Recommended Reading in Preparation for Law School Forum

[Sogui]

Fuck that guy, no professor expects more than 20% of the class to understand ANY economics.

Depends on the professor. I'll be more specific though. Know Coase Theorem and you're good to go.

My contracts professor clerked for Posner and had a PhD in Economics. If he isn't going to require an understanding of coase theorem then who would?!

I never learned it and was fine without coase theorem, he brought up the "essence" of the theory that I roughly transcribed here and then we moved on after 10 minutes. I wouldn't have even known it except for the fact my econ friend brought it up.

He also used the Black-Scholes Option pricing model but I think almost anyone in the room understood the basic gist of his argument. Plus that was all "hey this is something fun to think about" information, not really the stuff he tests on exams.

[JazzOne]

I personally think 0L prep can be quite helpful and fun. Don't read a lot of dense material because you don't know exactly what your professors will cover. However, if you are interested in the law, reading the E&Es and answering the questions can be fun, and it's a great way to prep for exams. I don't mean "prep" as in "memorize the BLL." I'm talking about just being prepared to dissect problems into discreet issues and organize your answers into a specific format. I practiced that so much that when it came time to take tests, it was just second nature.

Also, there is a really good Barnes & Noble publication called Great Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court by Harrison and Gilbert. That book has the right level of detail vs. generality for 0L looking to learn a little about case law without delving into the minutiae.

[JazzOne]

Fuck that guy, no professor expects more than 20% of the class to understand ANY economics.

Depends on the professor. I'll be more specific though. Know Coase Theorem and you're good to go.

My contracts professor clerked for Posner and had a PhD in Economics. If he isn't going to require an understanding of coase theorem then who would?!

I never learned it and was fine without coase theorem, he brought up the "essence" of the theory that I roughly transcribed here and then we moved on after 10 minutes. I wouldn't have even known it except for the fact my econ friend brought it up.

He also used the Black-Scholes Option pricing model but I think almost anyone in the room understood the basic gist of his argument. Plus that was all "hey this is something fun to think about" information, not really the stuff he tests on exams.

The "something fun to think about" lessons are what separate the top exams from median. Also, Coase Theorem may be of only minor importance to 1L Property, but it's extremely important in Intellectual Property. Your 2L classes will actually build on the ideas you learn during 1L.

[GeePee]

I have the same question as OP. One person told me that learning to speed read would be helpful in law school. I downloaded a speed reading software program and have seen dramatic improvements in my speed.

do not read anything in preparation for law school with the hope that the reading will ultimately aid you in getting better grades. waste of time. read if you want to. if not, just relax. you'll get the hang of it.

This is a joke right?

Your limiting factor in law school is not going to be your knowledge of the law, it will be your ability to apply the law you know to a fact pattern. Part of this is spotting issues, part of this is common sense, and part of this is just practicing how to best articulate what the specific issue on the exam is.

The bottom line is that your 3 months of 1L are more than enough to get a handle on the law. If you also do your due diligence in taking practice exams and learning from your mistakes, then it seems like you'll be in a good place come exam time.

[Sogui]

Wait you're a 1L? Please tell me you're not, and that you have grades and you're not just spouting off.

This is just wrong. While relying entirely upon supplements/ comm outlines is a mistake they can play a large part in your studying/ reading. Many, many students use hornbooks and E&Es and do very well. Don't listen to anyone who makes blanket statements like the above poster.

Now, 0L reading is way more controversial and questionable. But the above poster is just wrong.

Find your own balance and don't be afraid to use supplements/ comm outlines.

Please see:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/success- ... chool.html (NYU Student who heavily relied upon E&E's & hornbooks.)
http://www.top-law-schools.com/loyola-study-advice.html (Arrow who heavily relied upon E&E's & hornbooks.)
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=104810 (My thread & my story at my T1 before I transferred, using E&E's, hornbooks, and comm supps)

I'll clarify one part of my statement but stick to the rest. Hornbooks WON'T necessarily hurt you. But I see hornbooks about as relevant to success as whether or not you decided to take up a musical instrument during that semester.

