Class record · LAWS · LAW

LAWS 2110

Critical Perspectives: Law, Context, and Professional Identity · 30 instructors on record · 80 sections

How the curve score is built

58Teaching66 raw · 4th percentile of BC classes

+6Easiness adjustmenteasiness 99 · 21 raw workload · lighter than 99% of BC classes

64Curve scorethe teaching curve +6 for the workload · at most ±6 either way

Boston College's ratings are bunched at the top — the median instructor averages about 88 out of 100 on the raw scale, and 44% of them clear 90 — so a raw score cannot separate anybody. Every figure here is ranked against BC classes and that rank is re-expressed out of 100, which is what turns a raw 88 — the middle of the university — into a figure that says where somebody actually stands. On this scale 77 is the median, 84 the top quarter and 91 the top tenth. Workload is then an adjustment on top of that, worth nothing at all for an ordinary one. Lighter work than almost every one of the BC classes we hold.

What the course score is made of

66BC evaluations80 records · weight ×1.0 · Fall 2022 – Fall 2025

—Student reviewsno reviews — does not contribute

—RateMyProfessorsno ratings — does not contribute

The class itself, averaged across everyone who taught it — who taught it is the board below.

How is this worked out?

That is what a student picking a section is actually choosing between: the board carries each instructor's own score for this class, and the score above is the class averaged across all of them.

What the challenge rank is made of

1stMore challenging than 1% of BC classesranked against every one we hold

69BC — “Intellectually Challenging”80 records · raw score out of 100

Boston College's own “intellectually challenging” question. It is not a measure of difficulty, grading or workload.

How is this worked out?

Boston College's own “intellectually challenging” question for this class only — students answer it positively about courses that stretched them, so it measures intellectual challenge and NOT grading, workload or quality. Almost every BC class scores high on it, which is why it is shown as a rank rather than a score.

What the workload rank is made of

1stMore work than 1% of BC classesranked against every one we hold

21BC — “Workload”80 records · raw score out of 100

One of Boston College's five workload bands, not a number of hours. Higher means more work, not worse.

How is this worked out?

Boston College reports workload for this class only as one of five bands, not as a number of hours, and it does not publish what the bands mean — so this site will not translate it into hours. Higher means more work, which is not the same as worse.

This is a required, one-credit, pass/fail Fall course for incoming 1Ls. The course will introduce a core set of critical perspectives that will give 1L students the basic skills to begin to think deeply about the role of race, gender, wealth, and power in the law, in the law school, and in their own professional identity formation.

The board

30 instructors · ranked on this class onlyCompare the top 3

Find an instructor among the 30Filters the rows below. Positions are always against the whole class, so a rank does not change when the list is narrowed.

Scores are real averages. The order also accounts for how many records back each one — the count is under every score — so one perfect review does not outrank a semester of them. 9 of the 30 rows carry a mark saying so.

Rank	Instructor	Curve	Easiness	Challenge	RMP overall
1	Filippa AnzaloneLaw	9294 raw · 4 records	99+6 to the score	2nd	—no page
2	Daniela UrosaLaw	8791 raw · 4 records	99+6 to the score	3rd	801 rating · all classes
3	Elisabeth MedvedowLaw fewer records	8992 raw · 3 records	99+6 to the score	3rd	—no page
4	Reena ParikhLaw	8489 raw · 5 records	99+6 to the score	1st	—no page
5	Stephanie FarneLaw Provisional fewer records	9193 raw · 2 records	99+6 to the score	3rd	—no page
6	Geraldine HinesLaw	8388 raw · 4 records	99+6 to the score	2nd	—no page
7	Daniel FarbmanLaw Provisional fewer records	8691 raw · 2 records	99+6 to the score	4th	—no page
8	Mary HolperLaw Provisional	8590 raw · 2 records	99+6 to the score	1st	—no page
9	Laurel DavisLaw	8086 raw · 12 records	99+6 to the score	1st	—no page
10	Joseph LiuLaw Provisional fewer records	9294 raw · 1 record	99+6 to the score	0th	—no page
11	Brian QuinnLaw Provisional	8489 raw · 2 records	99+6 to the score	2nd	—no page
12	Maureen Van NesteLaw Provisional	8489 raw · 2 records	99+6 to the score	0th	—no page
13	Amanda TeoLaw Provisional fewer records	9093 raw · 1 record	99+6 to the score	0th	—no page
14	Ana RiveraLaw Provisional	9093 raw · 1 record	99+6 to the score	1st	—no page
15	Aziz RanaLaw Provisional	9093 raw · 1 record	99+6 to the score	3rd	—no page
16	Felipe ColeLaw Provisional	9093 raw · 1 record	99+6 to the score	4th	—no page
17	Claire Donohue PronoLaw	8086 raw · 6 records	99+6 to the score	0th	—no page
18	Judith Mc MorrowLaw Provisional fewer records	8489 raw · 1 record	99+6 to the score	0th	—no page
19	Evangeline SardaLaw	7985 raw · 3 records	99+6 to the score	1st	—no page
20	Jenna CobbLaw Provisional	7985 raw · 1 record	99+6 to the score	0th	—no page
21	Heather ArroyoLaw Provisional	7884 raw · 1 record	99+6 to the score	0th	—no page
22	Raul CarrilloLaw Provisional	7783 raw · 1 record	99+6 to the score	18th	—no page
23	Paulo BarrozoLaw	7580 raw · 4 records	99+6 to the score	1st	—no page
24	Alan MinuskinLaw Provisional fewer records	7074 raw · 1 record	99+6 to the score	0th	—no page
25	Cheryl BrattLaw	7581 raw · 7 records	99+6 to the score	0th	—no page
26	Lumina SatoLaw Provisional fewer records	6769 raw · 1 record	99+6 to the score	0th	—no page
27	Karen BredaLaw Provisional fewer records	7175 raw · 2 records	99+6 to the score	0th	—no page
28	David MartinLaw	7277 raw · 3 records	99+6 to the score	0th	—no page
29	David OlsonLaw Provisional	6363 raw · 1 record	99+6 to the score	0th	—no page
30	Vik KanwarLaw Provisional	5550 raw · 1 record	99+6 to the score	0th	—no page

All 30 instructors listed.

