-..

\\. …~ ~ ;. .

~ . .

.,

r•;

··:.· …..

.. ,, ·::· ~ ~: Ä~:

~- . r… . .. ~;< __ ~::-~~ . …-. ~~~.-.. ~·~·.·

\1

.;,:,f

. “!

A

I

0 \j

0 li

j!

O f.,! :;. . ii 1. .i

0 i II

a: I I oj!

.~,!

0;

I L or,

I;

0

0

:~! ~. ~. ‘: ·,, ·: · .. · ….. :· … ··i • ;~· :-~,.:<~:j ¢ . < ,;:··· .. ~~ 😦 ,’>· ..

0 0

r•..,..t”; .,. •~•

·,.:.:

-ifl..J111ll£M t &IJI)§t4£MSHS &E S

-(1 .. -·cf

==:r “‘Q rii’?’1rrn ,.

.. ,

,:’ ‘ i’. ‘o I I’ : ‘·~ o’:

·.·

.. .

.··,.· .. :.·.· ..

••• •• •• • 0 •• ,.·.

zrws

l ;

..

•, :.·

‘ • ‘ •, ‘,· ‘ ,,

1

,”, • o • ·, •• i ‘ I

~–…–&…—· ____ ……._. ….. ;_ ______ ~:..:…..:…_-‘ _.. ·-· ·-.·· .. ..~.·. .. .•.. . ….- -.–..·~ ··-·_·.· …. ~·~~..:…..;.._~ •. ….;…_…….-_ __ :q,._.–~:.~ ……… -.. _· ……… …..: … . ….. ., ………………. .!….,…_. ___ ..~ …..,; …. ~!~-·: .,. ……….. .

.. __ …….

-·-··-·’ _... ….:..

0

•••••••••• UCLA EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTION PROGRAM ••• SUMMARY OF INSTRUCTOR AND CLASS EVALUATION RATINGS ••• FALL • 1978 ••••••••••

)

)

)

)

DEPARTMENT: LAW

co •

INSTRUCTOR: LETWIN/VEAZcLL ———————-scresTioNs ____ __, _____________ Q! _______ TNslfiucrofi-coNCERN————————

le INSTRUCTOR WAS ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT TEACHING COURSE

2 … , ASS ppc:-SFNTOTIONS MADE SIIA lfCT IINDFRSTINDAAI F

3e INSTRUCTOR WAS CONCER~ED THAT STUDENTS LEARN SUB~

4e INSTR SHOWED IMPLICATIONS & APPLICATIONS OF SUB~

5. INSTRUCTOR DISCUSSED OTHER POINTS OF VIE-

.6. INSTR PRESENTED BACKGRCUNO OF COURSE CONCEPTS

7. lN~TRUCTOR CONTRASTED IMPLICATIONS OF THEORIES

ORG~NlZATION

8. PR~SENTATIONS WERE WELL PREPARED AND INTEGRATED

9. MATERIAL WAS WELL OUTLINED & CAREFULLY EXPLAINED

10 CQIIRSF DB lfCTJVFS WERE CIITI ‘NED AND NAINTAINFD

11. WORKLOAD WAS SPREAD EVENLY OVER THE QUARTER

INT~RACTION

I 2 ST!!OENTS FE• T we• COME SEEKING HFI p OR ADVICE

l3e STUDENTS WERE ENCOURAGED TO ASK QUESTIONS

14e STUDENTS WERE FREE TO EXPRESS THEIR OWN IDEAS

15. STUDENTS LEARNED SOMETHING VALUABLE

16e INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY IN SUB~ WAS STIMULATED

17e GRADED MATERIALS FAIRLY MEASURED LEARNING

OVERALL

1 e. WHAT rs yn!!R OVEQAI I RATING OF It:!F !NSTRIICIOR

l9e WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL RATING OF THE COURSE

VALUE / NEED TO l~PROVE

42, QEDUIAFQ RFAQ!NGS l TEXTS

43e COURSE HOMEWORK I ASSIG~MENTS

4~. GRAO~D MATERIALS I EXAMS ‘5• FEEDBACK CN GRADED MATERIALS / EXAMS

0, 6 Cl A 55 0 r sruss fONS

47, LECTURES / PRESENTATIONS

COURSE DESCRIPTION

D IFF I CUI TV I REI AT I VE TO OTHER COURSf!S)

COURSE MASTERY (RELATIVE TO OTHER COU~SES,

INTEREST IN SUB~ECT BEFORE COURSE

INTEREST JN SUBJECT AFTER COURSE

AMOUNT OF CLASS DISCUSSION

WORKLOAD I PACE OF COURSE

QUESTIONNAIRES P~OC~SSED:

RESPONSE RATE:

0 0 10

n n 30

0 0 40

0 0 20

0 0 40

20 0 20

·10 0 20

9 0 27

18 9 18

18 a 27

9 0 27

0 0 9

0 0 18

0 0 0

0 0 18

0 0 9

60 10 20

0 0 10

0 0 9

NOT APPLe LOW VALUE MED VALUE

0 Q 61

0 0 67

0 33 67

0 50 50

a 0 100

0 0 67

NOT APPLe LOW MEDIUM

0 11 67

0 25 50

0 0 40

0 0 17

NOT APPLe TOO LITTLE ABOUT RIGHT

0 ·o tOO

0 0 83

11 0

0

1 to 7.60 t .1 1 ‘J

I 10 7.JO 1 • 27

90

7″

60 1 10 7e20 t.l7

‘)0 1 10 7.30 leOO 0

60 l to 7.20 1.17

l lt) 7.25 le09 1 10 7.56 1 el7 ·~

60

70

0 \1 7.50.,… 1 .20 0 I 0 ll 6e89 le85 I a 7,1 1 1 e!\5 • i

0 11 7.50 leST ~I

64

55

55

64

0 II 8,09 1 .oa Oi!

=ti 0 ll 7.73 1e35 0 11 8.27 0.86 oit

0 1l 7.91 1e38 I 1

9!

82

100

82

91 0 l1 8.oo 1 .tJ 0 r a:

1 10 4.50 2el8

_,

! 0 t

10

1 , 0 7e6Q t • Q? !

0 11 7.45 0.89

o-;i

90

91

HIGH VALUE

e J 2.)3 Ot47

e 3 2eJ3 0 e47

e 3 le67 Oe47 0 9 2 1.so o.so

,,

33

0

0

e 3 ?,DQ p.OQ

e 3 2.33 0.47

0

33

HIGH 0

!5 6 2eDO De 58

7 4 2e00 o.7t

s6 5 2e60 Oe49 0 6 2e83 Oe37

17

25

60

83

~

!5 6 2.00 o.oo ~ 5 6 2e17 0.37

TOO MUCH

0

17

0

·•·•••<II: –•. ·~·-··· .. ·- •·.

. 1 …· … ____ : :

0 l i

1 1 .. · . :.·.:. ·’

DESCq~PT ION pF RESPONDENTS (AS ·x OF VA~ID RESPONSES) . O •••••••••• UCLA EVALUATICN CF lhSTRUCTION P~OGRAM ••• SUMMARY OF INSTRUCTOR AND CLASS EVALUATION RATINGS ••• FALL • 1978 •••••••••• ,. I

–,-~ft~~~t’HCQt ~P”tt~!Jl[~~~~IJL ~Bef~~~Hl~.Qe”• vff~~~~-i~~ .1· VAL Rei~~¥’11•J.f; vAE’-~i~lffS I~s t I

FRESHfltAN: ox NOT ESTAB: ox 0-2 ox A sox MALE: IOOX MAJOR: 60X MAJOR DEPT: BOX 0 I i

SOPHOMORE• OX !.1)-t,g• OX 2-4 ZSX R 33X FfHAIE: ‘X REI EIEtO• 40X QEI DEpt; 201 jl

JUNIOR 0~ t .9-2 .2 OX 4-6 OX C OX BREADTH: OX UNREL DEPT: OX j j

SENIOR OX 2.2-?eS OX 6-9 25X D OX GEN INT: OX f) l!

GRAD tOOX 2.5-2•8 25X ‘6-12 OX F OX · ,.

——–~~ce ox 2 s-~-‘ 2sx •2t ox oTHER •zx

3.l-3e4 25X I : J·.4-3e7 2SX “”‘ .

3 • 7-4 • 0 OX ~-‘

••••••• READING THE UCLA EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTION PROGRAM SUMMARY REPORT …… .

E..ll9._CilMPI FIE OETA II S ABOIJT THC’ OIIESTI Ob$ ANQ RESPONSE QESCRIPTION DE OAT.

SCALES USED FUR THIS CLASS SUMMARYe PLEASE REFER TO THE

SURV:Y INSTRUMENT ADMINIST~RED TO THE CLASSe ~HE STATISTICS RATING. DISTRIBUTIONS MAY BE GROUPED (E. Ge

~R:S~NT~D ON THIS SU~MARY ARE DESCRIBED BELOWe FOR FURTHER LOW(1-?-3t,MED;UM ••• t OR UNGROUPED (Ee Ge lt2t3•••9le FOR

JNF.tlQMATION ABnUT_l”HfS ___ SJJMMARY OR AN~C.IU/_l_YY OF THE GROIIPFD DATA. THE GRottpco RESPONSF….___YALUES ARE INflT~ATFO

~CLA EVALUATION OF I~STRUCTIUN PROGR4Me PLE,SE WRITE UNDER THE COLUMN HEADINGS, RATINGS FOR EACH QUESTION ARE

(MS-39~5) OR CALL (56939t. EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF THE NUMBER OF VALID (le E. NOT

BLANK) RESPONSES FOR EACH QUESTIONe

DEFINITION OF TEAMS SIAifSIICS SUPPL lED FOR EACH RATING OUfSTfON lN.~

THE NUM9ER OF MISSING RESPONSES C•• NO RESPe•l, THE NUMBER

THE NUMBER OF 1 0UESTIONNAIRES PROCESSED• INDICATES THE OF VALID RESPONSES C’• VAL RESPe’l• THE MEAN OF THE VALID

~UMBER OF NON BLANK R~SPONSF FO~MS RETURNED BY THE CLASSe RATINGS (EXCLUDING RESPONSES OF ‘NOT APPLe’)• AND THE

t REPLUH~C ENROLLM~NT’ r S SUPPI I ED BY IkE DEPARTMENTAl ·STANDARD DEVIATION P STD. DEY •’ I • W.ttl.CH_ DES CRUlES THE

:oORDINATU~ FOR INSRTUCTIONAL EVALUATION. SPREAD OF RESPONSES ABOUT THE MEAN. THE SMALLER—rAE

THE •RESPONSE RATE• MAY BE GREATeR THAN 100¥ IF EXTRA STANDARD DEVIATIONe THE GREATER THE UNANIMITY OF RESPONSE TO

STUDENTS COMPLETED EVALUATIONS OR IF REPORTED ENROLLMENT ANY QUESTION• ‘

=rGU9ES AR~ NOT COM~LETELY ACCURATE• DATA DESCRIBING THE SURVEy AgSPONQENTS l~LUOES THE

T~E •a-• REE~RS TO THE NUMBER OF THE QUESTION ON THE NUMBER OF VALID RESPONSES FOR EACH OUESTlON AND . THE

SURVEY INSTRUMENT ADMINISlEREO TO THE CLASSe DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF THE

VALID ReSPONSES•

–·-·-. -~ ..

~mtbA&LliUEdWI a f””•fRi’T!s=z mm

•4 …. 4

rJ ‘~.

. f

0

0 VIi t~

() il·i

I’ {.

0 !.

0

0

0

0

0

(!

C.J

0

, , ~ ,

en

,~ : l • ~. . ·- f . . …

:~-. ..•. — ·–. · ‘……. ~~~~·~~:~~·~·;.~i~il~~~.i~;~~1i~~~:-~~;-~ ·-~·-. ,.~-~-~ … ·-. :, ..-: . ·~·-·-··—·••’•· . .. . .. ·~ …… .

0

0

0

0

0

0

(.;

0

0

0

. i

.!**•*••-•• ucLA EVALUAtiON OF INsfAOctiON PROGRAM ¥¥; sURMAAY o~ IRSTAOctUp XNb CCXSS EVXLUXI lOR RAtiNGS

QUESTIONNAIRES PROCESSED: 64

145 SEC 4 REPORTED ENROLLMENT: 75

.~———————oo~~ftoN!———- ——–R~fTN~!-TXs-i-oF-vXCT5iR~5PoNS!!T——.—

c REFER TO OUEST lONNA IRE FOR FURTHER OETA ILS) NOT LOW NED IUM . HIGH

——-iNsfRucfo~~aNcERN——————.——-

1• INSTRUCTOR WAS ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT TEACHING COURSE

2. CL~~S P~ES~NTATIONS MAJE SUBJECT UNDERSTANDABLE

3. INSTRUCTOR WAS CONCEANEb THAT SfUbERTS LEARN SOBJ

4e lNSfR SHOWED IMPLICATIONS & APPLICATIONS OF SUBJ

BREADTH

S. IRstAuCtpR OISCOSSED OtHEA POiNtS OF viEw

6e tNSfR PRESENTED BACKGROUND OF COURSE CONCEPTS

7e INSTRUCTOR CONTRASTED IMPLICATIONS OF THEORIES

a. PRESENTATIONS WERE WELL PREP4RED AND INTEGRATED

9, MAT~RIAL WAS WELL OUTLINED & CAREFULLY EXPLAINED

10. COURSE OBJECTIVES WERE OUTLINED AND MAINTAINED

ll• WOA~LOAD WXS SPREAD EVERLY UvEA IRE QUARtER

INTERACT! ON ·

l2e STUlSNTS FELT WELC~ME SEEKING HELP OR ADVICE

ll. sTJ):Nfs WERE cNCOURlGED tO ASK OUESIIORS

l4e STUJENTS WERE FREE TO EXPRESS THEIR OWN IDEAS

LEARNING

JS, StUDENtS LEARNED SOMEtHING VALuABLE

16e INT:LL~CTUAL CURIOSITY IN SUBJ WAS STIMULATED

EXAMS

1/e GRXJEO MAIERIALS FAIRCt MEASURED LEARNING

OVERALL

18• WH4f IS YOUR OVERALL R4TING OF THE INSTRUCTOR

19. wR4t IS YOUR OvEAXLC A4fiNG OF tHE COURSE

VALUE ‘ NEED TO IMPROVE

42. REOJIRED READINGS / TEXTS

4le COO~SE HOMEWORK I XSSJGRMENIS

44e GRA~EO MATERIALS ‘ EXAMS

45e FEe)BACK ON GRADED MATERIALS / EXAMS

4,16., CLLEAttS 8 DISCUSSIONS RES J PR!SENfXtiONS

COURSE DESCRIPTION

OIF:ICULTY (RELATIVE TO OTHER COURSESI

COO~SE MASTERy (RELAtiVE 10 OtHER COURSES)

iNfSREST IN SUBJECT BEFORE COURSE

INT;REST IN SUBJECT AFTER CO~RSE

AMO~NT OF CLASS DISCUSSION

WORKLOAD / PACE OF COURSE

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

0

3

65

0

0

NOT APPL•

0

0

0

0

0

0

NOT APPL•

D

0

0

0

NOt XPPC.

0

0

0 ll

0 27

2 26

0 8

0 21

2 32

0 20

0 29

6 -\0

13 !2

3 34

5 17

2 27

2 14

z 14

8 41

0 8

0 8

2 JJ

LOW VALUE MEC VALUE

6 67 z 62

22 ecs

38 !0

2 48

2 35

LOW MEDIUM

0 76

10 E2

55 40

18 64

100 Cl I YCE ABOUt RIGHi

2 91 s t;S

• =an=n====rn”=•=e= =••== emrt=====• U ==-===-==-n——=- ——-

. . .

