Top Law Schools

People who generally don't/didn't use hornbooks 1L year...did you use one for Con Law? Is there anything about Con Law that makes it particularly necessary?

I'm not looking to have a referendum on hornbooks generally. I know some people have had great results w/them, but I'm not a fan. I'm asking about Con Law specifically because it seems like there's an unusually high degree of consensus that a hornbook is necessary in this particular class. I really want to hear from other people who also generally avoid hornbooks on whether or not they made an exception for Con Law and if yes, then why.

TYIA.

I'm not a fan of hornbooks either. Last semester I only relied on a hornbook for one class - crim - because my professor wrote it, and it explained the concepts better than he did in class. This semester I will be forced to use a con law hornbook since I am not getting a great grasp of the subject matter just from reading the cases and going to class. I bought Chemerinksy's because I heard it was good.

I just bought Chereminsky's Con Law hornbook/treatise/whatever you want to call it. I was skeptical, but it's quite good. It doesn't do EVERYTHING I need, but it's certainly good for a more-than-general overview.

I have the Chemerinsky too, and bought it after reading the great reviews. The thing is, the damn book is so thick that I have been hesitant to even open the thing. Con Law hasnt gotten *too* hard that I've needed supplements beyond outlines, but I hope to be using it soon.

BTW do you guys use these supplements in conjunction with your reading? Or do you just review every few weeks using the supplement? I cant fathom adding another book to read weekly for school!

There's no class that a supplement is worse for than Con Law. Sure, the hornbook might help you *learn* it better due to lack of teaching. But there's no guarantee that that has anything to do with what you're actually going to be asked on the exam.

Must you use one? Of course not.

Take ConLaw, see if you understand the material without a hornbook. Then if you feel like you don't, consider buying a hornbook. It's not as if you have to decide on the first day of class and you're doomed if you make the wrong decision, is it?

I didn't use a hornbook for Con Law and still did really well. Like you, I tend not to rely on hornbooks/supplements. I don't think a hornbook is any more necessary for Con Law than it is for any other class. However, as a caveat, my prof covered a relatively limited number of topics in great depth, so just reading all the assigned cases gave me a pretty good understanding of the nuances in the doctrine. If your prof covers a wide range of topics relatively superficially, a hornbook might help.

Hornbooks tend to improve student performance somewhat, i.e. a group of students that splits their time between hornbooks and casebooks as opposed to relying entirely on reading / re-reading the casebook will slightly outperform the casebook group as a whole. The effect is not as major as the TLS unique perspective article would have you believe.

The chemerinsky hornbook seems quite good. Last semester, I neglected to read an entire section of our casebook (any readings at all). Oops! So 4 days before the exam I read the 2-page chemerinsky summary of the 6 or so cases discussing that issue. That issue actually came up on the exam, and I got the maximum points for that question. (most students - those who read the cases - did very poorly on it)

Snooker wrote:Hornbooks tend to improve student performance somewhat, i.e. a group of students that splits their time between hornbooks and casebooks as opposed to relying entirely on reading / re-reading the casebook will slightly outperform the casebook group as a whole. The effect is not as major as the TLS unique perspective article would have you believe.

Is there any authority on point? It seems intuitive but without a citation you're just speculating.

mikeytwoshoes wrote:

Snooker wrote:Hornbooks tend to improve student performance somewhat, i.e. a group of students that splits their time between hornbooks and casebooks as opposed to relying entirely on reading / re-reading the casebook will slightly outperform the casebook group as a whole. The effect is not as major as the TLS unique perspective article would have you believe.

Is there any authority on point? It seems intuitive but without a citation you're just speculating.

Snooker's forte is dressing up speculation as if there's authority behind it.

...

You need one only if you have 0 understanding to a subject. I feel that outlines are sufficient.