1) Go to class
2) Read
3) Take good class notes
4) Make an outline from those class notes
5) Use that outline and do all the practice exams, under real conditions whenever possible
6) You are as prepared as you will ever need to be for a law school exam

So that's awesome that you and Arrow and some other guy did well with using hornbooks, but IMO you took the method that burnt away far more time than required. I mean, my 2L friend only cracked a hornbook once (required reading) and she now she's on the CLS law review and got a biglaw summer job during her 1L summer for $3,333 a week during the recession.

She echoed my sentiments, a professor is testing you on what they teach you, learning new cases, new perspectives, and condensed analysis isn't going to get you anywhere most of the time. Hornbooks are totally fine if you use them like a dictionary, if you are confused about a concept then break it out and look it up, and then put it away.

Getting to Maybe and so many other sources (law profs) agree. You aren't going to really hurt yourself with a hornbook but for FFS you have a class and a casebook for a reason, not so that you can read some other professor's version of your class. I see hornbooks as something that suck up way too much 1L time. People see it as an arm's race and pretty soon if you haven't read the hornbook cover to cover, brief cases for class, and highlighted and marked your book to death, then you might as well drop out now.

It's unhealthy and I think encouraging the mentality of hornbooks being necessary is bad. Students should avoid the hornbook and if their study groups don't clarify class concepts then office hours should. If during office hours you ask/or the professor suggests a hornbook aide then go for it. But I think there's a very good reason that none of my professors ever said "Oh if you are having problems understanding consideration, please just look at Farnsworth's hornbook!"

But I understand there are different approaches, where you lose me though, is through any argument about how comprehensively reading hornbooks gains you anything. Unless you have a class with lots of policy questions or a professor who gives rambling lectures I don't see the benefit, even with policy the professor is looking for you to "play" with the ammo she gave you during class, and that's all you need for an A. HB's would be useful to the extent they help you think of other creative arguments.

[Sogui]

The "something fun to think about" lessons are what separate the top exams from median. Also, Coase Theorem may be of only minor importance to 1L Property, but it's extremely important in Intellectual Property. Your 2L classes will actually build on the ideas you learn during 1L.

Your mileage probably varies per professor. Mine put up about 5 exams with 10-15 model answers and was very explicit in stating that "theory and policy should only come up on an exam if you have completely exhausted your legal arguments"

With a 1500-word limit per question it's no wonder what we never, ever saw a significant policy discussion in any of the model answers.

Plus, like I said, a vast majority of students will not have been trained in economics. What decent professor would test them on that?

Even when it does come up, just use the patronizing summary of economics and law I posted. That's about the "depth" of economics understanding that ever comes up in any of my classes.

[Stringer6]

Atlas Shrugged is a waste of life . . . unless you like reading philosophy that is dead wrong

+1 million

[thecilent]

Hmm Thanks for your insight, Sogui. It does make sense what you are saying.

[Sogui]

Hmm Thanks for your insight, Sogui. It does make sense what you are saying.

Just so it seems like I'm not just some street preacher, here is what that Columbia law review person said on hornbooks:



"I didn't use them except for Civ Pro. I also felt like I was not doing enough because everyone seemed to have all this supplementary materials and commercial outlines. I had the same thinking you did - I didn't want to confuse what the hornbook said with what the professor thought.

I had Professor --------- and she was was very much opposed to them. She said she would take points off for mentioning things from hornbooks that she had not discussed in class. Other professors are not so harsh because they know we use them and they are helpful for some people.

I would do what makes you most comfortable. You have limited time to prepare. I chose to focus my energy on going to office hours with questions and preparing my outline based on class notes and the book. I had friends who relied heavily on hornbooks because they had not done the class reading and it gave clear back and white answers. "

[glitched]

Atlas Shrugged is a waste of life . . . unless you like reading philosophy that is dead wrong

+1 million

Do you only read books that you will agree with? I mean it's fine if you do, but personally for me I decided to read AS because I felt I wouldn't agree with it. A friend recommended it to me and I wanted to give it a shot. After reading it, there were a few parts that were still way too extreme for me, but I am glad that I had a chance to hear what she was trying to say - because some of it is really interesting and legit.