SQ

73

rJ

90

f1

66

79

70

52

32

61

77

IIJ

83

64

48

e

92

65

HIGH VALUE

27

36

22

13

60

63

HIGH

24

6

5

18

IOU MUCH

7

I)

~~~~~~~-~- ·· … = · .. – -:-.:;.~:.~.t:~:~·:·::~;~t~~-;::-:.::~~~;~~T.:-;;:~:~Ä~:.:r.!J~~·’?~::.r::-:.~:··~::.···· …… ·:-ti:~~~~.~ .. r’: ….. ~ … ·;-~ :.” .

…_._._…~-··4·

••• Wl N1 E R, 191 I f ¥ f •• ¥¥ n J

0 64 8e)3 le07

1 63 7.1, leiS z 62

I 63

7e3i i.J;

8e03 t.o9

1 63 I • i 6 le4i

2 62 6.6~ •• 32

3 61 7e27 1 .21

1 63 .z..J..!.. t .47

1 63 6.5-l 1.67

2 62 5.90 1 .65 z 62 be62 1 • IS

0 64 7e29 t.S!I

i 63 leiS I .54

I 63 7a55 le42

0 64 ».ss 1 .J .. i

I 63 6.~~ le9l

l2 !!12 6.1~ le92

63 7.7S 1.04

63 o.ss 1.22

15 .9 2a20 o.sJ

19 4e 2e)3 o.~a

!55 9 2e)0 Oe67

66 8 l.7S 0 a6S

16 48 2.,8 o.s~

i5 49 2e51 0 e53

10 !54 2.2~ 0.43

13 51 le”IB 0.42

g 55 le5l o. 60

9 55 2.10 Oe6)

8 56 2e)5 0.2~

7 57 l.Q__,_ .., __0_._2_2_ _

0

·)

)

;.)

·.)

()

~ .. :··- ~-i! .

o··.!

., .•. · •. c .. : … :. : .. ~:. ,: . ; •.•…• : •·-. ·• : .• .’J

\, …..•

••**•••••• uc~A EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTION PROGRAM ••* sUMMARY OF iNSTRUCTOR AND clASS EvALUATioN RATINGS ••• wiNTER, 1077

OESCR lPT lOti’ OF RESPONDENTS (AS X OF VtLI D RESFONSES)

GPA AT T H~S SC!JROL HRS/WK CUT~ JOE WORIS EXPE!fTEn GRADE 1 :ex

, VAL li£sp: -.- 11 ~AL PE”SPf 55 N vXI: ~:sP! 43 I vAL AE!P!’ 51

FRE.SHI.\AN:

SOPHOM:JRC::

JONJ m:;

SENIOP:

G~AO:

Of-iC:R:

c 2

;)X

77X

ll:C . . . 3.4-Je7: 12X

3.7-~.r: sx

C-2:

2-4:

4-6:

6-9:

9-12:

12+:

2X A:

I 6X e:

22i c:

J6X D:

llX F:

l3X OTHER:

l4X MALE: TlX

63X FEMALE: 29X

I2X ox

SX

7X

MAJOR:

REL FIELD:

BREI\01 H.

GEN INT:

96X

2X

21 ox

MAJOR DE::~tT: 1 ODX.:

REL OE:tt: OX·

ONREC OE~i. OX

••+•••• KEAOING THE UCLA EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTION PROGRAM SUMMARY REPORT •••••••

FO~ COMPLETE DETAlLS ABOUT THE QUESTIONS AND RESPONSE

~C4LES O~LD FOR TRIS C~lSS SOAAlRY. PLEASE REFER 10 1HE

5URVEY !NSTRUM~NT AOMlNIST;REO TO THE CLASS. THE STATISTICS

~RES:NT:O 0~ THIS SU~MA~Y ARE DESCRIBED BELOW. FOR FURTHER

lNFORMATION ABOUT THIS SUMMARY OR ANY OTHER ACTIVITY OF THE

JCLA ~vALOAIION OF INSI~OCIIOR PROGRI\Re PLEASE iRiiE

(MS-39~5) OR C~LL (569391•

OEFINITION OF TERMS

Tn: NUMBER OF •OUESTIONNAIRES PROCESSED• INDICATES THE

~UM3ER ~F NON BLANK RESPONSE FO~MS RETURNED BY THE CLASSe

•R:PCATED ENROLLMENT’ IS SUPPLIED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL

CUURJINAIUR FOQ INSRIOCIIONAC fvACOAilUNe

TH: ‘RESPONSE RATE’ MAY BE GREATER THAN JOOX IF EXTRA

STUJENTS COMPLETED EVALUATIONS OR IF REPORTED ENqOLLMENT

FlGURES ARE NOT COMPLETELY ACCURATE.

IH- ‘0*’ REieRS 10 IRE NUMe!R UP IHE QOESllON ON Tn!

SURVEY INSTRUMENT ADMINISTERED TO THE CLASSe

. ,.., . ,. , …. ~ .. -” …… -:- ‘~ …………. .

.·:

DESCRIPTION OF DATA

RATING DISTRIBUTIONS MAY BE GROUPED CEe Ge

LOWC1-2-3),MEDIUM•••• OR UNGROUPEO CEe G. le2.3eee9)e FOR

GROUPED DATAt THE GROUPED RESPONSE V4LUES ARE INDIC~TED

ONDER lA£ COLUMN AEADiNGSe RAIINGS FOR EACH OUESIJUN 1\RE

EXPRESSED AS FERCENTAGES OF THE NUMBER OF VALID Cle Ee NOT

BLANKt RESPONSES FOR EACH QUESTIONe

STATISTICS SUPPLIED FOR EACH RATING QUESTION INCLUDE

E NUMBER OF MISSING RESPONSES (‘I NO RESP.•»• lA! NO~BE~

OF VALID RESPONSES C•• VAL RESP.•Ie THE.MEAN OF THE VALID·

RATINGS (EXCLUDING RESPONSES OF 1 NOT APPLe•), AND THE

STANDARD DEVIATION C•STDe DEV.•)• WHICH DESCRIBES THE

SPREAD OF RESPONSES ABDUl IRE MEKNe IRE SMACLE’l IRE

STANDARD DEVIATION, T~ GREATER THE UNANIMITY OF RESPONSE TO

ANY OUEST I ON•

DATA DESCRIBING THE SURVEY RESPONDENTS INCLUDES THE

NUMBER 0~ ¥ACID ReSPO~SES PUR eACH QUeSTION tN) TH~

DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF THE

VALID RESPONSESe

‘)

I

‘!

0

0 I,.

I • oi i :

Of j ri

o! ‘· D I •

J i

o~i

0

0 ;

i.

!

0 ,.

t

i.

I

0 t

I

….. ,• . ·~···”

•.4 ..• 4

…. ~ …. – …. ····,l.·····,· .’, .. ,· … •’ ….. _ •.. -··-·. . ·· .. }··· .~P. … ·.. o-·~—···•···· ·-·-.. ·-4··~·~– …. -J.• .. ;._..,_.,.. …. – ………... —:. ..., -~,·· “·-.··:· ·”·········. … ~ ) ….. _ … ___ ··”·-

0

c

()

0

0

0

()

0

I

•••••••••• UCLA EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTION P~OGRAM ••• SUMMARY OF INSTRUCTCR AND CLASS EVALUATION RATINGS ••• FALL • 1977 ••••••••••

DEPARTMENT: LAW

~ussa·~~~~~~-LaL—–~~~~~~~~~——————–~~~~~~~~~~–_aa_ ______________________ ———————— INSTRucToR: LETwiN

OUESTION~AIR!S PROC~SSED: 7!5

RESPONSE s;ATE: 851

———————-~–acresfTaNs __ _

R R • ~ …….. Lie~n

——RifTN~s-TAJ:i-~,-viCTo-~es~R!~!ra!———

tNSTRucTc~– —CONCERN— ———————-.

0 1 16 ez 1 74

A 0 36 59 1 74

1 1 35 62 1 74

le38

‘·27

le52

1. INS1R~C10R ~AS ENTHUSIASTIC AeCUT TEACHlhG COURSE 7.53

——–~2~LA~~ENTATICNS HADE SUBJECT UNQERSTANQAS~L~E~~——–~————–~————–~————~~——————~——–~~~7~-~0~Q~–~~~—

l• INSTRUCTOR ~AS CONCERNED THAT STUDENTS LEARN SUBJ 6.95

4. INSTR SHOWED lHFLICATIONS & APPLICATIONS OF SUBJ 1 0 18 81 1 74 7e68

5• INSTRUCTOR DISCUSSED OTHER POINTS OF VIEW.

6. INSTR PRESENTEC B4CKGROUND OF COURSE CO~CEPTS

7. INST~UCTOR CONTRASTED IMPLICATIONS OF THEORIES

ORGANIZATICN

a. PRESENTATIOhS ~ERE WELL PREPARED AND INTEGRATED

9. MATE~IAL WAS WELL OUTLINED & CAREFULLY EXPLAINED

tOe COURS~ OBJECTivES WeRE OUTLINFQ ANQ MAINTAINED

11e WORKLCAO WAS SPREAD EVENLY OVER THE· QUARTER

INTERACTICN

1

1

1

1

3

4

l

!5 28 49

0 22

0 29

1 41

7 38

a 12

65 . 1

46 1

77 1

69 3

5!5 l

!51 1

86 1

74

74

74

72

74

74

74

7.03

6e48

7.52

7e21

6.75

6e46

7.74

1.28

1.70

1•64

le29

1·32

1.42

‘·95

1·23

4 6 33 57 3 72

3 5 32 59 1 74

t .ea.__

t.ao ____ ta,_stuoe~~EE~~~M~E~S~E~E~K~I~N~•G~~H~E~L~p~o~R~A~C~v~r~c~e~————–~—————-~———-~~————~~—————-~——~~—-~6-·~6~5~—~~ lJe STUDENTS WERE E~COURAGED TO ASK QUESTIONS 6e78

14e STUDE~TS WE~E FREE TO EXPRESS THEIR OWN IDEAS 0 4 27 69 1 74 6e96

LEARNING

fS, STUDENTS LEAR~EC SOHETHI~G VALUABLE

l6e lNTELLECTU4L CURIOSITY IN SUBJ WAS STIMULATED

E)CAHS

17. G~ADED MATERIALs FAIRLY MEASURED LEAA~ING

OVERALL

tA. WHAT IS )’O!Jfi OVERALl RATING OF THE INSTRUCTOR

1~• W~AT IS YOUR OVERALL RATING OF THE COURSE

VALUE / NEED TO IMPROVE

42e AE~~EQ READINGS / TEXTS

43e COURSE ~OM~wD~K / ASSIGNM~NTS

44e GRAOEC MATE~I·L~ / EXAMS

45e FEECB~CK ON GRACED MATERIALS / EXAMS

A6e Cl ASC DJSCUSSJONS

47e LECTU~ES I PRESENTATIONS

CO~RSE DESCRIPTION

DIFFICULTY fRELATtyE TO QTHER COURSESI

COURSE M•STERY (RELATIVE TO OTHER COURSES)

INTER~ST IN SUBJECT BEFORE COOASE

INTEREST IN SUBJECT AFTER COURSE

AMOUNT OF CLASS DISCUSSION

WORKLOAC / PACE_CF COURSE

3 a

1 1

16 2

0 0

a 0

NOT APPLe LO’- V,ILU!

0 5

0 10

0 22

0 31

0 3

a 3

NOT APPLe LOW

0 4

a 3

0 19

a 1

NOT APPL• TOO LITTLE

0 1

0 1

12 8!5

11 86

9 14

‘2 ee

18 82

MED Y~LUE HIGH VALUe

44 1§2

•6 44

!59 19

40 29

JB 59

24 73

MEDIUM HIGH

79 16

66 31

54 27

37 62

ABOUT fUGHT TOO MUCH

91 7

94 4

3

1

9

9

12

43

4a

9

12

8

10

8

7

8

4

72

74

66

74

74

66

63

32

35

66

63

61

65

67

68

67

71

7e96

7e77

6e56

7.49

2-4.7

2e35

le97

1.97

2·56

2.70

2e2B

2.07

2e60

2.06.

2e03

1.77

1.19

1· 31

le73

0.96

le06

o.sa_

0·65

Oe64

Oe77

“·55 o.s2

0.44

o.st

o.6a

OeS2

0.29

Oe24

-··-….

*’ i>’DW4’·&J6AIBE ”N”MM asa a an ,

. ... ..·’

‘. . ·.;

.. ,.

· .. •.

•• .·,: ~ e ‘ ”, ‘ o I o o

: I .. ··:· . .

. · .. · . ‘~·· …. :’ .

, .. ·-

,,...,..

…,

!-..,.

c

0

()

🙂

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

..

~ ·, .

0

. i 0

10

I

~.~

lo

·l ., 0

jtr.

.!, o

I

I !o

. 1

•f 0

·.! io I

i

ic l l

·o

] 0

j c

l

j

f 0

; 1o

1 I • ••· .. : …….. ·- ·- . .’f~!l~~·~~-..:~L:~::.,.;_:_ ___ ~ ~,_:..!:.-~ …. ::. -~—·· ..• ·-· :~·”· … : .. ., .. • . . -. –~~:–‘””

•••••••••• ~C~A EVALU4Tl0N OP’lhSlRUCTICN P~OGRAM ttt SUMMARY OF INSTRUCTCR AND CLASS EVALUATION RATINGS ttt FALL • 1977 ••••••••••

DESCRIPTION OF RESPONDENTS C~S X OF VALID RESPONSES)

–~~x~~oL ~PA AT THIS scHggt Hast~K’ouTsroe wee~ e~eetrea GB~oa aEK a~~ fU~fiiLfQ ‘LAss~x-s_.J~~—–

‘ ‘fAL ESP: 6c; II VA~ RESP: 57 I VAL RESP: 66 I VAL RESP: l54 I VAL RESP: 67 I VAL R£SP: · 68 I VA~ RESP: 66

FRESHMAN: ~X i NOT ESTAB: 951 0-2: 2X A: 3JX MALE: 60X MAJOR: 90S MAJOR DEPT: 95X

SJ:JlMOMDF_r:__:_ OX t .0-1.9: ~X ~-4! 3~ e:_____a(li_________________I!EJo!AL.E..! _ 40~ ______R.EL _FIFI n: 4S: RFI DEPT: ~X

JUNICI’: -OX le9-2.2 OX 4-6 20X C .7X BREADTH: 4-X UNREL DEPT: 3X

SENIC~: OX 2·2-2.5 OX 6-9 361 0 ;iS GEt<l INT: 1X

GRAD: 9JX 2.5-2.8 OX 9-12 l5X f OX ___ ,..o..a..TH.E.!L:___u_______;_a-3.1 ox ‘2t 241 OTHER 2ax

:!.t-3.4 ox

3.4-J. 7 4X ·

3.7-4.0 ox

tttt•tt READING THE UCLA EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTICN PROGRAM SUMMARY REPORT •••••••

—:-:::~=::J::”‘O…,R~COJ!eJ…E.]’_E DEIA Its ABOLJT THe questiONS AND RESPONSE DescarpiiON OP CATA

SCALES USED FOR THIS CLASS SUMMARY. P~EASE REFER TO THE

SURVEY INSTRUMENT ACMINISTER~D TO THE C~~SS. THE STATISTICS RATING DISTRIBUTIONS MAY BE GROUPED CE. Ge

PRESENTED ON THIS SUMMARY ARE DESCRIBED BELO~. FOR FURTHER LOW(l-2-J),MFDIUMe•e) OR UNGROUPED CE• G. le2t3•••9)e FOR

lNFQRMAT!CIII AAQ.lli___T_t-lSU _ SllMMARY OR ANY CTHE._. ACTIVITY_ OF THF GROlPFD DATA. THE GROUPED RFSPONCF VAl tJFS ARE INDICATED

UCLA EV4LUATIO~ ~F INSTRUCTION PROGRA~e PLEASE WRITE UNDER THE CO~UMN HEADINGS. RATINGS FOR EACH QUESTION ARE

C~S-3945) OR CAL~ lS69J9Je EXP,.ESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF THE ~UMBER OF VA~ID Cl• e. NOT

BLA~K) RESPONSES FOR EACH QUESTION•

DEFINITION CF TERMS STATISTICS suppLIED FCR FA~AIING OUE$IION IN~UO~

THE NUMBER OF MISSING RESPONSES c•• NO RESP.•)e THE NUMBER

THE NUMB~R OF •QUESTIONNAIRES PROCESSED’ INDICATES THE Of VALID RESPONSES (tl VAL RESP.•Je THE MEAN OF THE VA~ID

NUMBER OF NON BLA~K RESPONSE FORMS RETURNED BY THE CLASS. RATINGS (EXCLUDING RESPONSES OF 1 NOT APP~e’)• AND THE

1 REPORTEO~LLME~t~ IS SUPPLIED BY THE D£PARTMFNTAL STAhDARD DEVIATION f•STQ. DEY·”· WHICH DESCRIBES THE

COORDINATOR FOR INSRTUC-tiONA~ EVALUATION. —– -SPREAD OF RESPONSES ABOUT THE MEANe THE SMALLER THE

THE ,,.ESFCNSE RATE’ MAY BE GREATER T~AN IOOX IP EXTRA STA~DARD DEVIATION, THE GREATER THE UNANIMITY OF RESPONSE TO

ST~OENTS COMP~ETEO EVALUATIONS OR IF REPORTED ENROLLMENT ANY QUESTION.

–~P~IGURE~ ARE NOT CO~PLETELY ACCURATE. DATA DESCRIBING THE SURVEY RESPONDENTS INCLUDES TH~E ___ _

—yHE 1 011 1 RE~S TO THE NUMBER OF THE QUESTION ON THE NUMSER OF VALID RESPONSES FOR EACH QUESTION AND THE

SURVEY tNSTRUME~T ACMINISTERED TO THE CLASS. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES’ EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF THE

VALID RESPONSES•

……. .,.- ~ . ,. ……

. . .,\ .

§t.p£,1,442¥ 4bBWfFB”j<i§*M f+l” II ray ·:I~ · term

·————————————————————————————————————————-

–:-•-:-•-:-•-;•-:•-=.. – =.-=.-.:-.:–U:-:. -=:~-:-L”‘:’A-=.~:-:-V:-:A:-:L”‘:’U-:-A:-:T:-:-10 =-:-::N–::0:-:F:–:~::-;;::-:-::::-;:-;-:~·-:· ::-:• ·~ ..:: ::·’1:·: ::::·-:·7 .”‘””=-.:.: ·~,; :”‘,.'”‘:,~=:· U~H•:”.:’ ‘:”:~”:”~-:R”:”:-·,-:~=:·~:-‘- :1:-:~:-:-S:-~.= ~=R~-:-:U:-:C:-=T:-:0:-:?:-· -~:”:N~=-·-.- =:-:-~-=~:-:~:-:-:~:-::·V- :-~A:-:;~:-~:”:·”:’:-:-:~-:-:~”!”·,.:.-=:-“A:-:• T=-·:-:!:””:N-=G-:::-:· ·~-:0:-:~:-:-A:”:~-:~:-·.’ …_ . -,-,.:~:·- :~:-:.~:-:~:-~:-~”!”· •. “!”;~-:.-~-:~.;-~-:•-:·-.~-· ~-~~ _. ‘~·,

DEPARTMENT: LAW / 113 C) ‘1 . .’

_,INOSVTRRSU~CTOR: -~~~~~2~1~1~——–·~~~————————~ LET~lNt LEON

———————-a0Esi1oNs– 0

g!_ ___R_ ___R_ ___________NN_ ___R_ ____~ _F_ __R_ ___R_ ____________ INSTR~CTOR CONCERN

I• INSTRUCTOR WAS fNTMUSlASTIC ~BO~T TEACHihG COURSE 0 4 16 19 I 112 7e29 1 .ss 0

__ a~~AS~–ER-ES~QM~~VBJECT UNQERST~QA~-B~L~E~~——–~——–~~——–~~——–~~———-~—-~~–~~~–~~—–

3, INSTRUCTOR WAS CONCERNED ThAT STUDENTS LEARh SUBJ

I ·10 42 47 2 Ill ‘ 6.J5 1 .9!5

1 3 :!7 59 2 Ill 6t9l le53

4e INSTR SHOWED IMPLICATIONS £ APPLICATIONS OF SUBJ

BREADit1

5, INSTRUCTOR DISCUSSED OTHER POINTS OF VIEW

6e INSTR PRESENTED BACKGROU~D OF COURSE CONCEPTS

7• INSTRUCTOR CONTRASTED I~PLICATlONS OF THEORIES

CRGANIZATION s, PRESENTATIONS •ERE WELL FREPAREC AND INTEGRATED

9, MATERIAL WAS WELL OUTLINED & CAREFULLY EXPLAINED

JQ, COURSE OBJECTIVES WEHE OUTLINEQ ANQ MAINTAINED

11, WOR~LOAD wAS SPREAD EVE~LY OVER THE QUARTER

INTERACTION

2

3

2

3

I

2

2

I

4 ~0 64

3 26 69

4 !II 43

7 ~6 54

25 ~8 36

26 40 32

27 . ‘IQ 33

It :!2 56

4 109 6e88 t .62 0

4 109 7.65 I ,64

.4 109 6t22 l e68

2 Ill 6e60 le68 0

-~ ·:

3 ·uo ~*· 2.22

4 109 4 2el9

5 108 5.2. 2e27

4 109 6··· 2e06

.. !

0 <>!

‘ . t

5 I 18 76 :! 110 7t39

I 7 20 72 2 Ill Tell tt .·68

_J,%L_SIU~HIS-EELI-i~LCOME S~EKING HE~L~P~O~R~A~Q~Y~I~C~E————~–~———–:~——–~~——~~————~~—–:rrr—~~~~~~—–

13, STUDENTS •ERE ENCOURAGED TO ASK QUESTIONS

Of .. I

\ ·.: .!

Ol4t STUDENTS WERE FREE TO EXPRESS THEIR OWN IDEAS t;!

LEARNING

15. STUDENTS LEARNED SOMETHihG VALUABLE

16e INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY I~ SUBJ WAS STIMULATED

EXAMS

11, GRADED MATERIALS FAIRLY ~EASURED LEARNING

OVER~LL

18. WHAT IS YQUA OVERAll RATING OF THE INSIRVCTOA

19• WHAT IS YOUR OVERA~L RATING OF THE COURSE

VALUE / ~EED TO JMFROVE

~~UJREQ READINGS t TEXTS

43, COURSE HOM~wORK / ASSlGN~ENTS

44e GRADED MAT~RIALS / EXAMS

45, FEEUBACK CN GRADED MATERIALS ~ EXAMS

46. CLASS DISCIISSIQNS

47• LECTURES / PRESENTATIONS

COURSE DESCRIPTION

—-~P~J~f~F~I~YLTY <Rf~VE TO CTHER COURSES)

COURSE MASTERY (RE~ATlVE TO OTHER COURSESJ

INTEREST IN SUBJECT BEFC~E COURSE

INTEREST IN SUBJECT AFTE~ COURSE

AMOUNT OF CLASS DISCUSSION

WORKLOAD I PACE OF COURSE

·.·:··

A*M!GM

·, ,·,. . ,

·,.

1

l

4

93

1

1

NOT APPLe

0

0

0

0

0

0

NOT APPLe

0

0

0

0

NOT APPLe

0

0

.. .’ : :. . ~.: .. :

. ……

0 16

6 :!3

13 49

0 l

27

6 46

LOW VALUE MED VALUE

U5 C3

8 El

20 EO

12 f:J

24 •6

30 44

LOW MEDIUM

11 79

6 78

32 47

22 !53

TOO LITTLE ABOUT AlGHT

5 78

6 79

83 2 111

60 3 110

34 l tl2

6 41 tz

68 ! 109

47 2 111

HIGH VALUE

23 28 88 Jt 29 84

20 98 ’15

35′ 96 17

20 27 86

26 27 86

HIGH

10 31 82

16 25 88

22 2!1 88

24 27 86

TOO MUCH

17 26 87

1!3 27 86

· 7e6D 1 .:!4

6e63 le74

5e8l 1.95

7.8b t.6!l

6r95 l ,.,2

6e33 1 .so

2eD8 0 .&1

2·23 o .sa

2.00 0 t63

2·24 0.64-

1.95 0 ,1)6

&.95 0.75

1.99 0.46

2.1o Oe45

le90 0.72

2e02 Oe68

2el3 n.45

2eD9 n.45

.,. ··I i .· ·..: ·l

0~ .,:·{

– . ·.!

, .. i

0

0

0

0

0

😕

!

·.··.·::!

: ~· !

.. ,

I

t ‘ ~ ,

.·;1

,,

I ::

()·I’. ·—…,·· …. !.: ..

0.

0

0

0

0

0

0

(\

c

0

0

(.i

(;

0

JFcJR_ …. . …. •.· . ‘ .. : .- ·. · .. : … · … : :· …. ‘.’:·.·; .. ‘·’ …. · ……… / .• .. · … •.;. ‘” · …….. ·.: ,. . .· ··-r–r:-

1 ………… 1 ….. ‘·····~··~ …. _………….. ,·–p-.-l):—·”· .. -··-.·-· .. ___ ………..,,””-·–….. -:–·—-····—-·–·- .. · ~·- ·–:..-.. ~ .. .,…;

: . . ,’ . f ?6

•••••••••• UCLA EVALUATION Of -lNSTRUCTIC~ PfiCGR~M- ••• ~ SUMMARY OF INSTRUCtOR AND CLASS EVALUATION RATINGS ••• FALL • 1976 **********

DESCRJP~ION OF RESPONDENTS .CAS S OF VALID RESFONSES)

YEAR IN SCHOOL G~A AT .THIS SCHOOL HR5UWI< CUT!~ IDE WORK____EX~E..C.TJ!D._……GRAOF Cf!JL_ RE.O FULF_!_LLEO CLA..’i~ IS t N

II VAL.-RE:iP: 88 II VAL RESF: 60 11 VAL AESF: 87 II VAC RE”Si5: 7Q II VAL RE!Pa 82 I VA[ JIESP: “11 I VA[ RESP: 72

I FRESHMAN:

PHOMOR”” •

0 X NOT EST Ae: 23X 0-2: l I A: 261

.JUNlOR OX 1e9-2e2′: -OX 4~6: 211

SENIOR OX 2.2-2.~: 31 6-9: 28X Dl 01

GR A 0 9 5 X 2 • 5-2 • e: 3 X 9-12 : I 7 X F I 0 X

OTHER SX __ 2 .8-3 el: 23X 12+:__14 ~ OTHER: 7X

lel-Je4: 25X

le4-3el: 121

l • 7-4 • 0: 1 0 X

f’ALI!.: 6’71

••••••• READING THE UCLA EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTION PROGRA~ SUMMARY REPORT *******

FOR COMPLETE. DETAILS ABOUT THE QUESTIO~S ~NO RESf)ONS ~ DATA

SCALES USED FOR THIS CLASS SUMMARYe Pl…EASE~ REFER TO THE

MA.JOR 96X

SURVEY INSTRUMENT ACMINISTEREO TO THE CLASS. T~E STATISTICS ~. . RATING CISTRIBUTIONS MAY BE GROUPED CEe Ge

PRESENTED ON THIS SUMMARY ARE DESCRIBED BELOW. FOR FURTHER LOWCI-2-l)eMEOIUMeee) OR UNGROUPEO (Ee Ge le2t3eee9)e FOR

INFORMATION AtJOUT Tt-I_S __ SUMMARV OR ANY OTHER ACTIVITY OFUTHE ,,. . GROUPED DATA. THE__GBO.U.e.EO_RE_SE_QNSE VALUESUAR.E _ ~tNOLCATEO

UCLA EVALUATIUN-CF–HilS-T~f’UCTION PROGRAM, FLEASE WRITE-·—-U~H)EA-THE COLl.MN~–.:fEAOJNGS–;– RAfi,..GS~rOR EACH QUESTION ARE

CMS-3945) OR CALL C56939te EXPRESSED AS FERCENTAGES OF THE NUMBER OF VALID Cle Ee NOT

BLANK) RESPONSES FOR EACH QUESTION.

• DEFINLII~N OF TERMS STATISTICS SUPPLIEQ FOR EACH RATING QUESTION INCLUDE

THE NUMBER OF MISSING RESPONSES ( 1 M NO RESPe 1 )e THE NUMBER,

THE NUMBER OF •OUESTION,..AJRES PROCESSED’ INDICATES THE OF VALID RESFONSES C’l VAL RESPe’)e THE MEAN OF THE VALID

NUMBER OF NON BLANK RESPONSE FORMS RETURNED BY THE CLASSe RATINGS (EXCLUDING RESPONSES OF ‘NOT APPLe’)• AND THE

‘REPORTED ENROLLMENT• LS.__SUPPLIED BY Tt-E _ …J)~RIMENTAL STANCAAD DEVUTION CISTD. DEV•’I• WHICH DESCRIBES THE

COORDINAtOR–FOR INSRTUCTIONAJ- EVALUATION. – –~~—-SPREAD OF RESPONSEs–ABOUT THE MEANe THE SMALLER TI-lE

THE •RESPONSE RATE’ MA~ BE GREATER THAN lOOK IF EXTRA STANDARD DEVIATION, THE GREATER THE UNANIMITY OF RESPONSE TO

STUDENTS COMPLETED EVALUATIONS OR IF REPORTED ENROLLMENT ANY QUESTIONe ·

FIGURES ARE NOT COMPLETELY ACCURATE. RATA DESCRIBING THg SURVEY RESPONDENTS tNQLUDES THE

YRE 1 0M 1 REFERS TO fR~UM~ER OF THE QUESTION ON THE NUMBE OF VALID RESPONSES FOR EACH QUESTION AND THE

SURVEY I.NSTRUfJEI’\T ADMIN ISTEAED TO THE CLASS • Dl STRI BUTI ON OF RESPONSES EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF THE

VALID RESPONSES•

….

(

(

(

‘=

f.

t:

(

c

c

(

(

c

(

o!————————~————————~———— c

0 ~

0 c

~ ·, .”‘\ ‘

*..f W. A#WU#PM ;M M !tWA m ,.·, ‘, • ‘ ·•• ‘ :~: ; I t·

,_L__–=== 1_-~~

. t.

0 ••

!’-. 0 . -·. ‘

\

~ ..·. …

.. ·

……

.•

__ ~–· ….. ~— –~-:–~I;;~~:~J::i~4-:~Q~_: ;:~;:·.~-~–~—~~ ~-.. -~ ~-:·~. –~~-~-;-~. :~-~ ________ ,· –~-__ ,__ -~—____ ……….. __ _ …• ·:· ·- …. ..,.! ·-

•••••••••• ucL~ EV/ILu,noN oF 11\STRucTJoN FROGRAM ••• s-u~M’ARY OF”IN”sr”A.UC’TciiTNDCL.”ASsEvii:UA”TioN”RATi-NG-s -.-.-.–s·p-R·I-NG. 1975 ••••••••••

DEPART”4ENT: LAW QUESTIONNAIRES PROCESSED: 11

__LOURS.E· “2 REPORTED…£hRCLU4ENT.::_.t2———-·———· ___ .•..

I “STRl.C TOR_: LETW 1 N RESPONSE IOATE: 92¥ .. ··-·

—~————cu”BYlO~s————–RAf1NGSCAS-iOFVAi:l15″REs’Pot;S:E5r—-~–Sf”AflSTTcs——-

_ ___j_fi~f..li.fLULJtU~l.Ol!i~lRf!_.E.C.E…E..kE..tl:iEB…..llE..1AlJ…Sl__±—NOJ. _____ .Ltw_. __ M£niuH ____ .HJGH -·–·-·-·· -• NO .•. II VAL . … . … STOe

~’——-lNS’Ti:OcYl~-co~~t~’N——-:————- ___ 6J!eL.a. ____ il:.£:.:! _ .u:s:.6.!–1I=~2l___ aese..__BJ;s.e.~–..H~Mf—‘2li~ — r

1• INSTRUCTOR WAS ENtHUSIASTIC ABOUT TEAC’HING COURSE 0 0 0 · 100 0 II 8.91 Oe29

.2t_C … ~_$LeR_I;_SsJiT..AJ.IJ:i~!iJ4..ADLS.~-‘.L…U.l’lQER~DAe.LE B o o … 82 __ o ___ –11– .a. 78 … o. 42 ..•.• -~ •

~NSTRUCTOR •AS CC~CERI\ED T~~T STUDENTS LE#RN SUBJ 9 0 0 91 0 11 8e80 Oe40

4e INSTR SHOWED I,..PLJCATIONS & APPLJCATIOI\S CF SUBJ 18 0 0 82 0 11 8.89 Oe31

EeTNS·T~U~~B~.c..6rscUS5ED OTHER POJI\TS CF VIEW 0 0

6. It\STR PRESENTEe BllCI<GRCUNC CF COURSE CCNCEPTS 27 ~ 0

7. INSTRUCTOR CONTRASTED IMFLICATICNS OF THEORIES 27 • Q

0 100

18 . 55

18 55

o—-;:-r–·a.ss·–· o.66·—-

o 11 SeOO le32

o 11 a. 25 1 • 3 o

CRGANIZATIOI\ —

e. PRESENT A T1 CNS IlEA E wELL PIOEFAIOEC A”D I “TEC:RATEO 27 0 . 0 73

g. MATER JAL WAS WELL OUTLINE.O & CAREFULLY EXFLAINED 27 0 ‘ 0 73

_J_.O.a_~Q!,!R§£_Qf!.,lf.UJ..’!!~ERE CUTLINEC ANQ MAH.TAINEQ lB .0 Q_

__ B2,

lle WORKL0/10 wllS ~PRE~D EVENLY CVEA THE QU~RTER 9 0 0 91

INTERACTION

_lUJJ!lP~~_..f~L.~e’.k.tOHIL;.~_gJU.tl~ HELP OR I:Oy ICE 0 Q

13• STUDENTS Ill ERE ENCCURAGED TC ASK. CUES! ICNS • 9 0

14, STUDENTS ~ERE FREE TO EXPRESS THEIR OWN ICEAS 0 0

o · so.o_ o ___ 11.-.. -a.ss._. 0.78.

0 91 0 I 1 8 , 90 0 , 3 0

o 100 o 11 a. s2 o.J9

l!.e STUDENTSE ~L-EA-R-N-ED- -E-C-ME~T~t:=IN-G~ \~IA~L~lJA~B-L-E ———~——-~0~ ——-0- ~—–~~0 —–~1~0 0 c;—-~i—e:–;.3·-·-o:-62 ··—

16• INTELLECTUAL Cl.RIOSITY IN SlJBJ WAS STUIULATED 0 0 9 91 o 11 a.ss 1.16

______ EXAM.!._~—– . __ __

17e GRADED “4ATERIALS FAIRLY MEASURED LEARNING

OVER.&LL .

___u_, WHAT l_s_j’.QJLfl…O.Vf.R !LL BAI.l.J\Ji OF THE 1 Ns.J.&J.CTOR

1~• W~AT IS YOl.fO OV~R,LL RATlhC: CF THE COURSE

73 0 0

00 00 ___j0) -.—–

2-:,–·—;–o-.. -·rc·—9-:oc:; –o~·o ~–··—–·

..100·—-·

I 00

__ o ___ .. tl. _ e.64 -~ o.64 ·—-

o 11 Be73 Ot45

VALUE / “EEC TO IMPRC\IE NOT APPLe LO’ VALUE MED VALUE HIGH VALUE

~B~O.Ul.fif1LRE4D.ll~–L.Jn · .Cl-. 14 22 sz._ ___. – ·”—·—1 ____ 2.43 …. o.73.

4.3 • COURSE HOMEWORK / ASSJ GNMENTS 0 0 20 80 6 · 5 2 1 80 0 • 40

44e GRADED MATERl.&LS ~ EX • .,S , 0 0 25 75 7 4 2e75 Oe43

45 • FfECBACK ON GRADEC MATERIAL!: ~ EXA .. S 0 0 33 67 8 3 2. 67 o. 4 7

~-i6~LA ~…SC.l.I.SJi.lLM O 0 ____ .2.9 _______ 7J ____ —–4.—-7. . 2 • 71.–0 • 4 5 .

47. LE.CTURES / PRESENlATJOI\S 0 0 17_ 83 5 6 2e83 Oe37

COURSE DESCRIPTICh

.~~££J~U~~flELAT~~~E~URSE~~~—————-·

f~e COURSE MASTERY CRELATI\IE TO CThER COURSES)

64~ INTEREST IN SUaJECT SEFORE COLRSE

Sfe INTEREST IN SUeJECT AFTER CCU~SE

NOT APPL. • LOW M!DlUM

.0 ·o 70.

0 0 40

0 0 36

0 0 9

HIGH

10.-……. —.. –1——10 … le 90 .. _ 0 e54

60 S 10 2e60 De49

64 0 l 1 2. 64 0. 4 8

91 0 11 2. 91 0. 2 9 ——·—–···-· ·–··-·-·—–·· … ···•

f7e AMOUNT OF CLASS OlSCUSSION

58e WORKLOAD ~ PACE OF COURSE

NOT APPLe TOO LITTLE ABOUT. RIGHT TOO MUCH

0 0 100 ‘

0 …. 0 tOO

0 0 II 2. 00 0. 0 0

_____0 ___ 3 8 2.00 o.oo _.._._ ———-~-.—-··—

‘·

-~ ····d

..,_-.:.:.s.:.~. :··· ·-.······· …….. ··-·······~-·. , ..•.• , ……….. ···- •. _ ………… ·– ……. 0 -··-···~-·· ·-· ………. ···-····- ……. .

‘:)

7

!

0 l

•)

·:)

;J

0

I

I !’

I

-~ :f

at

i

v'” .lr

I ·;I

,) : i . . ! a;. r

‘I· o: r

😦 or

I

0

0

0

0

,;:_”‘1

\ … ‘

. (

:\ (‘

.. i ..

.:.1 0

….. -_’!!

0

. ·I

..1 0

i

0

·.·.·

0 ., .

·. :i 0

.’. l

I

···l 0

i0

lo ‘!

l

‘1 c~

:

I

.. (:.

(I

l C· ‘I

. ~

·I

1 c’

‘1 … . . . .. . .~ ….. :-,. —~~· ,,,.c :-. …… :.’~ ….. :~. .. . ~ ·’. ‘ – ………. ·. .. , .. ~-,.— …..

· ~H• ~it-·•*~· ‘i! UcL,. · Ev~r.:inr unra;; -ii\stRlicfiON”‘FJ;oa.Uiriii’-sl.~M’A’RTaFTNil’RUCicR AND cLAss evAi:uAT 1oN · R~T 1 hGs ••• sPA ING. t97s ••••••••••

DESCPIPTION OF RESPC~DENTS CAS ~OF VALID RESPONSESt

I

– ·11 ~itE~t~~P~’tif~!. – ~e~xe~~~~!-:t.~Q.QI… ~*~~~~.wui;; .. qitf~liSJ?–G~1ll– i””v’Ai:”Re~~~ s 1 v~g~~pu.F- . . . .. ·–ELM~~—

:·–·

FRESHMAN: Oll

SCPHCMURE: 0″

JUto.!lOR! ·- O:C:

St::NlOR: 0″

GRAO: lCO”

. 0 ,T HER.;, . -· .. 0 “

NCT ESTAI::t SOX C-2: 44X A: 14X MALE: 63X • ‘MAJOR: 71X MAJOR OEPT: 100X ·- –·· ::g:!~~ ·– 8~–·-· —-:::i-11~——-~j-‘~~—-J.~&.J.~;-~.QA~.E~R~lg’y~!-l·g:–uN~~t-·8~~{}—g·~—

2e2-2.s 0′ E-9: OX D: OX GEN INT: 14X

2.E-2.8 OX 9-12: OX F: OX

..• ~! 1e-: 3:!.t .. ‘>~—·——.l~+_;__q_~ _____ g!.~R:__y~

….. – .4 3:!,_ I ,

~-4-:!.7 17::11

:!.7-4.0 o:.

— —– _,., ·—·-·————-·- ·—–

•••••t* ~EADING T~E ~CLA EVALU~TION OF l~STRUCTICN PROGRAM SUMMARY REPORT •••••••

FOR COMPLETE: OE T .IlLS ABOUT Tt·E OUEST JCNS ANO RESPCNSE D~SC.BJtliP!L_QF nATA

SC.6LES USED FCR THS . CLASS … ‘SlMf,AA’V, .. ~LEASE ··-ru:~F’Eff’-Td”tkE’ – – .. ~~..D.———.——-

SLRVEV INSTRUMENT ADMI~ISTEREC TO THE CLASSe THE STATISTICS RATING DISTRIBUTIONS MAY BE GROUPED CE• Ge

PF:ESENTEO ON Tl-115 SUflf-tARV ARE DESCRIBEB 8ELCWe FOR FURTHER LOW(l-2-3) ,MEDIUM … ) OR UNGROUPEO (Ee Ge lt2e3e .. 9)e FOR

l~FORMATlON ABOUT THIS S~~~ARV 0~ AhY CTHER ~CTIVITV OF Tl-tE GROLPED DATA! TH~ GROUPED RESPONSE VALUE~_AB~ I~Ql~ALEO

