The administration has once again displayed a troubling lack of foresight and disregard for our success by mandating a pilot course during our most critical semester in law school. At this stage, we are already managing an intense academic workload, balancing major assignments, projects, and critical preparations that will significantly impact our final outcomes. Implementing an untested course structure under these circumstances has added unnecessary stress and uncertainty to the already overflowing laundry pile of anxiety we are carrying. While innovation in curriculum design is important, it should be introduced with careful planning and consideration to ensure it supports, rather than disrupts, student success.

I agree with the description of the petition. This class is poorly formatted and railroads students into writing what are essentially identical petitions for a writ of certiorari. There is insufficient guidance and the rubric is so strict as to defy writing's nature as a creative endeavor. And yet, despite the rubric's stringent requirements the scores vary wildly from section to section for no discernible reasons beyond the graders' proclivities towards harshness or leniency. While some amount of variance is inevitable, my fellow students are suffering because they were not as fortunate as I was to get a professor who follows the rubric but also applies common sense. Please hear your students' pleas and change this course to pass/fail.

A single credit for a pilot test course that's only being offered in the final semester of our Law School career. A SINGLE CREDIT course that could prevent someone from sitting for the July Bar Exam. Pass/Fail is a necessary and fair implementation.

Some professors provide feedback on the assignments too close to the deadlines. This does not allow students to have enough time to incorporate the feedback in their next assignments.

The vast difference in grades among the sections say it all… This course was poorly planned, expectations are unclear, and students are expected to copy and paste rather than developing their own strong writing skills.

New England Law Boston erred in their decision to pilot an experimental curriculum for a mandatory writing course during our final semester of law school. Students must not be penalized for the administration’s failed opportunity to launch a successful legal writing program in time for the class of 2025 to meet standard accreditation requirements for graduation.

I am a 4L evening student

The fact that this course was thought up and implemented so quickly is immediately apparent. The videos at times contradict the written instructions. The rubric for the 2nd module punished me for actually reading and thinking, and then rewording the quotations in my own words. I then got points by just copying/pasting quotes. This is not teaching us anything. The video-based lectures are not respectful of students with different learning styles, who may need captions or some writings to follow. For the very small percentage of students who will actually argue before the Supreme Court, this course might be helpful. For the overwhelming majority of students, however, this class is meaningless and impractical. There are far better ways to assess our writing ability, which is admittedly an important part of a legal education. But those assessments could be built in to existing classes that focus on students' areas of interest, or Coach's first-semester class (writing for the bar exam) could be made mandatory.