But beyond all the philosophy, IMO it's still an amazing story and a fun ride (lol train joke for those of you who read it...). haha sorry to the OP (and everyone else) for the random AS defense.

[megaTTTron]

Hmm Thanks for your insight, Sogui. It does make sense what you are saying.

Just so it seems like I'm not just some street preacher, here is what that Columbia law review person said on hornbooks:

. . .

]

Whatever your opinion or strategy is is fine. Hopefully, whatever you did this fall, you knocked it out of the park grade-wise. TLS is great because there are so many different ways to study/ approach law school and it's great to have a place to talk about it. But when you come on here, especially as a 0L/1L without grades, and say stuff like: "Buying a commercial outline is like PAYING money for B's" you're just misleading people.

[Sogui]

Hmm Thanks for your insight, Sogui. It does make sense what you are saying.

Just so it seems like I'm not just some street preacher, here is what that Columbia law review person said on hornbooks:

. . .

]

Whatever your opinion or strategy is is fine. Hopefully, whatever you did this fall, you knocked it out of the park grade-wise. TLS is great because there are so many different ways to study/ approach law school and it's great to have a place to talk about it. But when you come on here, especially as a 0L/1L without grades, and say stuff like: "Buying a commercial outline is like PAYING money for B's" you're just misleading people.

I can see the argument for hornbooks but there's really no reason to ever use a commercial outline, cmon! I thought that's like the one thing that people agreed on. I've never heard anyone suggest it as a good idea, yet I see those things gathering dust on people's shelves because they bought them in September because they thought "why not?" or worse yet they thought a commercial outline would actually be the best way to tackle the actual exam.

[Stringer6]

Do you only read books that you will agree with?

um, no. i'm just saying that the philosophy behind her books is morally bankrupt bullshit. if you want to read 1000 pages of her slapping you in the face with it, be my guest.

[megaTTTron]

Hmm Thanks for your insight, Sogui. It does make sense what you are saying.

Just so it seems like I'm not just some street preacher, here is what that Columbia law review person said on hornbooks:

. . .

]

Whatever your opinion or strategy is is fine. Hopefully, whatever you did this fall, you knocked it out of the park grade-wise. TLS is great because there are so many different ways to study/ approach law school and it's great to have a place to talk about it. But when you come on here, especially as a 0L/1L without grades, and say stuff like: "Buying a commercial outline is like PAYING money for B's" you're just misleading people.

I can see the argument for hornbooks but there's really no reason to ever use a commercial outline, cmon! I thought that's like the one thing that people agreed on. I've never heard anyone suggest it as a good idea, yet I see those things gathering dust on people's shelves because they bought them in September because they thought "why not?"

Haha. I don't know. I guess I've never heard anyone so adamantly against commercial outlines. I will say I MUCH prefer E&Es and I only used the commercial outlines because a professor suggested it, and I got the other from a 2L.

At Columbia, did you feel like no one used supplements? E&Es, hornbooks, and outlines? I'm curious.

[AreJay711]

Do you only read books that you will agree with?

um, no. i'm just saying that the philosophy behind her books is morally bankrupt bullshit. if you want to read 1000 pages of her slapping you in the face with it, be my guest.

It's morally bankrupt to say that people that produce for others should be able to decide what to do with the fruits of their labor? She does slap you in the face with it too much though.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

I can see the argument for hornbooks but there's really no reason to ever use a commercial outline, cmon! I thought that's like the one thing that people agreed on. I've never heard anyone suggest it as a good idea, yet I see those things gathering dust on people's shelves because they bought them in September because they thought "why not?" or worse yet they thought a commercial outline would actually be the best way to tackle the actual exam.