·ucLA· · · evAC.UAr IoN· oF · -u~srAucT Ic._,—p~oG~Afoi-;··-· PL’£A!;£ ·-iATTe uNts!:A-YH-e-·-coLu~otN”‘”tieAo·iNGs-;-;fAt·,;.;”G·s “‘FoR eAcH QUESTioN ARe~—

•~s-JQ~sJ OR CALL C56~39)e EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF THE NUMBER OF VALID (le Ee NOT

BLAf\K) RESPONSES FOR EACH QUEST ION •

……… ()EF .. INIT_IC~ .. C_F_!E~~L—-·- tHI!Nfl~a~~·~J~C.~Mtl~l~~l.f;gE~~gN~~~!i~~r_~..gyRE·~~’:~f!-P11Hei~5~~~~—-

THE NU~~ER OF “O~ESTIO~NAlRES PROCESSEC1 INDICATES ThE OF VALID RESPONSES (‘M VAL RESPe•), THE MEAN OF THE VALID

NUMAE~ OF NON eL~~K ~ESPON~E FCRMS ~ET~RNEC HY THE CLASSe RATINGS (EXCLUDING RESPONSES OF ‘NOT APPLe’)• AND THE

1 ~EPORTEO ENF._CLL~ENT• .IS SUPPLIED BY THE DEPARTMENTA!,____. STAhOARD O_gVIA!IOI’j l!~TD~EV!t..!J..t ‘lt..tll..tf:L_O.ESCB.lBES__JHE

CCCROINATOR FO~ IN~RTLCTlC-1\AL -E’i’A-[UAtiCN;·–·-·–·—- ·—- SP-R~~o·-·'(jJ!. RESPONSES .A.BOUT THE MEAN• THE- SMALLER THE __ _

THE •RcSFONSE R~TE 1 MAY EE GREATER THAh lOOX IF EXTRA STAhDARD DEVIATION, THE GREATER THE UNANIMITY OF RESPONSE TO

STUDENTS COMPLETED EVALUATIC~S CR IF REFORTED ENROLLMENT ANY QUESTIONe .

FIGU~ES ARE NOT CO~PLETELY ACCURATE. · DATA OESCRI~~~G THe SU8~Y__B~$P9~D~~TS t~~ES-IHe

T1iE •o-w• ~EFERS Tb Tl-iE –,._liMEelf-OF””THE~S”t”lOFrtnl”‘TF’e ‘ROM’eEA-0~-liALID “Aif”SflONSES FOR EACH. “auifs’fTON AND TH~E—-

SURVEV INSTRUMeNT ADMINISTERED TO THE CLASSe DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF THE

VALID RESPONSES•

·- ·–·– -..:–· -· — ·—·–· ..

… -···–” —–…….. -·-· .. —–· ——-

— ……. _____ –·–·-·———··–··———–·—·.,…——–·—–

l (I I; • .. • •• •• • • • . . •• :jo

‘· ….. ,. …….. .

r ;

. · · ..

… ·

. ·. ·~ . , .. ._. ~ . ….;, t@&$if¥M*%%1f& I E Pl!!i A A –

() t’) fj

1!'”‘*=1 tp’f’mr mmm ee •s m: **”6”’41& a•mz;ttt;msrr;wem;Pi”@~’t::•z:.

‘.···

· ….

ril: I

.• ….

-.. -~- —- .._ ··-· __ ._ ______ ._ _______ ~~:_:~·: ;:JJ~ i~:_:L: __ ~ :·~: ~~ _L _-~- –,_: ___ .. _. -~-·-… -~-·-_–~ __ –~ -~–____ ._ __ ..: .: _ ___________ ._ ____ ._ _____ ._ ._ I o’

• • • •• • •• ••• UCL. E VALui’rliiN!iFIO:StAuc Tl ON .• •oGAAM ••• su.-;;-.. ;;;.–o-FtNSi”RuCTCR.tN”Dii.AsS EVAL UA T r-o,;,··-,;;;y i-NGs .•.••. SPR”i NG-; -i 97 5 •••• ~…. •• ___ , I

OEFARTiotENT: ·LAW ~ · . QUESTIONNAIRES PROCESSED: 64 ·.) r

l~STRUCTOR: LETWIN RESPONSE ~ATE: 67~

~~t.R~~L———-2~L– . BEP.DRTEil_ENRDLL.MENTL.—-96_ ________ •.. ·-·-··-·—·- —– — -·—–·- -~ . I

——————-ao~~Tlcriii!___ ——–;}—–nrTN’GS7ls-rcrvAtTD-‘RE~PilKSesr—–I—-smrsTTcs—- .J l

____ .J~gf.ER..J.Q_Q.lJ~ULQ.M”A!BL.f-hLfJlE.IHsR DETA.lt..U-______ ttOr. ________ J .. c~ __ MEOI.UfL.-.• ttlGH_____ 11 No_ . . II. vAL-… sTo. ·-···:· I

~~-:——-TNsl~tcl’fR-lc~l~N———— , -·–Af.e.t..a u :i~l-ll=~=~1—-1I:A=2.l _ B.f2.L.-B~e.L–t!~~–12~h .

1 • I 1\5 TRUCTOR WAS ENTHUSIASTIC A ECUT TEACH INC: COURSE 0 0 . . 6 94 2 62 8 e05 0 e94 .) f

_.z,_tt.6.SLPHs,;~.:r.AlJ.,~:L…MA~\..eaUc..t__ub.P.EB.S.TA~D.AaLE . .a_ —~l.—–.. 6L——-2— 62_ .. 6. 60 .. 1. 84 .. -· – .• f

Je INSTRUCTOR WAS CO~CERI\EO Tt-AT STUDENTS LEARN SUS.J 0 0 26 74 3 61 7e34 le48 .

~. INSTR SHOWED Ifo/PLICATICI\S £ APFLICATICt-S CF SUeJ 0 3 18 1 79 2 62 7e40 1e52 \:’) (.

__ BREA.t.J.IL_ _______ –~——

!e INSTRUCTOR DJSCUS~EO CT~E~ FCJhTS OF VIEW

6e INSTR PRESENTED BACKGROUND OF COURSE CCNCEPTS

7e INSTRUCTOR CONTRA!TEO IMFLJCATIONS OF THEORIES

0

0

0

2

7

2

19

26

27

jg—··-2 ··- .. -62- ~·,;.;.·– i:’43

6 7 3 61 • eo 1 • 6 4

71 1 63 7.02 1.53

OR.GAN-1 ZA T I 01\ I———·—–···· . .

Be PRESENTATICNS ~ERE WELL PREFAREO A~O INTEGRATEC 0 7. 36 57 3 61 6e52 1e83

9e lotATERIAL WAS WELL CUTLINED £ CAREFULLY EXFLAJNED 0 “‘· 12 37 51 5 59 6.20 le88

_JjU_J;!)~t;__Q_eJ.l’-I..l.’tj:~.-!,I;.RE OUTL JNEC ANQ MUNJ:.Ll.tiEO 3 .Q._. _____ 46 41 –… 3 —·· 61 … _6, 05 … 2 eO 0

11• WORKLOAD WAS SFRE ~0 EVEI\L V OVER THE OU.tiOT ER · 2 0 • 20 79 3 61 7e 55 1 • 31

INTEf:~CTION

_.lL_UllP.5.tH.§._f~I,.I_!&~I..(O.~..J;~IS.J~G hELP CR I..CY ICE 8

lJe STUDENTS WERE ENCOURAGED TO ASK OUESTICNS 0

..2_ 19,._ .71 5._. ____ 59 … _.7.56- … 1.62- .

3 20 .77 3 61 7. 51 1 • 54

14e STUDENTS WERE FREE TC EXFIOESS THEIR OWl\ ICEAS 0 2 5 93 4 60 8. 23 l • 2 4

l5_ • _S_TUDE_N LTSt MLwEJ~~R’NE-O- -S-O· M-ET. t=-1= 1~\G~ ~V~A~LU~A-B-L-E- —————~–~–0 ——-~-e- ——~~2-3- —-~~–69- ———~3 ·6 r· ….6 .9o · · i ~83 … ·

lEe INTELLECTUAL CLRJCSITY IN SUB.J WAS STIJIUL.ATED 0 7 30 ‘ 64 3 61 6. 87 1. 77

l “f;GRADE~~~lRl ALS FA’lRL V MEA SUI” EO LEARN lNG 89 0 . ·—··o—–n—– -28–··-·-3’6″-··a.so·-· o.a7

OV ER~LL •

-l.e..&.-XHA.T_l_S_YQ.IJB~EJVU……RAI I ISG OF IliLl.NS..JfUJCIDR 0

1~• Wt1AT IS VOIJR 0\IER.tLL RATING OF THE COURSE • , 0

2

6

—~·7.·—··–Bl·—– …… _1 —. .63 ••. -.7e44 ••. 1.28

3.2 62 1 63 6e75 le66

VALUE I ~EEC TO I~P,.CVE NOT APPLe LO~ V~LUE MEO VALUE HIGH VALUE

—!~~-~eQ.YJ.F..m…ReJ.D.JMi~/…..J_e.xJ.L~=—-~

3 •. CCURSE HCMEwORK I ASSIGNMEI\lS

·—–· 0 • .S—·-·-·.65.! .26-·-·· —··· … 21 _____ .43 •.•. 2e16 . Oe57– ..

0 9 66 26 29 35 2el7 Oe56

44e GR4DEO MATERIALS ~ EXAMS

4e. FEEDBACK CN GR,tDEC MATERIALS I EXA~S

:~_j..A.–s:kA.S.!i…O.I:.StU.S..UCN S ·~~~———· 41e LECTURES ~ PRESENTATICI\S

0 0 67 33 58 6 2e33 Oe47

0 . 0 50 50 62 2 2. 50 0. 50

·—–~—·-15 44 _____ 41·-··-···- .• ·-· 23~—-A-1–. 2e27 –·· Oe70 ….. ._

0 12 38 50 22 42 2e38 Oe69

COURSE DESCRIPTION · NOT APPLe LOlli MEDIUM · HIGH

,_:!ia…JlJ£f.LC.U…IY:.J RJ;&.A.T..l’l.E •. J.tL.CTt·..EJL-‘.OUB..SE.S.L · .a___ ____ l& • 18 .. ._;__ ___ •. 6- -··· -~ .•. 15 – -·–·· A-9 … l. 90 o • 46

63e COURSE MASTERY (RELATIVE TC CTt-ER COURSES) 0 12 E9 18 15 49. 2e06 Oe55

tte INTEREST IN SUB.JECI BEFORE COURSE 0 22 59 18 15 49 le96 Oe64

56• INTE~EST JN SUEJECT AFTE~ CCURSE 0 6 • 61 133 15 4? 2e27 Oe56

57• AMOUNT OF CLASS OJSCUSSIO~

SEe WORKLOAD / PACE OF COURSE

.. NOT APPLe TOO LITTLE ABOUT RIGHT TOO• MUCH·-·–·—···-·-···-·–···— ·•· ··-·. ·-· -·–

0 0 59 41 15 49 2e4l Oe49

0 8 . 77 15 16 4 8 . 2 • 06 0 • 4 7

! -.-.-.—~ —–~–.. -,_,_…_ ___ ……_ _________ …._….._. ….. __________________ … ._ .. —-

0 J

I: ,) l

,) . ‘

.. r

() r.’

<l’ V:ll

‘· t”‘

()

0

0

0

0

l:’ .

()

: ·, -_-:–~:-7 ~ ··:::-:rr::::~~;-:~7 :77{ ,:-.:.~ :~:::r?fgi·’;;~n??:.1 ~~{~;·_~:.?-~·: · 7:~~:,~-~ .;:’ ·: .: ·.·. :·· · ·:_·:·:· ·:– · ….. .,_… •.

·: ·:·::·.

i c·

\

·II (‘

I

i 0

I

(\

(‘

0

1

.i 0

I

I 0

·t

I

I c

I I 0

.j

j t 0

f

I .,’I 0

·:’ 0

0

(.t

0

0

A.. . . , …….. 7 _

…………….. •’ • ). ••• -,;.-: :·;_ … –· ……. ; … h . -,.,.. .. .- .. ···’ ……… ‘ ……….. , .. .

…….. ~ •••• ucl. .A EVACUAT ioNoF·-Ti:sii:~c’iioN”‘i=ioGRAMT.*sU’iM~RY·-o;:-nisiiiUCicRTNO- CLASsi§’v”Ai:U”ATi~r·J NGS ••• SPA I NG. 1975 ••••••••••

DESCRIPTION OF RESPCNOENTS (AS_X OF VALID RESPONSES)

….. ii ~itB.~t~il¥~~9!. …. ie.tx~1J:~~i-15~~-~*~~~W.~fs~’U..,~i~fii~~~~~D1–·;-·vAL Rei~f ,37 • vifg~~~!J’-!SQ • vAEL.~~lif.S..iarg -“””–

FAE SI-t MAN: 0~ . NC T ESTAB: 38~ 0-2: 18X A: S” MALE: 78″ MAJOR: 97X MAJOR DEPT: 98X

SCP~~~~~~i ~~ 1 ·~=~=~=~~ ….. g·~-·—–~=~i-l;~———~i-~-t~:-·–f:E;MA’-‘fi.; _ __i2.~—BE;~R~i5i~t·-~=·–~~t-g~~}-~=—-

S:NIOR: OX 2•2-2e5: 31 t-9:’ 27X D: OX GEN INT: · OX

GP.AD: 96X 2ef-~.e: QX 9-12: 9X F: OX

O_THEA: 2X ~!8l~J3•! f _ ll JX ··———-~-~~_;–~-~——q!.!iEft:_l~LX

~· •~· E’ .

:! • 4- ~ • 7: I 3 2

:!.7-4.0: 9’C

… ·– — ·- – … ———–·–·–_.. _ ____ —–·—-·——–·

*•***•~ ~EADI~G ~~E LCLA.EVALUATIDN.OF INSTRUCTICN PROGRAM SUMMARY REPORT •••••••

FCQ CCMP~ETE CET,lLS ~eC~T T~E QUESTIONS ANC RESPCNSE OES~RWPTIO~ nF nAT&

SC~LES US~D t=OA T~IS. ClASS. ·~L’MMAAv;· ‘PL:t:A·s~-~eFER ·lc-·tHe– … -~~—‘..l…-li’—=:..J.D.—-

~~RVEY INSTRUMENT ~UMINISTEPEC TO THE CLASS. THE STATISTICS RATING DISTRIBUTIONS MAY BE GROUPED (Ee Ge

PRESENTED 0~ THIS SU~MAFY ARE DESCHieED EELCWe FCR FU~THER LOWC1-2-3IeMEDlUMeeel OR UNGROUPED (E. Ge 1e2•3•ee9)e FOR

lf\FORMAl!ON Al:JGUT HtiS SUifJtARY CJO ANY OTHER ,CTIVJTY OF THE. _ .GRO.LPED. Q~J:Ae :TI:f~. ~~QUP.~I;) ~E~PO~~~- YA.L!.JI;$_~RE_ •. INI).I«;~TEP —-

uCLA EVALUATION OF •. !NSTHUCTICN-·PROGRA~; PLEASE-“iiHTE —–·uNOER 1HE COLUMN .READiNGs;- RATINGS JfOR EACH QUESTION ARE

(.,5-3945) CR C~L~ (56939). EXP~ESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF THE NUMBER OF VALID (I• e. NOT

BLA~K) RESPONSES FOR EACH QUESTION •

. DE~.~~ITION __ t;lF •. T~RMS … ·-·—–··-·–·—–~——–,.HE- ..,~~~~~ SJ~~-~Rl~~-:~·’~-~~::~-~SN~~~HT~:TA~GREg~~lT-!·q~HEJ~5~~~~·-· —

THe NUMOER OF ‘O~F.STIONNAIRES PROCESSED’ INDICATES THE OF VALID RESPONSES (•• VAL RESPe 1 )e THE MEAN OF THE VALlO

N’-~BER GF N~N ELA~K ~ESFC~SE FC~~S RETURNEC BY THE CLASS. RATINGS (EXCLUDING RESPONSES. OF ‘NOT APPLe 1 lt AND THE

·~t:PORTEO EfiiRCLLfiENT 1 IS SUFFLIED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL STAt.OARO OEV IAT ION l.!.STO~ .Q~,..!..l.t W!itCH~~SCRJijES THE.

• CCCROlNATO~ FOr. .INSATUCTIC~AC-I:VAlt:rAT’!CN-;—·——- SPR~Ao-·cw-···RE.§PON.SffABOUT- THE MEAN,; ‘fHE .’s·•·fALLER””T’HE·-

THE. ‘RESFONSE R~TE 1 MAY EE GREATER THAI’\ lOOX IF EXTRA \ · STANDARD DEVIATION, THE GREATER THE UNANIMITY OF RESPONSE TO

STLDE:::NTS COMPLETEC. EV.6LUAT1Ct-S C~ IF REPORTED ENROLLMENT ANY QUESTION.

FIGURES ARE NIJT COfiiP~ETE~Y ACCUJOATE. .” .. O~t~ .. .PE~..!;RltJ.I!!~ THE;_ S~.V..E;Y. . …J!~$1!.0NDJ:~’nL .. l~-CI,.VO..ES-Itt~—

THE ‘a.w• RE.FERS TO TI-E·- ~U,..BER -o-rTRE’-CUESTf01irtJFr-Tl1E .NUMeEif OF VALID RESPON~ES FOR EACH QUEST ION AND THE –

SLRVEY INSTRUMENT ADMINISTERED TO THE CL.6SSe DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF THE

VALID RESPONSES.

.. …. … . . . .. . — ·- —-· —·————–·—~—–·-.·—-·————

. — .. -.-· .. –.. ·—··————————–·——-

··-· ·-·· .. ·-··–·—–.. –.. -·-··—-.——·———·—

. . . . . . -……… , -……. –· ··-: ~ ……. : …. :· …………. -… ~ :-·. -.–:-·”.~~ .. ::-~· ……….. “!: · ………….. -. ·-…. ··~ ~ ~. ,.,. • .,~—-·-. ~r-,.1-·~~7″‘·:·.~ ·~~~ …. ~~ …….. ~-:-~;·7~.~ ….. :· ……. ,:~ .~· …. :”‘::-·· ~·· ·.~ ….. :-,.–· … -···:–·””~

. . : ·.. . ·: .. . . . ~ ._. .,

··’

” .· …..

m m a e

. · … . … ~ ‘.•. ·~· .. : .

: . ‘:; .. : ;. ;’ .. ~: . . . . . .

. ; ~ : .. ‘ .’ ; .:.~< .:.· …. :. …. i .·.:

0.

0

0< ‘Lo:\]5i;,.~~~ 0 . ., .

• f.~· . . . ·. ~.

~· . . . . .

. ·, .-., . . ‘

‘ ,. …..

“‘ ~ , . – =· ,,:·

. ·:- .. ‘

.. I)

·~ ..

.. ·. ‘

:q fJ .,,

.. () . . . .· ·.. .. ·. ·. : ·.·, .. ·:. . ‘. ··~. ·,. ·.. r )6·:~·. : -,.~::,,; ·.,·.;:.t\·~·::. . ;t::·,.y,· ,,;:’.;. ·;·.\:!.; ·~· •\:;, …. ·.. ~ . · . ..: ·: .•,, ::, •.: : .; ·:’:·: ~~”–?.. ~.:~-; ………… _… .. ·-······—·-·—‘··· ……………………… ~. .. -·–·—-….. -. ·—-~—–.–… J….;…;….—~–.. –·—-..:.. ~— ‘ • • • . I , •- •

0 c

••••••• •••uCCAEVALUAr·roN oF–(NSIROC-TlON PRO ••• -SUMMARY Or (NSTRUCTCR-ANO CLASS EVALUATION-RATINGS ••• WINTERe 1975 ••••••••••

0 77 DEPARTMENT: LAW ~J ~ OUESTIONN~IRES PROCESSED: c

COURSE: · 211 SEC 2 REPORTED ENROLLMENT: 8

–rNSTRl1C”‘TDR1-l:ETWnr··—- · RESPONS~AT!:-93.-bx-=—-“l::!~———————–~

o i ————-aoesnotis——-~– RAT ,…

~ (RE~~-~_Qy~~~~E FC~ FURTHER DETAILS) . ~ A~~l, 11

:-: ~:- -gL –rRsYROr:Ycii-cO’N~IHfN ___________ :f —- — iL3l __ fi35 .;-·; j ···.:.-:..:’ I …. :_;:- ::.~:.:::– lUI ….. IU ~.:. :-=. •

Q l• INSTRUCTOR \VAS ENTHlJSIASTIC AI!CUT TEACiofiNG COURSE 0 0 II 89 , I 76 7e75 le09

2• CLASS PRESENTATIONS MAOE.SUBJECT UNDERSTANDABLE 0 8 36 57 I 76 6,47 f•87

0

0

0

c

0

0

c

(-

c~

–:l-;’-,NSTRUCT’OR w~s-cDt’CERJ\EI.TifiA”T-STtrnENTS-~RN sUSJ 0 4 . ¥2 84 2 ts-7,44 .68

4e INSTH SHOWED I~PLICATIONS & APPLICATIONS OF SUB.J 0 3 18 79 0 77 7et\7 le39

BREADTH

5e INS”TRUCTOR. “OT~SEirtrfREA POTl\TS CF VIEW – 3~—– 3·– —— 2g- 66 I 76 7.01

6, INSTR PRESENTEe H~CKGROUNO OF COURSE CONCEPTS 1 7 41 51 I 76 6e32

7e INSTRUCTOR CONTRASTED IMPLICATIONS OF THEORIES 0 .J 26 71 0 7! 7e13

—–··-cltn:.Aiiil.l.AYTO~

!;54

t.so

1t43

9, PRESENTATIONS WERE WELL PREPARED AND INTEGRATED 0 5 43 51 I 76

9, MATI:RIAL \lAS WELL OUTLINED & CAREFULLY EXPLAINED 0 14 42 44 0 77

6e22 le97

ao. couHSE OBJECTives WERE OUTLINED AND MAtNT.-tNED 4 l4 ·29 5l 1 7~

5t 77 1e99

–lT~V0HKCUA0witS–s”~Rl:7it5 EVENLY oVER THE oOART ER o 7 28 6 76

6.07 2t06

6. 75 1 t9l

INTERACT ION

12. STUDENTS FELT ._ELCOMF. SEEKING hELP OR ADVICE I 5 12 82 0.

–·13~-·STUilETHS–iF.~reiiltC:UR~~t:·o—ro-~stldNS 0 7 18 75 1

14, ST~OENTS ._ERE FREE TO EXPRESS THEIR OW~ IOEAS 0 I 14 • 84 0

Ll;ARNING

–“‘IS”;sfUln:’NTS-CE.\ISN””m–mME’TRTNliVXLOABLE o 5 16 79 o

16, INTELLECTUAL CUR I OS ITY IN SUB ..I WAS STIMULATED I 8 29 62 0

\,

EXAMS

77

76

77

77

77

7.41

7el7

7e74

7e31

6e70

–rT~lUllt::lr t.fATE~”~RTt-rxrCPs~F-rA..,I1R51lr-vY-,Arr•E!!'”Xr~S””O,A,.,E…,bor-wl-.E…,A”R'”N~I”N~G——- ag– 2 2 7 21 56 6e 17

OVERALL

I, 71′

lt96

le52

le86

2e20

2e61

18e WHAT IS YO\JR OVER.ALL RATING OF THE INSTRUCTOR 0 J 22 75 I 76 7e28 t ,37

-yl}-;–wHI\TIS’l’t1t:nr’llVElDLL RATING OF THE cOuRsE. o 7 30 , 63 -. 73 6,53 le84

VALUC / NEEC TO IMPROVE NOT APPLe LO~ VALUE NED VALUE HIGH VALUE

42, REQUIRED READINGS /TEXTS 0 33 3l 33 29 48 2e00

-4·3;-t;OUJ.ISEr lfOAEWOAT<7A’S’STGmrerrrr- :!2 49 29 36 41 2.07

44, GRADED MATERIALS / EXAMS 0 17 ’50 33 71 6 2el7

45, FEE!DI:JACK ON GRADEC MATERIALS / EXAMS 0 25 25 50 73 4 2.2~

46e CLASS 01 SCliSS IONS 0 9 49 4J 30 47 2t34

s–4’7;-LEC”fUR”E’STlS!ilrs”E”‘iHATfONs o 15 48 3 3l 46 2.22

9~C”l2r—

0.7l

0 e69

Oe83

8:2~

0 COURSF. OESCR IPTION NOT APPL.e LOW MEDIUM HIGH

0

0

0

55, DIFFICULTY (RELATIVE TO OTHER COURSES) . 0 § ·59 3~ 26 ‘-.l 2,Jz_o~ct-

“–~j;-tOOlfS~R’ASTER’i'”T’REC~”””\n’11~troRSESJ o 2 60 1 25 52 le94 Oe63

64, INTEREST IN SUDJECT BEFORE COURSE 0 20 62 18 27 50 le98 0 1 62

56, INTEREST IN SUDJECT AFTER CCURSE 0 14 40 46 27 50 2e32 Oe71

.l—-·-·· NOT APPLe TOO 1..1 TTLE ABOUT RIGHT TOO MUCH

57, AMOUNT OF CLASS 0 ISCUSSION 0 0 85 15 24 53 2e 15

58, WORKLOAD / PACE OF COURSE 0 2 90 8 25 52 2e06

Oe36

Oe30

a-~——-….. __,————————————–..1——————————————

-~-·-~r.········· .. ····· ….

..

()

ij

b

1)

0

0

()

0

()

0

0

0

0

6

· .. , . . …….. ·:yf· ~:-~ _______ · _

talift#BBSitl& et’fEWR:JilWYlwm e –

,. …..

! c··

-, (‘

I

!

)0

i

i

IO

I

.,l o

‘.’-1

‘•J 0

c

0

jO

I

. ‘ .J (“l

1(1

I I io

I ‘1 kto

. t\J

‘1 .. ;. :…; , :. ,_ ;, –…. ,_,;…:.:::;,..:;…_~~…:~::..::… ·-~.:.. ..:. . .. ·-~:,,_.,..;. ..::. .:… .. .-.;. __, ..: . …. ::.:~ .. :· 1 .. ……….. ·—···.– .– –

—.-……………. UCLA EVALU.tTION OF INSTRUCTION PROGRAM-••• SUMMARY OF INSTRUCTCR AND CLASS EVALUATION RATINGS ••• WINTER, 1975 **********

DESCRIPTION OF RESPONDENTS (AS· X OF VALID RESPONSES) ..

YEA~ ~ ~~HOnL___,GpA AT ~tll~OOL HR~~jUg WORK x~PE~IEQ GBAQ~ ~E! SEQ EULfJLl EO CLass lS 1~

.. ~~If: -so~~- II “A’- R SPl’~ II \iA~”tSPP 50 II V L R SP: 40 • VAL RE P: 40 I VAL RCSP: . – – .. .. — –

I

FRESH.,.AN: OX NOT ESTAB: 231C 0-2 4X A 18X MALE: BOX MAJOR 95X MAJOR DEPT: tOOX

—~O_P~P~QR!;t ___ Q~—–l.!Q.:’.LtClL-P’ 2-4 J2X B 48X FEMALE: 20X BEL Flfl Q QX ‘ BEL PEP.t: OX

JUN(UR: 4X le9-2e2: 3X 4-6 28X C 23X BREADTH 2X UNREL DEPT: O:S

SENIOR: OX 2e2-2e5: 3X 6-9 lOX D OX GEN INT 2X

GRAD: 88X 2e5-2e8: 9X 9-12 34X F 3X

_______ Oft:fERl_ __ ~-“—-~~~=.,j3.t.l.LllX 12+ l2X OTHER lOX

3el- e4: 29X

3 .~-3,. 7: 3X

3e7-4e0: l4X

••••••• BEADING THE UCLA EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTICN PROGRAM SUMMARY REPORT •******

,(

·-·- SCALE ~ORlJ~~~P~~~E t~I~·-‘ J~~A~~~H.I.~~~~Rvl!UE;~t-~~~-t-~~~FE:efao~~~ Q~B.IPT ION Of’ _ ~t:D.aA..LT..cA._ _____________ _

SURVEY lNSTRUMf:NT ADM IN I STEREO TO THE CLASS. THE STATISTICS RATING DISTRIBUTIONS MAY BE GROUPED (Ee G.

PRESENfEO ON THIS SU~MARY ARE DESCRIBED BELOW, FOR FURTHER LOWCt-2-31eMEDIUM,,,, OR UNGROUPED (Ee G. le2eleee9), FOR

INFURM4TlON AOOUT THlS SU~MARY OR ANY CTHER ACTIVITY OF THE GRO~PED DATA. T~GROUpEp RE~~E YALUE~~QLCAIEP

–\JtlA””·EvALOAt .. IU..,-lJF–)fli!TIHf~lTilN PROGRAM, PLEASE WRITE. UNDER THE COLUMN HEADJNGSe RATINGS FOR EACH QUESTION AR~E’—-

(~S-394~1 OR CALL (56939,, EXP~ESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF THE NUMBER OF VALID (J, E, NOT

BLA~Kl RESPONSES FOR EACH QUESTION,

—- .. ··-··—.. – ___ ___Q_!FINITION OF TERMS ST~TISTICS~UPPLIEO fQ!,L_g~_Q:i.._BAIJ_ti.G_O~ESTION IN,g,.IJ.Q.~E….__ _

– – — THE NUMBER OF i4TSSI NG RESPONSEs–r•• NO RESP.’ )e THE NUMBER

TH~ NU~BER OF ‘QUESTIONNAIRES PROCESSED’ INDICATES THE OF VALID RESPONSES c•• VAL RESP,•), THE MEAN OF THE VALID

NUMRER OF N’JN BLANK RESPONSE FORMS RETURNED BY THE CLASS, RATINGS (EXCLUDING RESPONSES OF 1 NOT APPLe’), “AND THE

..•. ‘.REP9~HD gNBD..Lf!EI\T’ I_S liUPPLIEp BY THE DEPARTMENTAL STA~DARO DEVIATION PSTQ, DEV.•), WHICH QES~.U3ES THE

~OHADINATO~ ~6~ IN~~~UCT~L~VAlUATION, SPREAD OF RESPONSES ABOUT THE MEAN, THE SMALLER THE

THE ‘HESPONSE RATE• MAY BE GREATER THAN IOOX IF EXTRA STA~DARO OEVIATI~e THE GREATER THE UNANIMITY _OF RESPONSE TO

STUDENTS COMPLETED EVALUATIONS OR IF REPORTED ENROLLMENT ANY QUESTIONe • ·

_ __E!.GUHE!.\ ~.RJL~.9_! __ C PJ.tP.b~T~!-Y ACCURATE • ‘ ·DATA Ql;SCR I B lNG THE SURVEL._B~QliQIHJTS INCLlDES THE

THFr 1 0P’ REF~S YoTHe-NUMBER OF THE QUESTION ON THE NUMBER OF VALID RESPONSES FOR EACH OUESTlDN AND THE

SUnVEV INSTRUMENT ADMINISTERED TO THE CLASSe DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF THE

VALID RESPONSES.

; J’:.>()

1~,, ·——·—·—-·

]—————-·—————————————~——————·—————————————————————

;0

z–·- .. —-·-·—-·-··

;0

‘ :

……… -… , … ·- …… -~-·-· ·–~~. –~-~” “‘~~ -~~- … ·. ·.-~·w~:~ ~–~.··.~ ~· ·::;;~ ::;··.· “.:;.··?~~ ·:~:.g~r~?·:·~·~~~-::·::~~ :~~;-. -. ~ .– —~~ ~::

·~ .. .. : ;_.. • ;_:;._;·.~·~ :· r;,’;:;·~ <: ·.

!• .,., • • i

::d.~NW&MWRWM ¥¥*¥” 7 .. …

0 0 ~

w:m £4\iiiiA&iiiCtJti4tiJiJ21!t;lliKd\UJiiK1iJAf®!’§tA;:¥rM§iiLtf1!1ll!lWSl&·f1£4.o;jJ.

a-•11• 11 • , . “‘”‘ ;: ·, ….

~—· .. :· …. ~~ .. ~-·-.:~-.~_::.::i.L{:. . ~l~ L.~:~. . L. ~-~:-~. -~~—~~ -~—~~–·~~-~:~.~: ~ ·.:; …. ;.. . :·,. . : -~-~–~-.4.: ·- .. -. —…. -….

….

. ~ .. ·. .. . . ..

·:· \. . ….

7 ~ \ IIUII> INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION (;;:• ·———.. –

INSTRUCTOR DEPARTMENT: LAW COURSE: LAW ~ &~ ~ .:JCCLASS

SIZE: RESPONSES: 62 PERCENTAGE OF CLASS RESPONDING: 78¥ DATE: SPRft;(;l974—·-:–··-·-· ….

~ x •• ~~————————-·——-~r—————— –=:TOTAL-S.—

(• = SEE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SCALE USEDI. N MFAN

le CON- tNSTR ENTHUSIASTJC~BCJlrT~tl:ACHINGCOURS-E –0 I 0 88 2 -·-6·1–·7·;70

2e CON- CLASS PRESENTATIONS MADE SUBJ UNDERSTANDABLE 12 47 41 0 62 5e81

3e CON- !NSTR CCNCERNED STUDENTS LEARN/UNDERSTOOD 7 38 54 2 61 6e36

I 4. CON- Stijj~f~.U.6ll.Q!’:f~l..Aee.L.J_cfll F 6 HL _D_ — 62 ··•·· 7. 4 7.

iNSTR DISCUSSED OTHER’SFlO~S 0 V EW . 4 32 64 0 62 7e18

PRESENTED BACKGROUND/ORIGIN OF IDEAS 4 65 25 6 58 5e74

7e BRD- CONTRASTED IMPLICATIONS OF VARIOUS THEORIES 0 23 78 0 62 7e52

1 B.a_DB.G=—t~A~S..HE..S~HIALIJlli~~AR D, NTE RATED 8 35 0_ -· 62_ … 5e53 ..

9e ORG- COURSE fi~TERIALS OiJ’fL’TiifE07£XP A NED 7 21 0 62 4e98

IOe ORG- PRCPOSED £ ACTUAL COURSE OB.JECTIVES AGREED 17 60 19 3 60 5e20

lie ORG- WORKLOAD WAS EVENLY SPREAD ACROSS QUARTER 2 44 55 0 62 6e56

I NT- STUDENTS MADE TO FEE WELCOM SEEK NG HaP 2 6 __ :57_ 6tgJ ·-·

INT- STUD’S ~SKEC OU~N ,G M N N 60 0 62 6e 71

INT- STUDENTS FREE TO DISAGREE/ EXPRESS IDEAS 7 23 .69 2 61 7el6

15e LRN- YOU LEARNED SOMETHING OF VALUE TO YOU 8 26 63 3 60 6e90

_l6t..__LRN- YOUR .J.lilELLECTUAL CURIOSITY WAS STAMULATE 2 32 l 0 62 6e71

17e EXM~EXANSe Elc;-M~~o-couRsE AS EMP ASIZED 3 –97- — . 2—~.}!

18e OVERALL- WH~T IS YOUR OVERALL RATING OF INSTR 15 27 67 0 ·2 ~ ……,

19e OVERALL – WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL RATING (F COURSE 8 37 55 0 r:n.29

20. « DEeABJJ!Eltl.!.L-‘1!lL.Q\lES.T.LQ 98. -~-;vo-

21e (DEPARTMENT’S OWN QUESTION) 0 2 98 I 9e00.

22e (DEPARTMENT’S OWN OUEST I ON) 0 0 2 98 I 9e 00

23e (DEPARTMENT’S OWN QUESTION) 0 • 0 2 98 1 9e 00

24• «o.EeAB.t.ME!’U!JL~QY..gliT 0 —-.9.~ .. -··– 1.. 9e00

25e (DEPART~ENT’S OWN QUESTION 2 98 1 9eOO

s.E.

Oel5

Oe24

Oe23

Oe18 o.2J.

Oe20

Oe17

Oe25

Oe23

Oe22

Oe22

Oe22

Oe23

Oe24

Oe26

Oe25 o.o

Oe20

Oe22 o.o

o.o

o.o

o.o

o.o

o.o

-~~—–~-~—————-~—.——~————

l ml.JJ~J;ED TO . IMPROVE LOW UE HIGH V !J:.!!.L ___ ( N~J

·- VALUE CF REOUJREC READINGS / X 55

VALUE OF COUt;~E HOMEWORK / ASSIGNMENTS 6 63

VALUE OF GRADED MATERIAL.S, EXAJ41NATIONS 0 98 1 4-• YA~F FEE.Q~ACK ON _GRADED MATERIALS / EXAMS —– 97_.

£’ VALUE oF CLAss-oTsa:TsSIDN 6 55

VALUE OF LECT~RE PRESENTATIONS 6 23 13 S8

28 __ – i .54

23 2. 00

1 2e00

-·– 2 2e 00

28 2e32

26 2. I 5

0.13

0.12 o.o

o.o

0.10

0 el3

—— _,…;=;;;:; —————– -+ —–

, J.. Low Meo H”fGH n:~A,

DIFFICULTY (RELATIVE TO OTHER COU~SES~ 8 23 3 66

COURSE MASTERY (RELATIVE TO OTHER COURSES) 0 5 18 77

1 -~· INTEREST IN SUB.JECT BEFORE COURSE -……._:__… 5 24 5 66

“”

2 = NfERESf IN StJBJECTAFTE”A-cDO ~5 -~9-

TOO LITTLE ABOUT RIGHT TOO MUCH (NAJ

CF CL,I~S 01 SCUSSION 0 34 0 66

0 L P~~E OF COURSE 0 29 3 … ~~

————————————·——-· MOST IMPORTANT OUESTIC~S WERE: a• ·a 3XU 01 9 3X); a• 2 2¥)1 Ql 12 2Xt;

~ ..• d

-,.-.7~·-.-~–:··~· ····~ ….. ,…_,:·~·:–.··r’ ….. -!”‘ … -·—-·—–~·-……….. ~ ………. ~~-· • ..,…~ …. ~·—:~~··~.._…… …. ~.’:’-~– …………… .

a:::-~””-~–·-·—··

21 1e86

14 2. 79

21 , 2.oo

19 ‘ 2e32

21 2e00

… ~0_ .. 2el0

Oel2 o.u

Oel2

Oel7

o.o

o.o1 —- . a• 15 2X)I

o r· . ! ‘

t:

c’) f..

~

I

~J t. i !····

•J\ !· t.

l

•\.·.·..’ !t

l .,

._.

I

~)·· f

f’

\ -“·’\ .J ;

I

!

. .) .;!

I

‘) r: . .

. f .. : ‘ .

Ifa ..’ •.

\) J. …..

() ~<:<:·:.

. Il ..·.’.

\) ,I . ·.:•..

v. ‘ I···.~, ~_, ….

J ~~~.::·\’·:

!·. ::-. ·. ·. ~ “\ . :· .:~·. :·. ;_• ‘ ,_.::-..

I.· :~:.~ :; .

. ) ,, … · ~~· .

.. .• 0 •: •. •

i

……….. · r.i ·. • • .. .· … ·~·· · ….. , -··- ….. ·.. .. .: ; .. ~:• .. -~.::..::.~.-~ … .:.·.-~~-·.:.::. . ‘– -;;;·~-~i … ~·.:-:;·~·~-~~::~~~~~·.~~.~~~-..J:.~_…:..:_ •. _~~l.~:i…’· … ~• . ~~.:.;.’?·,-:-:

0 .·o

SE~ClUPTIONS OF RESPORDENIS —

() (‘NO RESPONSE’ NOT INCLUDED IN X TOTALSt 0

~HIS’ttl0JISEf!OI:Flt:13,: AEll…….-J:DrlfDtJRTnrni REOn’ED-FIELD:——-ox- BREADTH REa: 0¥ 0 GENe I NTER~ST OX 0

‘\

–cOU~S@’IS-IF-i-VCJUlU MA.JO’IrnEPT.: IOOX RELATED OEPr.: OX UNREL:ATED DEPT: CfX

0 0

___G~ ~-L\l~J. ..A : I.! O-le 9: ‘ OX le9-2e2: OX 2e2-2e 5: OX

2e!r-2·;-s; 0″ 2eB-3el: 22″ 3ei-3e4: 22i 1

0 3e 4-3• 7: OX 3e7-4eO: OX NOT ESTAB: 56X Q

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 ,,

0

😮

lo I

–vEAR’-1 R-scRcr::a

___ E.~~~CJ~D .. GR~.IJ.~ IN COt;RSE: A: ~c;… ~u ..,u.. -· •• ,. …. , , … ,. ,-.,._. ..,. “‘”‘”””‘” v-

” :>

sex: MALE: ox FEMALE:.aOOX

*** READING THE STUDENT EVALUATION SUMMARY REPORT ***

RATING ITEMS (QUESTICNS 1-25) — .

TO FACILITATE PRESENTATION, THE RESPONSES HA~E BEEN GROUPED INTO THREE CATEGORIES; LOW Cle2e3)t MED C4tSt6J, & HIGH C7eBe9Je

RESPONSES TO THOSE OlESIONS FOR WHICH A HIGH PROPORTION OF STUDENTS INDICATED NA (NOT APPROPIRATE) MAY BE MISLEADING AND SHOULD

–nE V lEWEb-iiiTR ‘CAUT ICN-. -THE-ME”.I(N'”T’.WEJ:fXGEl~ESPO’NSE VARIES BEl WEEN leu AND 9.0. WI TA A AICHER f’lEAN GERERAO:V-IFUfl~ATCFHiANOIH!’ ___ _

FAVORABLE RATINGe ALTHOUGH YOU MAY WISH TO INTERPRET SOME ITEMS DIFFERENTLY, DEPENDING ON YOUR OWN VALUES AND GOALSe

THE SeE• CSTANOA~D ERRORJ IS A MEASURE OF THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE MEAN RATING WOULD VARY (DUE TO RANDOM FACTORSJ OVER

REPEATED ADM.IN ISTRAT IONS OF THE OUESTIONNI ARE, AND DEPENDS ON THE VARIBILITY OF STUDENTS• RESPONSES AND THE SIZE OF THE CLASS.

–ikEtrf.’Ai<fNG ctMPARl’St:NS;-DfFFER”Ef’R:’ESLIFLES’S … IRJUf’lJNE SeE• SHOULD NOr BE CONSIDERED siGNIFicANT OR RE”CTXXJLE. ~r.——

YDUR STUDENTS WERE ASKED WHICH ITEMS THEY FELT WERE MOST IMPORTANT IN DESCRIBING EITHER THE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE ASPECTS

