reformed calvinist wrote:
But you don't get the professor's language from the assigned casebook. You get it from class-listening to your professor for variations and emphases is always credited. So, whether you read your casebook or Chemerinsky, as long as you go to class and listen you can pick up the subtleties (your professor explicitly says that one part of a multi-part test isn't important, uses different wording, omits something, etc).
There are also some situations where there is virtually no difference. I was assigned the Dressler casebook and mostly read from the Dressler supplement. My Civ Pro professor co-authored the casebook with Joseph Glannon. Etc.
It is true that listening and paying attention in class is not advice limited to people who use supplements. That said, I frequently have heard the following during finals season, "Wait, I have XYZ in my notes, but the [insert supplement here] says ABC. Huh. I guess I just didn't get it. *frantic typing while they alter their notes*" This is not something that I've seen happen with people who study solely from the casebook. They take what they had in their class/reading notes and go with it. I think it's easier to fall into the trap of just copying down the supplement's wording than the casebook's.
Beyond that, using the supplement for memorization (since it's pre-made and hopefully is technically correct), rather than one's own class notes, leads to memorization of how the supplement presents information. It doesn't lead to restatement and retention of what your professor said (unless, I suppose, your professor co-authored the supplement).
Apl didn't say "I use the supplement to form the basis of my own notes and then I alter those notes to match my professor." S/he said, "I memorize from the supplement."
Breezin wrote:I don't know why you can't explain Cardozo's approach in your own words.
Using the Court's language (or, if your professor likes it a different way, your professor's) for the R part of your IRAC analysis and then using your own words in A is fine. Using the supplement's language for the R is not the same. If you want to do Court's R and then use the supplement for A, I still think it's a waste of money, but that'd at least make more sense. I just think it's a bad idea to use the supplement language as the R. Use the Court's language or your professor's.
Also, still this:
...I think this discussion is kind of reaching the end of its usefulness.
Dude, you and I are just never going to see the supplement issue the same way. I am never going to use them. Since I think that at best they're useless, and at worst they are detrimental, I am never going to believe that they are necessary.
...I think it a complete waste of time and money even if the supplements were an effective replacement for casebook reading. Why? Because panicked 1Ls, the kind that actually bother to go online and find a guide to help them do well, are generally the type that will do the assigned reading regardless. They don't see it as "either/or", they see it as "both". I firmly believe that if you're already doing the assigned reading, supplements are a complete waste of time and money. Save that extra money for booze.
That said, I am only one person. My opinion is entirely my own. If you want to have a more constructive and potentially useful dialogue about how to best use supplements, I recommend one of the many other guides that address that topic. If you want to teach 0Ls that they can get ahead by reading only supplements, I'm sure that there is call out there for a guide that teaches them how to do so. Go for it. I'm sure there are people who will agree with you, I'm just not one of them.