Our con law casebook was terrible. Chemerinsky was amazing at filling in the blanks. Plus our professor expected us to have the blanks filled in from the one sentence in the casebook. About half the class was confused when he started talking about things alluded to in the casebook, but not filled in; the rest of the class somewhat understood b/c they read chemerinsky. Necessity of supplements can really depend on the teacher. Our professor just expected us to know the main ideas and cases, no matter if they were in our casebook or not.

[Stringer6]

It's morally bankrupt to say that people that produce for others should be able to decide what to do with the fruits of their labor?

in general, no.

taken to the right-wing extreme (where Rand goes), yes.

[Sogui]

At Columbia, did you feel like no one used supplements? E&Es, hornbooks, and outlines? I'm curious.

Commercial outlines? A rare sight. People ordered them at the beginning of the semester and anyone with a quantum of intelligence left them to gather dust.

2/3 of my professors explicitly told us that we should make our own outlines (not just as a rule, but because it's a smart habit), I think that settled it for most people.

Hornbooks and E&E's were far more common. But I really saw them as a "drug", you use them, you feel great. You feel way over-confident because now all the black-letter-law has been laid bare before you! It's so satisfying having it all so easily explained to you. I almost fell into that trap with my Glannon E&E that was assigned for CivPro. Professor only assigned some sections yet many people just read the whole damn thing.

E&E's are great only to the extent that your class covered exactly the same scope of material that the E&E chapter does. Then it's nice for "testing yourself" on some of the tougher concepts without having to second-guess yourself. Other than that I wouldn't get too deep into them. We covered the new Supreme Court cases on Erie Doctrine that Glannon didn't have, yet people still read this version like the bible.

TL;DR version: If a professor says they will only test what's on the syllabus/what was discussed in class (99% do) and you have notes from everything discussed in class AND you understand what was discussed in class, you shouldn't worry about your knowledge for the exam. Out of my exams so far I have never been sitting there going "Dammit, if only I had read more hornbooks this question would have been easier!" By the time I finished my outlines I really felt on top of things, at no point did my knowledge ever feel incomplete; By learning the course on the professor's terms, I felt more prepared when answer the questions designed by him to elicit the lessons he was trying to get across to us during lectures. I cannot fathom how any of the intense book marking/highlighting/briefing/hornbooking that many of my peers carried out could have helped them at the end of the day.

[megaTTTron]

At Columbia, did you feel like no one used supplements? E&Es, hornbooks, and outlines? I'm curious.

Commercial outlines? A rare sight. People ordered them at the beginning of the semester and anyone with a quantum of intelligence left them to gather dust.

2/3 of my professors explicitly told us that we should make our own outlines (not just as a rule, but because it's a smart habit), I think that settled it for most people.

Hornbooks and E&E's were far more common. But I really saw them as a "drug", you use them, you feel great. You feel way over-confident because now all the black-letter-law has been laid bare before you! It's so satisfying having it all so easily explained to you. I almost fell into that trap with my Glannon E&E that was assigned for CivPro. Professor only assigned some sections yet many people just read the whole damn thing.

E&E's are great only to the extent that your class covered exactly the same scope of material that the E&E chapter does. Then it's nice for "testing yourself" on some of the tougher concepts without having to second-guess yourself. Other than that I wouldn't get too deep into them. We covered the new Supreme Court cases on Erie Doctrine that Glannon didn't have, yet people still read this version like the bible.

TL;DR version: If a professor says they will only test what's on the syllabus/what was discussed in class (99% do) and you have notes from everything discussed in class AND you understand what was discussed in class, you shouldn't worry about your knowledge for the exam. Out of my exams so far I have never been sitting there going "Dammit, if only I had read more hornbooks this question would have been easier!" By the time I finished my outlines I really felt on top of things, at no point did my knowledge ever feel incomplete; By learning the course on the professor's terms, I felt more prepared when answer the questions designed by him to elicit the lessons he was trying to get across to us during lectures. I cannot fathom how any of the intense book marking/highlighting/briefing/hornbooking that many of my peers carried out could have helped them at the end of the day.