OF THEIR OVERALL LEA~NING EXPERIENCE, THE QUESTION MtS CITED MOST OFTEN AND THE X OF STUDENTS INDICATING EACH IS LISTED AT THE

___ §,9TTQ!’!:_OF T.tf.E FIRST PAGE, SPECIAL ATTENTION SHOULD BE PAID TO THESE ITEMS•

VALUE ITEMS (QUESTIC~S 42-47t — .

INTERPRETATION OF THESE ITEMS IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE RATING ITEMSe STUDENTS WERE ASKED TO INDICATE WHETHER VALUE OF EACH————

i.tEM- WAS .. Cbwe””ioieoJU;r;-O’R’HH’Hf’A’NO”SO..,..RE'””REI\N RESPONSE VARIES BEtWEEN t.O AND 3,o, A HIGHER MEAN RESPOhSEINDiCATES THE iTEM

WAS CONSIDERED MORE ~ALUABLE, OR THAT STUDENTS FELT THERE WAS LESS NEED TO CHANGE OR IMPROVE ITt

s–~BACKGROUND-rTENs—–~(•A~a~~v~~———————————————————————~.-…——————————————-

THESE ITEMS DESCIRBE THE BACKGRmJND NAKEUP OF THE CLASS AS A WHOLEe THESE ITEMS ARE NOT •RATINGS’• EUT RATHER ARE INTENDED

TO GIVE YOU SC~E INFCRMATION ABOUT THE STUDENTS WHO TOOK THE COUURSE•

4—–·

—————————————————————-,

0

-~

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

~-··-.-····· ·–· …. , ……….. -….. ·-……. –. ~ … ~- ·. -·· :·· .. ·.·;:; :;:·: …… -~–~~~ .. ·~ -~- ·······~–:~_-;~~-:-~:·_-:T:'”~~~-~-·-~· c:-.. ·:··. ···: —……. ··.:.-. — .. —.–.-

• ..

·: .

… . … :1· .

~

I … :·.

I’

\ .. ~·· .. ~ .• …

\ At;t;pntijHNMW!EbA*ttUIAiitffih*W I EW&’*’R¥ iii’*’ • ;a •• !lE , * mw !AI’

i c l

ACt .. 0 MFA’ ‘WMMEMN”‘ ‘tt

. .. ··-·· .. .: ., ……

aa>~STRUCTDR EVALUATION <•=

INSTRUCTORS DEPARTMENT: LAV COURSE:

CLASS SIZE: RESPONSES: 83 D,_TE:

()

——~———–n;=siTo’Ns_________ =-==–==—=::::.RESiONS[S::z:iii-u———

__________ Low MEDIUM HIGH !~-~-~~=-~~=~~!~~~~!~=-~~~-~~~~=-~~=~~——– ——-~:~=~———-~=~=~———-!:!:! __________ —~~—~~~~—!!~!- •)

————— ————————————————–·

ss.

63.

DIFFICULTY (RELATIVE TO OTHER COURSES)

COURSE MASTERY (RELATIVE TO OTHER COURSESa

—————————————————– MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS WERE: 33XII

–····—·-….. ,.. ‘ ‘• . .

~ •••• 1 ‘

LOW

0

13

Q,f 13 C I 7X) ; ——–·—-

—-:–:–a-

.. , • ”4PWSB¥ 99¥WE4k’ S!Wki\UM!t.

I • • •• •. • o \, I • .

___ –·- _, ___ – ~ h _ •• ;-.ri:: . –~~:; ··;ii:::_:~:fi. ::::·;\}:: _-::_L~ · :-.. ..· -~-~~: … -: .. _ ~–~-~~ii: ; …. ____ . __ “,~ . “-·” … : . . _ , ..

..

. .: .. ..

I •; ·.

— SELF-DESCRIPTIONS OF RESPONDENTS

(‘NO-RESPONSE• NOJ—INCLUDED IN X TOTALSt

________ ,

( ) \

THIS COURSE FULFILLS: REO, FOR MAJoRr89X-~-RELAT-~D-~,(E~D: OX BREADTH REO: 9X ———··–·-.. ···t

GENe INTEREST 2X \ ~

COURS~ IS IN YOUR: MAJOR DEPT•: lOOX RELATED DEPTe: OS UNRELATED DEPT: OX —v

GpA AT UCLA: J, 0-J. 9; 01 le9-2.2J 21 2. 2-2.5: OX —————·-····;

HOURS/WEEK SPENT ON COURSE

YEAR IN SCHOOL:

2e5-2e8: OX 2eB-3el: 21 3el-3e4: 4X

3e4-3e7: 9X 3e7-4eO: 17X NOT ESTAB: 65X

o-2:

6-9:

FROSHZ 5X

ox

42X

SOPH:

. 2-4:

9.;,.122

21

l7X

us

.IUNI OR: OX

4-6:

12+&

SENIOR: OX

261

sx

GRAD: 93X OTHER: OX

—E,X2EC.TED GRADE IN_CDURSE.! A! ___ 91 ___ · __ _a: ___ __ 591 c: 231 p: ox FAll. 01 OTHERL-S..AX—-

sex: ··MALE: 63X FEMALE: 37X ·———–·-·–·

*** RI=’AniNC THE STUOI=’NT I;.VALUAT10N ~tJNNARY RI=’PnRT ***

RATING ITEMS (QUESTIONS l-251 —

TO FACILITATE PRESENTATION, THE RESPONSES HAVE BEEN GROUPED INTO THREE CATEGORIES; LOW 11•2•3•• MED C4t5t6), & HIGH C7e8t9)•

_.R..ESJmt,~SFS TO THOSE O!!ESIDNS EDR WHICH A HIGH PRODOQTION OF STUDFNTS-lNDICATFD NA (NOT UlRROPlAA..X.E.l-MAY-BE-J&ISLEADING .• AND-SHOULD——-BE

VIEWED WITH CAUTION~ THE MEAN (AVERAGE) RESPONSE VARIES BETWEEN leO AND 9.0, WITH A HIGHER MEAN GENERALLY INDICATING A MORE

FAVORABLE RATINGe ALTHOUGH YOU MAY WISH TO INTERPRET SOME ITEMS DIFFERENTLY, DEPENDING ON YOUR OWN VALUES AND GOALSe

THE SeE• (STANDARD ERROR) IS A MEASURE OF THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE MEAN RATING WOULO VARY (DUE TO RANDOM FACTORS) OVER

-.a.J::P.E.ATEn oo.M.LNLST.J:U.UONS “E’ THE-OlJE.S:U.O.Nhi.LARF. ANn DEPENil.S-ON-%J:f£-ARlBt• nx oe ST”DENLS.L-RESJUlboiSES-AND-%tE-Sl.ZE-OE -THE. CLAss •. –·-·–· ·WHEN

MAKING COMPARISONS, DIFFERENCES OF LESS THAN ONE SeEe SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT OR RELIABLEe

YOUR STUDENTS WERE ASKED WHICH ITEMS THEY FELT WERE MOST IMPORTANT IN DESCRIBING EITHER THE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE ASPECTS

OF THEIR OVERALL LEARNING EXPERIENCEe THE QUESTION 1 1 S CITED MOST OFTEN AND THE X OF STUDENTS INDICATING EACH IS LISTED AT THE

BOTTOM oe THf E’ RST PAGEe SPECt AI ATT.£N11JJN SHOULD BE 2A10-LQ…..UtESE-IXEM .•. – … –··· -. —~- —- .. –

VALUE ITEMS (QUESTION$ 42-47) —

llU.ERPBE.JAI.l.OILOF-YJ:fESE ITf MS IS SLMIJ…AR-..1:.0-D:fAT _O,E_XKf:-R.AT..lN.G-ll:E.M.Se–STJIDEbi:I.S….Wea.E-ASKED-.IO~.LCA:J’~-·1!1HETHE.R- VALUE-OF. EACH .. —·–·

ITEM WAS LOW, MEDIU~t OR HIGH AND SO THE MEAN RESPONSE VARIES BETWEEN leO AND 3e0e A HIGHER MEAN RESPONSE INDICATES THE ITEM

WAS CONSIDERED MORE VALUABLE, OR THAT STUD~NTS FELT THERE WAS LESS NEED TO CHANGE DR IMPROVE ITe

BACKGROUND ITEMS — (ABOVEt

THESE ITEMS DESCIRBE THE BACKGROUND MAKEUP OF THE CLASS AS A WHOLE• THESE·ITEMS ARE NOT ‘RATINGS•, BUT RATHER A~E INTENDED

TO GIVE YOU SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE STU_?ENTS WHO TOOK THE C~lUURSE. ~—:·- ···— –·

THE E•I•P• IS IN THE PROCESS OF PREPAtRING A ‘NORMATIVE BASIS ·OF COMPARASDN’ WHICH WILL AID YOU IN D~TERMINING HOW WELL

YOUR STUDENTS RATED YOUR COURSEe IN COMPARISON WITH OTHER COURSE~-TAUGHT AT UeCeLeAet AND IN YOUR DEPARTHFNTe THIS INFORMATION

tc II I R.E…MAOE-All.AU ABI F ID~AS-SDON AS POS.s.JSI Fe —–·-·-· -··—·-·-·-··

·..-c,·-·——-·· ( ……. ,. ——·• •·-·····~–.. ;,. •·-·:—-·-··:.”:~-· -.~–.—~••Y·”:·•··(., …. ,. ….. ,_ ….. ‘”” ••” …. “” “‘” ” (

.. “‘f. 0

!:-

1 .d

l

·”.) LI

I

() j.

l ,., ii

I

•)

0

·) i

I

0 ‘)

L.

Oi

(

i.

0 ‘··

r.. .. ,.

01

~ r

t) f·

l

\”” I’ –

(‘ r··

J I . .. ·····I..

MQE2A &i&UJL!lGbA&!LiWSMFE ikiAilliWfSh#i~J.>fih .. . -,

·

,· .. ‘·

~-·-·—· .. j:.;,j~_L.~~:.l~:~f1~~-~;~z~ ..~ ·.:. .. :.~v ;~~~ ~~–· …~ .~ .: .. .. ~A~.~-·-~”·-. : …….. , ….. ~ ., .••.•…….. ___ …. .

‘. :··. . -~· ‘

. . :

:

.. ~.

EVALUATION (a:.

EjiNSTRUCTOA:

..:I CLASS SIZE:

..:!

I’

DAe LETWIN

86 • OF RESPONSES:

(‘INSTRUCTOR

DEPARTMeNTs~ L/w)

65 PEACENT~GE OF C~ASS

cou~se: LAW

(ij;tJl/l

145 LEC

RESPOND I NGI . 7$JC DATE: WINTERt l97J

———————–~sTTDNs—–·—— —————ReSPDAS~S-TTflrX~———–

C• = SEE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SCALE USED) 1· 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (NA)

——~——~~————-~—-~—————–~~-~·—-~——~———-~–~—–~~——-~———-

3.

4.

6.

7. a.

g.

10.

11.

12.

l3e

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19·

20.

21.

22·

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31e

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

SCOPE OF COURSE ADEQUATELY OUTLINED?

GRADING FAIR AND OBJECTIVE?

READINGS INTEGRATED INTO COURSE STRUCTURE?

WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS INTEGRATED INTO COURSE?

NATURE AND PURPOSE OF ASSIGNNENTS CLEAR?

AVAILABLE TINE APPROPRIATELY DISTRIBUTEd?

INSTR PRESENTATIONS PREPARED AND ORGANIZED?

INSTR PRESENTATIONS MADE SUBJECT CLEAR?

INSTR GAVE CLEAR/MEANINGFUL ANSWER TO QUESTIONS?

INSTR HAD ADEQUATE OFFICE HOURS; WAS AVAILABLE?

INSTR EASY TO APPROACH; MAOE.YOU FEEL WELCOME?

INSTR INVOLVED STUDENTS IN CLASS DISCUSSIONS? *

I~STR APPEARED KNOWLEDGEABLE? .

INSTR CONCERNED WITH CLARITY OF MATERIAL?

INSTR DISCUSSED POINTS OF VIEW OTHER THAN OWN?

(NSTR CONSIDERATE OF DIFFERING STUDENT OPINION?

INSTR ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT TEACHING THIS COURSE?

INSTR HELD YOUR INTEREST DURING LECTURES?

INSTR FREE OF INTERFERING SPEECH HABITS?

INSTR TURNED YOU ON TO SUBJECT? –

lNSTR HARSH OR EMBARASSING TO STUDENTS? *

INSTR ACCURATELY GAUGED BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE? *

lNSTR REGULAR AND PUNCTUAL IN ATTENDANCE1

UNDERSTANDING OF ACADEMIC PLANS DEVELOPED?

ABILITY TO THINK DEVELOPED?

SKILLS RELEVANT TO FUTURE PLANS D~VELOPED?

INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY IN SUBJECT ENCOURAGED?

KNOWLEDGE OF BASIC PRINCIPLES DEVELOPED?

UNDERSTANDING OF COURSE IMPLICATIONS DEVELOPED?

DESIRE FOR FURTHER READING IN AREA DEVELOPED?

WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL RATING OF THIS INSTR?

WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL RATING OF THIS COURSE?

INITIAL LEVEL OF INTEREST IN COURSE? * HOW MUCH HAS YOUR INTEREST IN COURSE CHANGED? *

TO WHAT EXTENT DID YOU MASTER COURSE?

HOW MANY HOURS/WEEK DID YOU STUDY FOR COURSE? *

AMOUNT OF TINE SUITED TO MATERIAL COVERED? *

WHAT PERCENTAGE OF READINGS DID YOU READ? .•

MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS WERE: QM 18 3XU QM 30

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

12

0

0

5

0

0

..

8

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

3

2

0

3

0

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

0

2

0

0

5

0

2

2

0

0

9

0

0

14

0

0

3XU

6′

0

0

0

3

0

0.

0

3

0

2

0

0

0

3

2

0

2

0

2

8

2

0

2

3

3

0

3

2

9

0

3

12

0

6

32

0

0

3

0

2

0

2

0

0

2

3

0

2

l

0

0

2

6

3

3

0

5

2

8

2

8

2

l

9

8

2

6

0

3

12

5

12

31

0

0

a• 2

14

2

9

3

14

18

6

9

~

5

12

40.

6

14

14

20

12

B

ll

26

17

42

9

22

22

15

17

14

8

18

l u

25

18

25

6

32

0

12

0

6

0

15

22

14

11 .

17

3

6

34

8

9

5

8

6

11

8

8

12

23

3

8

12

9

6

6

6

8

6

23

12

12

17

3

20

3

21Ctl

iiNos~k~P8R§~jl~~f 0~~cf~D~D5 rAN~E¥3~ACsT

23

3

18

6

15

18

22

25

28

8

14

12

20

20

23

20

17

22

18

25

17

14

8

22

25

28

18

17

15

23

23

17

8

34

18

9

15

6

12

5

26

6

18

17

37

29

15

3

12

2

40

31

29

23

32

28

26

18

12

6

15

22

23

22

23

29

35

11

37

25

..3. 9

0

•8

9

o• 6

12

2

31

3

17

17

22

23

23

8

31

B

25

23

25

20

29

28

35

15

28

3

63

9

12

17

18

17

25

11

31

15

0

14

0

0

2

75

2X);

9

89

8

82

14

8

0

3

2

74

18

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

2

0

8

5

3

3

6

6

9

0

0

6

3

12

0

23

6

4

TOttt:s—-

N NE~N SeDe

….

59 6e17

7 7.43

60 7.63

12 7.33

56 6 e82

60 6e92

65 7e54

63 7 e41

64 7.os

17 7.24

53 7.21

6654 ~0

65 •

65 7e29

65 6e92

65 7.51

65 7a42

65 7.60

65 6 e62

64 6.69

64 5.67

65 8 elS

60 6.~8

62 6e7l

63 6e94

63 6.68

61 6.93

61 7.48

59 5.97

65 7.86

65 6 e83

61 4el9

63 6.78

57 5.65

65′ 3e66

50 6e04

61 8e67

2.06

lel8

1.35

le25

1· 72

1.39

lel5

1 •. 30

..56 a. 44

le93

1.28

1 ell

1.61

•• 56

1.80

1.44

1.47 a. 49

1.68

2.08

•• 30

1.37

&.68

le53

1.56

1e93

•• 72

leSS

2a07

le02

1e54

1e93

le4l

le4J

le48

le09

o.·r4

a• 10 21);

\YEAR I N SCHOOL I FROSHI 3X SOPH: 011: JUNIOR: Ole SENIOR: ox GRAD: 94X OTHER: JX

. .. . . .. ….. I .. … .. ,.~, ., I., ….. ! • ~~ •. ,~ .,!”’ ,,’ 1• ••• ·:·~.-.·· ‘ ….. ,),’ •. , …….. ‘.:. -4’ •; .:~· ‘,;,·.’ …. ‘.•’ … · … •’ . •·

~~-~~ ~··; ··~ ~. . :·~· ·-·:··~. —;·-?”~.·–:-·~.-~-::~·To … ~::-~~-=-·-,-::~~: .. ~:.~~·::.~·–,: ·. ~~~~~.: :. … ~–…… :~; ~:~~·~··~ :·7:~.(.r). .~. ” ‘, ~ ;-:·~:··.~··~~-: ~··.··; ……. ~,..-~ ····: ·:::-·-. ~:–,. ··:· …… ..

~~ ~ .. :. . v·’.\·· .. . :: ··~ ….. \.. : .. ~.. .. …. :… … ·: :~ ….. ·:. ·::· . :.· … .. …….. :;: · ……. -. ·. . . .. . . . . (j

0) \·

I

i

ot I

ol

() I

OJ I

o, I

l Of

i

u~

i’

D r

0

o.

0 ~

,)

.. )

.,.·.: :..:..·~.:~..’.:._. ….. l ._ .·:. •. •…•.•.. ‘ ·.:.; ·.: :: …. ::.:~:~-> .~.·:.: -· .’ …. :.. ~:i .: ~·~~=·{~~-~~:~,~:. .. ::~·.:(~;:.:.~~;?-~]::-~~~~~~~:~~;-~:~;:t~ ..~ ~ui~~k?l:i\~~~0: .. ~·~.~~~~-~.~.0.h~~~;·~·:.~~::::; ..; ;:;ii/~~-;=: ~

o· • . •· I ~g

(J ~::::-SUMMARY ~

. ‘ ~

11:> I HSTRUCTOR EVA~UATIOH <•s ·

DEPARTMENT: LAW . DATEI WINTER. 197J

(‘

c

” (\

‘c

(t

(t

(~

(1

. • ‘ .

“\~

. ~·

TOTAL RESPONSES = S52

~–.;__._–~e5-H6H5 C1 —· —:1: —~l!~l’tiNses-r’trr-x-t————-1-·;._-:–•e~c5__.:.,-

. l* ::~ SEE OUESTIONNAIR 7;;~;;-SCALE USED) 1 2 3 4 9 · 6 7 · 8· 9 CNA) N .MEAN S.D. ——————————-:L—–~—————– ————–~————————————- ——————–

2.

3e

5.

7. a.

lOe

11 •

12·

13.

14.

15·

16.

17.

lBe

19.

20·

21·

22.

23·

24.

25.

26·

27.

. 28··

29.

JO.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36·

37. 3a.

39·

\……._.,/

SCOPE OF COURSE ADEQUATELY OUTLINED?

GRADING FAIR AND OBJECTIVE?

READINGS INTEGRATED INTO COURSE STRUCTURE?

WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS INTEGRATED INTO COURSE?

NATURE AND PURPOSE OF ASSIGNMENTS CLEAR?

AVAILABLE TIME APPROPRIATELY DISTRIBUTED?

INSTR PRESENTATIONS PREPARED AND ORGANIZED?

INSTR PRESENTATIONS MADE SUBJECT CLEAR?

I~STR GAVE CLEAR,MEANINGFUL ANSWER TO QUESTIONS?

INSTH HAD ADEQUATe OFFICE HOURS; WAS AVAILABLE?

INSTR EASY TO APPROACH; MADE YOU FEEL WELCOME?

INSTR INVOLVED STUDENTS IN CLASS DISCUSSIONS?

INST~ APPEARED KNOWLEDGEABLE?

I~STR CONCERNED WITH CLARITY OF MATERIAL?

lNSTR DISCUSSED POINTS OF VIEW OTHER THAN OWN?

INSTR CONSIDERATE OF DIFFERING STUDENT OPINIO~?

INSTR ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT TEA~HING THIS COURSE?

INSTR HELD YOUR INTEREST DURING LECTURES?

lhSTR FREE OF INTERFERING SPEECH HABITS?

INSTR TURNED YOU ON TO SUBJECT?

I~STR HARSH OR EMeARASSING TO STUDENTS?

INSTR ACCURATELY GAUGED BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE?

JNSTR REGULAR AND PUNCTUAL IN ATTENDANCE?

U~OERSTANDING OF ACADEMIC PLANS DEVELOPED?

ABILITY TO THINK DEVELOPED?

SKILLS RELEVANT TO FUTURE PLANS DEVELOPED?

INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY IN SUBJECT ENCOURAGED?

KNOWLEDGE OF BASIC PRINCIPLES DEVELOPED?

UNDERSTANDING OF COURSE IMPLICATIONS DEVELOPED?

DESIRE FOR FURTHER READING IN AREA DEVELOPED?

WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL RATING OF THIS INSTR?

••

WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL RATING OF THIS COURSE?

INITIAL LEVEL OF .INTEREST IN COURSE?

HOW MUCH HAS YOUR INTEREST IN COURSE CHANGED?

TO WHAT EXTENT DID YOU MASTER COURSE?

… •

HOW MANY HOURS,WEEK DID YOU STUDY FOR COURSE?

AMOUNT OF TIME SUITED TO MATERIAL COVERED?

W~AT PERCENTAGE OF READINGS DID YOU READ?

•• •

7 10

1 1 s 4

3 I

7 6

II 9

9 7

9 8

8 8

2 0

2 3

2 3

2 3

5 4

4 3

5 4

5 4

12 8

5 4

11 11

4 3

5 2

I 2

7 6

7 7

8 5

9 6

6 5

5 4

13 6

9 8

5 7

8 9

6 5

5 4

5 13

1 2

1 1

10 7 1 l ‘3’

8 6 13

3 2 7

7 8 18

9 9 15

13 ‘7 11

8 8 11

9 9 15

I l 7

4s s ” 1 39

5 7 11

.7 7 16

7 7 1B

6 7 22

‘6 7·· 15

9 8 1]

6 5 15

9 8 18

6 8 16

6 8 41

3 4 . 9

8 8 20

9 7 20

9 8 17

7 9 17

9 9 15

6 7 16

9 10 15

9 7 10

10 11 1 ..

11 9 27

6 8 19

10. 11 21

25 21 12

2 7 29

2 1 3

8 17

I 2

7 17

3 5

9 12 .

u· 13

8 14

II 14

II IT

4 8

9 11

23 .11

·9 16

14 16

13 16

14 i14

9 IS

9 ’14

7 14

9 .. 13

9 . 14

16. .II

3 8

·I~ · II

13 17

9 1!5

10 . 16

10 18

10 1!5

9 17.

14 17

12 9

12 23

18 15

10 7

17 17

5 7

14 11

2 I

18 19

5 4

9 9

12 9

. 17 14

17 13

13 10 .

!5 10

14 20

4 5

22 25

u 15.

16 14

u. 12

18 19

15 12

19 24

9 9

15 22

5 5

17 51

II 8

13 6

12 8

13 II

17 … 12

17 14

10 9

19 14

14 7

5 7

10 9

‘9 3

3 1

,l.l . s 62

2 539 ·s.~7

B7 72 s.za

3 533 6e21

68 176 5.76

14 473 5e30

2 540 5.14

1 548 s .sa

1 547 5.58

1 545 5e45

62 211 6.6t

18 452 6e43

2 539 5.47 .

1 548 6.74

1 547 5.99

3 538 6e04

2 543 s.81

1 547 6e17

l !545 5e28

2 ~40 6e4l

3 538 4e93

2 539 6.26

2 541 5e26

I 547 7 e54

~ 522 5e40

4 530 5.31

3 !533 5e42

3 53~ 5e45

. 3 535 Se79

4 531 6e04

5 525 5.07

~ @T ;~i)

4 532 4. 2

2 543 5.67

4 532 5.27

2 543 4e06

10 498 5.91

• 531 a.os

2·50

2e36

2e36

2e34

2e39

2e50

2e60

2.58

2•41

2.14

2e25

leSS

2e13

2e26

2el6

2e20

2.36

2e63

2e41

2e!5l

2e30

le74

2.09

2e31

2e28

2·33

2e44

2e3J

2·26

2·51

2·46

2.24

2e19

2el9

1e96

le81

a .63

1e72

.._____________ —- —— — ——– __!

MOST IMPORTANT QUEST IONS’ WERE: Qlf 9 C 8X); 2 II 8 C 7X) I a• 32 C . 7XJ I Qlf 15 C 6X) ; 011 29 C 6X);

c•Na5~k~PBR~~¥ 1 ~6fD~~ce~oessrRN~~~~’ACsT

YEAR IN SCHOOL: FROSH: 3X SOPH: ox JUNIOR: 0″ SEN lOR I IX GRAD: 46X OTHER: !SlX

:·, … ~ . ‘ ‘

. ·.

:.! . . . ·~. ,: ‘ . . :, ~. .: .. : : .. :~. . :; ~ ~ ·’ .J .

… ,,

g

9

!A

~-

~

~

~

9

9

9

9

q

9

9

9

G

….

. ‘

. ‘ • Z£1 c:zl:;

..:::miD’I?:lfmtA W&·I·IIBfr!ti J!§M!”¥milf&%»f¥MMii* <&.4&$ .W iLL M. . – ” t • W*i ‘ ‘ p:llaztLW~ •••lif:IMm…. :u a

.-~—- ~ ~ l

A&Ia:n &It AKA& HIW&!JGFQii§)kMJfi,ppf·

.”i

..

<a

!* • …..

. -~· .. !·

II ••’

i………. •• -~ ……. ..-.-……….. .

)

.. \ …

-~:~>~··:·.: .. !.’.::·:··:·. ‘

~:·. ~.: _ ~:-.. :)~[ii: . :~; ~~-E-.. ~~–;_:~~~—· … :2: ……………… .

. .-

., …

·, .. ; ….. . . ..

• …………. __ …………………….. t ••••• –.—~ ………….. ·- … ~

~–m-s-tR”uob·rev-A’COAt-roN<:a:s . . r———-·——r

~’)

) l,..J”\J~ ‘J ;? r _ NVv-d~ ..

CLASS SIZE: 157 • OF RESPONSES: 102 PERCENTAGE OF CLASS RESPONDING: 65X DATE: ~ …. , 1073 \)

.J

)

)

)

;

~s.I.BW::I.08.:_LEDt1Jh_L. Of.e.All.TM.Ett.ti_LA JJURSE.__ _ . ·-21.1 ec._ _______ . ——c

—– ·—··—-·

T— – —~OESTIO~S——- ~———- A£5PORSEs-CJR xJ ———-~

———-~~-~-~~=-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=-~~~—— —~—-~—-~—-~—-~—-~—-!–~=~—-~–~~~~- —–·——–·—————–·—

—-T’CT~cr—

N MEAN S.E. ___ ,

2e SCOPE OF COUUSE ADEQUATELY OUTLI~ED? I 9 4 8 25 16 14 l4 9 I 101 5.74 Oe20

3• G~ADING rAIR AND O~JECTIVE? I 0 0 I 2 3 3 2 8 80 20 7.10 Oe47

~ 4e READINGS INTEGRATED INTO COURSE STRUCTURE? 0 0 2 0 9 17 20 22 28 ‘ 3 99 7.37 0.15

—-s;—-wRlTTE~-AS’STGf\”MERTSINTE1iR’}.TEU INIO CCUH~t:.1′ ~ · ~ u !? ~ ~ to· 4 ‘B—-…,5- ~6–7;so–·o;2S

6e NATURE AND PURPOSE OF ASSIGNMENTS CLEAR? 0 3 4 5 14 16 24 20 13 3 ~9 ~.56 0~18

7e AVAILABLE TINE APPROPRIATELY DISTRIBUTED? 1 8 4 5 18 22 18 13 13 0 102 6e06 Oe20 f Be INSTR PRESF.NTATIONS PREPARED AND ORGANIZED? 0 4 6 10 11 14 26 20 10 0 102 6.31 Oel8

9e “INSTRf3RESENTArJONs-MA’OcSUBJEcr-CL’CAR’7 u 2 6 6 10 l·g-~-4–23–,2—o T~2–‘6·.-s7-“·0;’17·-•—

IO• INSTR GAVE CLEAR/MEANINGFUL ANSWER TO QUESTIONS? 0 · I 4 5 13 14 22 25 18 0 102 6.85 0.17

lle INSTR HAD ADEQUATE OFFICE HOURS: WAS AVAILABLE? 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 9 16 71 30 e.23 0.20

12e lNSTR EASY TO APPROACH: MADE YOU FEEL WELCOME? 0 0 3 2 6 6 13 19 39 13 89 7e71 Oel7

—f.-,·3;–tNSTR-INVOl:.VEC-sTODERTSIN-Ct:”KSs-D”‘SCOSS”Ttm:.r • 0 I 0 3 3s-2s–ra-·g–a–T- -aor-···6;14 -· .. o;l4–

14• INSTR APPEAREC KNOWLEDGEABLE? 0 0 4 3 12 12 23 28 19 0 102 7e06 0.16

15e INSTR CONCERNED WITH CLAUITY OF MATERIAL? 0 0 1 0 8 12 23 28 28. 0 102 7.54 0.13

16e INSTR DISCUSSED POI~TS OF VIEW OTHER THA~ OWN? 1 0 0 0 II 7 25 29 25 2 100 7e47 0.14

17-.-lNSTR-CONSTDERATc-DF–oTFFE’RTNG-sTOOElf’T””UPTRTOI’h • ~ ~ : #:; -. o 20—-:J(‘ 31 0 102—7~59 r-· 0; IS-

18e INSTR ENTHUSIASTIC ABCUT TEACHING THIS COURSE? 0 0 I 2 9 8 18 31 31 0 102 7.59 Oel4

19. INSTR HELD YOUR INTEREST DURING LECTURES? 1 1 3 6 16 12 21 23 17 2 100 6e72 Oel8

20• INSTR FREE OF INTERFERING SPEECH HABITS? 0 0 1 I 7 7 12 20 4B 5 97 7.93 Oel4

–·-~1.-INSTR’IURNED””YOU-OWIO-SOB:JECT? c: .,-z 8 2s–t5–a&~a–a·–2– -·aoo—·6·~oa·–·o.as·

22 • INSTR HARSH OR EMUARASSI NG TO STUDENTS? * . 1 0 1 1 4 4 5 21 62 2 I CO a. 22 Oel4

23• INSTR ACCURATELY GAUGEO BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE? * 0 0 0 3 53 22 8 10 2 3 99 5e74 Oell

24• INSTR REGULAR AND PUNCTUAL IN ATTENDANCE? 1 0 1 0 5 2 8 25 56 2 100 8el8 0.14

–+-2s.-1JNOERST.AND”‘NG-nF-·”At:ADENll:”‘-PCi\NS-OEVECOPED~ 3 3 2 . 3 23 -,·~o-11’-Tr–·-s- –;;7–6~21 -o; i 9··

26e ABILITY TO THINK DEVELOPED? 2 3 4 2 17 12 30 18 II 2 100 6.45 Oel8

27. SKILLS RELEVA~T TO FUTURE PLANS DEVELOPED? 0 3 3 3 14 17 26 18 14 3 99 6e65 0.11

28e INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY IN SUBJECT ENCOURAGED? 3 2 5 9 13 20 23 17 8 2 100. 6.12 0.19

_,.29;—–J(NOwCEOGE”-O~”E·Aslc-PR”‘NC’lPl”ES-DEVEC.’OPEDl 0 3 2 I-,Tt–l~-25–25–l’3’–·-~- -loo·-·-·c,;7g–·o.;a6·-

30~ UNDERSTANDING OF COURSE IMPLICATIONS DEVELOPED? 1 0 I 4 16 12 21 26 lB 2 100 6.97 0.16

31e DESIRE FUR FURTHER READI~G IN AREA DEVELOPED? 6 3 4 6 26 10 25 12 5 4 q9~7Q 0.20

-..22• WHAT IS YOUR CVERALL RATING OF Tl-115 INSTR? 0 1 I 0 13 6 20 38 20 2 100 ;3B’::J Oel4

1 .. i3e-wHAr-t’S-YOUR’-OVERAL~~TtNb’Or-TRTs-t:OIJR”;)c.~ u ~ I 4 1-r-Tz-3’2″‘-23’~1 ·-101 -~il§” -o~l6-

34e INITIAL LEVEL OF INTEREST IN COURSE? * 3 5 7 12 31 17 16 6 2 2 100 “5.22 0.11

35. HOW MUCH HAS \’OUR INTEREST IN COURSE CH~NGED? .• 0 0 3 3 25 27 27 ‘ 8 5 2 100 6e19 OelJ

36e TO WHAT EXTENT DID YOU MASTER COURSE? I 2 5 7 25 22 29 5 3 2 – 100 s.e2 Oel5

s—t–:37.–A0~1(NY-·HOURS7WEErOIV-vOtrSTUOy-“”FOR 6 • 6 13 Za—25–.·4–a–3–3~—4-· —98—3;9g·–o;a4·

38e AMOUNT OF TIME SUITED TO MATERIAL COVERED? * 1 I 3 5 41 24 14 2 8 2 100 5e72 0.15

39. WHAT PERCENTAGE OF RI:ADINGS DID YOU READ? * 1 1 1 · 1 1 I 5 6 13 69 3 99 8.29 o. 1s

.~_….__._..,.. .. ~-=l!UZ~~~ c —‘- —- – “==-tr~~—-… …… ,..,. …..

MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS WERE: . 01 19 ‘ 611; 01 29 C 6XJ; a• 9 5X); , _____________________ _

YEAR IN SCHOOL: FROSH: ox

\

— 5ELF-CESCRTPi’ToNS”OF1iESPb’NO’ei.f’f”s-:.-:.._

(•NO RESPONSE’ NOf~J-NCLUDEO IN~ TOTALS) SOPH: 21 JUNIJlll,t OX ‘·., .• SENIOR: OX

Q,f 32 5X);

GRAD: 01

.. .. ___ ….,~.__ .. _____ o••as 4X);

CTHEI;: 98X

\ . •• , …. I

~-·~-.. -· ~·-· …… I_ -~·-·-··· .. ~·· … -·-·,.~:-· …… “… … ~ ……. ~·-··:-:··· ·- ·.· …………. ~. ………….. ;.~. . :.. · :.~. … -…. :·,V· G -···· ~

·)

. )

·.)

()

0

0′”‘

. .)

0

()

0

01

I

() …. .). II

\.:.·.’.) r

e 6&®¥%9¥’8#+’##

….

..,··· .. ·’

.;.. ~· ~ ~… . ..

~.’. . :.· .•. ,; ‘(‘!) ..~.:· :·, ;,:; . :”.::: ·.~ .~: ·,·· ·::

:· -.: ~ . . . ” ..

· .. ·· .. ..

~~ :· _· : …

” : /., .·

. . . -·· ·: …

– _ .. .:_, •.• ~ ….. _…._ ____ ,.:.., …… : …………. .;. :…:~~ ……. :~·~. ·~·.~- ·–… =~-:.._, •• ; …. -~.; …….. ” ….. ·-···· ··-·· …. —· ..• _.:., .• -· • …….._ ………. .- ………… :~ •.• ., …………. ·- •…• .- … . . …. ·— ……

‘.I

c~> INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION <== ——z I

.I {) J

RESPONSES: 77 PERCENTAGE OF CLA~S RESPONDING: –· () I

——————————————————————————————————~~====~——————————·

——————~—ovEsTiONs———————– —————–Pl5P6NsEs–TTN-il——————- ~——loYACs _____ __

( * = SEE OUEST IONNAI RE FOR SCALE USED) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (NA) N 114EAN S .o.

MOST IMPOR~ANT QUESTIONS WERE: 011 32 13X); 01 Ul 15 lOX);

— SELF-DESCRIPTIONS OF RESPONDFNTS –(‘

NO RESPONSE’ NOT JNCLU:>ED IN X TOTALSJ

( l 0~);

I

ON l q

:—-~Y~F~A~R~~~~N~S~C~H~O~O~!~————–~E~Q~O~S~H~··~–~5~X~—-~S~D~P~H~·—-~O~XL——DII~IN~t~o~p~·–~n~¥L—–~5uE~N~In~g~·–~n~J~—-~G~O~Ap~:–~9L3~X—-~C~Iutut~f~R~:—-tLX~ .. —————-

~—-··~ ……. ,.. . f . ~-… ·-·-·-···- –~ … . :. ……… -………………. ;~. ~: ~ … (J

i

I

) i

I

f

) I

‘.) I

I

i

. .) . 1

0

(.·

:i

Oi

I I

01

LEON LETt~IN

Law School Courses.—Taught

,__)

“–~ / DATE NUMBER and TITLE UNITS ENROLLMENT

Yr 1964-65 110. Legal Research and Writing 2 85

Yr 1965-66 100. Contx:acts 5 §1 – 65

s 1966 230. Trial and Appellate Practice 3 66

Yr 1966-67 145. Procedure 7 §C – -77

F-w 1966-67 211. Evidence 5 §A – 100

s 1967 249. Trial Tactics and Technique 4 97

Yr 1967-68 145. Procedure 7 §C – 77

F 1967 249. Trial Tactics and Technique 3 23

w i968 211. Evidence 5 61

F 1968 211. Evidence 5 109

F 1968 338. Seminar-Internal Law of Academic

Institutions 2 19

w-s 145. Procedure 6 §2 112

s 1969 249. Trial Tactics and Technique 3 30

