Con Law: Only Reading Chemerinsky =O

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
phonepro
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 8:59 pm

Con Law: Only Reading Chemerinsky =O

Postby phonepro » Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:18 pm

I cannot take reading 10 page cases and not getting anything out of it after reading it anyway. Thus, I completely stopped reading my casebook and only read the corresponding pages in Chemerinsky.

I've actually been able to follow class discussion much better, even thoughtfully participating. My professor raises some of the points that Chemerinsky already laid out for me.

However, I am petrified that neglecting the ASSIGNED reading from the casebook is a terrible idea.

Thoughts? Am i going to miserably fail my final if I continue this way

User avatar
goosey
Posts: 1543
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:48 pm

Re: Con Law: Only Reading Chemerinsky =O

Postby goosey » Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:17 pm

phonepro wrote:I cannot take reading 10 page cases and not getting anything out of it after reading it anyway. Thus, I completely stopped reading my casebook and only read the corresponding pages in Chemerinsky.

I've actually been able to follow class discussion much better, even thoughtfully participating. My professor raises some of the points that Chemerinsky already laid out for me.

However, I am petrified that neglecting the ASSIGNED reading from the casebook is a terrible idea.

Thoughts? Am i going to miserably fail my final if I continue this way



I am personally too paranoid to do this, but I am sure others will say they did it and it worked great. I think that at the least cases provide and example of the reasoning, which I think for con law in particular will be very useful for exam discussion. I know that chemerinsky lays it out really well, but I think I prefer to have the entire back-and-forth reasoning as a backdrop to the major points so that I can argue both sides on the exam.

User avatar
20160810
Posts: 19648
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:18 pm

Re: Con Law: Only Reading Chemerinsky =O

Postby 20160810 » Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:55 pm

It might not be that you're slacking too might - indeed you might not be slacking enough. If you're interested in conlaw, Chem is an amazing resource, but I got away with reading neither the cases nor his book. Instead I just found an old outline from my prof's class and used the E&E on an as-needed basis. Talk to 2/3Ls and see if you can snag an outline, or look in the outline banks of any clubs you belong to. Getting that "big picture" is one of the things which really helps to make 1L conlaw make sense in a manner that you can use to create that mental flowchart from which to answer issue spotter questions.

User avatar
wiseowl
Posts: 1071
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:38 pm

Re: Con Law: Only Reading Chemerinsky =O

Postby wiseowl » Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:46 pm

phonepro wrote:I cannot take reading 10 page cases and not getting anything out of it after reading it anyway. Thus, I completely stopped reading my casebook and only read the corresponding pages in Chemerinsky.

I've actually been able to follow class discussion much better, even thoughtfully participating. My professor raises some of the points that Chemerinsky already laid out for me.

However, I am petrified that neglecting the ASSIGNED reading from the casebook is a terrible idea.

Thoughts? Am i going to miserably fail my final if I continue this way


I did what you did and got my highest grade so far. It's still obviously a gamble.

User avatar
uzpakalis
Posts: 319
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:36 pm

Re: Con Law: Only Reading Chemerinsky =O

Postby uzpakalis » Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:36 pm

I never started reading the casebook. I'm hoping Chem + 2L's outline + practices tests = win!

lawloser22
Posts: 241
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2011 12:18 am

Re: Con Law: Only Reading Chemerinsky =O

Postby lawloser22 » Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:25 pm

uzpakalis wrote:I never started reading the casebook. I'm hoping Chem + 2L's outline + practices tests = win!


same here

User avatar
Tangerine Gleam
Posts: 1349
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:50 pm

Re: Con Law: Only Reading Chemerinsky =O

Postby Tangerine Gleam » Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:47 pm

My prof straight up told me that he disagrees with Chem on some issues and that I would miss points going with some of the Chem-guided analysis.

If I learned one thing in my successful first semester, it is to *always* make sure that you know how to describe/analyze things exactly as your professor likes.

The Chemerinsky is very helpful, but I would never ditch my casebook for any class. That said, I have no doubt that many destroy without their casebook...I'm just too paranoid about shit like that.

User avatar
A'nold
Posts: 3622
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: Con Law: Only Reading Chemerinsky =O

Postby A'nold » Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:12 pm

Tangerine Gleam wrote:My prof straight up told me that he disagrees with Chem on some issues and that I would miss points going with some of the Chem-guided analysis.

If I learned one thing in my successful first semester, it is to *always* make sure that you know how to describe/analyze things exactly as your professor likes.

The Chemerinsky is very helpful, but I would never ditch my casebook for any class. That said, I have no doubt that many destroy without their casebook...I'm just too paranoid about shit like that.

It's funny when professors say stuff like this......penis envy at its best.

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Con Law: Only Reading Chemerinsky =O

Postby keg411 » Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:06 pm

Post-2006 cases = Chemerinsky pwnd.

Honestly, I've been reading both. It takes longer, but it's helpful.

Kobe_Teeth
Posts: 964
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:40 am

Re: Con Law: Only Reading Chemerinsky =O

Postby Kobe_Teeth » Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:09 pm

I'm convinced my prof is often reading straight from Chemerinsky when he lectures. I definitely ditched the casebook. It makes me paranoid but the paranoia is worth it when I notice that my con law readings no longer take forever AND feel worthwhile, which was previously not the case with the casebook.

User avatar
zeth006
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 2:54 am

Re: Con Law: Only Reading Chemerinsky =O

Postby zeth006 » Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:53 pm

My take so far has been to read Chemerinsky only for the bigger picture summary. My prof admitted he doesn't care too much about the notes in between the cases in the Stone casebook, but I've lately noticed his lecture style is purely that--getting the big picture by understanding how the Supreme Court cases fall together to record trends in the expansion and contraction of federal powers (See Commerce Clause and Dormant Clause). Chemerinsky does all that nicely. But If I need all the rule summaries and restatements taken from the cases, I use wikipedia or legalines. These two tend to fill in the gaps and complement each other.

I rarely read cases if ever. I just underline stuff in the casebook the prof brings up in class and record parts of important quotes into my notes.



It's a gamble, I know. But the amount of time required to do the actual readings AND understand them is a bit much, ya know?

User avatar
iagolives
Posts: 687
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: Con Law: Only Reading Chemerinsky =O

Postby iagolives » Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:21 am

I did this and I did fine. If your prof and casebook are disasters, I think, personally, its better to have a solid grasp of the law, even if you miss a few of the "special points" that going by a specific casebook/prof. That could just be me though. I'm glad I only did the Chemerinsky because, let's admit it, Con Law is a gunner class and, no matter how much time I put in, I wasn't going to A+ anyway.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: baileymjd, dannyswo, wg6524 and 13 guests