What E&E books can I study before 1L? Forum

[Grizz]

+1 to everything GTL Rev just said. Absolutely spot on reasons for why 0L prep is probably a waste of time.

GTL Rev is one of my fave posters on here. Especially for the great tar.

[dailygrind]

1) i really, really doubt that everyone has a solid grasp of the material come exam time. unless by "solid" you mean something less than "knows how to answer every question that has been posed in class or in the readings."

This is a straw man. Obviously not everyone--in fact, probably nobody--"knows how to answer every question that has been posed in class or in the readings." He said that everyone has a solid grasp of the material; not that everyone morphed into Rain Man. FWIW, it was my experience that basically everyone had a firm grasp of the rules and concepts by exam time. Can't speak for whether that is the case elsewhere or not.

::shrug:: i thought everyone i knew had a firm grasp of all the basics, but there were a lot of random things that people weren't clear on. on occasion, some of that crap finds its way onto tests. in one of my classes one question came straight outta left field and blindsided almost everyone. in another class, a past test had a question which was pretty clearly meant to do the same. would 0L reading have alerted me to it? probably not, but possibly so. as i've said before - i don't think 0L prep has a high return to time invested, but i do think there can be a positive return.

2) even if everyone had a solid grasp of the material come exam time, the person who got there sooner had more time to practice applying the material on practice tests and to read more hornbooks.

This implies that 0L prep people "get there sooner." But they don't. They will often be confused by extraneous stuff, E&E items that conflict with their prof's view of the law, and in some cases overconfident as to their knowledge. More than that, stuff you "learn" in July will almost certainly be forgotten by December, so the prepster doesn't get there sooner. Instead, they run the first lap twice. Fine and well if that's what you want to use your free time on, but don't delude people that it is going to be beneficial grades-wise in the overwhelming majority of cases.

i did some quasi 0L prep and the way i learned excuses in contracts was entirely different than how my contracts prof saw it. despite that, i didn't have a big issue keeping the ideologies separate, and i can today describe both views of the doctrine. could everyone do that? probably not. could others do that? probably yes.

3) in theory, if you learn through 0L prep it's supposed to aid in your learning as you go. it's not so much that you finally snap everything together during finals and are like: "aha! that chapter in glannon's guide to civ pro now makes sense!" it's more like you read through discovery and are like: "well damn, XYZ section is really similar to what i learned in glannon, but glannon said something about ABC also, i wonder if that's important?"

There are lots of questionable assumptions packed into this, including the fact that people will remember what they read over the summer. That may sould silly to 0Ls reading this, but it really is true: by the end of the semester you really forget large pieces of what you learned in the first few weeks. That's why building your own outlines is often good--it gives you a chance to refresh/re-learn that material. Second, there's the un-learning/conflicting interpretations issue I mentioned above (which DF also mentioned). Then of course there's the well-documented burn out factor.

i'd say i forgot huge chunks of what i read over the summer - indeed, if i remember more than 15% of it i'll be shocked. but when you're on a curve with people who are roughly as smart as you are, it's nice to have a few cards up your sleeve, even if they aren't aces. i don't think it significantly increased my chances of burn out, but i was fairly interested in the material i was reading, and as jazz said, it'd probably be a bad idea for someone who wasn't interested in the material.

[09042014]

Have we considered the fact that Cavaliers are drunkards?

[gbpackerbacker]

tag

[JazzOne]

Edit: I'm glad to see that this discussion has turned to a more moderate position. It is ridiculous to say that there can never be a benefit to 0L prep. I benefited a lot, and I destroyed my class first semester. Then they got with the program, and things got a lot tougher second semester. I think it's easy to get way ahead of your class and dominate first semester of 1L. The time investment may not be worth it to certain people, but there definitely can be a tangible benefit to 0L prep.

Eh, we'll see. I can't speak to your situation really since I don't know you, but IMO, the reason 0L prep is worthless is because learning the material is only a small part of the battle. As DF said, just about everybody is going to have a solid grasp of the material come exam time. You could do tons of 0L prep, know that shit inside and out, and still finish outside of the top of the class due to an inability to convey it how your prof wants it, and get beaten on the curve by people who did nothing but read the casebook throughout the semester and hit the supps hard starting around Thanksgiving.

This is essentially what I (and 90% of my classmates) did, and while I don't know how I did on my exams, I can tell you that I knew the material just as well if not better than my classmates for the exam. I can barely remember the law school stuff that I read back in August; I have no clue how reading about it in June or July would have helped me at all.