F-w 1969-70 100. Contracts 8 §3 66

w 1970 338. Seminar-Internal Law of Academic

Institutions 2 8

s 1970 211. Evidence 5 §1 – 88

F-w 1971-72 145. Procedure 6 §1 – 81

F 1971 211. Evidence 5 108

s 1972 249. Trial Tactics and Technique 3 §1 – 26 “”. s 1972 338. Seminar-Internal Law of Academic

Institutions 2 10

F 1972 211. Evidence 5 167

.. t\L-S 197 3 145. Procedure 6 §4 – 86 I ~’ s 1973 121. Criminal Law II 3 §3 86

P-W 1973-74 145. Procedure 6 §4 – 97 1

F 1973 211. Evidence 5 §2 – 157

s 1974 121. Criminal Law II 3 §2 80

w 1975 211. Evidence 5 §2 – 83

s 1975 206. Constitutional Law II 3 95

s 1975 309. Seminar-Constitutional Litigation 2 8

F 1975 206. Constitutional Law II 3 118

P-W 1975-76 145. Procedure 6 §1 – 86

s 1976 211.· Evidence 5 48

F 1976 211. Evidence 5 160

F-w 1976-77 145. Procedure 6 §4 – 75

s 1977 148. Constitutional Law I 4 §1 – •66

F 1977 121. Criminal Law II 3 §4 – 88

·p 1977 338. Seminar-Internal Law of Academic

Institutions 2 9

w 1978 211. Evidence 5 123

Yr 1978-79 145. Procedure 5 §3 – 80

F 1978 563. Seminar-Criminal and Civil

Procedure with S. Yeazel! 2 16

s 1978 211. Evidence 3 §1 – 74

A s 1979 211. Evidence 3 §1 – 74

F-S 1979-80 145. Civil Procedure 5 §3 – 86

s 1980 211. Evidence 3 109

F 1980 145. Civil Procedure 5 §3 99

s 1981 211. Evidence 3 §1 98

s 1981 503. Seminar-Criminal Law 2 8

c

c

Leon Letwin

Courses Taught continued

DATE

F 1981

w 1982

F 1982

NUMBER AND TITLE

SABBATICAL LEAVE

211. Evidence

145. Civil Procedure

UNITS

4

5

ENROLLMENT

§2″- 106

§3 – 83

,u;:

COURSE DESCRIPTIONS

110. Legal R&search and Writing (5) This year·long

course toa.:hes flrst·year students how 10 lind the law,

how to ~aly:e it. and how to communicate their con·

elusions in wrillng. The course focuses on thll skills of

analyzing legal authority, developing arguments to

solve specifiC problems where there is conllicting au·

thority, and structuring legaJ writing which is clear.

infotmative and persuasive. A number of writing as·

signments are usad as vehicles tor developing these

skills. The assignments are individually Critiqued and

each one acts as a building block for the ne-xt. Each

studant is also g;ven an opportunity to present oral

argument on one of the research assignmenl::i under·

laken during the t.-ourse. .

100. Contracts (5) This Is a course about the law

governing private agreements. The course analyzes

tno Ciileria for determining whalher or not a particular

promise or voluntaty agreement is legally enforceilblu

ond turvoys tho major ll}gaJ issuus allecting enrorct~

o.Ldo agreements. The:s\l issuos include the

qut!~tions ol whon a contract becomes bindinn. what

pc:~.;on:; acquire rights under a conuact, the condi·

lions under which performance is required or excusea,

what constitutes breach of contract. and the

remedi~s available for breach of contract. Attention

will be given throughout the course to lha general

problt:ms of interpreting contract language, the role of

contract in a matket society, the conflict between the

comme:rcial need lor certainty and the demands of

Individual fairness, and the re,ationship between centrad

law and ofhw areas of law such as tarts, proper·

ty and restitution.

211. Evidence The law of evidence is concerned wilh

lhe process by which parties may prove facts which

are essential to the existence of rights and liabilities

in civil and criminallltigalion. Much of this law is now

the subject of statute or court rules, but soma lnstruc·

tors may emphasize the decisional law as well.

Among the topics usually considered are the rules for

determining the relevance of evidence. the qualiflca·

lions which must be met by witnesses, the regulation

.of the form and manner of Interrogating witnesses,

privileges granted to certain persons and Institutions

to refuse to disclose information, the spodar status. of

expert witnesses and the problems of proving technical

facts, and rules governing documentary proof. A

major part of the course Involves the study of the rule

excluding hearsay evidence and the exceptions to

that rule. With the exception of the right of confronta·

tion and the privilege against self-Incrimination, con·

stitutional rules requiring exclusion of evidence will

not be covered. While the subject Is of most impor·

tance to those who may wish to become trial lawyers,

the course Is not designed to teach students how to

try cases. Instead It analyzes the way In which the law

has chosen to deal with certain fundamental problems

in knowing the past, problems that arll of con·

cern to historians and journalists as well as courts.

The subject Is covered on the multl·state and most

local bar examinations.

121. Criminal law II {3) This course is con~rned

wilh the criminal process insofar as it is affected by

Constitutional and statutoty prescriptions and proscriptions.

One major area Is that of lha restraints

upon Jaw enforcement officers, Including such police

activities as arrest, stop-and·frisk, inspection and de.

tonlion of various kinds; taking of statements: the

moc.lurn tochniquos of electronic surveillance: and

Sttizure of property with and without a warrant Other

topics which are covered from time to lime ar~t tha

rigntto counsel and the right to a jury trial. Emphasis

lhroughout is placoo upon the judicial resolution of

the tension betwe~n the Constitutional imperatives,

on the one hand, and lho tochniqu8s used to prevent

crime and apprehend and convict those who commit

il, on the other.

120. Criminal LaN I (3) This course covers selected

topics in substantive criminal law. There Is consider·

ation of principles underlying the definition ol crime

such as the requirements of an actus reus and mens

rea. There is an examination of various attempts to

eliminate lhe requitornent of mens rea and a consideration

of such general doctrines as Ignorance of fact

and ignorance of law, causation, attempt, complicity

and conspiracy. There Is inquiry into principles of juslificalion

and excuse with particular attention to the

docllin&s of necessity, intoxication, insanity, diminished

capacity and automatism. Particular attention Is

paid tha substantive oHenses of homicide and theh.

Throughout, emphasis Js plocect on the basic theory

of tho crunmallaw and lha re1ationship between the

doctrinu:. of the criminal law and the various justirations

for imposition of punishmunt.

200. Constitutional law I This course begins the

swdy of ways in whJch lha United Statas Constitution

(a) distributes pov.1;r among lhe variotJs units of govornrnent

In tho Arr.arican political system, and

(b) lintits the exer~~ of those powurs. The course

first examines 1\·.~ suts of structural limitations on

government: th€: Jivi::ion of powers bet·::-.:on the Na·

t100 and tho slat..:~ in tho federal syliWm, and the

S&:pnration of ptlin.t.;, among the three branche~ (leg·

i:sl..ltive, oxGcutilo’c :lnd jud,cial) of the national gov·

ornmf:nl lhu c.:~..:oc: theal turns to ·the Civil Wdr

J.munclmunts (t3:a. 1_.th and 15th) ilS limits GO tho

stcras and u~ ~’;.att:IJS of congressional PQ\’i.ilt. lq

studyill{J tho tO.:;t. ,·\&r.undment, particular an~ntion is

pJid 10 th.;, Ou..: l’aOJCt:ss .Clause as a g\lnrantcu

o.uo•n:.t gc~t6r.;ta…:m.sl arbitrariness, both pracadural

and substantive, and to the Equal Protection Clause,

which (along with the Due Process Clause of the 5lh

Amendment) servos as a g~:~arantae of racial equality

and some othur varieties of equality. Throughout the

ccursd, consideration is given to the proper role of the

judiciary in limiting lhe action of other branches of

government

m:s:::aazW41AU!itfiii!LO .. MEQ 43L4UZCIW

2Zti!41

pourse Descriptions Continued

201. Constitutional Law II This course complements

Constitutional law I. It is de110tod mainly to the

study of the First Amendmem’s guarantees of the

freedoms of speech, press and assembly. The course

also considers the First Amendment’s prohibition of

the establishment of religion and its guarantoe of the

free O.lCorcise of religion. Tho course concludos with

the study at various )urJscllclional limlt&Uions on the

federal courts’ exercise of tha power of judicial rllviolM.

As ln Constitutional law I, a continuing theme is the

proper role of the judiciary in the govornmontal system.

·

145. Civil Procedure (5) This Is a course about the

processes that courts follow in deciding disputes in

noncriminal cases. U deals with the way in which connicls

are framed for courts, the stages through which

litigation goes, the division of power among the various

decision-makers in the legal system and between

the state and federal courts, the territorial limitations

on the exercise of judicial power, the principles

that define the consequences of a decision once a

court has finished with a case, and the special opportunities

and problems of litigations Involving multiple

disputants. Throughout the course considerable attention

will be devoted to the ways in which our beliefs

about fairness (in particular those embodied in the

U.S. Constitution) and the pressure for efficiency

shape the design of lho process. . .

December 10, 1982

Dear

I am writing with the hope that you might be willing to write a letter

on behalf of Professor Leon Letwin. The Law School has decided to

nominate him for a University Distinguished Teaching Award, and our

experience has been tha~ success depe~ds in large part on having

detailed reconmendations fron students and forner students.

The Law School has had five winners of this i~portant award in its

history: Jesse Dukeninier, Richard Xaxv:ell, Stephen Yeazell, Kenneth

Karst and Jerry Lopez. We.hope that Leon Let~in will be our sixth.

If __ you-cc.n li7rite on Professor Letwin’ s behalf, please address your

letter to ~e.

Our thanks for any help ~~hich you ca!l lend.

s:·7?: ~c

Sincerely,

Susan Westerberg Prager

Dean

c

622 North Sierra

Beverly Hills, CA 90210

January 11, 1983

Dean Susan Westerberg Prager

UCLA School of Law

Dear Dean Prager:

Even before I learned of UCLA’s University-Distinguished

Teaching Award I was hoping there was such a prize. so that

Leon Letwin could be nominated for it. For I ·came away

from my Civil Procedure class with him last semester

convinced I had sat under under one of the best teachers

I have ever had. I have studied education, taught for

a while, and been exposed to a numbe~ of good instructors.

in my college and Masters programs. So I think I say

with some authority that Leon Letwin is outstanding· in

his profession. ·

He- had complete control of his ·subject ·academically·~· arid

he blended this knowledge with his practiCal experience

as a lawyer. As a result, we had a course· that balanced

intellectual stimulation with practic.al application

better than any I ~ve had in Law. · ·

Mr. Letwin. struck another balance rarely achieved by even

the best educators. He drove home points about the

n~erous, d~sparate details of our course and yet framed

them in overviews enhancing our skills in systemic and

even philophical understanding and criticism.

But the most outstanding balance he strikes is that between

being a rigorous educator and a friendly, genuine human

·being. There was no cutting corners in his class to slide

cheaply out of an intellectual challenge. But we always

knew that he was on our side in the learning proces·s~- ·

even to the· point of acknowledging where some of our·ideas

illuminated him. Such transparency shows nothing of .

pedagogical weakness but rather much of that strength and·

humility that comes from intellectual excellence and

personal integrity. His whole approach to our class was

filled with such attitudes. He’d teach us fine points

of th~ law of a case~ and then get us to see their implications

for the very human situations of the litigants. And he

taught us a great deal about such human concerns by his

relationship to us– accessible, honest~ and supportive.

In view of Leon Letwin’s exemplary personal qualities and

pedagogical prowess, I recommend him unreservedly for the

University Distiguished Teacher Award.

Sincerely,

v~”rl'<._,._ If. /}~~-n

Thomas H. McFadden

, c~

c

Susan Westerberg Prager

Dean, UCLA School of Law

Subj: Professor Leon Letwin

Dear f’ls·. Prager:

·December 16, 1982-

· As I entered. my first semester at the UCLA Schoo~. of

Law, I expected that Civil Procedure woulCl be ·my least ·

interesting subject.. I read. the bio.graphi.c.a1 data .

furnished about the professors and noted t·hat my Civil-. · ·

Procedure- professor was clearly stationed at·. the ·opposite

end or the political. spectrum from. me. ·so !.expected,.

!: priori~- a dull. subject taught by a man who woul.d .. try_···.

my patience. .

Today I finished my first ·seme-ster,· and ·I obse_rve· t·hat

the cl..ass. where- I learned. the most: .and which I enjoyed. the

most was Civil Procedure,.and not only have I developed. a

___ great respect for my professor,. I’m even f’ond. of him.. ·

—=-__:_ -·- That profe·ssor·is ·Leon :Uetwin.. The thing about· Mr-. ·

Letwin that turned it around .. for me is his talent· as. a

teacher. He handled the Socratic dialogue by focusing· .

entirely on the material~ and not at all on personalities;

our class of apprehensive first-year students q~ick1y grew

comfortable exchanging ideas with him and each other.

When we said something wrong, he corrected us~ but in such

a way that· we were discussing legal. concepts, and not. anyone’s

shortcomings.. ~ole general~y knew what his ideas were,

but ·he permitted ours ideas, when different~· a· status which

· made th~ e_xchan:.,~ constructive. .

Leon·Letwin is easily the most gifted teacher I have

studied under during my 50 years, which includes both underand

post-graduate electronic engineering studies. am many

short courses taught in an industrial. context.•· r· am grateful:

. to have· been in his class •.

cc: Leon Let win

v-“‘~~:;;,;;.~ ~ ;; –::·(.;-;~:-..~ .

.i’\ .. ;- \.i ‘? .• , \ t:/- ,JA!· lZ .93~ ··~;

: J

January 10 1 1.98)

~ar Dean Prager: \.;~;~:,~~~/

?.~ank vou for the onportunity to give recognition and honor to Professor

Leon Let~dn. In doing so, I would like to recognize both the man and the

professor” primarily because Professor Letvd.n brings humanity into the classroo:!!.

— a quality that differentiates the kno~.vledgeabl.e teacher from the

truly outstanding professor. Because of his special. teaching style, Professor

Let’tdn brings credit not only to the school in which he teaches but also to

t..~e profession itself.

The alien environment o:r the l.a1-r school that we as first year law students.

ware confronted with provided a challenge but also • for some, proved to be

ego-shattering. 1-!ost of us ca:n.e to law school believing in ourselves, our

intelligence, and our potenti.al. We had rea.son to feel thus, having been

successful. as undergraduates a:ndfor in the comm.tmity and having been chosen

from among hundreds of app1;ca.nts· to attend the school. l’J.anY of us l~med,

however, tha. t la.w school can all too qui.cldy destroy olir confidence and engender

within us self-doubt.. \ole were, after all.~ dealing with a new language. and a

new teaching tec…lmi.que. We were al.so surrounded by others who we knew to be

as capa.bler if not moreso, than oursal.ves. Too, we were dealing with the.many

myt.lis about law school. ”Paper Chase” myths included.. ·

It shoul.d be evi.dent, then, i£ one can begin to understand the burden o:r

these various burdens, w”ha.t it means to have a professor who not only respects

his students and their capa.bi….lities but is also able to convey that respect

both in a..Tld out of the classroom. Similarly, it should be evident ‘What it

means to have a professor v..ilo is concerned about his students both as futtire

l.a·Hyers a…””ld as present individuals.

Certainly we were trained that first year of law schoo1·by admi.ra.ble people

w”ith outstanding minds and w-e all benefited from their brilliance. Yet, I

would say that only with Professor Letwin did we feel comfortable; did we feel

that we were being taught by one who thought of himself as less than a god and

:more as a. hman; did wa f’eel that he gave more than lip-service to the belief’

that he learned from us as we learned from him; did we fee1 like we w-ere treated

as adults. -In tum, and as a direct result of Professor Letw.in’ s treatment of

us, we respected and appreciated him~ The classroom a.tmospere was, thus,.

one of mutual concar.n and respect.

One must not get the impression, however, that as a result of Professor

Letw.i.n’ s hl!:l!atle concerns, his effectiveness as a technician suffers. _ He is

skilled in the Socratic method and in conducting provocative discussions. He

is also a. genius a. t getting his students to be creative in their thinking and

diligent about their work. Civil Procedure is a dry and difficult subject, yet

we were able to comprehend a…”‘ld master its intracacies as well as those of our

other la1-r school subjects. Professor Letv.”i..””lt no less than the others, is an

admirable person wi t..l, an outstanding mind.

To honor him officially as a.l’l outstanding UCLA professor would be to do the

least that he deserves.

.. … .

Susan ~·Testerberg Prager, Dean

School of Law

University of California

Los Angeles, California

Dear Dean Prager,

9, 1983

I was very p1ea~ed to learn that the Law School is nominating

Professor LeonLetwin for a University Distinguished Teaching.

Aw-ard~ and I am grateful for the opportunity to expresa my heart-felt

support for his nomination. As his pupil. this past semester~

I received so muCh from Mr. Letwin; I hope that my vords.of

recommendation and admiration can in some way contribute to his

gaining the recognition he deserves. –

Leon Letwin is an exceptional)_y stimulating teacher. This past·

Fa11 he managed to make the potentially dry subject matter of

Civil Procedure interesting and oft-times exciting. He encourages

·classroom participation and skill-fu11y integrates student

cQntributions with his prepared material. He guides- students

toward certain conclusions without imposing his own opinions.·

He unifies the course content, merging the reading and stu~g

done outside class with the classroom material into a single,

comprehensive learning experience_. This is an especially

valuable approach for First Year Students who are struggling

to make sense of the total~immersion process of Law School.

Additionally, .Mr. Letwin encourages students to consider the.

policy bases and socia1 relevance of what they are studying.

In. our Civi~ Procedure course, Mr. Letw:in integrated the course

.material into the concerns of our daily lives to a surprising

~egree,. thus making the legal content persona1 and pertinent

to each student.

Leon Letwin is also a caring and compassionate person. I·know

of no other professor who inspires equally great amounts of re-·

spect and affection •. He is sincerely_interes~ed in his_students

and genuinely concf?rned with maintaining a- positive and creative

atmosphere in his classes. Thus, even the most reticent students

venture to participate in class discussions~ and all Mr.

Letwin•s students feel free to become involved~ offer~pinions~

make mistakes and, therefore, learn in the productive environment

Professor Letwin creates. Out.side of class~ Mr. Letwin is

accessible· and supportive. He initiates and encourages conversations

with students; on many occasions this past semester he

· spoke with students–individually and co11ective1y–expressing

interest and concern regarding their problems with adjust~ng to

the Law School process.

-+ –

!&liZ ffi.UX£ a;:: at 6 ! .i~mL&lE::;;;s;:;::::;I

. )’

;;’

I received my undergraduate degree fifteen years ago and have

been working in a profession which is vastly different from the

field of law. Changing careers and beginning to “think like a

la-wyer” have.been difficult challenges for me. Having Leon

Letwin as a professor in my first semester of Law SChool was a·

great stroke of good fortune: his .enthusiasm for the. study of

law has motivated me through this difficult career trans~tion;

his ideals and standards regarding the legal profession have

imbued me with a sense of purpose and possibi1ity … :Professor

Letwin is . the kind of teacher I hoped to find when I decided

to return to school. I feel that u·~c;L-~A .. is extremely fortunate

to have· him on the faculty; I hope that the University”

wi11 take this opportunity to recognize his specia1 qualities.

as a teaCher and a human being. ·

Very sincerely, · ·

~~

Susan· Ke11er·

First Year Law Student

Susan Westerberg Prager

Dean, UCLA SGhool of Law

Los Angeles, Ca.

Dear Ms. Prager:

Anne Tarkington

3525 Bu·ena Vista

Glendale, Ca. 91208

January 4, 1983

As Professor Leon Letwin is being nominated for a University Distinguished

Teaching Award, I am pleased to submit the f~llowing comments.

I was a student in his Civil Procedure class last semester (Fall 1982). I

came as a typically anxious and intimidated first year law student. Professor

Letwin was aware and sensitive to this problem, one I shared with the other

eighty members of the class; he was able to deal with it openly during the

first weeks of class. This put us at ease and produced a relaxed, open

atmosphere in the classroom. Students felt free to contribute their ideas

and Professor Letwin skillful~ lead discussions so that each class session

bore intellectual fruit. lrle left with many questions, questions which intrigued

us and stimulated our interest in the subject.

It is well lmown that Civil Procedure is a seemingly dry and difficult subject.

But Professor Letwin so brought it to life that I read attentively in preparation

for each class since I knew an intriguing discussion awaited me.

Often we stayed after class and clustered around Professor Letwin to discuss

issues. We would forget the time since Professor Letwin was never in a hurry

·to get away.

Professor Letwin mmd not have formal office hours because he was always available.

lrlhenever I went to see him, other students would be there already and

~d some great discussions at those times. I always wondered how Professor

Letwin found time to do his other work.

I remember one time when I reacted to a case emotiona~ and simp~ could not

articulate in a rationai way. I went to see Professor Letwin and rather than

scoff at my emotional state, he helped me think through the ideas behind my

intuitive reaction and formulate a rather respectable and interesting argument.

I will be able to put that technique to good use when I am an attorney.someday.

Professor ~twin epitomizes good teaching. He has the ability to communicate,

stimulate, elicit ideas from students, help them conceptualize what might have

started as intuition, and listen attentively. He has a penetrating mind without

the arrogance that usually accompanies it. He exudes ~rarmth and interest

in students. He·knows how to ·listen. He is a great teacher and a wonderful

human being.

Sincerely, ~