19 of 30 rows are marked provisional: fewer than 3 records stand behind the number. That is thin evidence, not a bad instructor — the record count is in every row. The RateMyProfessors column is an instructor's overall figure across everything they teach, not a figure about this class.

How this board is built and ordered

Positions account for how many records stand behind each number, so one perfect review does not outrank a semester of them. Every score shown is the real average — only the ordering is adjusted. The comparison here is the class itself: a thin record is read against how this class was rated overall, not against the university.

Every instructor with an evaluation record for this class is on this board — it is not a top ten, and nothing is hidden behind a “show more”. Curve is the instructor's score for THIS class only, ranked against every instructor we hold and printed back out of 100, with the raw BC average underneath it; nothing on this board is an average across the other things they teach. Easiness is an adjustment on top of it, worth up to about ±6 — BC's workload item, ranked and turned over, so a lighter section gains and a heavier one loses, while an ordinary one changes nothing — and each row prints the adjustment, signed. The board is ordered on the same figure it prints, adjusted for how many records back it. Challenge is BC's “intellectually challenging” item shown as a rank against every class we hold; students answer it positively about courses that stretched them, so it is not a measure of difficulty or grading, and it is never marked better or worse.

That site has no course dimension, so its figure is shown for information and kept out of the ranking.

The line

All 13 items · means across 80 records

Instructor4

Course3

Feedback3

Workload & Challengenot ratings

Bars are ranks, not raw scores. Nothing here is graded good or bad.

What each item asks

Explains Clearly: The instructor was effective at creating an understanding of difficult subject matter.
Available: The instructor was available for help outside of class.
Motivating: The instructor motivated me to do my best work.
Sparks Interest: The course stimulated my interest in the subject matter.
Organized: The course was well organized.
Clear Goals: The learning objectives for the course were clear.
Useful Later: What I learned is applicable beyond this course.
Assignments: Assignments and exams contributed to my learning.
Fast Feedback: I received feedback on my work in a timely manner.
Useful Feedback: The feedback I received on my work was meaningful.
Workload: How much work the course took outside class, on Boston College's five-band scale — the band boundaries are not published, so this is not a number of hours.
Challenge: The course was intellectually challenging.
Attendance: Attending class was necessary to do well in this course.

Why these numbers are curved

Both the number and the bar are the rank against every comparable record we hold, printed back out of 100. BC's questions all have a median around 4.5, so on the raw scale every cell here would read in the high eighties and every bar would be nearly full — thirteen numbers that tell you nothing. Each cell prints its raw BC figure and its percentile underneath, so nothing is hidden by the transform. Every bar is one ink colour — nothing here is graded green or red. The hatched bars are not ratings at all: a higher number on either describes a different course, not a better one.

Game log

80 sections · newest first

Instructor	Term	Sec	Instr	Course	Work
Laurel Davis	Fall 2025	01	74	64	20
Raul Carrillo	Fall 2025	02	83	74	20
David Martin	Fall 2025	03	68	49	20
Ana Rivera	Fall 2025	04	93	69	20
Amanda Teo	Fall 2025	05	93	66	20
Laurel Davis	Fall 2025	06	90	78	20
Felipe Cole	Fall 2025	07	93	68	20
Laurel Davis	Fall 2025	08	92	82	20
Claire Donohue Prono	Fall 2025	09	90	68	20
Reena Parikh	Fall 2025	10	93	85	20
Laurel Davis	Fall 2025	11	83	73	20
Brian Quinn	Fall 2025	12	89	71	20
Aziz Rana	Fall 2025	13	93	80	20
Evangeline Sarda	Fall 2025	14	92	78	20
Daniela Urosa	Fall 2025	15	88	76	20
Geraldine Hines	Fall 2025	16	87	70	20
Filippa Anzalone	Fall 2025	17	100	91	20
Paulo Barrozo	Fall 2025	18	90	80	20
Elisabeth Medvedow	Fall 2024	01	89	71	20
Geraldine Hines	Fall 2024	01	87	71	20
Paulo Barrozo	Fall 2024	01	80	71	20
Reena Parikh	Fall 2024	01	93	71	20
Paulo Barrozo	Fall 2024	02	77	66	20
Elisabeth Medvedow	Fall 2024	03	96	79	20
Geraldine Hines	Fall 2024	04	89	74	40

Showing the first 25.

How to read this board

Instructors are ranked on their record in this class only, never on their average across everything they teach. Scores are out of 100 — Boston College's 1–5 agreement scale, ×20, the way these numbers were printed for years. Workload is BC's own five-band figure, not a number of hours, and is shown as a rank. A dash means the question was not reported, and is never a zero.