I have explained how it helped me previously in this thread, but it bears repeating because the hardliners are really wrong. You don't have to remember the 0L material during the final. It is sufficient if you remember it when you get to the corresponding chapter in your class. If you already know the rules, then you don't have to waste time ferreting them out of vaguely written opinions. Instead, you can focus on the application of that rule. Focusing on the application when everyone else is trying to decipher the rule means you're one step ahead.

[megaTTTron]

Edit: I'm glad to see that this discussion has turned to a more moderate position. It is ridiculous to say that there can never be a benefit to 0L prep. I benefited a lot, and I destroyed my class first semester. Then they got with the program, and things got a lot tougher second semester. I think it's easy to get way ahead of your class and dominate first semester of 1L. The time investment may not be worth it to certain people, but there definitely can be a tangible benefit to 0L prep.

Eh, we'll see. I can't speak to your situation really since I don't know you, but IMO, the reason 0L prep is worthless is because learning the material is only a small part of the battle. As DF said, just about everybody is going to have a solid grasp of the material come exam time. You could do tons of 0L prep, know that shit inside and out, and still finish outside of the top of the class due to an inability to convey it how your prof wants it, and get beaten on the curve by people who did nothing but read the casebook throughout the semester and hit the supps hard starting around Thanksgiving.

This is essentially what I (and 90% of my classmates) did, and while I don't know how I did on my exams, I can tell you that I knew the material just as well if not better than my classmates for the exam. I can barely remember the law school stuff that I read back in August; I have no clue how reading about it in June or July would have helped me at all.

I have explained how it helped me previously in this thread, but it bears repeating because the hardliners are really wrong. You don't have to remember the 0L material during the final. It is sufficient if you remember it when you get to the corresponding chapter in your class. If you already know the rules, then you don't have to waste time ferreting them out of vaguely written opinions. Instead, you can focus on the application of that rule. Focusing on the application when everyone else is trying to decipher the rule means you're one step ahead.

Very well said.

[JazzOne]

There are lots of questionable assumptions packed into this, including the fact that people will remember what they read over the summer. That may sould silly to 0Ls reading this, but it really is true: by the end of the semester you really forget large pieces of what you learned in the first few weeks. That's why building your own outlines is often good--it gives you a chance to refresh/re-learn that material. Second, there's the un-learning/conflicting interpretations issue I mentioned above (which DF also mentioned). Then of course there's the well-documented burn out factor.

I disagree with this, but it may be just a personal proclivity. I can remember things I read for years and years. Sometimes I can recall entire chunks of text verbatim years after I read it. I can remember things I read as a child. So for me, 0L prep was entirely worth it. During my exams, I cited things like Rest.3d sections that we didn't cover in class. I don't mean that I cited those instead of class material. I cited them in addition to the class material.

I am also entirely unconvinced by the conflicting interpretations theory. I found it to be very interesting and helpful when my professors expressed views that differed from the E&E. I had multiple perspectives from which to form my own opinion and understanding of the law. If someone is not smart enough to tease out differences between the E&E and his professor's position, then I don't think that person could ever dominate law school.

Finally, 0L prep was really important for me because I came from a science background. I had never read a judicial opinion. I was completely unfamiliar with the terminology and the forms of argumentation used in legal discourse. Because of 0L prep, I hit the ground running, ready to engage my professors with important questions from day one.

Oh, and it is definitely wrong to think that everyone understands the BLL by exam time. It's easy to become biased when you're at the top of the class and surrounded by law review types, but someone has to bring up the bottom of the curve, and those people are often confused about the subtleties of their course material. The material is undeniably easy, but there is so much of it, and some people just can't muster a continuous effort for 14 weeks straight. They get lazy here and there, skip a lecture, don't read some material, and before they know it, they're misunderstanding various points.

Perhaps 0L prep is useless for a majority of people, but TLS posters are not a majority of law students. We're the over achievers, and for many of us, 0L prep makes it extremely difficult for our classmates to compete.

[HowdyYall]

There are lots of questionable assumptions packed into this, including the fact that people will remember what they read over the summer. That may sould silly to 0Ls reading this, but it really is true: by the end of the semester you really forget large pieces of what you learned in the first few weeks. That's why building your own outlines is often good--it gives you a chance to refresh/re-learn that material. Second, there's the un-learning/conflicting interpretations issue I mentioned above (which DF also mentioned). Then of course there's the well-documented burn out factor.