~~~~

Anne Tarkington

7 January 1983

Dean Susan Westerberg.Prager

UClA Law School

Dear Dean Prager, ·

It is an honor to have this opportunity to recommend Professor Leon

Lenrin for a UCLA Distinguished Teaching kvard. I took Prof. Leudn’ s

Civil Procedure class this past semester, my first in law school,. and

regret only that I will not have Prof. Lebdn for an instructor every

other semester. He is a dedicated and conscientious instructor,. who

makes every effort to reach his students and to instill :in them an understanding

of the intricasies of the law. It is evident to his students

that Prof. Letwin feels a deep cornmittment not Only· to the legal

profession,: but to encourag:ing his students to share iri that conmittment,.

and to truly study the lali in order to use it most effectively.

As a classroom instructor,. Prof. Let\~. excels in his ability to convey

to ·the students his entlnlsiasm for the lcn-1 and the course material. Our

class discussions were stinrulating and thought-provoking. In addition,.

__ he takes every opporttmi.ty to foster specific disc;ussion in the classroom

— of-·the broader policy considerations that went into the niak:i.ng of our ·

legal system. Few professors will take the time to urge students to .. ·

question the basic structure of the system rather than to accept it blindly,

to think rather than to absorb passively. Prof. Letwin is one of

these few.

But beyond his abilities as a classroom instructor,. what makes Prof. Letwin

most remarkable is his sincere interest in and concem about his students

and their academic progress. In truth, Prof. Letwin. was the only one of

my professors, ever,. in all of my academic career,. to consistently inquire

of students outside the classroom~ in the hallways or in his office, about

their feelings towards the “law school experience,” as we call it. Prof.

Letwin cares about his students and wants to lmow if they are having problems.

He is accessible and approachable if a student does have problems.

Again~ this is not true of many professors.

I wholeheartedly recommend Professor Leon Letwin for a University Disting-·

uished Teaching Award. I feel priveleged to have been his student and

hope that I will have the chance to be his student again.

Sincerely,

/kL /ll./J!cd:UU>r

Helen M. Mickie\vi.cz ~

Class of 1985

Dean Susan Prager

UCLA School of Law

405 _Hilgard Ave.

Los Angeles, CA 90024

Dear Dean Prager,

January 5, 1983

I am writing this letter of recommendation on behalf

of Professor Leon Letw~n in the· hope that he wil1 receive

the much deserved University_Distinguished Teaching· Award.

I was fortunate enough to have been assigned to Professor

Letwin’s Civil Procedure· c~ass in my first semester· of law

school. Now,. as I. prepare to begin my final semester· of · ·

school, his influence is still felt.

It is difficult to describe· what makes Professor Letwin’s

_ _.~~acg~ng so special.. His abilities to thoroughly . analyze·

complex lega~ problems,.. to separate the critical points in

a case from a mass of information and. verbiage-, to see a · C’, problem from all perspectives including his own unique and

creative angles, and to present all this to a group o·f

students totally inexperienced with the law in an understandable

and interesting way, were truly impressive- the_best I have

·seen in law school. But these are not the qualities that have

·affected me the most.

It is easy for professors, practicing lawyers, and.,

students-~o get so wrapped up in logical analyses and technical

arguments that they forget that the legal rules ·and decisions

they are discussing can effect both individual lives and

·—— broader social relations profoundly. Professor Letwin is

one law professor::who never forgets •. In Civil Procedttre he

was always anxious to explore the relationships between the

technical -rules, social and economic realities,~and people•s

lives. He reminded us that values are as important as logical

reasoning. He was never didacti~, but always questioning.

And he was so sincere in his desire to confront these issues,

that students had no choice but to stop and think.

.. ,

c

Ideally, ·the la”tv should be an instrument of justice.

It is Professor Letwin’s commitment to strive for that

ideal that has encouraged me these last few years. I hope

and be~ieve his influence wil~ stay with me thro~ghout my

legal carreer.

Sincerely,

Rachel Nann. .

– ·~—.

:–….

January 5, 1983

0ear Dean Prag~r,

It is with a~solute ~eligh~ that I write to yo~ on be~alf

c …z. – .T”c” -ro.&.”. :.essor .-Lea-r_ L e~”·”-.•;•1 n. .-i .h. a ve ,n a~A “~”..-.h e pr1• v~. ,….. ege 01so +… a~’ :•t ng

Pro:”esso’!” Let·Nin for two COU!’Ses at u oC oLeA. La\•! School p Civil

P!”ocedure during my first year and Evidence during :uy secon~ yearo

In· the course of ~J academic life, I have baen forturate

enough to have been taught by a few prof”essors o:r· that rare·

breed who leave arr indelible imprint on· the minds o~ their

students. Proressor Letwirr is not only among this elite

group, he is clearly at the head of it. It is indeed a trying·

task to articulate the extraordinary combination of talen_ts

Professor Letvrin brings to the classroom; suffice· it to say.

–that-his expertise,· guidance, warmth. sense of hUJ11or and~

obvious love for the law blend together to create an atmosphere

in-which learning is a sheer joy. No one falls asleep in

Professor Letwin’s classes~they are intellectual yet not

stuffy, stimulating without being artificial. and engrossing,

though. not ‘\”2.Udeviltian.

As you well k~ow, Civil Procedure is generally the bane

of a first-year student’s curriculum. It does not involve the

abstract puzzles of Property, the contemporaneousness ot Corrt~

acts or the constitutional ~uror of Criminal Procedure.- But ·-·· what an electricity Professor Letwin brought to Civil Procedure/

Discussions raged, voices raised, sparks flew. By the end or

t~e semester, not o~1y had we achieved a thorough and solid

~ounding in the “black letter law” but we had also been

~ cr.alle~ged to analyze and eventually to recognize the fact that

:::i’9.ril Procedure too was a product of society’s social thi”!”lkir:g

?~i political phi~oso;~y. I know th~t neither I nor any o~

m:.:; classmates fro:n Sect~o~ Three will ever forget the thunderous

ovation Professo~ Letwin received O!l the last day of classan

outpouring o: admiratio~. respect and appreciation which I

have never seen r.12..tched in my two and a half years of law school.

A year after Civil Procedure, I enrolled in Professor Letwin•s

Evidence class .last spring semester. While I was looking ·

forward to the class, I nevertheless approached it with ·some

trepidation-would I still b·e able to get excited about· a

course, now that I was a jaded second-year student? Would

Professor Letwin be able to meet the expectations I now had

of him, or had I merely built up an image during my impressionable.·

first year? The answers came. quickly and easily; like a great

wine, Professor Letwin w~s even better a year later. The same

-electricity that he brought to Civil Procedure he also bro~ght

to Evidence. a pheno~enon even more astonishing in light of

the fact that the class was composed of over a hundred upperdivision

students, half of whom were graduating third-years.

As Civil Procedure s.tand.s out as my most memorable first-year

class, so too. doss Evidence stand out as my most memorable

upper-division class.