Oh, don't get it twisted dude. Both myself, Arrow, and the NYU student made all of our own outlines. You just use a comm outline the same way you use an E&E. I'm in no way suggesting using a commercial outline in lieu of making your own. If that's what you disagree with, then I COMPLETELY agree with you. I just used comm outlines as supplements, like E&E and hornbooks.

[BruceWayne]

At Columbia, did you feel like no one used supplements? E&Es, hornbooks, and outlines? I'm curious.

Commercial outlines? A rare sight. People ordered them at the beginning of the semester and anyone with a quantum of intelligence left them to gather dust.

2/3 of my professors explicitly told us that we should make our own outlines (not just as a rule, but because it's a smart habit), I think that settled it for most people.

Hornbooks and E&E's were far more common. But I really saw them as a "drug", you use them, you feel great. You feel way over-confident because now all the black-letter-law has been laid bare before you! It's so satisfying having it all so easily explained to you. I almost fell into that trap with my Glannon E&E that was assigned for CivPro. Professor only assigned some sections yet many people just read the whole damn thing.

E&E's are great only to the extent that your class covered exactly the same scope of material that the E&E chapter does. Then it's nice for "testing yourself" on some of the tougher concepts without having to second-guess yourself. Other than that I wouldn't get too deep into them. We covered the new Supreme Court cases on Erie Doctrine that Glannon didn't have, yet people still read this version like the bible.

TL;DR version: If a professor says they will only test what's on the syllabus/what was discussed in class (99% do) and you have notes from everything discussed in class AND you understand what was discussed in class, you shouldn't worry about your knowledge for the exam. Out of my exams so far I have never been sitting there going "Dammit, if only I had read more hornbooks this question would have been easier!" By the time I finished my outlines I really felt on top of things, at no point did my knowledge ever feel incomplete; By learning the course on the professor's terms, I felt more prepared when answer the questions designed by him to elicit the lessons he was trying to get across to us during lectures. I cannot fathom how any of the intense book marking/highlighting/briefing/hornbooking that many of my peers carried out could have helped them at the end of the day.

You do realize that some professors don't teach this way right? The type of professor you just described is the one that I would want to have--as there no surprises on the exams that they give since they test what they teach. However, some professors are highly highly theoretical and don't teach the BLL because they view it as too black and white and too boring; but then they will give you a final exam that heavily tests the BLL. With those kind of professors hornbooks and E & E's can be critical.

[Grizz]

At Columbia, did you feel like no one used supplements? E&Es, hornbooks, and outlines? I'm curious.

Commercial outlines? A rare sight. People ordered them at the beginning of the semester and anyone with a quantum of intelligence left them to gather dust.

2/3 of my professors explicitly told us that we should make our own outlines (not just as a rule, but because it's a smart habit), I think that settled it for most people.

Hornbooks and E&E's were far more common. But I really saw them as a "drug", you use them, you feel great. You feel way over-confident because now all the black-letter-law has been laid bare before you! It's so satisfying having it all so easily explained to you. I almost fell into that trap with my Glannon E&E that was assigned for CivPro. Professor only assigned some sections yet many people just read the whole damn thing.

E&E's are great only to the extent that your class covered exactly the same scope of material that the E&E chapter does. Then it's nice for "testing yourself" on some of the tougher concepts without having to second-guess yourself. Other than that I wouldn't get too deep into them. We covered the new Supreme Court cases on Erie Doctrine that Glannon didn't have, yet people still read this version like the bible.

TL;DR version: If a professor says they will only test what's on the syllabus/what was discussed in class (99% do) and you have notes from everything discussed in class AND you understand what was discussed in class, you shouldn't worry about your knowledge for the exam. Out of my exams so far I have never been sitting there going "Dammit, if only I had read more hornbooks this question would have been easier!" By the time I finished my outlines I really felt on top of things, at no point did my knowledge ever feel incomplete; By learning the course on the professor's terms, I felt more prepared when answer the questions designed by him to elicit the lessons he was trying to get across to us during lectures. I cannot fathom how any of the intense book marking/highlighting/briefing/hornbooking that many of my peers carried out could have helped them at the end of the day.