I disagree with this, but it may be just a personal proclivity. I can remember things I read for years and years. Sometimes I can recall entire chunks of text verbatim years after I read it. I can remember things I read as a child.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqbXPfaN_VM

[JazzOne]

There are lots of questionable assumptions packed into this, including the fact that people will remember what they read over the summer. That may sould silly to 0Ls reading this, but it really is true: by the end of the semester you really forget large pieces of what you learned in the first few weeks. That's why building your own outlines is often good--it gives you a chance to refresh/re-learn that material. Second, there's the un-learning/conflicting interpretations issue I mentioned above (which DF also mentioned). Then of course there's the well-documented burn out factor.

I disagree with this, but it may be just a personal proclivity. I can remember things I read for years and years. Sometimes I can recall entire chunks of text verbatim years after I read it. I can remember things I read as a child.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqbXPfaN_VM

lol

Yeah, there's no doubt that I'm a social retard. I'm working on it though.

I especially like how Ray rearranged the shakers on the table.

[romothesavior]

I will also add that I (and almost everyone I know) was completely fried by the end of the semester. I was so burnt out and ready to be done, and I can't imagine having worked for an extra month or two on the front end. I am so, so, so glad I spent July and early August getting drunk, hanging out with the SO, playing X-Box, and working. Had I gotten off of work at 5 and come home and read about strict products liability and the Coase theorem, I would have 1) ruined my summer and 2) been even more burnt out after 4-5 months instead of 3.

Think of it this way: for most 0Ls, the summer before 1L is literally the last summer of your life that you get to relax and do next to nothing. No job hunt, no stress of law school, no major life responsibilities, no 12 hour/day grinds at the firm, no clients to please... just cold beer, X-Box, and kickin it in your parents basement. I know for me (and for most of my 1L friends and my TLS friends) this whas the last time I ever got to live that life. I am glad I didn't spend a few hours a day after 8 hours of work studying about things that would almost certainly not help me this semester.

But different strokes for different folks I guess. Personally, I think the best 0L prep is to chill the hell out and enjoy your summer, but what do I know? I'm just a 1L.

[Grizz]

I will also add that I (and almost everyone I know) was completely fried by the end of the semester. I was so burnt out and ready to be done, and I can't imagine having worked for an extra month or two on the front end. I am so, so, so glad I spent July and early August getting drunk, hanging out with the SO, playing X-Box, and working. Had I gotten off of work at 5 and come home and read about strict products liability and the Coase theorem, I would have 1) ruined my summer and 2) been even more burnt out after 4-5 months instead of 3.

Think of it this way: for most 0Ls, the summer before 1L is literally the last summer of your life that you get to relax and do next to nothing. No job hunt, no stress of law school, no major life responsibilities, no 12 hour/day grinds at the firm, no clients to please... just cold beer, X-Box, and kickin it in your parents basement. I know for me (and for most of my 1L friends and my TLS friends) this whas the last time I ever got to live that life.

But different strokes for different folks I guess. Personally, I think the best 0L prep is to chill the hell out and enjoy your summer, but what do I know? I'm just a 1L.

Bro don't lie, we had jerbs and spend much time at said jerbs on TLS.

[JazzOne]

you'll be writing for faculty who don't publish.

Not at my school. I can't speak to others, but where I went, the 1L faculty members were among the most prolific publishers (and the most well-known).

Yeah, at my school the best professors teach first-year classes. Those professors publish a lot. And Volokh's books are terrific.

Edit: I'm glad to see that this discussion has turned to a more moderate position. It is ridiculous to say that there can never be a benefit to 0L prep. I benefited a lot, and I destroyed my class first semester. Then they got with the program, and things got a lot tougher second semester. I think it's easy to get way ahead of your class and dominate first semester of 1L. The time investment may not be worth it to certain people, but there definitely can be a tangible benefit to 0L prep.

The issue isn't who teach first-year classes, it's who teaches first-year writing classes.

First-year writing classes are a subset of first-year classes, so my comments apply to the writing classes as well. Plus, you have to write for almost every professor on the exams, not just the writing courses. I have had very few completely multiple choice exams.

[quakeroats]

you'll be writing for faculty who don't publish.
Not at my school. I can't speak to others, but where I went, the 1L faculty members were among the most prolific publishers (and the most well-known).