~ ~ay hasten to add that Professor Letwin’s talents and

helpfulness are by no means confined to the classroom. I know

from first-ha~d experience that he was i~strumental in the

success of last year’s student testi~onial to outgoing Dean

Wa~ren, and I understand from several classmates that he was

indispensable in the formation of the U.C.L.A. Public Interest

L2.w Foundation. In addition, Professor Letwin is one of the

::1ost a.pproacha’bl~ ~embers of the Law School facul7,y. As any

la~ student knows, law school is every bit as rnuch a psyc~ological

battle ~s a~ a~ade~1c one, and I have more t~an once been

.. ; ..

-.···

. …

~· ” .

. —

soothed and nurtured by,Prcfessor Letwin’s couns.el. In additio!1

to being an outstandi~g ~eachar. he is truly a great friend

~o his stude~ts.

~aving been at u.c.L.A. for seven years as both an.undergraduate

anrt la~ student, I h~ve been honored to have been taught

by several of the recipients of the award for which Professor

Letwin has been no~inated. Let me say that the university

would bestow an honor upon itself by includL~g Professo~ Letwin

wit~in this select group. He is an extraordina~y teacher and a.

~arvelous hu~~n being.

Sincerely, .

~ .. ~··.

Glenn Kr~nsky ·

U.C.L.A. School of Law

Class of 198)

r l

·.

…=:.

)

· …….. . ·~··

· .. ·

.· , .. •. :

“‘ •. ::;.<: .. :·:::\:-.:.’ :·: …

.. .. ·. ~ .

. ..

•• • 0 ••

. ·,

• •• 0

• ” • .: .. • I •,• •

•. .·’ .~ .·..· ··:..· <.:: :· .-:·:;: .. ·. :. .

:·. 0 •• • • :

…. ;_ …. ·

~. . .. • . – ,0 ..

•• • •• •• 0 • •• :_. ;,.. • ••

·.··

. ~ ..

. . ·-···

.• o.• o• .• :·

• ~ 0 • 0

o I lo 0: I ·•· :

. . • ::: ·~:. ~i ;’

. •· .. …

;. . ·. ·: ‘ ·’ .. . : ~ •• I. :: I . ·.

. ~-~ .. :. .. ·. : ·.. :·. .

‘ … ·: ·… . ‘i

. …… : . )···~. ·: : . . •. . ·. . . . .. ‘.. . ; . ~

:-·

Decem::,er 15,

•• • • 0 .·:. ;, ·: •

. ‘ .

I o “,:.. : .,· • ~ : I ‘·

. :: .. :·_ ··~·.’0 0 .• ‘:. J .. i •

. -‘: ·_;’; .! : ~: :.:.· • :_; ·•. .-·;. …. : : . . ! ·…. • ‘ • : 0 • •

_.. · .: · ·. ·. \::·,ne.a·:.r, _.;. ···:\ .: ·… ~ :~ ~:~.:.: ·-::.: -·: . ::. : .·.- .:

… :.·:::_..:. . .-. . . – – . . . ‘: ~- ~–:·:·~·.::.~:-.//(>.:·.·:~;-.• : ·; …

… -~-. ·:; ‘;·: ::·::,;i”:I ‘ain’··~~rit.irig’=”~vith ·the hope that Y01J. 2ight be wi!.ling to write a letter·:.;· … ~.; . •::” ~ ; ··:.

,·_ .. ··.·. . .. ,·._ :··· on. ‘o en•c .~;;1._·_f ~ o-· .-..~._. :-‘D ro_f esse_-r T.: .~eo n•• T.:. Je “~,.”T,t’l: _d_n_ • ‘_T ‘n’ e L~c..’t.,. S c h.. oo1_ h..~c ;o .s a1. ec_-i d e d. to…. ‘.. ··•·. -~.. :.· :…·.: ~;_·._ . ·~.:: ..,. ,: . -·~. · .

– •• 0 o,– 0 0′ •• ; 0 • • • • • 0 • ,., .. , : 0 • : 0 •• • • ‘

· .. :· ._ :.~:-<~:\·.nominatej:him· .f~r a Universi”ty Disting~:.shed Teaching Ar11arcl, and ._our·_··:::,:J,:~~-i~·:·::··:: ~.>:_:.-. :. ·. ·

. . · .. ·::- ::~~-::·.ex.p.erierfce has b_e·en_ that, success depends in large part on havi:ng <~:} .. ~.-~::.~.’:: .. :: .· .· .. · …

· ……. ·-~:=:··.:detailed recom.’!tendations_.~ fror1· students anc!. forr1er students. …·_. :·;;_:;,{.:::. ~·<···.-: .. · .· … _; · · -~ ·.

. ·.·r~·_.: . :./ :::·~~ ~ .. ·. :._~·.·: : .. ·… :-. ·. ‘. . :.- .. . . .. -~ >: … · . .·. ‘ e. . . • . . • . . . . . :. • _: ..= .’:·::··:’){·:.;~i;:::·;·:’:~:::~·:;:>/·~:).:,.\’_’·: :. : : ~- :· .

~’·::·· ,.·;._ … Tne·_.f.,a’tv· _School· has had. __ f:tve ·.w~nners · oi:._· th~s :tmportant aw·ard .:tn J.ts :·; -~·.-:·(i~S: .. :~:··\· ·.(.~::·~ .-i·:··:·’ :.:: …

_ ~ ·

1

··: ·~· .:· .history: Jesse Dukemini.e:-, _’l\ichurt. ~{.;:.}..\·7ell, Stephen· Yeazell, Kenneth.~:;·!;~,.~:··.:-·-(::· … ·,· .. ‘-.(·.< · ·

· . .-.,~\~- .. \.Ka. . rst’ and· Jerry :Lopez. We· hope: that Leon Letwin -.:-1ill be our s;lxth.~.:_::;;;.”i;~;··r~.< ..; “/< \.:.:··.· ·, ·

. .·:-“./~-~-·~:> .. :·~’;~· ~ .:J ·’; :_ .\{_·.”~, .· … · _.:. . . . •. . . ·:· • . ·. . . . ;·.~:~:);;·:\:.’;~:>::~·:’:~.::.’~::~:~~:: .. ~I

~- … :·._·_-·:· ·. If·:you _can··wrife on Professor Let~1in’s behalf, please address your.·_-·.-.t~;~~·:·:..:.t::’·>.–~.~_'< . .<:-.. ‘f··

: ….. ·:· … ·.=.–‘·._.letter __ to me. It _’tvould b:i _helpful i_f you plan· to respond, to. cl~ s_o.\:<: .::r/:.”;,-·:,<~<~. · ~·._;·. _: · .

.. · :-:;·~.- by_.-t·he.·,end of_. the month ot the first week ir.. January. .:··.-.. ·;:’:.~.<:<.~!:: .. , :.· .. ;·:· :··:;

.. ~~ . ‘ ·’our th·~nk~ · ·for any help ~~h·i-:h you ca!! 1 end. · ‘ . : ·;_}_:.~;:.;;:,:;·;,;~/• i • .{ ·

~ • .. • • 0 • · .. .·oo

.··.

. :·

j

.·.

,.

… .. . :·. · ~…,….r…n. ce ….. e1y ~ – ‘

. susan Westerberg Prager

·D~nn.

·-

·.

…..

. . ~::~:f:j~;·;\:1{~·{. :· .. : ·:

• ” , I’ • t o • I~ ~

• ••• • t

. :. ~–i~.?J;,i\~:·.:.: : : . · .

! :

t 0 I of’ e •’ • … ‘·: .. ” … · .

…. . ·

. . . .

.· (‘,

.. … .. .. … • 0

. 0.··:

•. ~

LAW OFF”ICES Or

~ CO’C:OU .. &£1. ~- l . LEE. G. PAUL

ROBE~T P. HASTI”‘Ci5

CHARt.~$ ~.~L~ER

e.~uL, H1-\STINGS, J.;\NOFSKY & \(-\LKER

A PARTNERSHIP IN~l.UOING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS

ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE

SEVENTEENTH ,-I.OOR

TWENT’I’-SECOND F”LOOR

695 TOWN CENTER DRIVE

COS’nl. MESA, CALIFORNIA 9a626

WASHII’ICTO,.., D. ;;;. OFF:Ce: 555 SOUTH FLOWER STREET TELEPHONE (714} 64t•lf00

Stl\TH FLOOR

r:;,”::) ‘TMOp.tAS …1£F”r£ASON ~TA££T, N. W.

w.:.S!otlf’iGTON, 0. C. 20007

Ti:t.E?hON!!: ;a021 .333-8500

LOS ANGELES, CALirORNIA 90071

TELEPHONE (213) 489-4000

WEST LOS ANCELES OFF&C£

P’&f’TH FLOOR

AT\.ANT.A OFF”ICE

CABLE ADDRESS: PAULHAST

SUIT!!: UOO Twx: 910-321-40SS

12.99 OCEAN AVENUE

SANTA MONICA, CAI.tf’OI’tNIA 90401

TEu:PHONE {a&•l 451-Z-436

230 PEACHTR~£ STREET,N.W.

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303

TE~PHON£(604) 588-9900 January 7. 1983

‘r”‘

Susan Westerberg Prager·

Dean

Office of-~ the Dean

U .. C. L·:A. ·”Sc-hool of· Law

Los Angeles, California

–=-near Susan:

OUR FILE NO—–

90024.

You recently informed me that Professor Leon

Le~in has been nominated for· a University Distinguished

Teaching Award. I am happy to write a recommendation as

one of his former students on his behalf ..

Professor ·Letwin was one of the few law school

professo~s that I had who repeatedly remindeq us that the

legal principles which we_studied do not operate in a

social vacuum.. ‘When I was a first year- student I _was

somewhat surprised to discover that the majority of questions·

most professors asked us concerned “What is. the rule .of law

that this case presents?” We spent little time discussing

whether- these principles were “just” or “fair” .. Some

professors would. inquire as to _whether we beli.eved the given

principle was a “good rulen. meaning- did it accomplish the

particular objective for which it was de~igned; Professor

Letwin~ ho\vever, was only one of a handful of· professors who

stressed the importance of det·ermining the social il;npact of

choosing one legal principle over another. He went'”‘ far

beyond merely asking us what a particular case stood for.

He made~us analyze whether a particular rule of Civil

Procedure would provide some form of “justice” to those who

entered the legal process. We frequently discussed the

meaning of 11justice” and the morality of invoking a given

rule.

.-

,.

Susan Westerberg Prager

January 7~ 1983

page 3

I believe these discussions were invaluable.

Professor Letwin helped me to realize that as lawyers we

have an obligation to help preserve the. integrity of our

legal system~ which can only be accomplished by reflecting

on the effect of various ·laws on our legal system. The rules

of law under which we operate are not some ·”end” in and of

themselves, but the means ·of achieving. some form of.·social ~

justice. For this realization I am grateful to him because

as I ·practice I see that many of us tend to focus so closely

on the rules themselves that we lose sight not only of their

ultimate objectives$ but also their eventual impact.

. It is my opinion that few professors make lasting .

impressions on their students, but Leon Letwin is one of the·

few that did leave a mark on m~. I feel he was a superlative

teacher in the classroom and I was impressed by him personally

as well:. He is an· exemplary attorney and r· would strongly·

–recommend that he be awarded a University Distinguished

-rreaching Award.

Sincerely.

r~ 7!~~

Nori Gerardo

· NG:ces

-A

THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA

AT

CHAPEL Hlll

SCHOOL OF LAW December 29, 1982 Tho: Univc:rsit)· of North Carolina at Chapel HiU

Van Hecke-Weuac:h Hall 064 A

Dean Susan w. Prager

tx::IA School of Law

Hilgard Avenue

IDs Angeles, Califonrl.a. 90024

Dear Susan:

Chapd Hill. :’\orth Carolin:l i1Sl4

(919) .962-4113

Thank you for your recent letter advising me that Leon Letw.in ~ ·

being ncmi.nated for a University teaching award- It is an honor he very

much deserves. As you may recall, I took two courses (civil procedure

.—.~ evidence) with Leon before graduating in 1976. While I was

impressed. with his teaching at the time, I think I am even nore

impressed na* that I, myself, have been a law teacher for two years_

Two things seem particularly menorable. First, I remarter certain

substantive~- While, truth be told, .sane of the detailed matters

that one re:canbers for the hours before and after a final exam have

slipped fran my mind, the major ideas have not – that. the law reflects

social policy, and 1;hat the law can }?e changed-

It • s rema:J:kable, really,. that such. ideas could: cane tln:ough so well

_ _ in courses that are essentially procedural in nature. Yet~ without ·

·a recognition of those themes, I think students would leave law school

intellectually and norally ill-equiped to face the practice of law and

their role as. responsible advocates and ccmnunity leaders. .

Second, I re:nember Ieon’s teaching style. Each of the classes ·I bad

with him were large — 90 students or more, as I recall. Notwithstanding

the class size, Leon persistently treated students. as colleagues, whose

opinions were important, whose thoughts were welcane. He himself

approached the difficult subject matter (civil procedure. is, I think the

IrOst universally feared of first year courses) with a liveliness and an

intellectual honesty that is still vivid in my mind. In both these

respects he has sezved numerous students as an important role m:x:lel,

helping them to becane better, m::>re sensitive advisers to their clients,·

and nore effective advocates in court.

Dear Prager

.,/~ Page 2

……. _

In short, Leon is an intelligent, ccmnitted teacher who has helped

his students to .becane more capable lawyers and more· thoughtful people.

I hope his efforts will be recognized by the University in the fonn of.

a distinguished teaChing award.. Please let me know if I can be of

further assistance.

Sincerely”

.I

~?

“”

THE SAMUEL GOLD\’IlYN CO!\.tPANY

Sus~~ Westerberg Prager

Dean,. UCLA School of .Law

405 Hilgard Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90024

RE: LEON LETWIN

Dear Dean Prager:

January 6, 1983

Than~ you very much for your’ letter of December ls,·· 1982 1

advising me that Professor Letwin has been nominated for

the University Distinguished Teaching Award.

-As a freshman law student at UCLA I was in the first -class

·that Leon Letwin taught at the law school.. It was a research

and writing course, and it was my first opportunity to observe

Prof·essor Letwin’s ability and passion for his work. Even with

my limited experience at that time it was easy to see that

Professor Letwin cared deeply about giving us -his best. B~ gave

us a real sense of the importance of both meticulous legal

research and effective expression of a client’s position. I can

only say that the class gave me as much genera1. motivation to.

becane a good ·lawyer, as· i·t gave specif.ic information· about a

particul.ar subject …

During my three years at the law school. I became increaslngly

active in student affairs. I was a founder and Chairman of the

Conference of California Law Schools. It was this group which

initially established a broad plan. far active recruitment of

minority· students to the law schools and propqsed to the State

Bar the internsh!:-p program for certified law students.. :At this time

r· sought Professor Letwin’s guidance in my activities. He

enthusiastically offered his advice and support and became a major

sponsor for .our activities. In addition,. he told me that he

had been working with Dean Maxwell on a recrui~ent program and

invited me to work along with him in formulating a recommendation

for a program which in fact was adopted by UCLA and several other

California law schools.

10203 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD, SUITE .500, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067 (113) SU-22.5′.5 TELEX: 6nl-‘l GOLDSAM LSA

,.,

il{f_

Page 2

S~san Westerberg Prager

January 6, 19 83

Once again Professor Letwin gave freely of his experience

and enthusiasm to broaden the opportunities for legal

education where they were desperately needed_ On a more

personal note, it was encouraging to find that my own interests

in these areas were. fostered by Professor Letwin more as· a

colleague than as a student.. It was another example to me of

his sincere dedication to the quality of legal education.

I have had occasion to keep in touch with many of the students,- ·

programs. and faculty that. I had worked with during school ..

In so many of these contacts Professor Letwin’s name would. come.

up again and again as someone who co~tinued to grow as an educator·

and give of himself in a wide range of activities in the law

school and the community at large.

It was very gratifying to see that Professor Letwin was being

recognized through your· nomi~ation for the award. He is the

·-Rind .. of educator who leaves a specia~ kind o~. stamp on his

students:. the stamp that says it really matters to be dedicated

and committed to doing something well and in doing it wel1 for.

more than selfish reasons. I could not reconun.end anyone for this

award more enthusiastically than Leon Letwin.

— Business Affairs -BMP/lh

ms:za:a::ssc&i£ =- a

,.\

Susan Westerberg Pr~ger

Dean

School of Law

University of California

Los Angeles, California 90024·

Dear Susan;

1531 44th Street, “t-Hi

Washington, D.C. 10007

January 4, 1983

Thank you fo~ giving ~e the opportunity to write a letter

on behalf of Leon Letwin’s nomLnation for a University Disting- .

uished Teaching Award. I can~t thirik of a better nomination, for

a number of reasons. My first class with Leon was first year

Civil Procedure, a norma~ly dry subject and .often a bewildering

one,. especially for a first year student just becoming acquainted

with the often strange ways in. which ~he court· system. works.

·—Leon managed to make that class not only entertaining, through

···ni~- wonderful sense of humor,· but also educationa~. He never ·

·once left his students beh£nd, and always made sure that they

understood the ·points he was making,. but never in a simpl.istic

or condescending way. In my_opinion, to make Civil Procedure

a stimulating subject was quite an accomplishment. I ~njoyed

the c~ass so much, in fact, that I elected to take Evidence

from Leon in my ·second,year. ·I thought that if he could make·

a subject like Civil Proced~e come to life, he might be abie

to do the same thing with an equally dry subject like Evidence,.

and my prediction was correct.

I think that many. law students, once they have taken

mandatory classes like Civil Procedure and Evidence, quickly

forget what they have learned and·. if they· later enter the

practice of law, have to learn it.all over again. I !ound th~~

the lessons Leon taught me stayed with ~~, fro~ Paul Bol~~d·s·

Trial Advocacy class to clerking for a·federal district cour~

judge, to practicing in the Office of the Federal Pub~ic Defender.

In all of these activities, .the law of evidence was crucial,

and there were many occasions when, thinking i was stymied for

an answer to an evidence proble~, one of Leon’s hypotheticals

would come back to·me, and help me arrive at a solution.

I am .. now an assistant counsel to the United States E:ouse of

Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. In that capacity,

·I have had to draft legislation making changes in the Federal

Rules of Evidence, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and

the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Once again~ and for

the same reasons, Leon’s teaching has been invaluable,.

· …

I ~

Susan Westerberg ·Prager

January 4, 1983

Page 2

I think it was his patience and sense of humor that made

Leon’s lessons stay ‘tvi th me; whatever it was,. the mark of an

excellent teacher is not only that.the student learns the

subject matter long enough to do well on the fina~ exam, but

also that he or she recalls the lessons learned, and the

techniques for finding the answers even if the anstvers themselves

are forgotten, long into a later career.

There is one other experience concerning Leon that I ~uuld

like to relate. During the sumner follov!ing MY €irst year, I

worked as a volunteer with Leon and Dick ~·lasserstrom on a habeas

corpus action in the Los Angeles Federal District Court. Leon

and Dick were representing the~r client in a pro bono capacity,

and I assist~d them in legal research, drafting of papers, and

interviewing the client. I also attended court proceedings with

them. At that point in rny career, I’m not sure whether I was

more of a help or a hindrance to them, but they both showed

–:_great patience and enthusiasm for teaching me about the actua1·

practice of law. I saw Leon in a capaci.ty that his other

students perhaps did not. He was entirely dedicated to vindicating

the rights of his client, spent an enormous amount of time

preparing the case, .and did. so with great. technical facility.

My most vivid recollection, however, was his compassion and

warmth toward his client, and his dedication to his beliefs and

to the case. I know that this was not Leon’s first or his last

pro bono case. ~1hile othe:r; professors at the law school

distinguish themselves in high paying “of counsel” positions

with law firms, Leon distinguished himself in my ·eyes with his·

4– generosity of spirit, energy, and time.

I think that the law school has no~inated fine c~r.di~~cs

iri.the past for the Distinguished Teaching A~~rd, bu~ Loc~·~

norn·~ n· a tJ·. on ~· s spec~· a 1 ‘~-c- ause “,”;’. e :·. s an~ ….,,; .,x~—-••” ‘o…,…·.’.•.-…… .~. ·J ::::..3 •..•. -•·-· –.–

many ways. I am pleased to be able to ~~ite on his bc~3l~.

~hank you for asking me.

Sloan

VES:bw

I<IRI<LAND &.. ELLIS

A PARTNERSHir INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORA TIO~S

Denver Office

1625 Broadway

Denver; Colorado 80202

303 628-3000

To Can Writer Direct

312 861-32 84

200 East Randolph Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Telex 25-4361

312 861-2000

January 7, 1983

Dean Susan Westerberg Prager

UCIA School of Law

405 Hilgard Avenue

Los Angeles, California 90024

Dear Dean Prager:

Washington Office

1776 K Street. N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

202 857-5000

I am delighted to have this opportunity to write in

__ support of Professor Leon Letwin’s nomination for a Univer-

—sity Distinguished Teaching Award. In my many years of

association with UCLA~ first as a graduate student in the

Philosophy Department, and then as a. law student, I never

came into contact with a teacher more deserving than Professor

Letwin of this kind of award.

The first thing to be noted about Professor· Letwin

is his unparalleled dedication to the task of teaching Law.

It is a job that he takes very seriously, in the best sense

of the word. It is also a job to_whiCh he brings a great

deal of enthusiasm enthusiasm which. was certainly transmitted

to me, and, I suspect, to most if not all of my

classmates.

?rofessor Letwin is not one to rest on past labors,

nor to-allow his students to do so. For him, a solution in

hand is never the end of inquiry; indeed, it is usually

scarcely the beginning. This is true whether the issue is

substantive or pedagogical, familiar or unfamiliar, straightforward

or complex. Professor Letwin always seems to be

motivated by the thought that there might be-a bet~er answer~

a different and untried perspective, a fresh tactic to

experiment with. This sense of unfinished inquiry was

something that was transmitted, also, to his students (by

inspiration, however, rather than by demand).

,.

KIRKLAND&. ELUS

Dean Susan Westerberg Prager

January 7, 1983

Page Two

My own contact with Professor Letwin came in a

variety of settings, in and out of the classroom, beginning

with my first year civil procedure class. I had been warned

by a.good and very bright friend (another philosopher-turned

lawyer like myself who is now a law_teacher) that civil. procedure

would be the most difficult, boring, and exasperating

class I would ever take in my entire academic career, th~t

it was all just an endless success±on .of arbitrary, vague

and often conflicting rules, ~d that I should be careful

lest I neglect the class too much and flunk it. This

friend of mine, however, had no.t had civi~ procedure .from

Professor Letwin. My civil-procedure class was fascinating ..

The rules we studied were not· arbitrary, but emanated from

a sometimes obscure, often wrongheaded or confused, but

___ always substantial and fascinating logic. The rules we

··–studied were the joint product of all kinds of ideas about

justice·, about politics, and about people, and those ideas,

as.much as the rules themselves, were the subject of the .

course. This is the way civil procedure ought to be taught,

I think. It was the most important class I took at the· law

school (a fact.which I never·would have believed beforehand).

The rules we studied, however, were the same rules everybody

else studied … The casebook was standard.. The obvious

difference in the class was Profe-ssor Letwin ..

I also had “evidence” from Professor Letwin. Here

Professor Letwin used a draft of a new textbook he was preparing

on the subject. The textbook substantially departed

from the “case” method of law teaching, for the reason that

this method seems particularly ill suited to the teaching

of modern evidence law. Professor Letwin has remarked to

me that often the .impediment to teaching a 1aw subject in

the·proper way is the lack of an appropriate book .. But in

his own case, with his dedication and energy, this impediment

didn ‘_t amount to ·much. His evidence text is not a

“case” book. but a “problem” book, in which the pro~lems are~

I believe, almost all of Professor Letwin’s own devising.

It is a project into which a very great deal of thought has

been put, and it is a great pedagogical success. It stands

as further evidence of Professor Letwin’s interest in, and

understanding of, good teaching. The course he taught based

on this book was also, of course, a great success.

,.

.KIRKLAND&. ELLIS

Dean Susan Westerberg Prager

January 7, 1983

Page Three

I also had contact with Professor Letwin through

my occasional participation in discussion groups that drew

faculty, students and practitioners from the Los Angeles·

Legal community, although in numbers the UCLA contingent

was predominant. ·Professor Letwin’s real talent as a

··teacher is inseparable from his character as an open, warm,

and respectful person, and that. character was certainl.y

displayed in these meetings. Unlike some of his colleagues,

Professor Letwin· always acted as though he thought everybody’s

ideas were worth listening to, thinking about care- –

fully, and responding to — even if the person were only a

student, or only a law professor from some other law school

in town.

I could go on at everi greater length extolling Pro-

—:-_ fe-5-sor Letwin’ s virtues, but I will instead wrap up by

stati~g, unequivocally, that he i~ to be recommended for·

a distinguished teaching award absolutely without qualification,

and in the strongest possibl.e terms-. I am convinced

that there· is no one at UCLA more deserving of·such an

award. I know for a fact that no teacher I ever had at

UCLA – and there have been many – is more deserving. I

congratulate the Law School for its wisdom in making this

nomination.. ·

If there is anything else I can do in furtherance of

·~– Professor Letwin’s nominations please don’t hesitate to ask.

Peter G. McAllen

PGM:ram

UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA

The Law School

3400 Chestnut Street I4

Dean Susan w. Prager

UCLA School of Law

405 Hilgard Ave.

PmLADELPHIA 19104

January 14, 1983

Los Angeles, CA 90024

Dear Susan,

I have had three or four great teachers in

my life. Leon Letwin was one of them. What makes

Professor Letwin stand out? He combines qualities

r~rely found in one person.

Yates once said that the 11 first requirement

of the great teacher is the ability to sustain any

independent vision. ‘1 Without a vision, the professor

does not teach, but merely parrots what others have

said. Professor Letwin has a vision. He has followed

this vision even at the risk of estranging those who

actively disputed its legitimacy. Professor Letwin

does not flock with the crowd. His is a truly

original mind.

Yet he never discounts the ideas of others.

He is always open to a change of a heart. In this

sense~ his is a healing presence. By example, he

teaches his students to recognize the humanity in

those with whom they disagree. Unlike many others

who are passionately committed to social change,

Professor Letwin is not self-righteous.

His openness to the ideas of others flows

naturally from his deep respect for human beings. He

never loses sight of the fact that students are people.

Life in the law school.can overwhelm many students.

“. ‘

Professor Letwin is always there with a kind word and

an open door. He is particularly concerned to

encourage’women and minority students, and those

who have a div~rgent point of view.

To have known and studied under Professor

Letwin has been one of the most significant experiences

of my life.

DC:jb

Thank you

~ub

(Drucilla Cornell. is’ Assistant Professor

of _Law .at the· University· ~of Pennsylvania

La:w· .School··. ) · · ·

.,,

,

L..~W OFFICES

~ ~:..l.l”::>”i .J. AB::LS0:-.1

~ 3M~JLE:’:” WM. SRUNON

MI=:HARD E. ROSS’

M..loM”iA L. SMITH

~\BELSOX … .\XD BRCXOX

A PROF’C::SS:OtlAl. CORPORA710N

3ol NORTH CANOr-. DRIVE- SECOND FLOOR

BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210

Spsan Westerberg Prager

Dean, School of Law

December 22, 1982

University of california, Los Angeles

LOs Angeles, California 90024

Dear Dean Prager:

I am writing in support of Professor Leon Letwin’s candidacy

for the University Distinguished Teaching Award. I am grateful for

the opportunity to share my· views about someone. for· whom I .feel

tremendous.·respect. · Please do not hesitate. to contact me. if r· can

provide any further information.

