PHIL 2060

It's a pretty chill class. The 8 am start is pretty rough, but overall, it is a good class. Professor Adams is really funny and cares about what he is teaching. He uses the chalkboard, which is an engaging class if you choose to be engaged. I will say that for half of the lectures, I didn't pay attention, but I was still able to understand the midterm. The midterm is also a TAKE HOME assignment where you have a week to write 8 250-word responses to questions. Two main questions with four subquestions. The questions use examples from class and discussion, so take notes, even if it's brief. My TA was Anna, and she was amazing.

I would say this class is different from what it's branded as, with HEAVY emphasis on philosophy and less so on law (Prof. Adams warns about this on the first day). It's not so much about practical, implications of law and more so on theories of law and what law COULD be. The course-content was interesting enough, though it gets repetitive. For a philosophy major/minor, Prof. Adams is an excellent lecturer, and this is probably a great class. For someone like me, pre-Law and more interested in LAW, I tended to be bored, especially during the discussion sections. Work-wise, I would say you could get by with going to the lectures and then just doing the 2-3 readings that are relevant to the prompt you choose to answer for the midterm/final, instead of all of the readings. This was a very solid class overall, as it definitely gave me a moral basis to reflect upon when I consider being a lawyer later in life, but I probably wouldn't have taken it if given the choice again, as my brain isn't wired to appreciate philosophy. I found the nuances and circular reasoning that goes into philosophizing tedious and pointless.