Your TL;DR is just as long as your TL version. You are bad at internets.

[Sogui]

I can't imagine professors getting away with a bait-and-switch for very long, most would at least have the integrity to give a heads-up on BLL that they expected you to know.

Still my best advice there is just go office hours, ask him in an email, look at old practice exams/model answers, or just find a 2L who had him. Those are much more efficient than simply bracing for the worst and reading hornbooks for every class. My advice is tempered by the common sense of people I'm offering it to, there's no singular rule for doing well in every class so I just try to offer general advice.

I think most professors do test what they teach though, if they keep up a bait and switch act - hell hath no fury like law students on a curve in a depressed job market.

[Rand M.]

It's morally bankrupt to say that people that produce for others should be able to decide what to do with the fruits of their labor?

in general, no.

taken to the right-wing extreme (where Rand goes), yes.

Jesus.

At Columbia, did you feel like no one used supplements? E&Es, hornbooks, and outlines? I'm curious.

Commercial outlines? A rare sight. People ordered them at the beginning of the semester and anyone with a quantum of intelligence left them to gather dust.

2/3 of my professors explicitly told us that we should make our own outlines (not just as a rule, but because it's a smart habit), I think that settled it for most people.

Hornbooks and E&E's were far more common. But I really saw them as a "drug", you use them, you feel great. You feel way over-confident because now all the black-letter-law has been laid bare before you! It's so satisfying having it all so easily explained to you. I almost fell into that trap with my Glannon E&E that was assigned for CivPro. Professor only assigned some sections yet many people just read the whole damn thing.

E&E's are great only to the extent that your class covered exactly the same scope of material that the E&E chapter does. Then it's nice for "testing yourself" on some of the tougher concepts without having to second-guess yourself. Other than that I wouldn't get too deep into them. We covered the new Supreme Court cases on Erie Doctrine that Glannon didn't have, yet people still read this version like the bible.

TL;DR version: If a professor says they will only test what's on the syllabus/what was discussed in class (99% do) and you have notes from everything discussed in class AND you understand what was discussed in class, you shouldn't worry about your knowledge for the exam. Out of my exams so far I have never been sitting there going "Dammit, if only I had read more hornbooks this question would have been easier!" By the time I finished my outlines I really felt on top of things, at no point did my knowledge ever feel incomplete; By learning the course on the professor's terms, I felt more prepared when answer the questions designed by him to elicit the lessons he was trying to get across to us during lectures. I cannot fathom how any of the intense book marking/highlighting/briefing/hornbooking that many of my peers carried out could have helped them at the end of the day.

You do realize that some professors don't teach this way right? The type of professor you just described is the one that I would want to have--as there no surprises on the exams that they give since they test what they teach. However, some professors are highly highly theoretical and don't teach the BLL because they view it as too black and white and too boring; but then they will give you a final exam that heavily tests the BLL. With those kind of professors hornbooks and E & E's can be critical.

Are there any absolutes w/r/t supplements, or is it all course/professor dependent? I guess the only absolute is that you should do whatever you want.

[amonynous_ivdinidual]

I have never used commercial outlines, so take this any way you like. But for me the most helpful part of my outline was making it. Going thru your class notes and deciding what's important and what isn't. Distilling 3 months of work and reading into something useful for test day. Had I bought a commercial outline, I never would have read it closely. It probably wouldn't have been very in sync with my class. And I would have missed out on the process (assuming I had relied on those outlines to make my outline, or relied on those outlines exclusively). jmo.

[thecilent]

I have never used commercial outlines, so take this any way you like. But for me the most helpful part of my outline was making it. Going thru your class notes and deciding what's important and what isn't. Distilling 3 months of work and reading into something useful for test day. Had I bought a commercial outline, I never would have read it closely. It probably wouldn't have been very in sync with my class. And I would have missed out on the process (assuming I had relied on those outlines to make my outline, or relied on those outlines exclusively). jmo.

There is a consensus on not using the comm outlines to replace making your own.