Professor Leon Letwiil is an extraordinary individual. I was

fortl.Ulate enough to be a student of his in Evidence during my last ·

year at the u.c.L.A. school. of Law. That was one of my mos.t

outstanding educational experiences .. ·

Evidence is generally regarded as one of the most difficult

subjects in the legal curriculum.. It combines an enormous number of

detailed rules from overlapping jurisdictions; yet those narrow rules

·directly depend upon challenging abstract premises.. Facility in

evidence requires mastery of both .the rules and the abstractions.

Professor Letwin· creates- the stimulating atmospbe.z:~ necessary to

undertake such an endeavor.

rn. my present association with experienced practitioners of

crimina1 law, the insight which Professor Letwin imparted into the

byzantine· field of evidence bas been invaluable. The Evidence ·

textbook which he is authoring should .make a lasting contribution.

Even though not yet in final form, his book is a highly· regarded

resource for our entire office. It is rare indeed when a· person can

be equally comfortable with both the scholarly and practical aspect of

a discipline. Professor Letwin is such. an educator and author.

Moreover, Professor Letwin is an outstanding teacher. Be is

unusually adept at drawing out the large-number of students who are

uncomfortable in the competitive environment of a law school class.

Typically, after -the first few weeks of a semester, participation in

the classroom dialogue is limited to those few who have an intense

interest in the subject and an aggressive personality. In Professor

Letwin’s classes, a much larger group of students than usua1 feels

sufficiently comfortable and interested to speak. This, of course,.

improves the educational climate for everyone.

. -‘ H!7L’0″. -\’~0 f)R,\[:\0:\ ~ _,.,J.,. V’- ·’ … ·’

A ;:>i’!·~:ESSIONAI. COP!PORA’l”!Otl

Dean susan Prager

December 22, 1982

Page 2

Professor Letwin is particularly receptive to the neeas and

interests of those me~hers of the law school community who are

isolated from and unsupported by the traditional academic structures.

For instance, an extremely important aspect of the _study of evidence

involves the .subject of rape. Rape evidence rules are ve~

complicated and based upon a number of controversial and difficult

assumptions. In other classes, discussion of rape bas frequently

resulted in the discernable alienation of one group of students or

another. Professor Letwin successfully handled the reoccurring issue

in a sensitive manner.

Bis concerns extend beyond the confines of the classroom.

When the Law Schoo~ community bas been filled with dissension over the_·

emotionally charged issue of ·•special ·admissions … , Professor Letwin ·is

one of the few persons among the students, faculty or administration

who seems capable of maintaining a dialogue with all the various and

diverse advocates. · · ·

Yet Professor Letwin is also a dedicated and effective

___ advocate as ·well. In my last year at U.C.L.A. School of Law, _

controversy erupted over methods to increase the declining.

participation in the classrooms~ A proposal was circulated throughput

the-Law School by an appropriate faculty committee that aroused great

antipathy amongst a majority of the student body. Professor-Letwin

drafted a written response in opposition to the proposa1 and

participated in an unusually well-attended open forum on the ~tter.

His simple eloquence in both media was instrumental in persuading the

authors of the controversial proposal that a different approach would

be more effective. Prior to his involvement, the situation appeared

to be seriously degenerating. Professor Letwin’s· contribution was

invaluable. ,_·.

Leon Letwin is a warm, gentle individual, with a sense of

humour and. graciousness that inspires trust and respect. As I have

been fortunate to have known him as a teacher, so is the University of

California fortunate to have him distinguishing its faculty.

Sincerely,

JJD/lf

~ “

~

~:)t

~~ :.~:. f ~-; • • • •

-~- -·- …. …. ..-:-:

DELAWARE LEGAL SERVICES CORPOR.~TION, INC.

(DJ.SC)

915 WASHINGTON STREET

WilMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801

(302) 575-0667

January 10, 1983

Dean Susan W. Prager

University of California, Los Angeles

School of law

405 Hilgard Avenue

Los Angeles,. CA. 90024

Dear Susan:

It was with great pleasure that I learned t!:at. Professor

Leon Letwin has been nominated for a University !:istinqui.shed

Teaching AWard. Of all the fine faculty members :hat I

·had the opportunity to become associated With at UCLA~ Leon

L”etwin comes the closest · to embody~g the attribttes. of the

ideal professor •.

I was a student in Professor Letwints Civil Procedure

course. I found him. to be ·a· challenging teacher~ who truly ·

seemed to understand the core philosophy of the Socratic Method.

While in no way ignofing Black Letter Law, he took his

students·far beyond it,·forcing them to look at the LawPs

effect on the system, and to question and analyze: the poli:ces

underlying the Law. Professor Letwin never played the Socratic

game of “hide the .ball” which some of those who do not fully

understand. the Socrati.c Method sometimes tend to do. Professor ..

Letwin however, realized that the Method is a path upon which

·both student and teacher tread.. He realized that although the

teacher may possess the greater knowledge~ he/she does not

always have “the answer”, and therefore the Socratic Method

is a mutual learning experience for both teacher and student.

The result of· this philosophy held by ProfessorLetwin

on his students was to influence their approach to the law.

Rather than look at cases, statutes or .rules in hope of finding

the answer to a problem, those who had the privilege of learning

from him were taught to approach an issue from all s:ides, find

the various arguments and counter-arguments, thorougly analyze

c

Dean Susan W. Prager

January 10~ 1983

Page 2

their various merits, and to choose the ~st argument to suppo~t

their contention.

In addition to Professor Letwin’s desire.to see his students

develop acad.emic.ally, he was concerned wi-th thei,.r. personal. lives

as well. In the classroom he was polite and respectful of. a1~ .

and he was. quite sensitive to pressures· ‘Qat all. law stud~nts;.·

especially new ones, are subject to. Prctessor Le~-was also

. available for advice outside of the .classroom, whether.- such

advice w””a.S sought in connection with- acaC,_o.mic or persona1 .

matters. When presented with a student’s problem,. Professor

Letwin would give it his greatest consideeation and would go

considerably out of his way to help reach a resolution of the.

problem.

In sum, I can · think of no one. tba t t would mare ·heartily

recommend,.. or who is more. deserving of ·receiving· the University

Distinquished Teaching Award. I am proud that by nominating. ·

Professor Letwin the Law School has recog:tized his· excellence;..

and I hope that the University will have the wisdom to do the

same. If there is anything further that I can do, p1ease do

not hesitate to contact me.

DBC:pdf

With war=est regards,

–=– jr~~

DOUGlAS B. CANFIELD

Acting Managing Attorney ·

/

Susan Westerberg Prager

Dean

School of’ Law

University of’ California

Lris Angeles, Ca. 90024

Dear Dean Prager:

January .5. 1983

This letter is in response to your request that I write to you on

behalf’ of Professor Leon Letwin, who has been nominated by the Law

School for a University· Distinguished Teaching Award.

Professor Letwin merits the Distinguished Teaching Award not on1y

because he is an excellent tea·ch:er in the law school. classroom,·

but also because he devotes considerable time and effort to teaching·

law students l:ess formally. outsid.e of the classroom.

;

\”lhen I was a law student at UCLA, I took Evidence Law from Professor

Letwin. Rather than approaching the subject matter in the trad·iti

·onar·-academic fashion,. he used his own text,. which emphasized

actual p~oblems a lawyer would encounter in attempting to apply

the evidence laws in court. Professor Letwin encouraged substantia1

class involvement in working through these· problems in class~

Unlike many law professors who teach large classes~ he did not

need to resort to calling on people in order to obtain.responses

to his questions. Students who almost never voluntarily participated

in class discussions responded to him and participated,, despite the

class’ large size of over one hundred students.

~rofessor Letwin encouraged students to ana1yze not just the legal

issues presented by evidence rules, but also the underlying political

and societal issues presented by the structure of evidence

law~ · He managed gently to induce students to examin·e the implications

of-particular aspects of the law for criminal defendants,

poor people, and others who become involved in our justice system.

While he clearly disclosed his own views of the implications of

the law for our society, its impact on the underprivileged, and

possible appropriate reforms, those students who.did not agree

with his views never felt threatened or stifled from presenting

their own views to the class. Professor Letwin managed to create

a warm, intimate, supportive enviroruuent in which to learri techniques

for analyzing evidence rules, despite the· size and diversity

of the class.

Teaching law well involves more than merely classroom instruction.

Professor Letwin was not only available outside of’ class to discuss

legal issues with students, he was actively involved with us. In

particular, he provided his advice and moral support to the UCLA ·

chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, which consisted of students

I •

-2-

concerned about the bias of the ·legal system against the poor,

minorities, women, and other underprivileged members of our society.

Because the methods of law school instruction are best geared to

t eachi ng the students who .aspire to careers with large law firms,

and encourage law students to choose such a career, the moral

support which Professor Letwin personally provides to students

who desire· to serve the legally underserved is a powerful factor

in preserving these students’ enthusiasm for serving such clients.

Not only does Professor Letwin provide support to these students

when they are attempting to formulate positions on issues affecting

the law school community, such as affirmative action, he also en-··

courages such students to think about our legal system on a broader

philosophical level. When I was ·a student, Professor-Letwin and I

both belonged to an ad hoc study group of law students. and professors

which met to discuss the impact:.bf’. •various .bread :·:t• ·. ·

areas of the law, such as our workers compensation and torts systems,

on our societyp and what better systems in these areas

would consist· of. This study group helped me and other students

to better formulate in our own minds not just how we wanted to

serve the public but why we wanted to practice and think about

law in a certain fashion. In addition, these monthly meetiP~s

we~e forums for developing the skills· of those of us who desire

to be reformers of the leg~l system, as well as lawyers.

In conferring its Distinguished~ Teaching Award, the University

should consider whether a nominee has helped the University to

meet its obligation to serve the community as well as its obligation

to instruct its students. Profe~sor Letwin’s teaching

of students, both inside and outside the classroom, embodies

the kind · of· instruction a public university such as UCLA should

aspire to. His teaching ~parts both a technica~ knowledge of

the law and a bette·r a bill ty to analyze the law’s ramifications

.for<.the community. Furthermore, Profesor Letwin induces students

to examine the implications of the work they will do .once they

graduate, and encourages those who wish to serve the underserved.

He helps students to find within themselves the tools to deal with

the moral.-and societal dilemmas they will face as lawyers, as well

as the necessary knowledge of the law. I believe that my association

with Professor Letwin in my years as a student equipped me

to better serve the community_and has made me a better lawyer.

Professor Letwin merits the University’s Distinguished Teaching

Award in every way.

Esq.

Class

DURON & ESPINOZA

ATTORNEYS AT LAt”l

205 SO. BROADWAY, SUITE

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

(213) 613-0203

January 10, 1983

1020

90012

Mrs •. Susan Westerberg Prager

Dean, School of. Law

University of California, Los Ange~es

Los Angeles, Ca~ifornia 90024

Dear Dean Prager:

It is with great pleasure, that I write to endorse the

·nomination of Professor Leon Letwin .for the University Distin-.

guished.Teach~ng Award.

I first-became closely aquainted with Professor Letwin

·-when a group of formen CoUn.cil on Legal Education Opportunitie-s

(CLEO). students organized to bring this excell.ent enrichment

program. to· U.C.L •. A. Law School for the sunnner·of· ·1977. Professor

Letwin not only enthusiastically endorsed the project but he

became, at our urging, its director·that swmner. Needless to ·

say, with his vast experience with minority students over the

_many years he has been at U.C.L.A-r the project was a success.

As you know I have

schoo1’s policies. But

about Professor Letwin.

was always respected by

the years ·for his views

always disagreed with many of the

I do not have an unkind word to say

His sincerity in dea1inq with students

us and we often consulted him over

and guidance.

Professor Letwin is a shining example of_a thoughful., caring

:man ·in the finest U.C.L.A.- tradition.. Our years there were

made ·easier (except. in the classroom) because people like Professor

Letwin made the effort to understand and consult us about

is·sues of concern to minority students. In short, ·1 cannot

think of a man more deserving than Professor Letwin to receive

the University Distinguished Teaching Award.

Sincerely,

AD:sg

P.S. As you can see, another former student, Peter Espinoza

and I have opened our own law practice (as of last week).

….

•’

OCHOA M BARBOSA

HENMY S. BARBOSA

DOUGLAS O. BARN C::S

JOHN M. COLEMAN

RICHAMO J. MORILLO

RALPH M.OCHOA

MALCOLM S. SEGAL

HERMAN SILLAS

ROSC: SLOAN

Tl!w!OTHY H. e. YARYAN

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PARK EXECUTIVE BUILDING

925 L STREET# SUITE 905

SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95814

(916) 447-3383

:..OS ANGELE.S OFFICE. .

·:lVIA7T BUILDING, SUITE 810

617 SOUTH OLIVE STREET

LOS ANGELES, CA 90014

(213) 622-9170

PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL

Dean Susan Prager

School of Law

January 7, 1983

University of California, Los Angeles

Los Ange.les, California 90024

Dear Susan:

I was delighted that our dear friend, Professor Leon

Letl-Tin, has been nominated for a University Distingu{shed.

Teaching Award. I am writing to you, trusting that you will do

–me -the personal favor of communicating my sentiments t,o the

appropriate persons.

As you will recall, in 1969 I was the only M~xican

American in California to graduate from an accredited law

school- UCLA. A tragic commentary; although in a very·

personal vein I’m glad it. was I. I’ve had the help of a number

of fine, outstanding, sensitive and, yes, courageous people.

along the way from East Los Angeles to Westwood to Washington,

D.C. and then to Sacramento. I feel I’ve been privileged to

have had a number of experiences and positions most· people· and

~- especially a minority· ~1ill never have, including the honor of

.accompanying, with the title of Special A.~bassador, then First

Lady Mrs. Rosalyn Carter to Costa Rica for the inauguration of

President Rodrigo Odio.

Susan, the reason I mentioned these experiences is that

I know how special they are, and frankly none of that would

have happened to me but for the sensitivity, the courage and

the unselfishness of my friend Leon Letwin. There was a time

in my life at UCLA Law School when I was convinced that I

should drop out of school. Like ma~y young Chicanos~at that

time, I thought I alone carried the future of nmy peopleD on my

shoulders. True or not, real or imagined, some of-us were

comnitted to enhancing the quality of life and the

opportunities in life for minorities. UCLA, in ny opinion, and

especially UCLA Law School, has nade a differen·.:e in my life

and has helped me make a difference in the lives of others –

and all for the good. Leon Letwin helped me ap_preciate the

opportunity I had to first of all help myself. :Ie helped me to

understand the anger, the hostility, the shame, the

c

Dean Susan Prager

January 7, 1983

Page Two

frustration, the ·ambition and the goals. Leon Letwin showed me

how to focus what he perceived as my talents in the right

direction. Most of all, my friend Leon Letwin understood my

need to help other Hispanics \’lho found themselves trapped by

their inability to cope with the system.

As I \vrite and recall the experiences I’ve ear-lier.

mentioned, I feel proud and privileged to have touched lives

along the way. I am convinced I accomplished in my own small

way a better tomorrow for some. If there is merit in all of

that – and I believe there is – my friend Leon Letwin was a

very special force in touching my life and showing me how to

lead “my people”. to a higher quality of life.

Susan, please convey my feelings·· to the appropriatepersons

with ~J strongest recommendation that Professor Letwin

__ re.ceive. the University Distinguished Te:aching Award.

Warmest regards,

G?¥’– RALPH l1. OCHOA

Ri’10/em

. ….,

BUENA VISTA CABLEVISION, INC ..

~

PRESIDENT

DAVJDOCHOA

… January 5, 1983

Ms. Susan Westerberg Prager

Dean

UCLA SchooL o£ Law

Office of. the-. Dean.

405 Hilgard A~ua

Los. Angel.es, CA. 90024-

Dea:r: Dean. Prager: ·

It is a pleasure to support :Leon Letwin. as. the Law. Schoo~ • s

nominee-· for the “University Distinguished. Teaching Award••.

In 1967, the. UCLA Law School vigorously acted to remedy ·

the 1ack of. minorities attending:. the Law School. … · At that

time, ·Leon was instrumental in recruiting me. and a hand

fu11. of others to begin this· program. ..

It is my bel.ief that Leon L~twin. gave this i.ni..ti.a1. effort

credibil.ity and subsequently· the deqree of success it has

-enjoyed to this date. During my three years at the Law

School, Leon worked hard to support us emotionally, per- ·

sonal.ly and, of course, in. the areas of tutoring and schol-arships.

At the same time, he worked with the Administration

and his faculty colleagues,. assuring them of the minority

prog~am’s integrity.

Fina1ly, and on a personal. note, Leon has remained a col-

1eaque and friend to many of us, now in our own careers •

There are a great number of students that can attest to

simi1ar experiences .now, and many of them are women, His-

_panics, Black and.- ian 1aw students and attorneys. I

high1y recomme Leon Letwin as. a recipient-of this award~

of .L……a _w Class of 1970)

2036 Lemoyne Street, Los Angeles, CA 90026, (213) 668-1330 (213) 669-1028

r=-Jt u { f-v

Lt ~c lfJ

January 17, 1983

Dean Susan Prager

UCLA School of Law

Campus

Dear Dean Prager:

LOS ANGELES: SCHOOL OF LAW

I am happy to learn that the Law School is nominating

Professor Leon Letwin for a Distinguished Teaching award and am

delighted to provide you with my appraisal of pis teaching skills. Leon

and I joined the faculty at the same time and for nearly 20 years we

have b~th taught different sections of the courses in Evidence and Civil

Procedure. For a number of years we worked together on a set of

·teaching materials for the Evidence course, a collaboration that

permitted me to see and discuss his approach to teaching. In addition,

we have_ .both worked with students and other colleagues in the National

LaWyer’s Guild and the Critical Legal Studies Group. In short, I

believe I know as much as it is possible to know about Leon’s teaching

without having,been a student in one of his classes.

The most distinctive· feature of Leon’s teaching style is his

ability to resolve the dichotomy that bedevils all of· us who teach

would-be professionals; namely, the split between our own scholarly

interest in.the law as a body of knowledge to be understood and the

interest of our students in learning it as a set of techniques to be

used. For most of us, teaching the “bread-and-butter” skills is the

PFice we pay for the opportunity to pursue a more theoretical inquiry

into the law— and our. classroom activities have an appropriately

schizophrenic flavor. · Leon is able to combine these two aspects of

professional education. ~is central goal in teaching is the pursuit of

meaning; i.e., he constantly pushes his students to see what the lawyer

becomes when he or she employs a particular technique in a legal sys~em

with the theoretical characteristics that seem to explain ours.

This focus on what it means to be a lawyer accounts, in large

part, for the affection Leon’s students have for him long after they

have left the law school and explains his ability to appeal to students

who do not share his political beliefs. Here is a teacher who can offer

more than sympathy to them when they confront the clash between the

values that led them to choose a career as a lawyer and the techniques

they will be expected to employ to earn a living in the profession.

Leon’s exploration of the meaning of their professional lives gives his

students something they well understand will be of value long after the

legal rules he has taught them have been forgotten or repealed.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-(Letterhead for Interdepartmental Use)

Dean Susan Prager – 2 January 17, 1983 ·

Leon’s teaching goals are complemented nicely by his classroom

style. Unlike some popular teachers whose appeal lies in the

virtuosity with which they employ their wit and charisma to play upon

student responses to their questions to elicit the important points in

the materials, Leon prefers to focus the class upon the students. His

faith that the students are capable of seeing the important issues and

his interest in how they respond to them, encourages the students to

participate in class discussion and to debate the values involved among

themselves rather than with him. Students are more likely to come away

from his class saying, 11Gee, we had a great dis·cussion today!”, rather

than “Wow, the professor was in top form today.” Indeed, in discussing

his evidence classes with his students, I have found that many of them

find it difficult to say why they like his teaching or even to describe·

its features, so unobtrusive is his guiding of the discussion.

This is not to suggest that the classes are like some

encounter group; law students ar~ quite impatient with formless

discussion that ends up nowhere. But Leon has a unique gift of knowing

just what student to call upon to offer a contrasting point of view on

the-issue under discussion and just how to cut off the verbose response

that is not contributing to the understanding of the rest of the class.

Because he is genuinely interested in the views of others he has an·

uncanny knack for picking out the student whose analysis of the case or

rule will expose some· facet of. the issue not previously mentioned. The

result of this teaching style is that his students have a sense that

they are learning rather than being taught and have a confidence in

their own. abilities to deal with the issues that is not as widely shared

by students in classes that are taught by the stereotypical socratic

method.

— Leon is a person with a passionate commitment to a particular

view of social justice. He uses that commitment to challenge his

students to develop their own meaning for their professional lives. But

the ·challenge comes in a form that invites response rather than demands

adherence or- coerces silence. The fact that he is so comfortable in his

commitment makes it easier for students with opposing points of view to

challenge him because it is obvious that he is not threatened by the

fact that others disagree and does not.need to demolish opposition in

order to preserve his sense of psychic well-being. The result is that

he is liked and respected even by students who think him totally

mistaken.

As an indication of Leon’s dedication to teaching, I should

also mention the effort he has devoted to preparation of his own

teaching materials for the class in evidence. Evidence is a subject

rooted in the practice of trial courts; the role of appellate courts is

of peripheral importance and in recent years has been increasingly

superseded by legislative control of the subject. Yet casebook

publishers, for reasons that need not be analyzed here, are unwilling to

publish teaching materials that focus on the statutory development of

Dean Susan Prager – 3 January 17, 1983

evidence law and its implementation in trial courts. Hence, teachers,

such as Leon, who are concerned with more than “bar exam evidence,” have

been forced to resort to production of their own course books. Since

these “unpublished” teaching materials are given scant weight by those

responsible for promotions, Leon’s work in preparing his coursebook is a

good illustration of the value he places on his teaching.

Ironically, Leon’s greatest contribution as a teacher is one

that is difficult to document and one in which ·r think he counts himself

as a failure. I speak now of Leon as a professional role model for his

students. Except for those few people who think that the public

interest is best served by turning out iarge numbers of corporate

practitioners, most of us agree that it is important that as a

state-funded institution we should be encouraging our students to make

careers outside the “Wall Street·firms. 11 Leon is, if my recollection is

correct, the only member of our faculty whose practice as a lawyer

consisted of representing human beings rather than corporations or

governmental entities. Unlike most of.us, when he draws on his

.experience to illustrate some rule, he can show how the rule affects

people rather than property interests. Several of our alumni who have

become legal services lawyers, public defenders, public interest

lawyers, or solo practitioners have mentioned to me how much they have

been influenced by Leon. When I meet former students at alumni

functions, bar association meetings, or at continuing education courses,

Leon is thE member of the faculty they most often ask about.

The law school has a number of outstanding teachers, but I can

think of none whose efforts are more deserving of recognition than Leon

Letwin.

KWG:vgm

Sincerely ·yours,

\ .

L1AvUAAf’A..:~

K:l:e~~-~ G~aham, Jr.

Professor of Law

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. SANTA CRUZ

BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVL~E • LOS ANCELES • RIVERSIDE • SA.~ DIECO • SAN FRA.~CISCO SANTA BARBARA • SANTA. CRUZ

Dean Susan Prager

School of Law

University of California

405 Hilgard

Los Angeles, California 90024

Dear Sue:

KRESCE COLLECE

SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA 95064

(408) 429-2683

January 17, 1983

I am happy to write in support of the Law School’ s nomination of Pro·fessor

Leon Letwin for the Distinguished Teaching Award. As you know, Leon and I

were colleagues and friends during the twelve years I was a member of the

U~LA Law School faculty. As a member of the faculty during that period

I heard virtually nothing but very good things about Leon•s teaching from

the large number of students whom I also taught and with whom I talked

informally about the quality of teaching at the Law School. The kinds of

things that would regularly be singled out for special praise were Leon’s

genuine respect and concern for students, the combination of informality,

preparedness, and rigor characte.ristic of his classes, and his ever present

intelleetual quest and concern for the normative issues and assumptions of

fundamental importance to lawyers involved in the areas of law which were

the. foci of his courses. But all of this is, .of course, reputation evidence,

and, as Leon would insist, not the most probative kind of evidence relevant

·to establishing a point. Still, though, I think it entitled to some weight

in the context of one’s reputation within the Law School community.

More directly to the point, perhaps, there are, I think, at least two

aspects of· Leon’s teaching about which I have something special to contribute.

The first of these has to do with the materials that Leon produced .for

his course in evidence. It is Leon’s view, which I share, that traditional

case books are not well suited for the teaching of evidence. More effective,

he believed, would be materials that provided lots of focusedJdiscrete problems

which would help students both to see how the various rules of evidence

might arguably be applied to them and to test their own understanding of the

various rules. He began, a number of years ago, to try to develop a more

adequate set of materials than those commercially available for his evidence

course. Soon after I began to teach evidence, I used his materials, and I

continued to use them as long as I taught evidence because I judged them

superior materials for an evidence course.

With each year, the materials got better and more complete. Leon saw the

need for substantial textual discussions that would introduce students to

Dean Susan Prager 2 January 17, 1983

the concepts and difficulties of the sections of the evidence codes under

examination before the students tried to work the problems. He produced

masterfully lucid, informative textual introductions to each of the separate

topics. These textual introductions were much more than restatements of the

code sections and their supporting doctrines. They were, instead, thoughtfu~

probing essays which both explained the doctrine and subjected it·, :where

appropriate, to tentative but searching–often original–reexamination and

criticism. I think, for example, of some of the sections on character

evidence where Leon raised some of the interesting and fundamental questions

about the assumptions made by the law of evidence in this area. I think the

materials in their present form are an investigation of the law of evidence

that is both an intellectual accomplishment of real significance and a

marvelously effective as well as imaginative teaching tool. I used the

latest version of the materials last spring when I taught evidence as an

adjunct professor at Santa Clara Law School: I was impressed as were the

students. The materials did much to make it a successful course.

The second aspect of Leon’s teaching about which I have something specific

to say concerns the UCLA Law School’s commitment to the education of minority

stud~nts and the Law School’s implementation of that commitment. I joined

·tne UCLA Law faculty just about the time that it was seeking to formulate

the nature of its commitment to minority student legal education. Leon

was surely among the very few most active faculty members seeking to bring

~bout a substantial change in the composition of our student body. He was

also among the most dedicated in his willingness to think through what needed

to be done to make this change a real and lasting one~-one that would benefit

the entire student body and the entire faculty, and, ultimately, the bench

and bar. One of the first new programs that resulted was the. CLEO Summer

Program held, I think·, at UCLA in the summer of 1968. Leon directed the

program and I was one of the faculty who taught in it. Although Leon formally

did more administering than teaching that summer, the teaching that was done

was heavily and beneficially shaped by his ideas, leadership and support

as we first planned and then conducted that initial program. I thought

Leon taught all of us a great deal about new questions to ask about the

law, about how to learn from as well as to teach minority students from·

non-traditional backgrounds and with non-traditional concerns, and above

all about how to·maintain and to live a deep and abiding concern for racial

and economic social justice that is firm but not dogmatic and that treats

all persons (as far as that was possible in this difficult, often intractable.

area) with genuine decency and respect.

Leon’s concern for and commitment to minority student legal education

continued during the entire time I was at UCLA. I am sure that there are

some ways i~ which minority faculty members can make educational contributions

that cannot be duplicated by white male faculty members such as Leon.

Nonetheless, I think an important part of the case for his designation as

a truly distinguished teacher surely rests upon the sensitive, compassionate,

non-patronizing, committed teaching and leading that Leon has consistently

provided in this extremely difficult area.

Dean Susan Prager 3 January 17, 1983

I enthusiastically support the nomination and I hope very much that Leon

is a recipient of the Award. It is fully deserved.

Best wishes.

RW:bw

Yours very truly,

y.~ tf ~;.:=t::;;:.

Richard Wasserstrom

Professor of Philosophy

Chair, Board of Studies in Philosophy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s