Yeah, at my school the best professors teach first-year classes. Those professors publish a lot. And Volokh's books are terrific.

Edit: I'm glad to see that this discussion has turned to a more moderate position. It is ridiculous to say that there can never be a benefit to 0L prep. I benefited a lot, and I destroyed my class first semester. Then they got with the program, and things got a lot tougher second semester. I think it's easy to get way ahead of your class and dominate first semester of 1L. The time investment may not be worth it to certain people, but there definitely can be a tangible benefit to 0L prep.

The issue isn't who teach first-year classes, it's who teaches first-year writing classes.

First-year writing classes are a subset of first-year classes, so my comments apply to the writing classes as well. Plus, you have to write for almost every professor on the exams, not just the writing courses. I have had very few completely multiple choice exams.

The issue I mentioned was whether Volokh's book would be particularly helpful as 1L prep. It won't do much for you on substantive exams, as there isn't time to write as one would for a note or an article. As for writing profs, try this experiment: pick four non-writing faculty members and look at there CVs; now do the same with four members of the writing faculty.

[quakeroats]

The issue I mentioned was whether Volokh's book would be particularly helpful as 1L prep. It won't do much for you on substantive exams, as there isn't time to write as one would for a note or an article. As for writing profs, try this experiment: pick four non-writing faculty members and look at there [sic] CVs; now do the same with four members of the writing faculty.

Your point that writing faculty don't publish is well taken. But I don't know what, if anything, follows from that fact. You imply that Volokh's book won't help for 1L legal writing & research, but I strongly disagree if that is in fact your argument. Virtually all 1Ls are absolutely, positively horrible at legal writing when they enter law school. Lord knows I was (and still have a long way to go). Volokh's book can help them begin to understand how to improve--and in ways that will help with the writing course, even if the writing there is somewhat more simplistic than one sees in the pages of the Harvard Law Review.

My point is that I wouldn't recommend Academic Legal Writing for 1L prep. The sort of canned assignments and idiosyncratic rules typical of a 1L writing class don't allow for thoughtful writing. This is further complicated by the profs who range from students to contract employees who don't have tenure--often because they don't/can't produce the kind of work Volokh seeks to further. Volokh's book is excellent. It should be read early and often, just not in preparing for law school.

[sfdreaming09]

Edit: I'm glad to see that this discussion has turned to a more moderate position. It is ridiculous to say that there can never be a benefit to 0L prep. I benefited a lot, and I destroyed my class first semester. Then they got with the program, and things got a lot tougher second semester. I think it's easy to get way ahead of your class and dominate first semester of 1L. The time investment may not be worth it to certain people, but there definitely can be a tangible benefit to 0L prep.

Eh, we'll see. I can't speak to your situation really since I don't know you, but IMO, the reason 0L prep is worthless is because learning the material is only a small part of the battle. As DF said, just about everybody is going to have a solid grasp of the material come exam time. You could do tons of 0L prep, know that shit inside and out, and still finish outside of the top of the class due to an inability to convey it how your prof wants it, and get beaten on the curve by people who did nothing but read the casebook throughout the semester and hit the supps hard starting around Thanksgiving.

This is essentially what I (and 90% of my classmates) did, and while I don't know how I did on my exams, I can tell you that I knew the material just as well if not better than my classmates for the exam. I can barely remember the law school stuff that I read back in August; I have no clue how reading about it in June or July would have helped me at all.

I have explained how it helped me previously in this thread, but it bears repeating because the hardliners are really wrong. You don't have to remember the 0L material during the final. It is sufficient if you remember it when you get to the corresponding chapter in your class. If you already know the rules, then you don't have to waste time ferreting them out of vaguely written opinions. Instead, you can focus on the application of that rule. Focusing on the application when everyone else is trying to decipher the rule means you're one step ahead.

Very well said.

+1

[to blave]

Very useful thread, even if you guys don't reach a consensus on the best strategy. TLS rocks!

[sfdreaming09]

HLS 1L -didn't 0L prep for last semester. Did E&E's for this semester. They helped. Without a doubt. Do I remember even a word from the books? Undoubtedly no. But while everybody else has been spinning their wheels with the cases, I've been working through the only single thing that makes a noticeable difference in grades: supplements.

To all 0Ls: if you want to maximize grades, prep, and prep hard.